The independent press. (Abbeville C.H., S.C.) 1853-1860, 1858-07-09

THIS statement alone not make it palpable to
the pialnest understanding that. though not
IN SO many words, this is virtually n subu,iss
sion OF the constitution 1t does not mat
ter whether the voting be on the land grant,
the taxing power, &c, or some totally in
different question still, if the result be that
Kansas, with the Lecompton constitution,
would, on the one hand, be admitted, and
on the other rejected, by reason Of that
cote. unquestionably, the constitution is
virtually submitted back 10 the people for
ratification or rejection.
Besides, if it were intended to submit
the propositions growing out Of the ordi-
nance alone, why introduce into the bill
the words admission of the State of Kan
sas into tho Urion,' &c, at all
Again, the Douglas Democrats, rs be-
fore, stated, based their opposition to the
Senate GilI mainly upon the ground of the
non-subnijssiongo the whole constitution to
the people. What other feature, then, !
ask, is it i'll the conference bill that com
mcnded that bill, rather than tho Senate
bill, to the support Of tho English branch Of
the Douglas Democrats Surely not that
feature which proposes to admit Kansas UNI
der the Lecompton constitution upon the
people, at the approaching August election,
giving majority for proposition accept
ed > but if, on the contrary, they should
give minority for proposition rejected
proposition rejected proposes to keep them
| out indefinitely
But, sir, as to the construction which the
English branch Of the Douglas Democrats
place on this bill, we are not left to infer
cnce alone. =. The naked and unqualified ad-
! mission Of Kansas under the Lccompton
constitution said Mr.. English, i'll present
ing the Conference report to the House,
'hc could not vote for ; that "bcfore Nam
sas is admitted her people ought 10 ratify,
or, at least, have II fair opportunity to vote
upon, the constitution under which it is
proposed 10 admit her ; that 'hc would
make reasonable concessions provided the
! substance be secured which is the making
Of the constitution, at an early day, con-
| form to the public will, or, at least, that the
privilege and opportunity Of so making it,
be secured to the people beyond all qucs.
ton 1t would puzzle human ingenuity to
discover any other meanin. in these words,
than that Mr.. English considered the Con
ference bill rs in effect submitting the whole
! constitution 10 the people for acceptance or
! rejection. Would, Mr.. English, or any
other advocate of the bill, have voted for
an amendment declaring it was not sub
mission ? | apprehcnd not. Mr.. Grocs-
beck and Mr., Cox, of the same wing of the
Douglas party, and Mr.. Gilmcr of the South
? ern Americans, said they regarded it in cf-
feet submission. All the opposition say,
that it is virtual submission. Other dis
tinyuislled members Of the com,nilte, it is
true, say that there is 10 submission of the
constitution TO a vote of the people. Tho
members Of the committee disagree. We are
therefore, free to place our own conslruc-
ton upon the bill. To my mind, it is
virtual submission Of the constitution back
to the people for acceptance or rejection,
which view think have shown to be cor
rect.
The most plausible argument in favor Of
the conference bill, which have heard or
seen, is, that if Kansas, by rejecting the
proposition in the conference bill, should
be kept out of the Union ; still, if she had
been unwilling to accept our proposition, in
the Senate bill, she would, in that event, al
so have been out of the Union and that
we could compel hertz come in. That is
true. But, it was admitted on this side of
IIouse-denied by no Democrat so far as
my knowledge or information goes-that
Kansas would have assented to our propo-
sition contained in the Senate bill. 1t was
rcasonable-the same that was made to
Minnesota-an Kansas ask no more. Her
proposition was unreasonable, and such rs
no State ever laid claim 10 before. 1t was
never questioned that, on the passage Of
the Senate bill, the Legislature of Kansas
would be convinced that her Senators
would be elected and that they and the
member elect, would, AS soon thereafter rs
practicable, take their Seats Now, the in
slant that these delegates should have IA.
ken their seats, Kansas would, submit
with confidence in the view, have been in
the Union with the Lecompton constitu.
tion-therc would have been an acceptance
OF our proposition and an unconditional as
sent to the terms Of the Senate bill, by such
sending Of delgates "a waiver to all intcnts
and purposes, of all right 10 tax the nub.
lie lands and al abandonment of any ciaim
to land itself beyond the four millions Of
acres. No one, up to the failure ofthe Sen.
ale bill, saw any difficulty as to the ordi-
nance, which was in fact no part of the con-
stitution aud there was no reason to sun.
pose there could be any for Kansas had
herself proposed to come in with the LIE.
compton constitution, and would have been
in, and been received by Congress .sna
member Of the Confederacy, bv tie act Of
sending her Senators and member here n
take their seats {; and need never apa;n fond
probably would not) have alluded to her
ordinance: Noivote by her people, in such
case, would have been necessary to ad,nis.
sion. Or, she might, if she had preferred
SO TO do, through her State Legislature, have
assembled convention, and through that
have abandoned her ordinance, and have
accepted our proposition. In the other
case, by the Conference bill, the people of
Kansas mast vote again, before they can
| get into the Union under the Jocomnton