Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1858-04-29
CONGRESSIONAL.
Thtrty.fifth Consress-First Session.

In The SENATE, yesterday, after closing the
Stars report, Mr.. Pugh advocated the report Of
the Kansas Conference Committee, in an able
Mr. Dooli,tle replied, In opposition to the re-
port.
The Senate then adjourned
In THE HOUSE, MIR Howard and Mr.. Davis of
Md, opposed the report of the Kansas Conference
Committee
In the course Of the latter's remarks, he said
thar he had some very strong State-rights notions
implanted in his head from having studied at
the school of Henry Clay and Pinckney of Md.
Inc right Of everynew state TO be admitted upon
equal terms with other States had ever been as
He commended that this principle was overthrown
by the condition imposed upon the people Of
Kansas by the III He contended that no similar
imposition of conditions could be pointed out.
Mr.. Stephens was surprised at the ground upon
which MIR Davis based his opposition Ii was
the iirs: time he knew Of that gentleman's being
the defender OF state riSh hts He opposed the bill
because Kansas would Toe shorn of its rights; and
If he understood him Alright, he challenged its
advocates to show single precedent where this
authority had been exercised In the act for the
admission of Louisiana into the Union as State
II was declared that the lands belonging to tie
citizens should never be taxed higher than the
lands of persons residing therein.
Mr.. Davis said the Sdss of Mississippi and
Louisiana Were exceptions.
Mr.. Stephens understood the gentleman 10 have
| SAID that under the Missouri Compromise no on
4 uitlohS bdu ever been upon States.
| Mr.. Davis said he had taken the position that
| conditions had been imposed previously but none
| since.
| Mr.. Stephens would show that there had been
| conditions since-repeatcdly since. If he was
| not mistaken. the gentleman had quoted the
| identical words.
| Mr.. Davis stated that he had said there had
| been no case where land grants had been made a
condition of admission into the l. Mon
MIR. Stephens said the words upon the land
| grants were identical with those in the Critten
| den bill
Mr.. Davis.-Aud suppose she rejected the
| grant
Mr.. Stephens,-And suppose she rejected thi,
| grant, Laughter
Mr.. Davis replied hat IL she rejected the Cri.
| tanden grant she would be in the Union unde
| the Constitution a slave State but If she re-
| Jected the present grant she would be out of it.
| Mr.. Stephens. And If she did. would she no
be sure of this great right, Laughter
Mr.. Davis said the difference between thu
CTittenden bill and the present one was, that tn,
latter put the question Of admission as one ques
ton and then the agreeing to 1t as another.
Mr.. Stephens said they first proposed to III,
people OF Kansas to accept these terms, if the,
chose to do so; but the Crittenden bill fixed i
absolutely that Kansas never could be admitted
| Yet the gentleman stood up to-day as the advo
cate of State rights. The Crttenden bill, which
the gentleman voted for, was absolute and tn
| people of Kansas never had the rig ht under tina
bill To accept or reject the land grants Tn
present bill rested strictly and eminently upol
the principle of State rights.
| The discussion was further continued by Mr.
Stephens. keitt and Is Ing ham, and finally th
House ADJOURNED without taking definite action