Semi-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1853-18??, 1858-06-16
THE NORTH

mission into the Union. That was the argument
made; and my colleague, unsble TO meet it has on
But the gentleman says, accused him of taking
the position that Lecompton constitution should
be voted down. the people Of Kansas would seize up.
on eighty millions Of the public lands Is there any
thing Of that kind to be found in my speech? So
call upon the gentleman to bring it forward and
present it to the House and the country. Did say
any such thing? said nothing Of the kind; and
think my colleague must know that that not
what said. He knows if he has carfuly read
my speech, which he has in his possession, / said
that in the LecomptOn constitution there was ample
and sufficient guarantee to secure to the several
States their interest in the public domain within the
borders of Kansas and that if the people Of Kansas
came in under that constitution. the rights of all
the States-North. Carolina well the rest
would be amply secured. said that if my colleague
should succeed in voting down that constitution If he
should succeed in passing the bill he advocating
he would place it in the pooer Of the people of Kan
to seize upon and appropriate to their own use
every single acre of the public domain within their
borders. How did prove it By showing that if
the people should vote down the Lecompton consti
tuition, they would be authorized by the Crttenden
bill to frame another constitution and without any
terms or conditions precedent in regard to the
public domain, anything else they were to be
indicted into the Union by the mere apse dirst OF
the President Of the United States and there would
be remedy to if they should assert their right
to the public lands, to every acre within their
limits
The gentleman, in his speech, quotes an extract
from letter of Senator Davis, of Mississippi, writ
ten on 18th May, 1853 to sustain his position. In
doing so, however, he attributes to him language
which is not to be found in the extract which nay
colleague quotes. Nor is it to be found in any other
portion of that letter. He says that Colonel Davis
lays down the principle that the = condition prece
dent" be confirmed in the act Of admission"
This is an unauthorized amendment to Col. Daviss
letter, made by my colleague for purpose which
must be obvious to every one-it was absolutely
necessary to make out his case. Here, sir, is the
extract which my colleague quotes and adopts:
"The consequence of admitting State without recog
milton precedent of the rights of the United States to the
public Domain IN opinion the transfer of the use
full with the eminent domain to the people OF the State
thus admitted without reservation"
As you will see, Colonel Davis does not say that
the condition precedent must be in the I" act Of
admission" He says no such thing
But my colleague demands, with an air of tri
umph, what safeguard there is in the Senate bill for
the admission of Kansas for the security of the pub
lie domain in that Territory, which the Crittenden
bill does not also contain? and in this connection,
and with flourish of trumpets, he quotes clause
from the Cr;ttenden bill, and with an air of COM
placency adds, II shall append TO my speech the
Minnesota bill, which contains such guarantee
and no security whatever Now, sir, if my coea
gne able to meet the argument l made, why
did he resort to the artful dodge of drawing his
parallel between the Senate BILL the Cr:ttenden
bill, and the Minnesota bill, instead of meeting the
point distinctly made to the power he proposed
to confer upon the people Of Kansas to absorb and
appropriate the public lands in case they should
choose to vote. down the I.ecompton constitution
which was to be submitted to them for ratification
or rejection by the Crttenden bill for which he
ted and the whole scope of his argument went to
show that if submitted to them, they would vote
down that constitution ; his main objection to the
admission Of Kansas under the Lecompton consti
tuition, being that it not the will and the voice
of the people of that Territory.
Now, sir, strange as 1t may seem, my colleague
in his desire to sustain his unfounded charge against
me, that had surrendered the rights of the United
States to the public domain, by my vote for the
Minnesota, bill, which he voted against-adopts the
very principle which asserted in my speech Of the
goth April. by which l showed, that by comforting
upon the people Of Kansas as he proposed to do
by his vote for the Cntendcn BILL the rg ht to frame
a constitution and be admitted into the Confed
eracy by the proclamation of the President without
any condition precedent to secure the right of the
Government: to the public lands in Kansas-my
him on that point l repeat, undertook to prove,
and did prove, to my satisfaction at least that
the people of Kansas would have been enabled, had
my colleague succeeded in his effort to defeat the
Lecompton constitution and carry through the Crit
tenden bill, to seize upon every of the public
lands in that Territory; and my logical and saga
c;ous colleague has fully sustained my point by adopt
ing the very principle upon which based the whole
argument
Now, in reference to the charge that voted for
the bill to admit Minnesota which he says, does not
contain one word by which the Government is secur.
ed in the public lands Has my colleague put this case
fairly? Has he sustained the grave charge he
makes against me, Of having abandoned the rights
and surrendered the interests of North Carolina in
the public lands in Minnesota? Sir, has he told the
whole truth in the matter? In his schoolboy days,
my colleague learned the Latin maxim, "suppressio
neri'-but, sir, have said will not handy epitbets
with my colleague, and I will not finish the SEN
tence ] will recall what have said. NY colleague
may not have read the enabling act, ," by which
the last Congress authorized Minnesota to form a
State constitution preparatory to her admission
into the Union he may have voted against her ad-
mission without having informed himself of the facts
in the Now, sir I shall quote the proviso
contained in the fifth clause of the fifth section of
the enabling act, by which ample security was made
for the rights of the Government in the public do
main. Here is the proviso;
"Prorids The foregoing propositions herein offered are
the constitution of said State shall provide by clause in
said constitution ordinance i-revocabe without the
consent of the United States that said State shall
by the United States or With regulation Congress
may find necessary for securing the title in said soil to
posed on lands belonging the United States and that in
shall proretors be taxed higher than
And here am reminded by the chairman of the
Committee on Territories [Mr. Stephensl that the
constitution of Minnesota ratified and confirmed this
land provision. I quote here the third section of
the second article Of that constitution:
"The propositions contained in the act of Congress
titled authorize the people of the Territory of
Minnesota form constitution and State government
preparatory their admission into the Union equal
footing with the original States hereby accepted rat
fed and confirmed and shall remain irrevocable without
the consent the United Sates and is hereby ordained
that this State shall interfere with the primary dis
of the soil within the by the United
with any regulations Congress find necessary for
curing the title to said soil to- bona de purchasers thereof
in