The Washington union. [volume] (City of Washington [D.C.]) 1857-1859, 1858-05-06
THE KANSAS BILL---THE WAY 1T rs RE
Na CEIVED w

Il p.
prom tho fucLuioad stsh, My aiJ
rns act 81 Css,xnAs decides that Ka.sas shall
into the Union with the Lccompton constitution, proyi-
H.. she relinqish her excessive demand for public land
ar n ,,maris her to territorial condition until she shall
have sufficient population to enttlc her to representa-
tive III Congress.
With two cxceptions every State rights democrat Of thc
south voted for the conferences bill.
o
The question Of Interpretation been settled by the
declaration of the members OF the conference commit
tee the vote of Congress, and the concession OF the
rep,blie.r,s for If IL was believed that the Le
eon,ptou constitution submitted, why did the black
republicans vote against the bill Their opposition is
clear proof that; sccordSg To their construction such
submission Is intended whilst the dcclprutions the
other side Of Messrs Hunter and Stephens, and the vote
~ The whole South in favor VI the bll conclusive of
his understanding the southcvn side that the Le
onpton constitution WAS affirmed as legal aud final and
that Congress only passed upon the naked question Of
admission.
We regard the passage OF this hill tending to per-
manent settlement Of the slavery question because the
whole country has now given up the Wilnct proyso,
and no further attempt be made ny Congress to pre-
vent the people OF Territory from deciding the question
for themselves. Some Of the black republicans, in
going over 70 Douglas, accept and avow his doc
trine Of popular sovereignty Upon this he has
converted them. but reasons for predicting set
Element are those III Kansas does not enter the Union
now, she will haze no power to form new coz
siituon for several years to without an act
Of omen rebellion against the United States Tho
hill Is disabling act IN this particular We may then
anticipate period Of comparative quiet during which
The public mind will settle down the non nterven-
tio doctrine Again The true why this excite
ment has been 10 great il two-fold l. That Kansas
was according to the honest belief Of many people IN the
North dedicated to freedom, " and the repeal Of the
Missouri restriction WINS, In their opinion breach of
faith This crroucous opinion scdulousy inculcatcd
and produced miscellaneous effects 2. That Kansas Is
te last Territory IN which the conflicting interests of
slavery and free labor be brought into contact and
competition.
setsaate and divide farther and farther from each other
The North will develop itself towards Oregon whilst the
south having nterposed the whole body Of the slave
States between herself and her antagonists will advance
10 the Southwest upon the limo Of Northern Mexico and
the Pacific ocean Unless the two rivals brought to-
Cethcr in Central Amercs cannot how this fight
to be revived with the luminosity excitement
The passage OF the Kansas bill has demonstrated the
eo,al admssihlity of the slave States. We shall
have encouragement long that principle shall be
respected in going to add 10 the occupied by
southern institutions, whilst the first refusal to receive
slave State soliciting admission into the Union will pre-
sent an evidence that the governments is longer equal
and for reorganization upon different principles
We have wish TO the Union dissolved 80 long
as it can Inc administered justly We think the equity
of its administration depends upon the asccdency Of the
democratic party hut TINT party must continue to stand
upon the ground taken in the Kansas controversy by the
administration and Congress.
Whilst therefore, the Kansas BILL as rcframcd by the
conference committee, comedies principle for which
have conendcd rejoice that its adoption has
been the means Of reunitng the democratic
PARTY upon sound and constitutional ground and that it
has commended and confirmed the administration to the
confidence Of the country.
from the Alexandria (va.) sen.incll
The debates which we have published have sufficiently
shown for what opposite members supported and
members opposed the English Kansas Lecompton bill 1t
supported because it did, and because it did not sub
NIT the constitution to the vote Of the people 1t
opposed because it did, and because it did not submit
the constitution to the vote of the people.
And finally, 1t has been opposed and stigmatizcd be-
cause it would permit such opposite constructions.
Lawyers and cuntrovcrsalists, and men OF extreme
views and mpacticablc tempcramcns may exercise their
ingenuity in drawing plausible deductions, indulge
their phlcgm in nttcring harsh criticisms. But sup
pose the people Mt large anxious to see the sub
cct in It's true light, and to form correct judgment
We suppose the following to be correct presentation of
the matter. And first the question Of fact
The bill does submit the constitution to vote Of
the people But does submit the amended schedule to
Such vote and the vote the schedule may have pra
hcdliy the effect OF vote on the constitution
Now TO the question of principle The schedule
which accompanies the constitution is in the nature of
engagement covenant, to which Kansas inchoatc
State is party and all the other States represented
by Congess) the other party Kansas proposed to
Congress to foego any right to tax the federal lands in
be made her. Congress makes counter propo
siton greatly reducing the amount Of the grant and in
stead Of imposing the condition Kansas, leaving her
assent thereto TO bo simply inferred it Is provided TINT
the question shall he expressly submitted TO her people
i they consent to the terms then Congress is willing
admission
Now think that both Of the two sovereign parties
to the negotiation should thus fully and openly respond
TO an engagement designed 10 be mutual ut takes two
to make . bargain Kansas has asked to come in ON
certain terms which she named She may not desire to
come in on the terms which Congress She has
no right to force herself in have right to force
her in. There must be consent on both sides.
In answer to the complaint that Congress is taking adj
vantage of KANSAS desire to be admitted to impose
terms the il that Kansas is not anxious
get IN than all parties to have her in. brawling
brat at the door, the government is DESTROYS to stop the
eamor ny Inducing her to enter Sire Is rather in coii
nor to dictate than to be dictated to- She secures en-
Trance with only half the population she ought to show
Inc only ground for charging ambiguity upon the Eng
,Sh bill is that the direct submission Of one question:
or which It provides, indirectly decides another Hence
dKputants by conoundng the indirect with tho direct
may charge on the bill what is due only to their
pcrvcrsion
ii bill Is necessarily knavsh because it presents diff
erert aspects from different views, and Is thus able to
combine the support Of persons who widely disagree on
some points, then the Kansas bill is not the only cgsla
i've vllany. southern may prefer tariff as the
most convenient mode of raising revenue" north
ern man may prefer that mode because OF the incidental
protection it Affords The former may denounce
Protection and go for the bill, refusing to recognise
any such principle in 1t the latter may lad protection
and claim that the bill provides for IT, and thus secures
Ms vote Some wise man may up ana dcnouncc
e OIL as swnilc because its very supporters cannot
agree in constituting IL
The above has its simple parallel in this Kansas settle
ment Some vote for the English submission because its
uect object is to give Kansas tie right to pass upon the