Edgefield advertiser. [volume] (Edgefield, S.C.) 1836-current, 1858-06-30

under the Lccompton constitution. Herremain-
ing out, under the Senate bill, would have been
voluntary on her own part; but her being out,
under the Conference bill, is compulsory on ours.
But suppose Kansas had said we will come
into the Union, and will send our delegates to
take their seats, but will negotiate as to the ques-
tons of taxation, the land grants, &c. She
would unqucstionably have thus been in the
Union. You could not have refused her admls.
sion. II, then, the terms of adjustment could
not have been agreed upon between the parties,
who would have been the arbiter7 The United
States courts, who could have done nothing more
nor less than have decided that Kansas had &C.
quiesced in our proposition. If Kansas had
been content with the decision that would have
been the end of the matter. If she had insisted
upon her proposition, she would thereby have
placed herself out of the Union, and would have
had to forego the benefits thereof.
But suppose she had said, upon the passage OF
the Senate bill, she preferred staying out OF the
Union to accepting the terms of that bill? The
South would have lost nothing, as it turns out,
and Congress could then, with much better grace
than by applying such rule to Kansas in the
conference bill, have passed general law to
exclude all new States till they should have the
federal ratio to entite them to admission.
1t is supposed that the right to tax the public
lands is an attribute of sovereignty OF which
Kansas could not be deprived, or deprive herself,
and vet be "admitted into the Union an equal
footing with the original thirteen States in all
respects whatever" 1t must be borne in mind
that the difference between the original thirteen
States and the Territories is very marked. Those
States were Independent sovereignties. possessed
of the right of eminent domain outside OF the
Union and anterior to the adoption of the tede-
raj Constitution. Sovereignty of the Territories,
on the contrary, is in the States of this Union,
the right of Taxing the public lands along with
It. Now it seems, as has been done again and
again, that Congress may reserve this sovereign
right of taxation in the enabling act, or i'll the
act admitting State, carved out of these Ter
ritories. But if We grant the position to be true,
that the withdrawal of the sovereignty OF the
United States confers upon new State at once
this sovereign right of taxation, still Kansas, as
MANY of the other States have done, might
waive the exercise of it in consideration OF the
land grants and other advantages arising from
incorporation into the Union.
It is further said for the Conference bill that
its first clause admits Kansas into the Union.
THAT clause is as follows: "That the State of
Kansas be and is hereby admitted into the
Union on an equal footing with the original
States in all respects whatever" The Crltten-
den Montgomery amendment does the same
thing in the same words. But what Is such ad-
mission in the Conference bill worth when the
bill goes on to prescribe condition precedent
which must be fulfilled before she Is admitted,
and failing to fulfil which. she wiH not be ad-
muted, and wiH nerer have been adnaiHedi There
is condition to be performed, precedent TO ad-
mission. How can the State be said to be no'0
admitted into the Union when she is told in the
bill, your people must vote again, and II they
don't vote proposition accepted" you must
stay out Of the Union till you have the federal
ratio, after which you may form new constl-
tuition, and then be entitled to admission into
the Union az State under such constitution Z"
Does any ono pretend that Kansas is how actu-
ally in the Union2 This bill in truth subjects
the constitution to vote of rejection. Indeed,
its adoption by Congress was the adoption of a
measure of exclusion, for the result OF the vote
of the people of Kansas under the Conference
bill in August next, is scarcely now problemati-
cal. No. sir, so far from Kansas being admitted,
we are no nearer the end of our difficulties
now. than we were before the passage OF the
Conference bill. Kansas will send up to US
next winter, in all probability, free State con-
stitution, formed by q convention called by the
Territorial Legislature, having the other sane
tions of the Lecompton constitution, Except SO
far as it will he restricted by the Conference
bill as to tue federal ratio with the addition
of having been submitted, entire: to the people
for their approval. And now ask, gentlemen,
will that constitution be rejected by Congress
I think not. This Conference bill will thus
secure to the opposition within one short year,
and if not so soon, at some day not very distant,
the victory for which they have from the first
contended, and the South be shorn Of the ti-
umph of principle in having slave State ad-
mitted.
It is claimed, moreover, that the Conference
bill recognises the right of slave State to ad-
mission. The Crittenden Montgomery amend
ment can lay claim to equal merit; for that bill
provides for the admission Of Kansas under the
Lecompton constitution, if upon that constltu-
tional instrument" being first submitted to
vote of the people, majority shall assent
thereto. But to what end is this recognition
in either bill? What republican would ever
have supported the Crittenden Montgomery
amendment but for the certainty that the Le-
compton constitution would never again have
seen Congress? And what Douglas Democrat
would ever have supported the Conference bill
but for its securing virtually to the people OF
Kansas the opportunity Of voting down the Le-
compton constitution?
This bill is further Objectionable as not being
manly, straightforward measure. 1t IS to be
construed one way in one section OF the Union,
and different way in the opposite section.
This double construction prevails here, already,
as have shown. 1t is a mode of legislation can
not admire-one which caa never result favorably
to the establishment Of sound principles, or IN
benefit to the weaker section. To preserve the
constitutional rights of the South in this Union,
the legislation should be plain-unmistakeable
| further object to this bill because, in accep-
ting that, instead of making our stand upon
the defeated Senate bill VIC abandon the ques-
ton. in this case, Of the admission of slave.
State north of &c degrees 30 minutes con,
cession which, it strikes me, the South should
have avoided even the appearance OF making.
It is no answer to say that the Southern States,
which were committed to secession III the event
Of the rejection of slave State, would have
reccded from their position because OF the TACT
that the anti-slavcry party in Kansas so greatly
outnumbers the pro-slavery party. Those
States would have been then in no worse condl'
ton than they are now. The people OF the
whole South would have felt indignant at the
rejection of the Senate bill; for it had been
made plain to them that if rejected, it would
be owing to the slavery clause contained in the
constitution. The conference bill family pur-
norts to recognise the principle that a slave
State may be admitted, and thus furnishes the
ground, though such was not the purpose OF o.
E.. advocates, upon which the tone Of the South