Semi-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1853-18??, 1858-05-01
From g. l.epdI pas,E

From she d puil s.
Leeonl q 10 dlaissiol.
TlSs COMMITTEES q Gonlsresee OF tho K ansas dis
spute between the two houses Of Congress have of.
sfsred ! planof sgreement which we pablish in Dur
issue To- aud which. We are Of opnions yieidsat
least Is mncb to spirit Of cancellation Is 10 come
ipstible With . due regard fos, principle.
The character Of the Bill proposed by the Confer
ence may be explained As follows:
The readers OF The South are aware that the Con-
stution Of Kansas like those Of all new states, is
accompanied by an ordinance which stipulaies GER
tain conditions in regard TO exemptng the public do
main from taxation. One of the conditions specified
in this ordinance, demands from Congress stupen.
dous grant of lands for the construction Of four great
Railroads traversing the whole length and breadth
of Kansas, and containing according to an estimate
made in the Department OF the Interior, about
teen millions of acres! The stipulation is of
wholly inconsistent with the usage and interests of
the Government. 1t is not accustomed to bestow
upon new State the boon Of admission into the
Union with bonus SO magnificent as that exaced
by Kansas The Senate therefore rejected this term
of the ordinance.
The Conference Bill approves the Lecompton Con-
stituton as Republican, but proposes to remit to
Kansas the question, whether she will renounce her
preposterous demand and come into the Union un.
der the Lccompton Constitution insist upon the
demand and continue territory until she can show
by census that she has the population to entte her
to Representative in Congress.
To the proposition for adjustment of the differ.
ences between the two branches at the Federal Leg.
isla,ure can have objection. Nor, provided
this result be attained without any sacrifice of
honor consistency, do presume there is any
one out of the Black Republican and Sepoy coati
who would wish to intercept the contamination. In
common with the whole South, we desire peace on
the basis of justice. But since the Democratic par
ty and the 81 uthen States have taken deliberate
stand upon the principle of the Kansas controversy,
it becomes our duty to scrutnize every proposition
which implies any modification of their position.
We award to the Committee the praise Of an en-
deavor to accommodate those who had rashly COM
mtted themselves against the Senate bill as it Stood,
and also to conciiae those who had declared their
determination to vote against it, if it should be
changed. If they effect this somewhat difficult
operation in political chemistry, they will be entitled
to public admiration and applause
But the question which every Southern member
Of Congress should ask is, Does this Conference
Bill modify in any respect the principles and posi-
tons embodied in the Senate bill for the admission
of Kansas?"
The Conference bill, as we have said asserts that
Kansas did adopt a constitution at Lecompton. which
is republican; but, as the Terms of the ordinance
which accompanies the application for admission is
unwarrantable, Congress acknowledges the suffcien
cy of the Constitution, but declines the proposed
conditions Of partnership. 1t in effect comedies that
Kansas is competent to the sovereign act of admis-
but differs with her term OF treaty Stlpu-
latons which shall precede it.
But in order to determine whether this bill con.
tains any modification retracton of principle, let
US examine its text:
Whereas, The people of Kansas did by Conven-
ton Of Delegates assembled at Lecompt"n on the
9th day of November, 1857, for that purpose, form
for themselves Constitution and State Government
which said Constitution s republican; and whereas.
at the same time and place, said Convention did
adopt an ordinance. &c. land whereas the said
Constitution and ordinance have been presented to
Congress by order of the said Convention, and ad-
mission of said Territory into the Union State
requested and whereas said ordinance is not scced-
ed to nor acceptable to Congress"
The Constitution and ordinance are here kept per.
fec,ly and desgnedy distinct The one is "rerub.
lican" and therefore, according 10 the creed Of State
Rights, valid for admission into the Union. The
other is mot acceded acceptable to Congress
In this departure from the vote
which affirmed the legality of the Lecompton Con.
stitution and advocated the admission of Kansas
under it, Kansas is not refused admission hy he
Conference bill because of any defect in her Constj
tution-that, on the contary, is endorsed as repub
lcan-but solely because she has demand, d terms
in themselves unprecedented and unwarrantable
would at the rate of her preliminary demand, in q
few short years devour the whole domain.
The Conference bill. then, presents sturdy as
sertion of the validity of he Lecompton Const,tu
ton. 1t assents not even to modification of the
method Of admission proposed by Kansas. but tells
her bluny that to qualify herself for reception in
to an equal and an honorable government, she mus
renonnce her rapacous expectations.
If those Democrats who have scjourncd with thei1
present iniqutOuS associates long enough to learr
that the sole bond which unites the Opposition tt
the admission of Kansas consists in the common
purpose of its leaders to divide and overthrow tn,
Democratic party, really DESTROYS to escape tn,
responsibilities and contaninations of their presen
position by availng themselves of variat,n in IT,,
formaes of admitting Kansas into the Union, W,
shall not criticse a mode of action which eXonerate
them in their own opinion, without involving on on
part any substantial derogation from essential prin
cipe.
We have heard Of a legislator who, being told b.
the patron Of bill to which he had objected, tina
it was "predcated upon great moral trnth." apol
ogized for having opposed "predicated BILL alt
then recorded his vote in its favor. There may b.
others whose opposition is equally fac,e, or who's
nothing to do. We but indicate ourselves AM
those who may act with from asserting to an
qualification modification of the principles affirm
| ed in the Kansas Senate bill.
We know it is objected that after all, the peopl
Of Kansas authorized by Congress to vote upo
| the Lec0mpton Constitution. We trust wi
be caught by such fallacy. The people of Kansa
| will more vote upon the Lecom2ton Constitution
under the Conference Bill than they voted upon tn
| adoption of the Lecompton Constitution in the frs
instance. The Convention at Lecompton, upon it
adjournment proclaimed the Constitution in fu
! validity. as it had a right to do.
| To settle the slaver~ question in the territory
| popular vote was taken upon the issue whethe
the people of Kansas would have the Lecompto
Constitution with slavery. or the Lecompton Cor
| sttution without slavery? Decide the matter a
| nfOnw a he Law md fhs