Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1858-09-23

whole Constitution to the people for adoption
or rejection early in January. At that cleo.
ton some ten thousand votes were returned
against the Lecompton Constitution and very
few in favor of it. 1t was alleged that many
more votes were returned at this election
than we're cast, and I have no doubt that
allegation was true. The truth is, the Free
State men did not attend the polish December
nor the proslavery men in January, aud |
apprehend that both parties were guilty of
gross frauds in making the returns If the
Convention at Lecempton was lawfut body,
(and its legality is abuudaptly established
from point to point, from its inception to its
adjournment } then Territorial Legislature,
by an act passed subsequently, could not al
ter, change or modify the proceedings Of
the Convention. The convocation, therefore,
of the Legislature by Mr. Stanton to do an
act which was clearly illegal-namely, to
submit the whole Constitution at another
time, when the Convention had submitted
only the Slavery clause on the 2lst Deoem-
Der, was unwarrauted and culpable-so un-
iusti6able that the President promptly re-
moved him. The vote against the Constitu-
ton in January could not then be recognized
as possessing any valid force, because it was
not in conformity with the ordinance Of the
Couvention-a legal body
One of the clauses of the erdiDance-and
the ordinance was as valid and binding rs
any part of the body Of the instrument
provided in effect for appropriating in round
numbers 25,O00,000 of acres Of the public
land for educational and internal improve
meut purposes, when Congress had never
Given any other State more than 5,OOO,O0o
of acres on admission for those purposes.
The Constitution was communicated by
the President to the Senate late in the win
ter, and bill was then introduced providing
for the immediate admission of Kansas into
the Union, without any condition precedent,
but requiring that the Legislature of Kansas
should by act release to the United States
the excess of 20,OOO,0O0 of acres of the
public land claimed 10 the ordinance; and
here let me say, suppose the bill had become
a law, ard Kansas had omitted or refused to
make the release, how would the rights of
the United States have been enforced p
Could you have turned her out of the Union,
with her Senators and Representatives, upon
such omission or refusal? If the United
States had attempted to exercise rights OF
ownership, and it had been resisted BY Kan
sas, would we not have been compelled to
vindicate our rights by Federal bayonets =
Who would not look with painful solicitude
upon such collision between the United
States and one of its members? This view,
in my judgment, makes the Conference bill,
which finally passed, preferable to the origi-
nal Senate bill, especially as the former re-
coguized every vital principle contained in
the latter, and in addition guarded against
this grave difficulty which has greatly mag
uifed the longer I have contemplated it
The Senate bill led to a masterly debate in
that body. The Republicans opposed tie
admission on the ground mainly because the
Constitution recognized slavery, and Mr..
Douglass and his friends on the ground that
no State should be admitted until the Con-
stitution was ratified by popular vote of
the people. 1t was replied by the Demo
Gratis that the Congress could only inquire
whether State asking admission had re-
publican form of government, and that every
territory seeking admission had the right to
enter the confcderacy whether it established
or repudiated slavery, aud that it was not for
Congress to admit or reject on any such
ground. They replied to Mr.. Douglass that
the Lecompton Constitution had the legal,
fundamental right to submit or withhold all
or part of the Constitution from popular
rati6cation-that it had refused, whether
wisely or unwisely it is not necessary to dis
cuss, to submit any other than the slavery
clause, and that their decision must be final,
if the legal existence Of the body was not
wholly repudiated. TWAS answered to those
who objected that the Constitution did not
embody the will of majority of the people
of Kansas, that even in popular Govern
ments like ours, to avoid anarchy and COM
plete demolition of the social fabric, that
the popular will must be ascertaiued pursu-
ant to the requirements and provisions of
law-that the people Of Kansas were author
lied to express by ballot whether they de.
sired Convention or not.-a majority. Of
those voting said they did; they were au-
thorized by law to elect delegates-they did
elect delegates, and those delegates framed
Constitution; that the delegates submitted
the slavery clause to vote, and majority
of those voting were in favoro of retaining it;
and that after all these opportunities to ex-
press their opinion legally through the ballot
box, it could not be claimed by them that
the Constitution did not reflect their senti-
meuts. If it did not, who was at fault p
Who was to blame? None but themselves,
when they refused to 60 to the ballot box,
but preferred faction and discord to the legal
and peaceable settlement of the disputed is
sues.
The bill passed the Senate, but failed in
the House, and was amended by the suhsti-
tuition of new proposition by Mr.. Mont
gomery, of Pennsylvania. His amendment
provided in substance that the Lecompton
Constitution should be submitted to the peo-
ple-the slavery clause included, and that if
a majority of the bona .tfde inhabitants of