The Cass County Republican. [volume] (Dowagiac, Mich.) 18??-1880, 1858-05-13

4
the the should see fit to refuse to sanction +,
demand for the previous question, thel
are other gentlemen who wish to di
cuss 1T, and will discuss it, more abb
on than L can--but, as / said, if we col
bill cede that the whole principle elaine
OF by the North is yielded, yet it is offel
ed sive still to the North, for it attacbe
me conditionsto the admission which neve
is can, In my judgment, be submitted t.
he While l do not profess to speak for tn
81 whole North, l speak. without hesits
We ton for my own constituents; and
by believe, and / assert, that they wi
ON regard this proposition as an insult
lat even If they conceive that they hay
ed the best of it over the South so far a
ed the yielding of the principle is con
ut cerned. If the South yields the mos
ee OF principle, the North are to be tn,
tie most cheated in the. details, and. tb,
L most insulted by the conditions of if
n IL VIII be, therefore, in my Judgment
it very far from peace measure. The
ce North, | know, will not accept it; and
n, do not see how the South can.
ne say that this proposition is offensive
to TO the North In its details. 1t provides
t. one set OF conditions for the admission
he OF State under this particular consti.
le tuition, and another set of conditions
s. under another constitution. Now. if I
a should vote for this proposition. if /
IL mad gwen my assent to it in committee,
S II L should record my vote for it here.
D. when | go home / should expect that
'e my constituents at least should wish to
$ know this. lfthe population of Kansas
e at the present time is sufficient to admit
IS her under a constitution she loathes. lis
II not that same population sufficient to
q admit her under constitution she an
proves? And how could answer If ?
IS How shall any northern man answer TO
e MS constituents? Sir, there is no an
/ swer to It, 1t needs no comment.
e Butagain, if Congress may intervene
t to bring Kansas in as slave State.
:. ought not Kansas, if she rejects the
: proposition, be permitted quietly to
e apply to come in as a free State
t why not? Does not the very form
e and substance of the bill impose a de-
: grading condition upon the North Is
not the whole doctrine of the equality
.dof States thereby overthrown /? If the
10 80 S,e; cation of Kansas, again repeat,
~ H. ut. Ssnt for her to come in under
annnrh r pi fo. ~ constitution, surely it is
o+hox noa.;4'. ~ 10 70 a. come I'M under anv
Again, sir, if the whole country may
be convulsed, the public business neg la
ected for months, the whole power and w
patronage of the Government brought oN
to bear to force her in under this con-. III
got up by fraud and violence, Pc
why should she not have the privilege &C
Of quietly applying under constitution Isl
gotten up without fraud, without vio- OF
ence, and expressive of her will ? tn
Why should not the conditions be the Ell
same, whatever may be the constitu- Isl
ton; and if you impose these condi-
lions and these restrictions, which are hS
unfair and unequal, and degrading to III
the North, do you not intervene to do tn
it. 81 FL. s gi
MIR. Speaker, l wish to say a word III
Or two upon the reasons urged by the DC
majority of the committee for making III
this report. My colleague from Indi- ri
ana (Mr. English) submitted some D!
which he stated were by the III
of the majority of the mana
gers. | will not go into the subject be
matter of the speech in detail, but | if
will state that the whole argument is tx
based upon two things; first, the guam dc
tity of land saved in the proposed ordi- er
nance; and secondly, the great peace pc
and quietness which is to flow from the tn
adoption of this substitute. They tell w
us that 2O,o0O,oOo acres of land are Ell
saved, worth s25, 100000. That may W
be true In one sense, but it is hardly si
true in any sense. The 10000, 900 th
acres of land had not been granted by th
Congress; it had only been grabbed at We
by Calhoun & Co. But the only rea- tn
son we did not save, in that sense, ten si
times as much, was because of the great W
of Mr.. Calhoun and his asso- OF
ciates in not including it in their grab. a
What pity it is that their modesty m
should have so interfered with our tn
committee in gaining Immortality by ns
saving land to the government Who at
does not know that land was never A
granted to any State in such quantities af
as the Lecompton constitution claimed ? th
[ may here remark that no State has re
ever been admitted to which such lib sh
eral grants have been made as here W
proposed. l believe the grant is the a
same as that proposed to Minnesota, W
but no State has yet come in with SO pc
large grant OF
Mr.. English-I should be glad to of
ask the gentleman whether he is not th
advised of the fact that the land pro- of
posed to be granted in the bill of the sn
committee of conference is precisely CO
the same as that proposed in the Crit as
5enden amendment for which the GEN If
leman voted? nc
Mr.. Howard-I believe, sir, that is &C
the same remark that / was ar
making. | was saying that up to this tn
Tine, believed that no State had been Tif
admitted with so large grant of land tic
rs is proposed in this ordinance. The an
grant, / think, is about the same as
hat offered to Minnesota, and I think, WI
rs the gentleman from Indiana says, it pc
S just the same as that embraced in sit
he Crittenden Montgomery bill. So tn
ar as the grant of land is concerned, tn
,his bill and the Crittenden Montgom- it,
cry bill are identical, but the grant In or
5he latter bill is offered to Kansas under tie
INV conct;fY,f;on cha NOV oboc,eoa f< 4r1