Western sentinel. [volume] (Winston [i.e. Winston-Salem], N.C.) 1856-1886, 1858-07-02

winch he has III his possessson, | said that
III the Lecompton constitution there was
an ample and sufficient guarantee to Sc
cure to the several States their interest in
the public domain within the borders Of
Kansas; and that, if the people Of Kansas
came in under that constitution, the rights
OF all the States-North Carolina as we'll
| as the rest-would be amply secured /
said that If my colleague should succeed
IN voting down that constitution, if he
should succeed in passing the bill lie was
advocating, he would place it a1e the aooeo-
| er OF tie people Of Kansas to seize upon
and appropriate to their own use every
single acre of the public domain within
their borders How did prove ita By
showing that if the people should vote
down the Lecompton constitution, they
would be authorized by the Crittenden
bill to frame another constitution; and
without any terms or conditions precedent
| in regard to the public domain, or any
thing else, they were to be indicted into
the Union by the mere aps0 Dirt Of the
President Of the United States, and there
would be no remedy to us if they should
assert their right to the public lands, even
to every acre within their limits.
The gentleman, in his speech, quotes an
extract from a letter Of Senator Davis, of
Mississippi, written on 18th May. 1853, to
sustain his position. In doing so, howev-
er, he attributes TO him language which is
not to be fonnd in the extract which my
colleauge quotes. Nor is it to be found
| in any other portion of that letter. lie
says that Colonel DAVIS lays down the
principle that g condition 2,recedent =" must
be contained in the ,sact Of aans;ss;on."
This is an unauthorized amendment to Col
I Nv ~,
for purpose which must be obvious to
every one--it was absolutely necessary
to make ont his case. Here, sir, is the ex-
tract which my colleague quotes and
adopts:
The consequence Of admitting State
without a recognition precedent Of the
rights Of United States to the public do
main, are in my opinion, the transfer of the
useful with the eminent domain, to the
people Of the State thus admitted, without
reservation.
AS you will see, Colonel DAVIS does not
ssay that tlt dent 2 s1ftIst
be in the g act Of adneissio55s." He says
no such thing.
But my colleague demands, with an air
of triumph, what safeguard there is in the
Senate Bill for the admission Of Kansas, for
| the security Of the public domain in that
| Territory, which the Crttenden bill does
not also contain and in this connection,
and with a flourish Of trrmpets, he quotes
a clause from the Crittenden bill, and with
| an air of eomplacency adds, !" / shall ap-
| pend to my speech the Minnesota bill,
which contains no such guarantee and no
! security whatever" Now sir, if my col
! league was able to meet the argument [
made, why did he resort to the artful dodge
! OF drawing his parallel between the Sen
ate bill or the Crittenden bill, and the
Minnesota bill, instead of meeting the
point distinctly made as to the power he
proposed to confer upon the people Of Kan
sas, to absorb and appropriate the pub
| lie lands in case they should chose to
vote down the Lecompton constitution
which was to be submitted to them for
ratification Or rejection by the Critten-
! den bill for which he voted and the
| whole scope of his argument went to show
| that if submitted to them, they would vote
| down that constitution his main objection
to the admission Of Kansas, under the Lee
compton constitution, being that it was not
the will and the voice Of the people OF that
Territory.
Now, sir, strange as it may seem, my
colleague in his desire to sustain his I'M
founded charge against me, that had sur
rendered the rights of the United States to
to the public domain, by my vote for the
Minnesota bill, which he voted against
adopts the very principle which asserted
in my speech of the Goth April, by which
l showed, that by comforting. upon the
| people of Kansas, as he proposed to do by
his vote for the Crittenden bill, the right to
frame a new constitution and be admitted
I into the Confederacy by the proclamation
of the President, without any condition
precedent to secure the right of the Gov
ernment to the public lands in Kansas
my colleague has clinched the argument
made against him on that point. Irepeat,
| undertook to prove, and did prove, to
my own satisfaction at least, that the
| people of Kansas would have been ena-
| bled, had my colleague succeeded in his
effort to defeat the Lecompton constitution
and carry through the CritteEden bill, to
seize upon every acre of the public lands
in that Territory; and my logical and sa-
/ gacious colleague has fully sustained my
| point by adopting the very principle upon
which based the whole argument.
! Now, in reference to the charge that l
voted for the bill to admit Minnesota.
which, he says, does not contain one word
| by which the Government is secured in
the public lands Has my colleague put
this case faily2 Has he sustained the
grave charge he makes against me, of hav-
ing abandoned the rights and surrendered
the interests of North Carolina in the pub
lie lands in Minnesota Sir, has he told
the whole truth in the matter In his