State of Kansas, after a long discussion, it was adopted, with a
provision which required the State after admission to relinquish its
claim to all the land asked for in its ordinance, except 5,000,000
acres, that being the largest amount which had been ever granted to a
State at the period of its admission. There was also a provision
declaratory of the right of the people to change their constitution at
any time; though the instrument itself had restricted them for a term
of years. I considered both those provisions objectionable; the first,
because it was directory of legislation to be enacted by a State; and
the second, because it was inviting to a disregard of the fundamental
law, and had too much the seeming of a concession to the anti-slavery
feeling which was impatient for a change of the constitution. That
bill failed in the House, and was succeeded by a bill of the
Opposition which recognized the right of Kansas to be admitted with a
pro-slavery constitution, provided it should be adopted by a popular
vote. This also failed, and in the division between the two Houses, a
com- {sic}

As there has been much diversity of opinion in relation to that law,
and I think much misapprehension as to its character, I will be
pardoned for speaking of it somewhat minutely.

When it was known that the Conference Committee had prepared a bill, I
mittee of conference was appointed, which framed the bill that became
a law. being at the time confined to my house by disease, invited my
colleague and the Representatives from the State to visit me, that we
might confer together and decide upon the course which we would
pursue. Before the evening of our meeting, a distinguished member of
the House of Representatives, a member of the Committee, called and
read to me the bill which they had prepared. It contained some