The star of the north. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1849-1866, 1858-05-05
SPEECH OF
HON, Paul. -.LElDY, OF Pennsylvania,
on THE
ADMISSION OF KANSAS
Delivered IN the House of Representatives,
March 80, 1858.
fcoNcLuDEp FROM LAST WEEK.

March 80, 1853
fcoNcLuDEp FROM LAST WEEK
Here he states that he had asserted 10 the
people that they had, or would have, this
privilege; meaning evidently, 10 convey the
idea that he had assured them that the con-
stitution would be submitted TO them. Now,
LEI, US see what he did really say on that
occasion. This is hislanguage:
"You should not console yourselves, my
fellow-ciiizens, with the reflection that you
may by a subsequent vote, defeat the con-
stitution. Although most anxious OF secure
10 you the exercise ofthat great constitution
al right, and believing that the convention
is the servant, and not the master of the
people, yet have no power 10 dictate the
proceedings of that body"
How different the ideal Instead of a pos.
tive assertion that they should have such an
opportunity, he cautions them against trust
ing 10 any such hope: that it is by no means
certain that they can have that opportunity
And for that very reason they should be sure
10 attend the election, and secure such del.
egates as would express their will. hope
we shall hear no more of garbled extracts
after this exhibition of garbing.
have said nothing about the submission
Of the slavery article TO a vote ofthe people.
do not deem it of any particular impor-
lance 10 notice the objections 10 the form or
manner in which this article was submitted !;
for the reason that do not believe the con-
vention was bound, in law or by precedent
to submit any part of the constitution to the
vote of the people; and, if they chose 10
submit the same, or any part of it, 10 a vote
it was for them 10 say what part, and in
what manner. But, in passing, will re-
mark that cannot see the force of the OBJ.
jections raised by my honorable colleague
lMr. Montgomery TO this submission. First
he objects, because, in voting on the sla-
very article, either for or against, he says
the people were compelled to vote for the
constitution. Now, sir, deny this. ] aver
that the constitution was not submitted 10
vote; That no privilege was given to the
people 10 vote for or against the constitution.
That instrument, all except the seventh ar.
ticle, was withheld from the people; and
the vote could not, by any possibility, be
construed as vote in favor of the constilu-
ton. True, whichever way the people vo-
ted on the seventh article, the constitution
would be adopted, except that seventh arti-
Gle; but not by virtue of that vote, but by
the action of the convention.
Now, do not wish 10 be understood here
as asserting that the convention acted prop.
srly in Withholding the whole constitution
from vote Of the people. think they
should have submitted it. believe with
the President, that these instruments should
in all cases be submitted to the test but do
not agree tina: there was any binding obli-
CATION upon that body to submit it, or any
part of it, to such test, and no greater OBJ.
legation TO submit the slavery clause than
any other, except that which grew out oi
the state of feeling which existed in the
Territory on this subject. But the honora
BILE gentleman says the people were subject
ed to test oath; they were required tc
swear to support the constitution, if adopted
Well, suppose they were? Isit not the du
~ of every citizen TO support the constitu
zion Of his own State and is not this duty
binding, whether he be required to take al
oath 10 do 80 or moth If adopted, woult
not all the people of Kansas be bound II
support it, and every part of ita What OBJ
lection, then, TO taking an oath TO do tina
which is right and obligatory, even withou
an oaths But he says, in swearing to sup
port the constitution, they were required t
swear to the truth of all the averments con
tanned therein; in other words, that ever.
man who swears TO support the constitution
of his State, or of the United States, swear
that all that is contained therein is true an
right, and also swears that it shall not b
altered, except in the manner therein pro
vided for. This is certainly novel doc
trine, monstrous doctrine. What! Wi
the honorable gentleman say here, tha
every man who swears TO support the con
stitution of his State peIures himself unles
he believes that all the averments contain
ed in that instrument are true, and all th
principles embodied therein are sound P
Will he tell US that, because the constitutio
of the State of Missouri contains an ave
ment precisely like that contained in th
constitution of Kansas, declaring the rigl
to hold properly in slaves, therefore III
honorable gentleman from Missouri, I'M
Blair, on the other side of this House, WI
is a Republican, and who, take it, is hol
eslly opposed TO slavery because he believe
il wrong, that he cannot hold an office
his own State, because he would be requi
ed to swear to support that constitution =
viii he tell us that all those upon this flot
who do no. believe that the section in III