ADMISSION OF KANSAS. The House having under consideration the bill reported from the Committee on Territories, providing for the admission of Kansas into the Union as a State, with the constitution prepared at Topeka by the free-State party. Mr. STEPHENS said: I propose, Mr. Speaker, before I proceed1* to what I have arisen mainly to say on this occasion, to ask the consent of the House to allow me now to offer the amendment which I stated yesterday I wished to propose to the bill now before us. Mr. WASHBURN, of Maine. If the gentleman asks that consent now, I shall object to it, as I shall at all times. Mr. STEPHENS. On the motion to commit the.bill to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, the amendment is not inorder, unless by unanimous consent. Mr. WASHBURN. I understand that to be a side measure, intended to destroy the bill, and I shall object-to it now, and at all times. Mr. STEPHENS. I state to the gentleman that I have no side blows for this bill, nor is my amendment intended as any side measure. I wish my proposition to come distinctly before the House as a substitute for the pending bill. I am opposed out and out to this bill as it now stands. I want no misunderstanding on that point. I will, however, vote for the substitute; and what I want is a direct vote between the bill now pending, and the substitute offered as an amendment. But as the gentleman from Maine will not allow me to offer my proposition as an amendment, I now move to amend the motion to commit this bill to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, by adding to it, “With instructions to report this amendmentin lieu of the original bill-,” in other words, with instructions to strike out all in the original bill, and to insert my amendment in lieu thereof. That is the motion which I submit to the House, and upon it I shall proceed with what I have to say. * It is immaterial to me, Mr. Speaker, if I can get a vote in the House on the proposition submitted by me, whether it goes to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Unions or not. I am jj myself prepared to vote on it to-day, either in the । House or in the Committee of the Whole on the j state of the Union. But I am inclined to think that | it had better go to the committee. We can then 1 take'up this amendment, and consider it in detail. ' It may be some gentlemen would suggest modifications, which I would accept. We can then discuss the merits of the original bill. Its friends can amend that, if they wish. My amendment can be put in such form as a majority of the committee may desire, if a majority be favorable to its objects. I therefore shall vote for the reference. But the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Campbell] । the other day said, that the motion to refer or j commit, made by the gentleman from Indiana, [Mr. Dunn,] and which is now pending, was equivalent, if successful, to a defeat of the bill. The gentleman from Maine [Mr. Washburn] also followed in the same line. Now, I told ' these gentlemen, day before yesterday, and I state it again to the House, that I do not consider the motion to commit the bill to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the. Union, if carried, as equivalent to a defeat of the measure at all. By no means, sir. What is the argument of those who say a reference of the bill is tantamount to its defeat? Nothing better than this,«.s argued by the gentleman from Maine, to wit: that all the friends of the Kansas bill, two years ago, when that bill was referred to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, considered it as equivalent to its defeat. That is his argument, and the authority adduced by him to sustain it. Sir, it is immaterial to me what certain friends of the Kansas bill may have thought would be the effect of its reference, when it was referred. If they considered,that reference as equivalent to its defeat, the sequel showed that they were in error. That is all. It was referred. It was considered two weeks in committee, and it was then passed. Mr. WASHBURN. Will the gentleman allow me to say that that was simply because they broke down the rules of the House in two instances. If tliey had not they never could have got that bill out of committee.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM4ODY=