Edgefield advertiser. [volume] (Edgefield, S.C.) 1836-current, 1858-11-10
slmK1Ns, DURIsoE 4 CO., Proprietor,.

tute, which proposed to submit the Lecomptor
Constitution to vote of the people of Kansa:
and to accept it, if ratified by them. The Sen
ate had previously refused that substitute, an6
did so q second time. 1t then asked a commit
tee of conference. That committee reported
what is called the "ENeLIsH Bill" By thai
bill Congress accepted the Lecompton Constitu.
ton pure and simple without proviso The
Land Ordinance of the Lecompton Convention
which was in no wise part of the constitution
but separate measure, demanded, rs have
said, donation of some twenty-three million;
of acres Of land, being nineteen millions more
than had been given to any other land State
The ENGLISH Bill cut this down to the usua
amount of four millions Of acres, and required
that the people of Kansas should ratify thi;
modification, and surrender all claim to the re-
mainder of the lands, as the condidition of hel
final admission. Such requisition has been
made on every new State carved out of the
public lands, that has been admitted into thi:
Union sometimes in the enabling act, and
where there was not one, always after accepting
the constitution. Go to the statutes of Congress;
and you will find it in every one of them II
is the custom, it is necessary, and this feature
in the ENGLISH Bill. was in accordance with
strict precedent. The only difference is this
that usually the Legislature of the State has
been required to accept this compact by an ir.
revoCable act, but in this case it was referred
to the people of Kansas directly. In this there
was no sacrifice Of principle whatever, nor was
it without precedent altogether, for in the case
of the State last before admitted, Iowa, this
question had been submitted to the legislature
or the people, as Iowa might prefer. This il
the whole sum and substance Of this ENGLISH
Bill, except that it further declared that unless
the people of Kansas accepted this modified or.
dinan&, they should not be admitted as State
until they had population that would entitle
them to one Representative under the federal
apportionment. voted for this bill; voted
properly; voted no compromise; l sacrificed
no particle of principle or southern interest. 1t
is true its phraseology is halting and bungliDg.
It was drawn up hastily and in great excitement.
objected to the wording of It in several pas
sages, but assured myself that nothing sinister
was designed and voted for it leaving its al=
thors responsible for its dictlon on the statute
book. thought it preferable 10 the first bill
the Senate passed, and voted for it more vii,
lingly. 1t is true some northern democrats who
voted against the Senate bill voted ior this, and
thus it was carried. But was that reason why
should not Sote for it? Does that prove that
sacrificed any principle. They found them
selves wrong, and perhaps wanted some excuse
to retrace their steps. I was happy to assist
in giving it to them without cost to ourselves.
I was particularly pleased to get rid of themys.
teriou. proviso of the first bill, and to require
solemn compact in regard to the public lands,
which had not been properly provided for in that
tilff
The only principle involved i'll this whole
Kansas affair-if an affair so rotten, from begin
n,ng to end, can have principle at all-waS
this: Would Congress admit slave State into
the Union? The Senate said yes. The House.
by adopting the CRlrTENDEN substitute, said
yes, if we are assured that majority Of the
people of the State are in favorof it. For this
substitute all the opposition voted in both
Houses, so that every member of Congress OF
all parties, first and last, committed themselves
to the principle and policy that a State should
be admitted into the Union, with or without
slavery, aecorling to the will Of its own people
thus re-enuatiig one feature Of the Kansas
and Nebraska bill. should myself have been
willing to rest there, and let Kansas rest also.
Whatever there was of principle or honor in the
matter was secured by the votes already given.
The ENGLISH bill, however, came up in due
course, and 1 voted for it chceriully, believing
that it was better calculated than any that had
been offered to close up this miserable business,
which has furnished much the most disgraceful
chapter, SO far, in our history,
But it is said that in submitting this land
ordinance to vote of the people of Kansas,
Congress submitted also the Lecompton ConSti-
tuition with it's pro-slavery clause. If so, the
passage in which it was done can surely be
pointed out. Badly drawn up as the bill is, L
should like to see the clause or the words that
would justify such an assertion. If there was
such clause, why did not Judge Douglass and
his friends vote for it? Why did not the black
republicans and all who voted for the Critten-
den substitute which submitted the constitution,
vote for this bill? It was the very point they
made, yet to man they voted against it. That
think should be conclusive.
But, then, it is said it was virtual submis-
sion of the constitution to the people, because,
if they refused to ratily the modified land ordi-
nance, the admission of Kansas under the le=
compton constitution was defeated Well, the
facts are 50; cannot and do not deny them,
But should like to know how that could by
any possibility have been avoided or remedied.
Suppose Congress had admitted Kansas without
modifying anything, yielding even to her enor'
nous "land grab" which embraced many more
acres than there are in all South Carolina,
should like to know if the Lecompton constitu-
ton would not still have been submitted to the
people as virtually as it was by the English bill
that is, not submitted at all, but left with them
~ inevitable necessity. Congress could do no
nor, ~ no less, no other way. The constitution
hslonp ID to the people of Kansas Congress
,onId no.. withhold it from them moment ;
nor could it make them organize under it-as-
sem}le their Legislature, assume the position OF
= STATE and send Senators and Representatives
to Cameras against their own will. Can Con-
Gross coprce a State to remain in the Union, or
Irvs State ON of it. Congress is omnipotent.
Rut where are thea the rights Of the States ?
for US, The constitution OF every
State and of every Territory asking 70 De
State is not only virtually bat actually IN the
hands of its people at all times and under al
circumstances, and they cannot be d'Vestea OF t
that control without the utter destrucLlon II, OF
the constitution and Oh entire revolution Ihe
whole power Of Congress in the premises IS sS'
hausted when it accepts the constitution WILL
out condition.
There are some who 60 still further and
assert that, although there might be no way to
avoid submission of the Lecompton conStltu-
ton to the control of the people of Kansas, yet
that the conference bill was compromise OF
principle, inasmuch as it specifically required
them to act, and it made for them the definite
opportunity to defeat the constitution as we'll as
the ordinance. Now this is true, Us a fact, yet
the inference isabsurd upon its very face. Il
Congress could not take the Lecompton consti-
tuition out of the hands of tho people Of Kansas