The weekly Portage sentinel. [volume] (Ravenna, Ohio) 1854-1861, 1858-05-13
soyernet Stnnton Opposed 90 the
English BIZ
WAaAlKoT6N, MaY q. lsba


TS he Editors IF tbs National InteRi0sseer.
GEHTErMRS:-Ih this mornings Union
the Hon. Samuel 8. Cox !, In his letter &C
eompanying that of Gov. Walker on the sub.
ject Of "the Kansas conference BILL" states
that he understands the latter document to
meet my approval. beg the use of small
space in your columns for q brief ekplana-
ton.
l knew nothing of Gov. Walkers letter
until after Mr.. Cox had stated its contents
In the House of Representatives. on the 30th
ult. Not having heard even Of the existence
Of the paper, could not give sny opinion
upon 1t, although was we'll aware of Gov.
Walkers views, and of his frank expression
OF IN m from his first reading Of the bill,
which took place in my presence.
The difference between Governor Walk
er and myself is not very material; yet JUS
tice to my own strong convictions seems to
require me to make them known. agree
that the bill in question does virtually sub
NIT the hecempton Constitution to vote of
the people Of Kansas however ungraciously
this act OF justice may be conceded. But
the conditions Of this submission are, in nv
judgment, in the highest degree illiberal and
unfair, creating an unjust discrimination in
favor Constitution already rejected by tho
people; and attempting to coerce them into
acceptance by sort Of construint which Is
unworthy of Congress and necessarily often.
sive to the people of the Territory: Not
withstanding these objections, however,
when it was proposed that the anti Lscomp.
ton Democrats should support the measure,
] was ready, in Difference to the Judgment Of
Gov. Walker and others, to waive my own
opbOslti5ny and to ucquiesce in !ts passage,
although would have hesitated to vote for
it, If the responsibility Of such Q vote had
rest upon me. My confidence in the stern
purpose of the people of Kansas to vindicate
their rights, even under oil the dsldvan-
tages Of this bill; rendered the in diticatioD
of the Crittenden. Montgomery proposition
less material, especially as | believe there
will be sufficient population In the Territory
during the present year for the presentation
Of another. Constitution. Moreover, am
we'll satisfied that when new Congress
shall be elected, fairly representing tie peo
pie, and having due respects for then rights,
the just claims of the State OF Kansas will
be literally acknow lodged, and her rejec-
ton Of the lands, offered with d irudu'bnt
and hated Constitution, will not be permit
ted to prejudice her interests as ain equal
member OF the Confederacy, entitled to all
the advantages which have been usually
conferred upon new States at the time OF
entering the Union.
Although | cannot agree with Governor
Walker in soying this measure "iS in precise
conformity with my views," do concur in
his opinion that the result OF this proceed
ing, when acted upon by the people of Kan.
sas and adjud9ed by the people Of The Union,
will tend to the firm establishment Of the
great doctrine OF popular sovereignty, and
will also rcbuke and overwhelm thpse who
have so long and pcrtinaciously struggled to
deprive the people OF the Territory OF the
right to adopt or reject their own Constitu-
ti3n.
But feel confident that 6 W. Walker, in
stating that the measure in question was in
precise conformity with his views, intended
only to approve what he regarded as the
main feature of the bill: the submission OF
the Constitution to a vote of the people. -
And although he did not regard the objec-
tIonab'e details as ju,tiiying his opposition
to the measure, he would certainly condemn
and repudi'te them under any other circum.
stances than those attending the passage of
this bill.
In MY judgment the difference Of opinion
among the n,i-Lecomplon Democrats as to
to the details Of this measure ought not to
separate those who have heretofore de-
denounced and still oppose the Lecompton
Constitution.
FRED. p. STANTON,