The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1858-05-06
WASHINGTON, D. G..
THURSDAY, MAY 6, 1853.


Ere this, the telegraph has announced to the
country the passage of the Kansas Conference
Bll-the Bill to Bride the People of Kansas to
adopt the Lecompton Constitution. The sub
ject came up in the House on the 18th, but no
decision was obtained till Friday, in conse-
qusnce of the apparently uncertain position of a
few Southern men, who protested to consider
the bill as involving concession of Southern
principles. We suppose no one doubted as to
their final action, but their apparent opposition
gave countenance to the Northern Democrats
who claimed that the Bill conceded in fact the
point of submission of the Constitution to the
People.
Friday, the majority having resolved to close
the matter, the previous question was sustained,
and the vote on concurring in the report of the
Committee stood liz to lO3. Mr.. Quitman, of
Mississippi, and Mr.. Bonham, of South Carolina,
were the only Southern Democrats voting in the
negative, but, had the passage of the bill depend
ed upon their votes; we have no doubt they would
have been recorded in the affirmative. Davis,
Harris, and Ricaud, of Maryland, Underwood
and Marshall of Kentucky, South Americans,
maintained their ground, voting all the way
through against the Report. Of the twenty. two
AMT. Lecompton Democrats, thirteen only re-
NAMED steadiast-Adraln, OF N. j.; Clark and
Haskin, of N. Y; Davis, Ind; Harris, Mar.
shall, Morris, Smith, and Shaw, ILL.,; Chapman,
Hickman, and Montgomery, Pa; McKibben,
Csl.-all of whom voted in the negative, ex.
cept Montgomery, who had paired off with a
Leeompton member. The nine Anti .Lecomp.
ton Democrats who, after having done well for
season, finally yielded their ground, and by
their action and votes in support of the Confer
ence bill, decided the struggle in favor of LIE
compton, were English and Foley, Ind; Jones,
Pa; Cox, Cockerill, Groesbeck, Hall, Law.
renee, and Pendleton, OAio-nine in all. Had
these men stood by their original position, the
vote against the bill would have been liz, or
rather lib, for Mr.. Gilmer, of North Carolina,
would, in that case, have voted in the mega.
tive.
The same day, in the Senate, the report was
concurred in, and the bill, having received the
sanction of the President, is now Law.
AS to the character of the measure, we have
little to add to the view taken of it in our last
number.
1t is dignifed by calling it compromise
it is simply juggle. 1t has two voices-and
was intended to have two voices. 1t has two
faces-and every one who voted for it knows
that it has two faces. Southern Democrats
had taken the ground that the Lecompton Con.
stitution was the legitimate work of legiti.
mate Convention, which had declined to submit
it to the People for ratification or rejection,
and that, therefore, Congress had no right to
submit it, but was bound to accept it, if repub.
lean Ia form: that an act of Congress submit.
ting the Constitution to the People of Kansas
wonld be gross Intervention, and, therefore, a
violation of the principles of the Kansas.Ne.
braska act, of the Cincinnati platform, and the
vital policy of the South.
Mr.. Douglas and his associates held that, al
though the Convention that formed the Con.
stitution was not an illegal one, it did not fair
ly represent the People of Kansas, and that,
not having submitted the Constitution to the
popular will, Congress was bound to send that
instrument back, and secure to the people 3
fair opportunity to decide for or against Il.
The Senate, controlled by those who main.
tanned the former position, passed a bill to ad.
NIT Kansas under the Lecompton Constitution
with q, disingenuous provis0, not affirming the
right of the People to change that instrument
at any time, but disclaiming any intention to
affirm the contrary, 30 as to give a pretex. 70
Northern Democrats to claim the existence of
such right. n
The House, at first controlled By the latter
view, substituted for this bill, the Crittenden.
Montgomery amendment, submitting the Con-
stitution to fair popular vote in Kansas.
How to devise plan to harmonic a .nfs.
cient number of the supporters of these direct.
ly opposite views, was the problem. Surely.
the Constitution must be submitted or not
submitted: but, if submitted, Southern Dsmo.
Gratis would rebel if not submitted. Don o,as
Democrats. Compromise was out of the ones.
ton; you might as well attempt to compro-
mise between yea and nay. What was the
resultf A juggie, nothing more, nothing less.
Suddenly, the matter of land. grants, never
dreamed or thought Of, was raised to the d;gn;.
ty OF the main question, and the Lecompton
Constitution tied on to Land Ordinance. as
a mere incident. This Ordinance il suhmitted
to the popular vote; and, if adopted, the Con.
stitution is adopted if rejected, the Constitu.
ton is rejected. See the trickeryl Mr.. Hunter
says the Constitution is not submitted In the
popular vote; and SO all his party, with the
axnaniinra 1f Rnnhn,. q -,