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

the Union on an equal footing with the
original thirteen States in all respects what
ever.'- 1t must be borne in mind that the
difference between the original thirteen
States and the Territories is very marked.
Those States were independent sovereignties,
possessed Of eminent domain outside of the
Union, and anterior to the adoption of the
Federal Constitution. The sovereignty Of
the Territories, on the econtrary, is in the
States Of this Uu;on--the right of taxing
thepublic lands along with it. Now it
seems, as has been donessagain, and again,
that Congress may reserve this sovereign
right oftaxation in kthe enabling act, or in
the act admitting State, carved out of
these Territories. But If we grant the posi-
ton to DO true, that the, Withdrawal of the
sovereignty Of the United States confcrs
upon.a new State at once thisss,sovcreen
right Of Taxation, still Kansas, asanany of
the other States have done, mightwaive the
exercise of it in consideration of the Ian
grants and other advantages arising from
incorporation in the Union.
1t is is further said for the Conference
bill that its first clause admits Kansas into
the Union. That clause is as follows: That
the State of Kansas bc and is hereby admit
ted into the Union on an equal footing with
the original States in all les poets whatever
The Crittenden Montgomery amendment
docs tho same thing in the same words.
But what is such admission in the Confer
cnce bill worth when the bill goes on to pre-
scribe a condition precedent Which must be
fulfilled before she IS admitted, and falling
10 which, she wiU not be admitted, and wiU
ncrer harc been udmiucd! There is con-
dit;on TO be performed, precedent TO odmis-
SION. How can the Stale he said to he now
admitted into the Union when she is told in
the bill, your people must vote again. and If
they don't vote proposition accepted Won
must stay out Of the Union till YOU have the
federal ratio, after which you may form Il
new constitution, and then be entitled to ad.
mission into the Union AS State under
such constitution Does any one pretend
that Kansas Is now actually in the Union
This bill in truth subjects the constitution to a
vote Of rejection. Indeed, lis adoption by
Congress was the adoption 0: II measure of
exclusion, for the result Of the vote Of the pco-
pie of Kansas uuder the Conference bill, in
August next, is scarcely now probcmatical
No, sir, so far from Kansas being admitted,
we arc no nearer the end Of our difficulties,
now, than we were before the passage of the
Conference bill. Kansas will send IN
TO us next winter, in all probability,
4 free State constitution, formed by a
convention called by the Territorial Leeis-
ature, having the other sanctions of the
Lccompton constitution, (exccpts so far asi
will lie restricted by the Conference bill rs
TO the federal ratio,) with the addition of lav-
ing been submitted, entire, to tho for their
approval. And now ask, gentlemen, will
that Constitution be rejected by Congress
l think not. This conference bill will thus
secure to the opposition within one short
year, and if not so soon, at some day not
very distant, the victory for which they have
from the first contendcd, anl the South he
shorn the triumph ofprinciple in having a
slave State admitted.
1t is claimed, moreover, that the Confer
ference bill recognises The right ola slave
State to admission. The Crittenden Mont
gomery amendment can lay claim to equal
merit ; for that bill provides for the admis-
sion of Kansas under the Lecompton con-
stitution, if upon that Constitutional instru-
ment, being first submitted to vote of the
people, majority shall assent thereto. But
to what end is this recognition in either
bill What Republican would ever have
supported the Crit.endeu Montgomery
amendment but for the certainty that the
Lecompton constitution would never again
have seen Congress And what Douglas
Democrat would ever have supported the
Conference bill but for its securing virtually
to the people of Kansas the opportunity of
voting down the Lccompton constitution
This bill is further Objectionable as not
being manly, straight htforward measure. 1t
is to be constructed one way i'll one section
OF the Union, and different way in the op-
site section. This double construction pre-
walls here, already, as have shown. II is
mode of Legislation cannot admire-one
which can never result favorably to the es-
tablisi,ment Of sound principles, or in bene-
fit TO the weaker section. TO preserve the
constitutional rights Of the South in this Uu
ion, the legislation should be plain-unmis-
takeabIe.
further object to this bill beca use, in
accepting that, instead of making our stand
upon the defeated Senate bill, we abandon
ed thesquestion, in this case, Of the admis-
sion of a slave State north of SO degrees 80
minutes-a concession which, it strikes me,
the South should have avoided even the
appearance of making. 1t is no answer to
say that the Southern States which were
committed to secession in the event of the
rejection of slave State, would have rece-
ded from their position because of the fact
that the anti-slavery party. Those States
would have been then in no worse condi.
ton than they are now. The people Of
the whole South would havefelt indignant
at the rejection Of the Senate hill: for it
had been made plain 10 them that if rejec-
ted, it would be owing to the slavery clause
contained in the constitution. The confer
ence bill family purports to recognise tho
principle that slave State may be admit.
ted, and thus furnishes the ground. though
such was not the purpose Of it's advocates,
upon which the tone of the South will, ]