Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1858-05-13

-
ceedings NAY. be sufficiently binding upon the peo-
pie Of Kansas, but they are not of complete validi-
| ty unless assented to by Us. Ksnsasis not there
fore not a State onside the Union. She Is only o
territory asking admission under proceedings; for
State organization, binding upon her, but not up
T on rs, y
From The origin Of the governmental the pre-
sent day, the power of Congress togovern the ter
r~itories by some form Of territorial goxernmenthas
been universally conceded. Il is not necessary,
for our present purposes, to inquire as to the
source of this power in the constitution, its exist
enee being q matter Of general consent, fhisidoc-
trine necessarily repudiates what is called squat
ter sovereignty, and implies that the government
ignoring the government established by congress
over the territories can rightfully be instituted
there without the consent Of Congress. Upon this
point we have the authority Of Mr.. Calhoun, who
said.in the case Of Michigan:t P
"My opinion was, and still is, that the move
ment of the people Of Michigan, In forming for
themselves a State constitution, without waiting
for the assent Of Congress, was revolutionary, as
to threw of the authority Of the United States over
the territory, and that we were left at liberty to
treat the proceedings as revolutionary and to re-
mand her to her territorial condition, or to waive
The irregularity, and to recognise what was done
as rightfully done, as our authority alone was oon-
cerned." .. b.. "a. aa.s %
There is no mode by which a State government
can be rightfully institutedin a territory, except
BY the precedent assent Of Congress, or q subse-
quent waiver Of objection.
As to the power of Congress to admit new States,
the constitution says Congress .s.may admit new
States. This implies discretion, not an arbitrary,
but q sound discretion. There are five. distinct
grounds, as / conceive, upon which Congress may
decline to admit new States /: 4. .sa al~s -
l. That the constitution is anti.republioan, or
at war With the federal constitution. ,,a4 ~
2. That the boundaries are not satisfactory.
3. That the right Of the general government to
the public lands is disregardsd.
4. That the population is not sufficient.
s. That the people Of the Territory are unit for
self government. e
In reference to the first ground Of rejection, sup
puse a State should insert q clause in her consti-
tuition establi shing titles Of nobility, or prohibit
ing the rendition Of fugitive slaves; surely Con-
gress might decline to admit her. Again: sup
pose a State should extend her boundaries over ell
the Territories oran undue portion Of them: could
not Congress reject her applicationf @ suppose
q State confscates' all the public lands within her
boundaries: shall she be admitted Surely not
because the public lands belong TO the States for
their common benefit aud Congress, es the trus-
tee for the States Of these lands, could not without
a gross dereliction Of duty, abandon them to the
exhorbitsnt demand OF an unscrupulous State
Suppose five hundred men apply for admission as
q State: shallthey be admitted? Certainly not.
Then population is one Of the just grounds for re-
lection. Suppose the people Of Utah apply for
admission lie Congress obliged to receive them
I think not and I say this not from their pecu-;
liar faith, but from their government being Q spir-
itual despotism, which I think units them fpr the
proper ADMINISTRATION Of the republican form Of
government. *
So much on the principles Of constitutional law
applicable to the admission Of new States. pro-,
pose now tolmske 4 practical application Of these
principles % the case of Kansas. ( ." d" '
l. Kansas is not a State ont of the Union, butts
Territory, applyingf for admission ass State, which
may be 80 admitted by the waiver on the part Of
Congress of all Irregularities, or which may DO
treated as a Territory by Congress. slg yaD
2. The population OF Kansas being grcssly!in
adequate, in reference to the standard of repre-
s~entation. not being over thirty:fye thousand, xhsa
it should be ninety-three Thousand four hundred
and twenty, Kansas cannot claim admission as q
right, though Congress might waive the objection.
8. The Lecompton convention, In violation Of
every consideration Of right and usage, laid claim,
by the ordinance attached to their constitution, to
$29, 900, 600 worth Of the public land in Kansas,
when, according to the liberal grants heretofore
made by Congress to the new States. they we're
only entitled to 81, 900, 900 worth. If this claim
had been made by q free-soil convention in Kansas,
every fair mind at the South would have reSolted
at it-ss q stupendous enormity. Does the fact
that the convention making it called itself pro-
slavery, and was presided over BY Cafhouninstesd
Of by Lane, render Il less objectionable? I think
not. If the public domain in thu Territories is Ito
be surrendered, I should, instead Of, surrendering
it to the unjust demands Of an inchoste State, in6-
nitely prefer to giveit to the survivors Of the brave
men who, in the wara of the republic, ha.edsfsnd-
ed her rights upon the field Of battle. This action
of the Lecomptonc convention has always been ut
terly repugnaut to my sense Of what was ezpsdi.
ent and just,
Holding these views, ! felt no difficulty in aoce-
ding to the bill recommended by the committee Of
conference.