The Hillsborough recorder. [volume] (Hillsborough, N.C.) 1820-1879, 1858-06-09

strike that section outf
Mr.. GnMGR. If the question had been pre-
sented in the latter shape il would have re-
ceiyed majority Of the votes Of this House;
but presented as it was it could not have re-
ceiyed such majority, because all who were
called on to vote for the Qaitman amends
ment, were, in the form presented, compelled
to vote at the same time against the whole Of
their bill.
Mr.. Days. of Mississippi. Why not, If
the effect was the same?
Mr.. GlIMER. For this reason (the plainest
possible that it was well understood that
certain northern gentlemen were supporting
the Senate bill because it sustained the doc
trine of the Green amendment, who would
not vote for it il that was not there, and
therefore they did not want the Greenamend-
ment out; for if it were out they would lose
friends even for the Senate bill.
MIR. MARsHaLL, Of Kentucky. The amend
ment pending to the Senate bill was the Crit
tenden- Montgomery amendment. The Sc
nate bill contained the Green amendment.
The amendment Of the gentleman from Mis-
sissippi was the Senate billwithout the Green
amendment, offered as an amendment TO the
Crittenden- Montgomery amendment. Had
the prosition of the gentleman from Mssis-
sippi been accepted at the time, It would
have superseded the crttenden- Montgome-
nv amendment, and left us..to choose between
the Senate bill with the Green amendment
and the Senate bill without the Green amend
ment. The effect Of II was never to say
turkey" to US once upon the Crittenden-
Montgomery amendment.
| Mr.. GILMER. Yes.
Mr.. DAVIS. Of Mississippi. desire to say
that the reason assigned by the gentleman
| from North Carolina for not voting for the
amendment of the gentleman from Mississip-
pi, is quite different from that given by the
gentleman from Kentucky. Yet both Of those
gentlemen vote alike. both voting against
the proposition of the gentleman from Mis-
sissippi, MIR. Quitman.l One says that if
| it had been simply to strika out the Green
amendment he would have voted for it.
! Mr.. GlLMER. did saw that exactly.
Mr.. DAVIS, Of Mississippi. The gentle
man from Kentucky said he would not have
voted for it in the form in which it was pre-
sented by the gentleman from Mississippi,
while the gentleman from North Carolina
says he would, and his party would yet the
gentleman from Kentucky is one of his par
~.
/ Mr.. MARSHALL, Of Kentucky. The gentle
man from Mississippi will do me the justice
to say that the reason WHY would not have
voted for the proposition Of the gentleman
from Mississippi vas. that the effect Of that
proposition would have been 10 kill that very
amendment of which was in favor and We
could not have got vote upon il at all.
Mr.. GILaER. II the Quitman amendment
had been simply TO strike from the Senate
bill the Green amendment. /, together with
large majority Of the House, would have
voted to strike il out. This was the fair, re-
gular way to do il. Then the next vote
would have been a fair and plain one, TO wit
the Senate bill without the Green amend
ment on one side, and the crittenden bill on
the other. The Quitman amendment seemed
to be the result Of study, and seemingly of
fered with purpose TO embarrass Us /; EVIL
IDENTIFY it was offered in such double and du-
! plicated manner, that, under the rules OF the
House, those of US who would vote with
conservative gentlemen against the Green
amendment, would have 10 vote at the same
time against the whole Crittenden bill. which
We most approved. In short, the Quitman
W mt Nbd ottat NV WV
against the Green amendment, without Not-
ing at the same time against the Crittenden
BILL" repeat, had the motion been made
10 strike out the Green amendment from the
Senate bill, il would have gone out; then the
next choice would have been the Senate bill!
with the Green amendment out, or the Crit
tenden. Montgomery bill. Does the gentle
man DENY thati
Mr.. DAVIS, Of Mississippi. You would have
had your choice. But, would YOU have voted
for the Senate bill, with the Green amend
ment stricken out:
MF. GILMER. Nv colleague Mr.. Shaw
reads from the Lecompton constitution Ia
show that il prescribes proper qualification
for voters, and then in thatcOnnectiOn speaks
Of the Minneola constitution, notice Of which
appeared in the papers long after my speech
was made. Was that treating my views fair
lyf What had the hinneoia constitution,
Irregularlv formed and void, 10 do then with
the subject under discussion But suppose
my colleague intended By that sort OF state.
,meHt TO have il 20 abroad that the Critten.
den. Montgomery bill did not provide exact.
u the same safeguards as 10 the qualification
Of voters. ! can see no other purpose. An
examination Of the two bills will expose thi,
injustice.
He says further, enormously, that I took
the ground that the people Of Kansas would
vote down the Lecompton constitution; and
that when they came 70 make new consti.
tuition, they would have the power TO seize
and take away from the United States eight
million acres Of the public. lands And b,
read as follows:
CSC. 2. md Be II further enacted, That
|. the state Of Kansas is admitted into th,
Union upon the express condition that said
State allall never interfere with the primary
disposal Of the public lands, or with any re
gulations which Congress may find neeessar,
. tor securing the title 10 said lands 10 The
bona fde purchaser and grantee thereof, Of
impose or levy ans tax, assessment, or impo