The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1858-05-06


Mr.. Marshall, of Kentucky, said he rose for
the first time since the subject of Kansas had
been before the councils of the country, to open
his mouth on the subject. This bin was the
legitimate fruit of the Kansas Nebrsska act,
and must 60 with the impress of its origin upon
it. Even its authors could not agree upon its
meaning. Men who opposed the Senate bill
sustained this measure, on the ground that it in
effect submitted the Lecompton Constitution to
the people, while the Senate managers of the
committee and the gentleman from Georgia
Mr.. Stephens svowed that it did not submit
the Lecompton Constitution. The gentleman
from Indiana Mr.. English had maintained
that il was q virtual submission.
Mr.. English, of Indiana, denied that be had
taken such ground. This bill was drawn in
tolersble English, Laughter and he supposed
the gentleman from Kentucky was competent
to Judge of the meaning Of the words in it.
Mr.. Marshall said then it must 60 forth that
the author of the bill declined to explain its
meaning. With regard TO the gentleman from
Ohio, Mr.. Cox, who had suddenly discovered
such beauties in this wonderful bill, he was
tempted to quote the hymn
"why should we mourn departed friends
Or shake Al deaths alarmsf
It's but the voice that party sends,
To call him 10 his armsn [Laughierl
mr. bs"rcuCo kiu MS seat aouoo-
And while The lamp holds out to burn,
The yilest sinner may return Renewed laughter
Mr.. Marshall supposed the gentleman had
quoted what was best suited to his own case.
Mr.. Cox said he stood for the Democratic
party, which was always ready to make com.
promises under the Constitution, and for the
perpetuity of the Constitution. He acted only
upon principle, but when be saw the substance,
he would not run after the shadow
Mr.. Marshall continued his remarks. He
Was opposed TO the proposition, because it i'm
posed condition which was degrading to the
North, making distinction in favor of a Pro-
Slavery Constitution. IL the case had been re.
versed, the South would have rejected the insult
ing proposition with scorn. His constituents
did not send him as q sectional representative,
to see how much he could get from the North
He was unwilling to lay down q principle which
would work both ways, for how could the South
escape the consequences of the precedent here
afterY Gentlemen from the South were de-
duced 70 accept this proposition. She would
reject it; and what would be the consequences?
1t would reopen all the sIuices of sectional agi
tation. The North would unite to repeal this
odious statute, which made distinction against
the North and if he were Northern man. he
would conceive it to be a high duty to take that
course, and to restore the equality This House,
next Congress, would be filed by those who
came to repair this wrong, and the next move
ment would be to drag the South, under sense
of wounded honor, into a disunion movement.
1t was for this reason that he opposed the bill,
and labored TO preserve the equality of the two
sections of his country.
he did not believe the Territorial Legislature
had power 10 bind the people of Kansas by the
acts of any Convention, nor that it had any
legal right to initiate the Lecompton Constitu
ton. For this reason, he had opposed the Sen
ate bill, preferriug to listen to the voice of the
people OF Kansas; for the whole question was,
whether Congress should heed the voice of the
Convention or the voice of the people. They
ought 70 be extremely cautious to base their
rules OF cotton upon the principles of Justice
and constitutional right. Let them Law this re-
port on the table, have another conference if
they pleased, and agree upon a bill which
would leave only an enabling act, and he would.
be able to vote for it. He wanted the Kansas
difficulty settled, but not upon unjust principles.
DE understood that the Republican party only
insisted upon carrying out the idea Of popular
sovereignty In good faith, by submitting this
question to a fair election in Kansas.
Mr.. Sherman, of Ohio, said that every Re.
publican member voted upon the Crittepden
amendment with his eyes open, and with the
distinct understanding that Northern Demo
Gratis voting with them pledged their faith and
honor that they only desired to carry out their
idea of popular sovereignty by fair, open,
manly contest in Kansas.
Mr.. Giddings, Of Ohio. 1t is probably pref
ty generally known that was about the last
to come into that arrangement, and / assure
the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr.. Burnett,
and this House, and the country, that the only
inducement had was that understood-for
/ did not hear it-that every gentleman be-
longing to the Douglas wing Of the Democracy
stood pledged to their country and to each
other to stand by that arrangement forever.
Voices on the Republican side, That is it.D1
Mr.. Giddings was here suddenly seized
with indisposition, and borne from the Hail.
Mr.. Cox, of Ohio, appealed to the gentle.
man from Kentucky to yield him the floor for
an explanation.
Mr.. Marshall declined TO yield. He vantsd
the facts to go before the country, to explain
why he voted with the Black Republican -
party. Upon such a vote, whenever cast or 70
be cast, he would stand with the Republican
party, or any other party, which had the pa.
triotism and honesty to stand with him. He
quoted from the Richmond South to show that
the issue with the extreme Southern men was.
bnhe hausas eooulu come IN with Slavery or
not at all. Were Southern men willing to 90
before the country upon that issuei Or were
they standing on the platform of popular SOW.
ekeignty? Would they raise up an aggressive
Pro-Slsyery party? Kentucky was not vet
prepared to 60 as far as that.
Mr.. Garnett, of Virginia, moved to POSTPONE
this question until the second Tuesday in NAV.
at one o'clock P. NJ
Mr.. Hughes, of Indiana, called for the pre-
vious question.
Tellers were ordered on the previous cues
ton, and repor;ed-ayes 80, noes los.
80 the previous question was not seconded.
Mr. Jones' of Tennessee, was tired of this
way OF getting along, and, for the sake of pet.
ting direct vote, he would for the first time
make motion which he did not intend to vote
Tor: de moved to lay the bill upon the table.
The yeas and nays were ordered on this mo-
ton, and resulted-yess l0l, nays lib.
SO the House refused to lay the bill on the
table. VI '"e
Mr. Jones, of Tennessee, said the vote ;us,
taken showed that there was not msiority in
the House against the bill, and that was gtati
lying 70 him. BE had no reasons to give for his
vote but, as he desired to get rid of the sub
)ect, he called for the previous question.
Ielisrs were Ordered, and reporte6-syeI Os,