The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1858-04-01
THE PROCEEDINGS ON THE LEc0MPToN
BILL IN THE SENATE.

We have placed on record in another column
the yeas and nays on the proceedings attend
ing the passage of the Lecompton bill in the
Senate. A few amendments were adopted at
the suggestion of its friends, but none affecting
the essential character of the measure. Ore
of the amendments is as follows:
"That nothing in this act shall be construed
TO abridge or infringe any right OF the people
asserted in the Constitution Of Kansas at all
times. to alter, reform, or abolish, their form of
Government, in such manner as they may think
proper, Congress hereby disclaiming any au-
thcrity to intervene or declare the construction
of the Constitution of any State, except to see
that il is republican in form, and not in conflict
with the Constitution of the United States"
To understand this, it must be recollected
that by the President and his Northern support
era II is maintained that the clause in the Kan
sas Constitution, authorizing amendments, and
prescribing the mode in which they shall be
made, afier the year 1864, does not exclude
amendments before that year, but that the arti
Gle in the Declaration of Rights Ia part of the
Consttution) affirming the right of the People
to form or alter their own Government, author
ICES amendments at any time. Precisely the
opposite position is taken by large portion of
his Southern supporters, who contend that the
clause designating the time and manner in
which the instrument May be amended, fairly
implies that it is not to be amended, except in
conformity to tfis provision. An express dec
Iaration of either position would hazard the
bill, by alternating either Northern or Southern
support. So, it became necessary to resort to
the usual device-an ambiguous declaration,
which may be construed to suit both classes
and both sections. Mr.. Pugh, for example;
can say to his constituents, should the bill pass,
"See, we have here declaration that the act
shall not be construed to abridge the right CT
the People, asserted in the Constitution, to
alter it at any time OF course, then, they
can exclude Slavery whenever they please"
On the other hand, Mr.. Iverson will say, " The
Constitution provides fer its own amendment
after 1864 Efforts were made to obtain a
declaration that it might be amended before
that time; but Congress expressly disclsimed
any authority to intervene or declare the con.
struction of the Constitution, merely asserting
in general terms, so as to give our Northern
friends chance to defend themselves, that the
act admitting Kansas should not be construed
to sbridge or infringe any right of the People
asserted in the Constitution, at all times to
alter, reform, or subvert their Government. As
Congress expressly disclaimed any right to
declare the construction of the Constitution,
there was, of course, no concession in that.
We did not say that any such right was affirm
ed, but if any such were affirmed, Congress
could not abridge it"
Everybody must see that the provision is
purpssely ambiguous-intended to be used for
contrary objects-to be construed one way at
the South, another at the North. The NORTH
ern Democrat will claim that under it tie
People Of Kansas may order Convention in.
stantiy, on their admission into the Union. and
abolish Slavery; the Southern Democrat will
boast, as some Southern members of Congress
already have boosted, that the Pro Slavery marty
in Kansas, thrown into a minority by the sudde n
inAux of Northern population, had the saga.
city to make the Constitution unalterable till
1864, thereby securing the system of Slavery
in the new State at least for six yearsl The
provision will be used to delude the Democratic
masses of the free States, but will prove utterl,
powsrless in Kansas.