The Tiffin tribune. [volume] (Tiffin, Ohio) 1848-1859, 1858-06-04

aud duty Of dissenting from Il. / die
not think that concession brought Il will
in the principle, or obviated any Of my
objections. IL only made the bill NOR,
obuoxious TO me by violating another
principle equally sacred in our political
system, that Of the sovereignty Of the
States.
\ Next came tho declaration that The
frse-Sate Legislature was elected; and
hence, if Kansas was forced into the
Union with pro-slavefy Constitution,
against the will Of her people, Il would
not last long; Tor the reason that there was
a free-State Legislature, who would i'm.
mediately take steps to change it, aud
abolish slavery. That argument did not
address itself favorably TO my Judgment,
for the reason that il did not Affect the
principle involved. What difference did
It make, so Ear as the principle was GOA.
lcernod, whether there was q majority Of
free-State men, or majority Of pro.sla-
very men ia that Legislature? What
! difference did il make TO me, whether
there was a majority Of Democrats, or
majority of Republicans, or a majority Of
Americans in that Legislature, provided
they were fairly aud honestly elected? II
the people Of Kansas desired pro-slayery
Legislature, they had a right to it. Ii
they desired a Republican Legislature
they had a right TO it. II they desired
an American Legislature they had a
right TO il.
If they desired Legislature purely
Democratic, elected without reference TO
the question Of slavery. il was their right
TO select such one; and, Sir, il was the
duty Of Mr.. Calhoun to declare those
elected who had received a majority of
the legal votes, fairly and honestly re
turned. The declaration Of that result
could not change the principle was, Shall
that people be left perfectly aud entirely
free to form and regulate their own insIi-
tutions in their own way?
These various concessions could not
control votes enough TO carry the bill.
What nextg Then comes a disagreement
between the two Houses Of Congress.
The Senale insisting upon the I'll which
Is had passed for the admission Of Le.
compton Internationally, except what is
called the Green amendment, and the
House insisting on the bill which il had
passed as a substitute, known as the Crit
tendeu-Montgomery bill.
This committee Of Conference provide
for a question of submission 10 the peo-
pie, but what do they submit? The
Chairman of that committee of confer
ence, the Senator from Missouri (Mr.
Green) has Informed you that the consti-
tu ion is not submitted; the Senator from
Virginia, { Mr., Hunter) who was his col
league on the committee, has Informed
you that the constitution is not submitted;
and | believe both Of them have aldod
that they would not vote for the bill If
the constitution was submitted uu-
derstand that similar declarations have
been made in tho other House of Con
gress by the members Of tho committee
fconference there, showing that that was
their understanding aud their construo-
ton Of this bill.
Then, if the constitution is not sub
mitted; if the people are not allowed to
vote for it or against IL, freely, without a
bounty on tie one side or a penalty on
the other. how can il be said that il
comes within that great principle OF pop
ular sovereignty which, ! insist, oug It
TO be carried out in all the Territories?
1t is no answer to this objection to tell
me that because men have conceded SO
much, | ought to conoede. No matter
how many and how great their concessions
are, if they have conceded the principle
for which contend, / cannot take what
they propose. II is not for me TO say
whether these concessions are right OF
wrong, Wbe.het they are wise or un-
wise. 1t is enough for me that the
principle for which / insist has NOT
been, clearly and distinctly recognized
in this bill ] dislike ia iudirecticu
by which the submission is proposed
to be made--ma1e to depend on land
grant. In order to compel the people oI
Kansas to reject the Leoompton Oonstitu'
ton, you compel them to vote against a
land grant, that every man, woman, and
child in the Territory would desire "a
have. You will rot allow them to take
the land grant unless they take the con
slitution With it; and you viii not allow
them to proceed Immediately and make a
new constitution, with the same popula,
ton, aud have the same land grant il
they reject this. If you did that. then
the principle would be fairly carried out,
but unless you do allow that 10 be done,
1 insist that the princicle is violated
Now, Mr.. President, | can say TO you
very frankly, that if there were two
amendments made to this bill, although
it would still be somewhat Objectionable
in its equiyoeal features, could and
would take great pleasure in giving it ms
support One would be TO strike out the
land grant altogether, and the other tc
strike out the Limitation as TO population
Then the simple Question presented to the
people wdtld be, will you come in pndel
The Leoomplon constitution or notY and
il you do not you may proceed immedi
ately with the same population TO make I
new consultation. In that there would bi
perfect fairnessi there would be no con
gressiohal Intervention with its induce
ments 10 control the results. Or, IL yol
wanted to leave the grantin, why not max,
; il. applicable 10 the new constitution a