Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1858-05-13
The Kansas Conference Bin.
REMARKS OF HON. WILLIAM W. BOYCE,
OF SOUTH CAROLINA, =
In the House Of Representatives, Monday May Sd
1858.

In the House OF representatives, Monddy may Ga,
1858.
Mr.. Boyce. Mr.. Chairman, I sought the floor
some days since, as soon as possible, after the
gentleman from Mississippi TMr. Quitman had
stated his objections to the bill then before the
House, reported from the committee on conference
in relation to the admission Of Kansas. The high
regard I have for that gentleman induces me to
treat his dissent upon this occasion from the al.
most unanimous action of the southern delegs.
tions in both houses with great respect. The gen.
tleman's objections to the proposed bill were two
fold. First, that it was q letting down on. the
part of the South from the position We had here
tofore held upon this subject. Second, that the
the people Of Kansas was an infringement of State
rights. Even if J. were to grant the truth Of the
first objection, it might not be conclusive; because
the question would still be, was the present propo-
sition wise? IF that question be answered in the
affirmative, as I think it must necessarily be,
should We be estopped from taking it because we
had previously taken an indefensible position p
I think not. If our past position was unwisely ia
ken, instead Of clinging, to error, We should make
haste to put ourselves on the impregnable ground
of the common sense and truth. But do not ad-
nit that we have changed our ground. What had
we been contending for ? That Kansas should not be
rejected because she had slave constitution, and
that Congress should not intervene and prescribe
how that constitution, should be, framed by the
people of Kansas. The bill from the committee
comedies both Of these positions as claimed by us.
The bill, >conceding both. these propositions, only
requires the assent Of the people of Kansas to what
is confessedly a reasonable proposition in refer
ence to. the public domain. We have never con.
tended that Kansas should be admitted with her
Ia. . ~ ~ ansrd D. fhn ,n hlin
lands. All of our action upon this subject. has
been in reputation Of that ordinance. We now
say to the people as exactly what we have said all
the time-repudiate that ordinance, agree to what
is customary aud right in regard to the public
land, and you are in the Union under the Lecomp-
ton constitution We only vary the mode of obtain,
ing that result. The first objection Of the gentle
man from Mississippi is, I submit, unfounied.
Tproceed now to the second objection. This re
auires a more extended consideration, and involves
a wide range of augmentation on constitutional
law, which will furnish, l think, q satisfactory an
swer to the objection.
The territorial legislature of Kansas called a
convention to frame q State constitution. The con-
~vention framed what is known as the L%ecompton
constitution, md applied for admission. Whatever
vitality this constitution has, was derived from the
territorial legislature. L consider. that the ter
ritorial legislature bad no power to originate an
authoritative State Organization. Certain provi-
sions in the Kansas Nebraska bill have been sup
posed.to confer this power. The words Of the
said act bearing on this point are as follows: That
territorial legislature shall have power over call
rightfuI subjects Of legislation consistent with the
constitution and said act, and the people are left
perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic
institutions in their own way, subject, however, to-
the constitution. of the United States" These pro.
visions do not, in my opinion, operate ss an ems
bling act, and do not therefore authorize the peo-
pie of Kansas to set up q State government in sub
version Of the territorial government. These pro-
visions are to,be construed In snbordination to the
scope and purpose Of the Kansas and Nebraska
bill. That bill was n bill for n territorial govern
ment, and all the powers conferred by it are con-
ferred subject to this idea-that is to say, the
Kansas and Nebraska bill confers certain powers
Of self government, but they are all TO be taken
subject to the continuance of the territorial goY-
eminent, and with that view. No power is con-
ferred under that act to displaoe the territorial
government, and set up a new government. Fur.
Their, if the territorial authorities Of Kansas could
substitute a State government, what was the ne
cessity of the enabling act, which was recommend
ed by President Pierce in 1855, and reported from
the Committee on Territories to the Senate !? and
Why the enabling act known as the Toomb's bill,
which passed the Senate, and was sustained in the
House by the Democratic party? 1t would seem,
from these facts, that the Executive, the Senate,
and nearly one half of the House of Representa-
tives, considered an enabling act necessary; or,
in other words, that the territorial legisture did
not have the power to set up q State government
absolutely. II the Kansas. Nebraska bill is not an
enabling act, it ia very evident the territorial le-
g~islature could not, e1 propria vigore, move con-
~clusiyely in the matter. The correct doctrine up
on this point was announced by Mr.. Butler, Attor.
ney General of the United States, in the Arkansas
case, when the territorial legislature originated
proceedings for q State organization-thas the In.
habitants of q territory had no right to do any act
designed or calculated to subvert or supercede the
existing territorial government, without the pre-
vious consent Of Congress, though they might
peaceably assemble and sign a petition, and &C.
company it with a written constitution, as Q part
of their petition, forauthority to form q State gov
eminent provided such measures were in subordi-
nation to the territorial government, and in entire
subserviency to the power of Congress TO adopt or
disregard their application. According to these
principles, then, the proceedings which have taken
place in Kansas in reference to State organization,
have not, and cannot Of themselves, constitute
Kansas a perfect State. She is now only q State
potential, not q State imperative, o State that may
be, not q State that must be. What Kansas has
done amounts to nothing more, In effect than . Pc,
tition for admission. II is true Congress can waive
objection to the irregularity of tho proceedings,
and consent to the admissions Of apsas. ITheipro.