New Orleans daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1851-1866, 1858-07-05

ordinance and have accepted proposition. In the
other case, by the conference bill the people Of Kan
sas must U0te again before they can get into the
Union under the Lecompton Constitution. Her re-.
naming out under the Senate bill would have been
voluntary on her own part; but her remaining out
under the conference bill, is compulsory on ours.
But suppose Kansas had said, we will come into
the Union and will send delegates to take their
seats but will negotiate as to the questions of taxa
ton the land grants etc, She would unquestonably
have thus been in the Union. You could not have re-
fused her admission. IL, then, the terms of adjust
ment could not have been agreed upon between the
parties who would have been the arbiter? The
United States courts who could have done nothing
more nor less than have decided that Kansas had &C
quesced in our proposition. Ii Kansas had been
content with the decision that would have been the
end of the matter II she had insisted upon her pro-
position she would thereby have placed herself out
OF the Union, and would have had to forego the
benefits thereof,
Bat suppose she had said upon the passage Of the
Senate bill she preferred staying out of the Union to
accepting the terms Of that bill? The South would
have lost nothing az it turns out and Congress could
then, with much better grace than by applying such
rule to Kansas In the conference bill, have passed
general Law to exclude all new States till they should
have the federal ratio to entie them to admission
1t is supposed that the right to tax the public lands
is attribute Of sovereignty of which Kansas could
not be deprived deprive herself and vet be adj
mitted into the Union on an equal footing with the
original thirteen States in all respects whatever 1t
must be borne in mind that the difference between
the original thirteen States and the Territories is
yery marked. Those States were indeDeudent SOW.
ereignties possessed of the right of eminent domain
outside of the Union and anterior to the adoption of
the Federal Constitution. The sovereignty of the
Territories, the contrary is in the States Of this
Union-the right of taxing the public lands along
with it. Now it seems, as has been done again and
again. that Congress may reserve this sovereign right
of taxation in the enabling act, in the act admit
ting State, carved out Of these Territories But If
we grant the position to be true that the withdrawal
of fho al
new State at this sovereign right OF taxation
still Kansas as many of the other States have done
might waive the exercise Of it in consideration of the
land grants and other advantages arising from in
corporation into the Union.
II is urthersad for the conference bill that its first
clause admits Kansas into the Union. That clause is
{" That the State OF Kansas be, and is hereby adj
mitted into the Union on an equal footing with the
original States in all respects whatever The Crit
tenden- Montgomery amendment does the same thing
in the same words But what is such admission in
the conference bill worth when the bill goes on to
prescribe condition precedent which must be full
filled before she is admitted and failing to fulfill
which, she ,Ud not be admitted? There is CON
dition, precedent to admission How can the State
be said to be Hoc admitted into the Union when she
is told in the bill your people must vote again, and
if they do not vote proposition accepted you must
stay ont of the Union till you have the Federal ratio
after which you may form new Constitution and
then abe entitled toadmfssion into the Union ais a
State under sach CONSTITUTIONS Does any one pre-.
tend that Kansas is now actually in the Union2 This
bill in trntl subjects the Constitution to vote of
rejection Indeed, its adoption by Congress was the
adoption of measure of exclusion, for the result OF
the vote of the people of Kansas under the conference
bill, 10 August next, is scarcely now predetermined
No. sir so faP from Kansas being admitted we are
no nearer the end Of our difficulties now than we
were before the passage Of the conference BILL Kan
sas will send up to US next winter, in all probability
q free State Constitution, formed by a convention
called by the Territorial Legislature having the other
al q Ia
far as will be restricted by the conference bill Dis to
the Federal rafiO) with the addition of having been
entire, to the people for their approval
And now ask gentlemen, will that Constitution be
rejected by Congress- think not. This conference
bill will thus secure to the opposition within one short
year. and il not SO soon, at some day not very distant
the victory for which they have from the first con
tended, and the South be shorn OF the triumph OF
principle in having q slave State admitted.
1t is claimed, moreover, that the conference bill
the right Of slave State to admission.
The Grittenden Montgomery amendment can lay claim
to eqna merits for that bill provides for the admis
sion Of Kansas under the Lecompton Constitution, if
upon that constitutional instrument being first
submitted to vote of the people, majority shall
assent thereto But to what end is this recognition in
either hill2 What Republican would ever have sup
ported the Crittenden- Montgomery amendment but
for certainty that the IecomptOn Constitution
Douglas Democrat would ever have supported the
Conference bill but for its securing virtually to the
people Of Kansas the opportunity of voting down the
Lecompton Constitution
This bill is further Objectionable as not being
mainly straightforward measure. 1t is to be CON
strued one way inone section of the Union, and
different way IN the opposite section. This double
construction prevails here already as have shown.
1t is a mode Legislation cannot admire-one which
can never result fayorably to the establishment Of
sound principles, or in benefit to the weaker section
To preserve the constitutional rights of the South in
this Union, the legislation should be platinum
mistakable.
further object to this bill, because, in accepting
that instead of making our stand upon the defeated
Senate bill, abandoned the question: in this case,
OF the admission Of slave State north OF 36 deg 30
NINA concession which, il strikes me, the South
should have avoided even the appearance of making.
1T ia no answer TO say that the Southern States,
which were committed to secession in the event of
the rejection Of slave State, would have receded
from their position because of the fact that the anti
slavery party In Kansas greatly ont.numbers the
pro.siavery party. Those States would have been
then in no worse condition than they are now. The
people OF the whole South would have felt indignant
at the rejection of the Senate bill for it had been
made plain to them that, if rejected it would be
owing to the slavery cause contained in the eonsttu
ton. The conference bill family purports to recognize
the principle that slave State may be admitted and
thus furnishes the ground, though such not the
purpose Of its advocates upon which the tone of the
South will, fear, be let down from its former eega
ton.
But, gentlemen say the conference bill is better
an amendment TO the Senate bill, by Republican or
even a Democrat, doubtif it would have received
the support of ten Southern Democrats. IL would
have been regarded as involving the abandonment OF
the position taken in the Senate bill. What makes
it better bill? Is there anything in the bill itself
or in its passage from which the most sanguine
augur the future admission of slave State from the
Territories north OF So deg. 80 mn., south
Rather the contrary,
As for myself, MIR. Chairman, lsee no reason to
doubt the correctness of my convictions but much to
confirm it. voted against the measure, with regret
true southern men; but, with my views should do
the same thing again, under the same circumstances
The bill commands no more my appreciation now
than it did at the time of its passage. Ivoted it is
true, with my honorable friend from Mississippi, for
the motion to lay upon the table motion to recon
slider the vote 10y which the bill was passed. thus ndi
eating our indisposition to prOtract contest in
which we differed from so many of our friends But
if any practicable good could have been attained by
the amendment Of the Conference bill, or the substi-
tuition OF the Senate BILL or something more desirable
Of course we would have voted for the reconsidera-
ton. | do not recognize mere party success and
party supremacy as paramount to all considerations
of principle. would concede much for the harmony
OF the party am acting wtth--a great deal for the
harmony OF the party of the Sonth-bnt what
would concede must fall short of the concession Of
principle Involved, in my conception, in the confer
ence bill
think these measures should be fairly canyassed
in order that the South shall clearly comprehend
them, and realize the complexion of her probable fu
ture. But she eau now make no issue upon them
with the North, nor the making ofsuch issues at
the South be productive of any good there. More
over, much as dislike the measure, / have no words
of complaint against those who felt it their duty to
support the conference bill. They as deeply in
eresed in and true to- the interests of the South
as L and probable better judges Of her best policy
gb al afn hIlf tbn