Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1858-09-30

disagreed. The House adhered to its amend.
ment. The Conference Committee, at the
instance of the Senate, was appointed on the
23d April, reported the Bill called the Con-
ference Committee or English Bill, which
admits Kansas in the usual words, but goes
on to make provisions which will appear suf-
ficiently in the argument.
The feature in the Crittenden- Montgomery
amendment, admitting Kansas by proclama-
ton of the President on her new Constitu-
ton, withoutits being submitted to Congress,
is peculiar to itself and in direct violation
of the Federal Constitution, which provides
that "New States may be admitted by Con-
gress, into the Union," and provides no
other mode.
The Crittenden- Montgomery amendment
and the Conference Bill both abandon the
State Rights ground that the State Conven-
ton of Kansas had the right to submit the
Constitution or not, ably maintained in the
discussions in the Senate by the whole Dem
ocratic party in Congress for four months,
without dissenting voice--the Douglas
Democrats excepted; and submit each to
the people-the one directly, the other 7ir-
tually-the Lecompton Constitution for rati-
6cation or rejection. One need not 60 be-
youd the Conference Bill itself to see this
as to that measure. The first clause provides
that "the question of admission, with the
following proposition in lieu of the ordinance
framed at Lecompton, be submitted to vote
of the people," and goes on to give the a.
mended ordinance, restricting Kansas to A.
100000 acres of land, &c. Can anything
be meant than admission under the Lecemp-
ton Constitution Further,if it was not in.
tended to submit back the question of ad-
mission under the Lecompton Constitution,
why, ask, should the Bill do more than
submit the amended ordinance in so many
words for acceptance or rejection? The bill
also goes on to provide for the formation by
the people of Kansas Of another Constitu-
ton, if the "proposition" should be rejected.
How could this be, if the Bill did not con-
template submitting the Constitution virtu-
ally for ratification or rejection?
Mr.. English, the author of the Confer
euce Bill, foreshadowed that billin his speech
of 9th March, on the Senate Bill, when he
said, the "people ought to ratify, or at least
have fair opportunity to vote upon the
Constitution" His construction Of the Bill
was also indicated before the Conference
Committee, when, according to q biographi-
cal sketch of him which appeared about that
time, he said, "he had plan in his mind,
based, however, upon the principle of asub-
mission of the question of admission under
the Lecompton Constitution and an amended
ordinance to a fair vote of the people of
Kansas" And when asked by Mr.. Mar
snall on the floor of the House, "whether he
understands the Bill as the gentleman from
Georgia" (Mr. Stephens) who denied the
he replied, the gentleman "is
judge what the meaning of the
Bill is" Mr.. Cox, Mr.. Groesbeck and Mr.
Lawrence, of Ohio, Douglas Democrats, said
each on the floor of the House, that they
regarded it in effect submission Of the Con-
and Mr.. Lawrence said, "without
so understanding it, be never would have
voted for it," Gen. Mcqueen of this State
frankly admits that the Bill "in effect, does
Indirectly refer back to the people of the
Territory the question whether they will
come into the Union under the Lecompton
Constitution" And, lastly, the result-the
proposition has been rejected by $500 votes
settles the construction of the Bill. tits
difficult to understand how there could be
two opinions.
If the Conference Bill did virtually re-
submit the Constitution, it is as obnoxious
on that point as the Crlttenden- Montgomery
amendment. One does indirectly what the
other does directly. Itis in both palpable
violation of the Kansas Nebraska Act, which
leaves the people of State, in adopting
their Constitution, "free to form and regu-
late their domestic institutions in their own
way" A Convention is the embodied SOW
ereiguty of the people, and-no restriction
being imposed by the people themselves
speaking their sovereign voice, may or not
submit their Constitution before admission,
and the Federal Government has no right to
make it an objection to admission, or to send
it back to the people of the State, if not
submitted. Such unauthorized action ruth
lessly overrides the legal action of the Con-
vention, and is a dangerous attack uponthe
sovereignty of the States.
By accepting the Conference Bill, we give
up the only territory north Of $50 30 which
can ever be slave territory. 1t is supposed
that Kansas would not have continued slave
State-even admitted under the Senate Bill.
It does not follow that the people would have
amended the Constitution and have abolished
slavery once established. She stands on the
same base line, $3.50, with Missouri-and
according to General Atchison, one Of the
best informed men of that country, was we'll
adapted to slavery. The ratio of increase
among the slaves of Missouri during the first
decade of years after the admission was 40
per cent more than among the whites whilst
for the ten years preceding, the difference
was but IA per cent. Capital invested in
slaves is timid, so easily is it lost and so un-
certain is its fate in Territory. Admitted
with the Lecompton Constitution, owners
with their slaves would probably have soon
begun the occupation of the fertile land of