The Union and eastern journal. [volume] (Biddeford [Me.]) 1854-1858, 1858-04-30

the issue whether one set of conditions shall
be prescribed for Territory for admission as
free State, and another set for a slave State.
This ordinance Is premium for slave State,
and he predicted that this issue will be dis
tinetly before the Northern people. Every
man Will be elected or defeated on this issue,
and he should not be surprised ii l25 out OF
the lii Representatives TO which the North
is entitled, shall be sent here TO repudiate
this thing.
MIR. Davis Of Nd. said so far as the admis-
SION or rejection was concerned, everything
in law, II not in language, is conceded. by
this bill. But he had learned States rights
notions from Clay and Pinckney. Had it not
been urged by Southern gentlemen that Kan
sas shoald come into the Union on an equal
footin: with the original States; This was
the law Of the South on the subject. Then
ii State equality was yielded by this ordi.
nance, imposing condition. no Southern man
could vote for the bill. The only question
was whether the people Of Kansas will'com
into the Union with the ordinance, or by re-
lection stay out OF the COniederacy. The
Constitution is not submitted. Representing
a Southern and a slave State in her name, he
protested against this attempted interference
in state rights by the imposition of condi-
ton OF admission.
Mr.. stephens Of Ga. was not surprised that
Mr.. Davis opposed the bill, but was surprised
at the ground of his opposition. lie CSieph.
ens) was born and reared in that school, ana
If there was any doctrine he cherished more
than agnther, IL was that Of the rights, inde-
pendeHce and sovereignty OF the separate
States OF the ConIederacy, and he maintained
that this substitute more fully and complete
IN carried out the doctrine than the Senate
bills, for which he was willing to vote, and
more so than the Crittenden amendment. III
Kansas had made application for admission as
a free State, he would vote for il as readily as
for slave State. In reply 10 Mr.. Davis, he
showed that Iowa aud Louisiana we're admit
ted or fundamental conditions. In the for
mer case, similar TO that in the pending pro-
position, the objections made by the gentle
men from Maryland were founded solely ON
a pretext. In conclusion, he earnestly APP
pealed to the House TO end this question with
view TO 60 on with the public business. lie
was ready TO defend the proposition from be-
ginnin. To end, every word and line.
Mr.. Gilman ct Me-, enquired, is the Con-
stitution submitted;
Mr. Stcphens-ItsH the gentleman distinct
~ IL isaoi!
Mr.. Keitt Of s. C., repudiated the doctrine
advanced by Mr.. Davis. lie was not willing
10 commit the rights Of the South to that
eentleman's custody. He denied that the
Federal government Is sovereign, and said
each State is sovereign. lie then gave
reasons why he supported the bill.
Mr.. Bingham OF Ohio, did not find fault
with the bill because IL annexed conditions,
but because n great crime was sought To be
pCrrctrated not only against Kansas, but
the Federal Constitution and the sacred
rights OF human nature. The bill did not
submit the Constitution, but bride in land
and money. and II it was rejected, Kansas
must suffer the penalty. 1t was simply an
act of despotism, to be imposed by Congress
under the Constitution which bears tho
name of Washington. Better the Constitu-
ton perish, than any precedent be placed Oh
the statute book, than Congress shall dictate
to frcemen under pains and penalties, admis-
sion into the Union under an Internal Con-
stitution which they never made.
Mr.. Clingman of y. c., said this PROPOSE
ton was not amendabie. He presumed the
gentlemen had made up their minds, and
therefore moved the previous question.
Mr.. Stephens suggested that tue vote be
taken tomorrow at o'clock.
Mr.. MARSHALL OF n.y., hoi cd no such agree
ment would be made. ltwould be better 10
take the vote to-day. (CHcs OF agreed.)
Mr.. Garneit OF Va, trusted the demand
for the previous question would not be second
ell, as he and several Others wished To state
their reasons for their votes.
Mr.. stephens moved call of the House.
but the motion was disagreed to. lie then
moved the adjournment.
Mr.. Harris OF lll.-.lt was the understand.
ing Yesterday that We should take the vote
to-day.
Nit. S,ephens-That was what the gentle
man W buld not agree To.
The house then adjourned by two majority.