C87^ 
 
/ 
 
 685 LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION OF KANSAS. 
 
 C875 == 
 
 ODV 1 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 OF 
 
 HOX. SAMUEL S. COX, OF OHIO, 
 
 ON Tint ^•' \ 
 
 PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE. ' 
 
 DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, DECEMBER 16, ISW, 
 
 Mr. Sifrm, of Tennessee, from the Committee on Printing, liaving reported in favor 
 of printing twenty thousand extr* copies of Uie Pi^esident's Message and accompany- 
 ing dociiraeuts, and moved tlie previous question thereon — Mr. COX said: 
 
 I ask the gentleman from Tennes^e to withdraw the call for the pre- 
 vious question, that I may have the privilege of addressing the House for 
 a few moments on this matter of the President's message. 
 
 Mr. Smith, of Tennessee. Very well ; if it be only for a moment I have 
 no objection. 
 
 Mr. Cox. I do not wish, on the present occasion, to detain the House 
 with regard to the general business of this country ; but th«re are some 
 matters connected with the President's message about which I would like 
 to say a few words on the motion which is before the House. 
 
 Mr. BococK. I rise to a question of order. The gentleman has no 
 right to go into a general discussion upon the motion which has been sub- 
 mitted by the gentleman from Tennessee. 
 
 The Speaker. It is not in order for the gentleman to discuss the Presi- 
 dent's message. 
 
 Mr. Cox. I think I can bring my remarks within the rule of order. 
 
 Mr. Marshall, of Kentucky. Do I understand the Chair to decide that 
 a motion to print is not debatable ? 
 
 The Speaker. The Chair is of opinion, upon further consideration, thai 
 the motion opens up the whole question to debate. 
 
 Mr. Cox. Then I wish to say that, while I concur most heartily in the 
 message of the President in almost every particular — 
 
 Mr. Hughes. I rise to a question of order. I shall, for one, object to 
 this general farming out of the floor in this House by the withdrawal of 
 the demand for the previous question, upon condition that it shall be re- 
 newed by the member for whose benefit it is withdrawn. But if the prac- 
 tice is to be kept up, if such bargains are to be tolerated, then I insist that 
 the contract shall be strictly executed. Now, the gentleman from Ohio 
 [Mr. Cox] appealed to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Smith] to with- 
 draw the demand for the previous question. The gentleman from Tennes- 
 see, if I understood him correctly, consented to do so on the condition that 
 the gentleuiau from Ohio should renew the demand after occupying the 
 floor for a moment. Now, if that is the contract between the two parties, 
 and the House intend to tolerate such contracts, my point of order is, that 
 these contracts shall be strictly executed ; and that, under the contract en- 
 tered into by the gentleman from Ohio, he shall not be pernoitted to enter 
 into a general discussion upon the merits of the President's message. 
 
 Printed by L«inael Towert. 
 
r 6 
 
 2 SPEECH OF SAMUEL S. COS, 
 
 The Speaker. The Chair can recognize no contracts between members 
 of the House in respect to the occupation of the floor. 
 
 Mr. Cox. Mr. Speaker, I need not say how heartily I concur with the 
 message of the President, in ahnost every regard. Upon the questions of 
 finance he shows a far-sighted economy, which will find its ready appro- 
 bation in,,the judgment ot the country. In relation to that " twi-n relic of 
 barbarism" — Utah — he deals with its enormities in such a way as to give 
 earnest of a policy which will assert the supremacy of decency and civili- 
 zation, while the supreme power of the Republic will be vindicated. In' 
 our foreign affairs, in which his tact and statesmanship have been so con- 
 spicuously exercised at home and abroad^ he may still be proclaimed the 
 great pacificator. That policy of peace under which our nation has thriven 
 beyond all the marvels of time, is still uppermost in his desires. 
 
 Mr. QuiTNAM. I call the gentleman to order. My point of order is, that 
 the gentleman cannot discuss the merits of the messag-e on amotion to print. 
 
 The Speaker. The Chair is of opinion that the motion to print opens, 
 the merits of the President's message. 
 
 Mr. Jones, of Tennessee. I would suggest another point of order. This 
 is'Tiot a motion to print the message. The House has heretofore made the 
 order to print. This is merely a question to print extra copies. It is true- 
 that a timple motion to print opens ijp the merits of the document itself^ 
 but a motion to print extra copies of a message which has already been 
 ordered to be printed, does not open to debate the merits of the message 
 itself. The massage is not before the House, It has been referred to the 
 Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and is not in the pos- 
 session of the House. 
 
 The Speaker. The Chair overrules the question of order made by the 
 gentleman from Tennessee. The Chair is of opinion that the motion to 
 print extra copies opens the whole message for debate. The House may 
 be governed by the sentiments which the message contiiius in the number 
 of copies, whether larger or smaller, which it may order to be printed. 
 Debate is in order. 
 
 Mr, Cox, So dear to his ■heart is the peace of the country, that the 
 President is ready to make great sacrifices to preserve it, not alone abroad,, 
 but in our home relations — not alone between the States, but between the 
 people of the States and between the pioneers upon our borders. Herein 
 is to be found the solution of that part of his message with reference to 
 Kansas. 
 
 While the President lays down his general principle of submitting the 
 ■whole constitution to the people, he subordinates the question to that of 
 peace. He thinks it right to stand by the principle, but inexpedient to do 
 so in the present aspect of affairs in Kansas, 
 
 But in my judgment, there will be no peace from this admission of 
 Kansas under the Lecompton constitution. Expediency is a dangerous- 
 doctrine, when in collision with principles. There can be no peace to that 
 people while their rights are jeopardied. Certainly none in that ill-starred 
 Territory, if the attempt to gain partisan ascendency there, be founded in 
 stratagem ^nd fraud. If every question of difference be not honestly sub- 
 mitted to the whole people and decided without restraint or hindrance — no 
 other device can be framed which will insure quiet. If there be treachery, 
 there will be civil war. If there be a Judas, there will be an Aceldama. 
 Kansas will be that field of blood. T .+fr 
 
 But whether there be peace or »ot, I would not sacrifice the principle 
 involved herein for any peace that can be purchased. 
 ., That principle is stated by Mr. Buchanan in his message, thus : 
 
 "Under the earlier practice of Government,' lip cttostitution framed by the c©n- 
 \«ation of a Territory, preparatory to its adnossiofl into the Union as a State, bad 
 
ON THE PRESIDENTS MESSAGE. 3 
 
 been sulimitteil to the jiooplo. I trust, liowcver, tli« example set by the Inst Con- 
 gress, n-quirinr; that tlie coiistiliition of Minnesota 'should he subject to the appro- 
 val ami ratitication of tlie people of the j^roposed State,' may be followed on future 
 occasions. 1 took it for granted that the (.'onventiim of Kansas would act in ac- 
 cordance with this example, founded, as it is, on correct principle; and heuco ray 
 instructions to Governor Walker, in favor of submitting the constitution J,o Uie peo- 
 ple, were expressed in general and unqualitied terms." ' '' ' 
 
 It receives his sanction as a principle, though lie cannot now rocomnoend 
 its application, e.r pout facto, with referrenco to Kansas. lie hopes it may 
 be hereafter adopted universally. I agree with liiin — and the whole 
 Democracy of the nation agree with him on this last proposition. Because 
 I may insist on its application to Kansas even yet, it does not follow that I 
 am inditferent, much less unfriendly, to the success of this Adimnistiation, 
 
 True, the President, in his message, has expressed his opinion that the' 
 "question has been fairlij and expHcitbj referred to the people lohethcr they 
 will have a constitution with or without slavery^ lie has instituted an 
 argument in favor of the legality of liie Lecompton constitution; while he 
 also expresses his unabated faith in the wisdom of the general principle of 
 submitting the whole constitution. But he takes care to avoid any recom- 
 mendation to Congress. Our action is uninij)oded by party fealty. If it 
 were thus impeded, if the President had recommended a different course, 
 I should not hesit<lte to say that, as Congress has the exclusive right to ad-- 
 luit States, I should pursue the obligations of my sworn duty. The Ad"- 
 ministralion is the trustee of the party, within its own sphere of duty. In 
 this sphere it is entitled to our confidence. It shall receive my whole- 
 hearted support. But as to the question in my own sphere, I may bo al- 
 lowed to represent my people. I am not of the opinion of the old theolo- 
 gians, that a man must be willing to be eternally damned for an imputed 
 sin, before he can be saved. In thus deciding, conscience, honor, pledges, 
 and constituency, all compel mo to stand to the Democratic policy — which 
 is the submission of the whole constitution to the people. 
 
 This Administration was called into being by virtue of this principle. 
 
 This Democratic majority is due to the ascendency of this principle. 
 
 You, Mr. Speaker, owe your high place to the fidelity of those who sus- 
 tained that principle. 
 
 That principle has a history, written in an agitation unsurpassed by any 
 bloodless political contest of the world — at least since the repeal of the 
 corn laws in 1840, or the French revolution of 1848. 
 
 It began in 1850, when the wisest of our statesmeh framed the com- 
 promises of that year. It had its precedents before that year. But it 
 was not based on precedents. It was above all precedents, settlements, 
 or compromises. With its virtue, the Kansas and Nebraska act was in- 
 ftpired. That act struck down the Missouri restriction ; which WJis Jis odi- 
 ous to the South as it was antagonistic to the Constitution. Minnesota has 
 since received an enabling act upon this same principle. It was framed by 
 the same Senator who framed the act of Kansas and Nebraska; and whose 
 authority, next to the act itself, is more binding as to its true intent and 
 meaning than that of any other man iu the land. 
 
 When the unreasoning crusade was maile against it in 1854 — when it 
 was denounced as a swindle by those who seem now so anxious for its es- 
 tablishment — when its author was made the synonym for traitof in the Re- 
 publican lexicon — then it was that the Democratic party pledged them- 
 selves to abide by the decision of the people as to all their domestic insti- 
 tutions when they sought to become States. 
 
 This is the right line of policy, for it is the right line of principle. " As 
 in geometry', so in government — the shortest, easiest, and best way from 
 point to point is the right line." 
 
 I mean, in this argument, to pursue that lino. Any policy that does not 
 
* SPEECH OF SAMUEL S. COX, 
 
 stand squarely to it comes in " aucli a questionable stape that I will speale 
 to it." 
 
 In pursuance of that line, I claim the right now to place myself and my 
 constituency unequivocally in the position of protestants against any doc- 
 trine which would seem to approve of the conduct of the constitutional 
 convention in Kansas. 
 
 I do not propose now to argue at length, I propose now only to nail 
 against the door, at the threshold of this Congress, my theses. When the 
 proper time comes, I will defend them, whether from the assaults of politi- 
 cal fnend or foe. I would fain be silent, sir, here and now. But silence, 
 which is said to be as "harmless as a rose's breath," may be as perilous as 
 the pestilence. This peril comes from the attempt to forego the capital 
 principle of Democratic policy, which I think has been done by the consti- 
 tutional convention of Kansas, 
 
 I maintain : 
 
 1. That the highest refinement and greatest utility of Democratic poli- 
 cy — the genius of our institutions — is the right of self-government. 
 
 2. That this self-government means the will of the majority, legally — if 
 you please, legally expressed. 
 
 3. That this self-government and majority rule were sacredly guarantied 
 in the organic act of Kansas. 
 
 4. That it was guarantied upon the question of slavery in terms; and 
 generally with respect to all the domestic institutions of the people. 
 
 5. That domestic institutions mean all which are "local, not national — 
 Btate, not Federal." It means that and that only — that always. 
 
 6. That the people were to be left perfectly free to establish or abolish 
 slavery, as well as to form and regulate their other institutions. 
 
 Y. That the doctrine was recognized in eveiy part of the Confederacy by 
 the Democracy ; fixed in their national platform ; asserted by their speak- 
 ers and presses; reiterated by their candidates; incorporated in messages 
 and instructions ; and formed the featui'e which distinguished the Democ- 
 racy from its opponents, who maintained the doctrine of congressional in- 
 tervention. 
 
 The proof of this seventh proposition is everywhere of record. 
 
 1. Cincinnati platform. 
 
 At the Democratic National Convention, held in June, 1866, when Mr. 
 Buchanan was nominated for the Presidency, the following solemn declara- 
 tion was unanimously made : 
 
 "Resolved, Tliat we recognize the right of the people of all the Territories, includ- 
 ing Kansas and Nebraska, acting through the fairly exjiressed (not implied) -will of 
 the majority of actual residents, and ■whenever the number of their inhabitants justi- 
 fies it, to form a constitution, with or without domestic slavery, and be admitted into 
 the Union upon terms of perfect equality with the other States." 
 
 2. The President's inaugural. 
 
 Mr. Buchanan, in accepting the nomination, guided his administration 
 by the resolve of the Cincinnati Convention. In his inaugural address he 
 referred to this matter, and thus expressed himself: 
 
 "What a conception, then, was it for Congre.ss to apply this simple nile — that the 
 will of the majority shall govern — to the settlement of the question of domestic 
 davery in th« Territories !" 
 
 And in th« same address, the President, after referring to the question of 
 the time of admission of a State as unimportant, uses this emphatic lan- 
 gaage : 
 
 "This is, happily, a matter of but little practical importance. Besides, it is a 
 judicial qiustion which legitimately beloiigs to the Supreme Court of the United 
 States, before whom it is now pending, and will, it is understood, be speedily and 
 finally settled. To their decision, in common with all good citizens, I shall cheerfully 
 ■ubmit, whatever this may be, though it has ever been my individual opinion that, 
 Toadw the lebraska-Kansas act, the appropriate period will be when the number oif 
 
ON THE rRESIDENT''s MESSAGE, 
 
 aelTinl residcnU in the Territory shall justify tlic fonimtion of ft conjititution with a 
 view to ita atlmission as a State into the Union. Bnt be this a" it may, it is the 
 imperative and indispensable dutv of the Government of the United States to seoure 
 to every resident inlmbilaut the 'free and independent expression of his opinion by 
 hid vote. This sacred right of each individual mu^t be preserved !" 
 
 3. Governor Walker's acceptaiuie and address. 
 
 Mr. Buchanan, shortly after coming into power, found Kansjis without 
 a Governor ; he took time to select a good mau fur the post, lie tendered 
 it to ilon. U. J. Walker, who declined it He again tendered the office to 
 the same gentleman, who at last, on the 30th March, after frequent con- 
 versations with the President, accepted the post In accepting the office, 
 be did so after thus addressing the President in writing: 
 
 "I understand that you and yonr Cabinet cordially concur in the opinion ex- 
 pressed by me, that the actual bona fid'' i-esidents of the Territory of Kansas, by a 
 fair and res:;ular vote, uiiatroeted by fraud or violence, must be permitted, in adopt- 
 in;; tiioir State constitution, to decide for themselves what shall be their social insti- 
 tutions. This is the great fundamental principle of the act of Congress organizing 
 that Territory, atfirmed bv the Supreme Court of the United States, and is in accord- 
 ance with tlie views uniformly expressed by me throughout my public career. I 
 contemplate a peaceful solution of this question by auapi>eal to the intelligence and 
 patriotism of the people of Kansas, who should all participate freely and fully in 
 this decision, and by a mojority of whose voles the decision must be made, as tlia 
 onlv and constitutional mode of adjustment. 
 
 "I will go. then, and endeavor to adjust these difficulties, in the full confidence, 
 as expressed by you, that I will be sustained by all your own high authority, with 
 the cordial co-operation of all your Cabinet" 
 
 Was there any complaint when Governor Walker thus accepted this 
 post of trouble and responsibility ? Who thought the conditions of his 
 acceptance illegal, or in violation of usage or principle? Was the Presi- 
 dent's action hailed with denunciation, or with acclamation? 
 
 Meanwhile, the President addresses the clergy of Connecticut to the same 
 purport. 
 
 4. Mr. Buchanan to the clergy. 
 
 In Mr. Buchanan's letter to the Connecticut clergymen he thus define* 
 his motives, and justifies his action in sending troops to Kansas : 
 
 "The convention will soon assemble to perform the solemn duty of framing a con- 
 stitution for themselves and their posterity: and. in the state of incipient rebellion 
 •which still exists in Kansas, it is my imperative duty to employ the troops of the 
 United States, should this become necessary in defending the convention against 
 violence while framing the constitution, and "in protecting the ' bovnfid<- inhabitants' 
 qualified to vote under the provisions of this instrument, in the free exercise of th« 
 rigiit of suffrage, when it shall be submitted to them for approbation or rejection," 
 
 Still, anxious and fearful, the President sent after the Governor written 
 instructions, which leave no doubt as to his integrity and determination to 
 make gool his inaugural, his instructions given persbnally, and his letter 
 to the clergy. Here is the most pointed part of those instructions : 
 
 5. Instructions to Governor Walker: 
 
 "The institutions of Kansas should be established by the votes of the people of 
 Kansas, unawed and uninterrupled by force and fmud. 
 
 "The regular legislature of the Territory having authorized the assembling of a 
 convention to frame a constitution, to be accepted or rejected by Congress, under the 
 provisions of the Federal Constitution, the people of Kansas have the right to be 
 protect, d in the peaceful election of delegates for such a jturpose, under such autho- 
 rity ; and the convention itself has a right to similar protection in the opportunity 
 fur tranquil and undisturbe<l deliberations. When such a constitution shall be sub- 
 mitted to the people of the Territory, they must be protected in the exercise of their 
 right to vote for or against tlie insirument, and the fair expression of the popular 
 will must not be interrupted by fraud or violence-." 
 
 This was what the country, including tlie people of Kansas, Lad a right 
 to expec t. But, as if to put it beyond all doubt, Governor Walker gavo 
 to those most nearly interested — the people of Kansas — his renewed assur- 
 ance of the mode in which their constitution should be adopted. 
 
 6. Governor Walker's inaugural. 
 
*"'6 SPEECH OF SAMUEL S. COX, 
 
 How did Governor Walker and tlie country understand tliese exprssions 
 of the President and the official act of the Administration? Governor 
 Walker, upon his arrival in the Territory, in his inaugural address, thus 
 expressed his views and the views of those who sent him there. The lan- 
 guage is absolutely prophetic. He said : 
 
 "Is it not infinitely better that slavery slioiild be abolished or established in 
 Kansas, rather than that we should become slaves, and not be permitted to govern 
 oiirselves? Is the absence or existence of slavei-y in Kansas paramount to the great 
 question of State sovereignty, self-government, and of the Union?" * * * * 
 
 " If patriotism, if devotion to the Constitution, and love of the Union, should not 
 induce the minority to yield to the majority on this question, let them reflect that, 
 in no event, can the minority successfully determine the question permanently; and 
 in no contingency will Congress admit Kansas as a slave or as a free State, unless a 
 majority of the people of Kansas shall first fairly and freely decide the question for 
 themselves hy a direct vote on the adoption of the constitution, excluding ail fraud or 
 Tiolence. 
 
 "The minority, in resisting the will of the majority, may involve Kansas again in 
 civil war; they may bring upon her reproach and obloquy, and destroy her progress 
 and prosperity; they may keep her for years out ©f the Union , and, in the whirlwind 
 of agitation, sAveep away the Government itself; but Kansas never can be brought 
 into the Union, -with or without slavery, except by a previous solemn decision, fully, 
 freely, and fairly made by a majority of her people, in voting for or against the adop- 
 tion of the State constitution." 
 
 Now, it must not be forgotten that, under these repeated assurances — 
 endorsed by the press of this citj'-, of Virginia, of the North, the West, and 
 the East — the constitutional convention was called into being in February. 
 In June the delegates were voted for. The leading spirits in that conven- 
 tion were the delegates from Douglas county, led by Calhoun, whose tao- 
 tics and chicanery seem to give character to the proceedings. These dele- 
 gates were questioned by the Democracy as to this policy. They gave this 
 reply : 
 
 1. Calhoun's pledges. 
 
 " To the Democratic voters of Do7iglas connty : 
 
 "It having been stated by that Abolition newspaper, the Herald of Freedmn, and 
 by some disaffected bogus Democrats, who have got up an independent ticket, for 
 the j)urpose of securing the vote of the Black Republicans, that the regular nominees 
 of the Democratic convention were opposed to submitting the constitution to the 
 people, we, the candidates of the Democratic party, submit the following resolutions, 
 which were ado2:)ted by the Democratic convention which placed us in nomination, 
 and which we fully and heartily endorse, as a complete refutation of the slanders 
 above referred to. 
 
 John Calhoun, A. W. Jones, 
 
 W. S. Wells, H. Butcher, 
 
 l. s. bolling, johm m. wallace, 
 
 Wm. T. Spicelt. L. a. Prather. 
 
 "Lecompton, Kansas Territory, June 13, 1857." 
 
 " Resolved, That we will support no man as a del^ate to the constitutional con- 
 vention, whose duties it will be to frame the constitution of the future State of 
 Kansas, and to mould the political institutions under which we, as a people, are to 
 live, unless he pledges himself fully, freely, and Avithont reservation, to use every 
 honorable means to submit the same to every bona fide actual citizen of Kansas, at 
 the proper time for the vote being taken upon the adoption by the people, in order 
 that the said constitution may be adopted or rejected b}' the actual settlers in this 
 Territory, as the majority of the voters shall decide." 
 
 Now it must not be forgotten again, that by this time, the slavery ques- 
 tion was virtually settled in Kansas. The remaining question was that of 
 self-government. It was white> not Black Republicanism. It was the com- 
 plete subjugation of all interests to the popular wilK 
 
 What, then, can equal in treachery the conduct of these Catalines of 
 Kansas, who, under all these oblig"atious of principle and honor, attempt to 
 Bubjugate the popular will to theirs ? Were these delegates angels, that 
 they should intervene to despoil the people of their expected boon of free 
 expression as to the institutions under whose protection their homes, their 
 lands, their children, were to be panoplied ? Better, far better, than this^ 
 
ON THE president's MESSAGE. 1 
 
 iTio intervention of this distant Congress, than that of the traitors within the 
 very citadel of their rights ! 
 
 Having thus shown the pledges nf tliA Democracy to th«^ yieoplo of 
 Kansas, I affirm — 
 
 8. That to be found reeroant to th^^m now, when the practical tost is 
 upon us, would be a gross broach of faith, and a disgraceful desertion of 
 duty, from which there is no escape from public condemnation. 
 
 9. That the approval of the Lecompton constitution, however the result 
 of the election of the 21st of December next may eventuate, whether there 
 be a slave State or a free State, involves this breach of itiitli :i!id desertion 
 of duty: because, 
 
 First, That constitution, while it is asserted that it is suimiittcd to the 
 people in the essential point, thus recognizing an obligation to submit it in 
 some mode, cannot, in any event, be rejected by the people of Kansas. The 
 vote must be for its approval, whether the voter votes one way or another. 
 The people may be unwilling to take either of the propositions, and yet 
 must vote one or the other of them. Thoy have to vote " constitution with 
 slavery," or "constitution with no slavery ;" but the constitution they n>ust 
 take. They have no business with the constitution ; slavery they may 
 dabble in. With that they are graciously permitted to meddle. But as 
 for their organic law, " hands off, ye plebians ; your touch is unholy 1 " 
 They come to exercise their will at the polls. They find a clenched fist on 
 either hand. No open palm, unless first they give up their franchise as to 
 the constitution. Then, oh ! then, they may be permitted to vote on one 
 subject only. Is there a Democrat here who would stand that ? If there 
 is, he ought to go West and learn a little of the character of these inde- 
 pendent men of the border. 
 
 A scheme like this, to submit a part of the constitution, while it pretends 
 to submit all, is a device so thin as to have no upper nor under side. It 
 is so transparent that its statement is its badge of fraud. It is an attempt 
 to carry out a salutary principle, in part, which was established in its en- 
 tiretv. It is worse. It compels the voter to swear to support a constitu- 
 tion before he can vote to kill it; and then he is not allowed to strangle it. 
 It is an attempt, by a pretended submission in part, to carry the idea of a 
 total submission ; and thusybrce an unsubmitted constitution on an un 
 willinr/ people. 
 
 If that convention could legally submit one question, and withhold all 
 others, they can reserve that one question, or all ! The submission of one 
 clause, be it slavery or banks, judiciary or taxation, liquor or legislature, is 
 an argument against the reservation of any other ; and, of course, against 
 all others. This juggle will not do. It is too nice to be honest. 
 
 Again : take this slavery question, and observe how the mystigogue and 
 demagogue have combined to cheat the people. The constitution has a 
 slavery articl**, (VII.) It recognizes in its first section the right of property 
 in slaves and their increase. In the second section, it permits emancipation 
 by the Legislature on payment to the owners of '■'■afull equiralent in mo- 
 ney for the slaves so emancijmted." The emancipation and slaveiy clause 
 are bound together in the same article. 
 
 Now turn to the schedule! Suppose the constitution with slavery is 
 voted : then slavery and emancipation remain as in the seventh article. 
 But suppose " constitution with no slavery" is carried : what then ? The 
 seventh article shall be stricken out; slavery and emancipation go out to- 
 gether ; but the right of property in slaves now in the Temtory shall not 
 be interfered with ! In other words, if Kansas be made a slave State, 
 slaves can be introduced from abroad ; and as fast as they come, the Legis- 
 lature may emancipate. That is your slave State. If it be a free State, 
 there can be no emancipation of slaves or their increase forever. 
 
 Now, will gentlemen t«ll me which would be the free State, which tho 
 
8 SPEECH OP SAMUEL S. COX, 
 
 slaved This beautiful specimen of a constitution is not unlike certain ani- 
 maculse found by. naturalists, where the two polypi may be made to change 
 heads ; for the bead of one may be ingrafted on the body of another by 
 placing the tail of the one in the mouth of the other. The two heteroge- 
 neous extremities will readily unite so as to confound all of our notions of 
 identity. 
 
 How can you expect freemen to vote for such a schedule of chicanery ? 
 " Oh ! if the free-State men would vote," say the politicians, " how it would 
 release the Democracy from its dangerous dilenmia." For my part, I will 
 never go begging Republicans to sustain the standing and character of the 
 party to which I am devoted. Follow the right line, and that party need 
 not coax or wheedle to sustain its dignity and supremacy. 
 
 Second : There is not, a priori, by the election of delegates, a legal ap- 
 proval of the constitution. Although there were fifteen counties entitled to 
 TOte for delegates, for which there was no census or registry, which could 
 not participate in the -election, as Governor Walker proclaimed On Septem- 
 ber 16, 1857, yet it does not follow that the constitutional convention was 
 an unlawful assemblage; nor does it follow, if it were lawful, that their 
 constitution is to be void, without the popular suffrage in its favor. 
 
 This the people had here expressly reserved to them in the organic act — 
 the confirming or dispensing power. The Territorial Legislature could not 
 afiect that organic act. The sovereignty in this case never departed from 
 the people. It was not lodged in the convention. It was clearly under- 
 stood, and universally expected, that it would be exercised by the people. 
 The President expected it. He regrets the failure to submit it. Any at- 
 tempt to abridge or take away this popular sovereignty is a fraud of so 
 hideous a character, that language has no term of reproach, nor the mind 
 any idea of detestation, adequate to express or conceive its iniquity. 
 
 If that sovereignty was lodged in the convention, who lodged it there ? 
 1st. Did Congress? No; for the act does not provide for the calling of a 
 convention, or the formation of a constitution. There has been no legisla 
 tion by Congress on the subject. 
 
 On the contrary. Congress, by rejecting Mr. Toombs' bill, refused thus 
 to initiate such protieedings. 
 
 2d. Did the Territorial Legislature? If Congress could not do it, it 
 could not. It was the creature of Congress — of the organic act. It could 
 not do what the organic act, under which it lived, did not authorize. The 
 creature could not do what the creator refused to pei'mit to be done. 
 What authority had this convention ? If it had none from Congress, could 
 it be claimed that the Territorial Legislature had an authority from the 
 people to call this convention ? Unless that be expressly shown, it will 
 not be implied. If it be not expressly shown, that sovereignty was reserved 
 to the people. The Territorial Legislature derived its powers from the act 
 creating it. Those powers are defined, and but generally,defined, in the 
 twenty-fourth section : 
 
 " That tlie legislative power of the Territory shall extend to all rightful subjects 
 of legislation consistent with the Constitution of the United States and the provis- 
 ions of this act." 
 
 In no part of the act is there any express power to call a convention to 
 frame a constitution. Who will say that such a power can be implied ? 
 Such a power dissolves the territorial government. Its own death by sui- 
 cide cannot be within the purview of the Territorial Legislature. If it can 
 compass its own death, it can kill the power of Congress which called it 
 into being. 
 
 This is in accordance Vith right reason. It is in accordance, too, with 
 precedent. I am not one of those who swear in the words of any master. 
 Precedents depend for their force on their intrinsic worth. Precedents 
 serve only to illustrate principles, and to give them a fixed authority. Prin- 
 
ON THE president's MESSAGE. 9 
 
 cipJes are the result of reason. "Authority is a long how, the effect of 
 which depeuds upon the strength of tlie arm which draws it, and reason is 
 a cross-bow of equal efficacy (if well directed) in the hands of a dwarf or 
 a giant." 
 
 Authority and reason unite to declare that no Territorial Legislature has 
 the power to call a constitutional convention. It cannot override the or- 
 ganic law, any more than it can destroy the Constitution of the Union. 
 This is reasonable. It does not depend on the strength of him who utters 
 it ; but authority does. We have that authority from statesmen of such 
 conspicuous greatness that no one will question them — Thomas Jefferson, 
 Andrew Jackson, and James Ikichanan. 
 
 Jefferson always spoke of the first constitution of Virginia, adopted in 
 1776, as wanting the popular sanction. In 1824 lie regarded the acqui- 
 escence of the people even as no supply for the want of original power 
 from them. He're are his words : 
 
 "To our oonveution no special authority had been delegated by the people to 
 form a permanent constitution, over which their Buccessors in legislation should 
 have no power of alteration. Tliey ha 1 been elected for the ordinary purposes of 
 legislation only, and at a time when the establishment of a new government had 
 not been proposed nor contemjilated. Although, therefore, they gave to this act 
 the title of a constitution, yet it could be no more than an act of legislation, sub- 
 ject, as their other acts were, to alteration by their successors. It has been said, 
 indeed, that the acquiescence of tlie people has supplied the want of original power. 
 But it is a dangerous lesson to say to them, 'Whenever your functionaries exercise 
 unlawful authority over you, if you did not go into actual resistance it will be deem- 
 ed acqiescence and conformation.' Besides, no autliority has yet decided whether 
 the resistance must be instantaneous; when tlie right to resist ceases; or whether 
 it has yet ceased. Of the twenty-four States now organized, twenty-three have dis- 
 apj)roved our doctrine and example, and have deemed the formal authority of their 
 people a necessary foundation for their constitution." 
 
 In the Arkansas case the question was fairly met hy General Jackson's 
 Attorney General, who decided that the Legislature could not act in the 
 formation of a State government. In the Michigan case, Mr. Buchanan 
 held, in 1835, that Legislatures "Aarf no right whatever to 2>0iss laws ena- 
 hlhiff the peojAe to elect delegates to a convention for the jmrpose of forming 
 a State constitution. It was an act of usurpation on their 2iarty 
 
 If Jefferson, Jackson, and Buchanan were right, if reason is right, then 
 where is the authority of this Lecompton convention ? 
 
 It is said that precedents are found in Michigan and California. Ah ! 
 but in those cases there was no doubt as to the popular approbation. Ir- 
 regularities and formalities may be disregarded when the popular voice 
 gives the substance to the application. But in a case like this of Kansas, 
 form is substance. When the voice of the people is ambiguous, or in 
 doubt, or against the constitution, it is clear Congress shouKl require a 
 popular verdict before it should pass judgment. Even in Wisconsin, where 
 Congress provided for a convention in March, 1847, it sent the constitution 
 back to be submitted to the people. This was wise and constitutional. 
 The people rejected the first constitution, made a second, and were admit- 
 ted under it in May, 1848. 
 
 I need not here refer to the case of Minnesota, where, in tlie enabling 
 act, provision is made for submission, I only refer to it now to show that 
 the policy of this country is becoming fixed in that way. Our earlier con- 
 stitutions were not submitted, as the President remarks; but lately the 
 people are taking a deep interest in constitutional questions. They not 
 only like to pass upon them, but it is their privilege to do so by that surest 
 of all modes — the silent ballot. Wherever this is possible, no agent shall 
 intervene between them and their will. That is Democracy ! Its progress 
 may be marked in the fact that twenty-one out of thirty-one of the present 
 constitutions of these States have been submitted to the people. Uere is 
 the list : 
 
10 SPEECH OF SAMUEL S. COX, 
 
 States whose constitutions* have been submitted to the people for ratification. 
 
 States. Date. 
 
 States. Date. 
 
 California November 13 .1849 
 
 Connecticut October 5 181S 
 
 Georjria FirstMonday in October. 18S9 
 
 Illinois March 7 1848 
 
 Indiana August4 1851 
 
 Iowa Augusts 1846 
 
 Kentiiclvy 1S50 
 
 Louisiana November 2 1852 
 
 Maine 1820 
 
 Maryland June 4 IfiSl 
 
 Massachusetts 1780 
 
 Michigan. November 5 1S50 
 
 New Jersey August 13 1844 
 
 New York November 2 1846 
 
 North Carolina. . .November 9. . lSfi5 
 
 Ohio June 17 ISol 
 
 Ithode Island November 21, 22, 28 1842 
 
 Tennessee March 1S35 
 
 Texas October 13 1S55 
 
 Virginia October 23, 24, 25 1861 
 
 "Wisconsin April 1848 
 
 States whose constitutions are not known to have been submitted to the people for rati- 
 
 States. Da/te. 
 
 Alabama 1S19 
 
 Arkansas January 4 1836 
 
 Delaware December 2 1831 
 
 Florida 1839 
 
 Mississippi October 1832 
 
 jicalion. 
 
 Stales. Date. 
 
 Missouri July 19 1820 
 
 New Hampshire . .September. , 1793 
 
 Pennsylvania 1838 
 
 • South Carolina 1790 
 
 Vermont 1650 
 
 * The work of the latest constitutional convention in each State. 
 
 So much for precedents. The weiglit of them is in favor of the princi- 
 ple of submission. 
 
 It has been argued that the Lecompton convention was a legal body ; 
 but legal only as a petitioning body praying for a certain object. I cannot 
 say that I have seen anything of a prayerful character about that body. 
 Their ordinance about the public lands — as impudent as it is startling — 
 does not seem to be in a prayerful mood. But be that as it may, suppose 
 they are legal petitioners, I contend that that is not the proper mode for 
 the formation of States. It might do if there weie a popular sanction ; 
 otherwise, most certainly not. 
 
 But I will go further. I will admit just now, for the argument, that 
 the convention had an authoritative existence ; that the Territorial Leg- 
 islature had power to convoke it; nay, more, that it has prepared a 
 legal constitution ; and yet I say it has no power to adopt it. That 
 lies with the people, under the organic law. Oh, yes, gentlemen may 
 say, is not the convention legal? If that, why not its product? If that 
 be legal, is it not intervention to do aught save admit Kansas, under this 
 contrivance, as an equal State. The convention may be legal. It may 
 have all the forms of law. It may even be authorized by the organic act ; 
 and its action may be in accordance with authority and precedent ; but 
 still I say it lacks the life-giving spirit by which it can be made a State co- 
 equal with my own — Ohio. It may be legal — may seem so. Its forms 
 many be skillfully drawn. It may be as good in its general provisions as 
 the President says it is. So you may see a languishing body have all its 
 parts, and yet be useless for many purposes of life ; you may reckon all the 
 joints of a dead man ; but the heart is cold, the joints stiff, the pulses still, 
 and it is only fit for the grave. So with this constitution ; it may be legal 
 and formal, but until the popular breath is breathed into it, it is of no va- 
 lidity or force. It is worse; it is not only pulseless — heartless — but it is, 
 through trickery and fraud, a mass of detestable putrescence. Without that 
 popular confirmation, it will never, never be suffered to appear above ground. 
 No scientific galvanism contained in that schedule can inform or vivify its 
 decaying members. Divine power worked a miracle to bring forth Laza- 
 rus. There is no power in this land to do that office for this unwholesome 
 thing. If it be dragged into this Hall for " admission," with a rope round 
 its neck, in defiance of the popular will of Kansas, tliere will be scalpels 
 used with a keen readiness, never before illustrated in political surgery. 
 
 Third. I deny, therefore, that it is congressional intervention in domestic 
 affairs to question the form and mode of thjs application for the admission 
 of Kansas. I do not affirm that Congress should say for Kansas whether 
 she should have a bank, or not ; (though if a bank becomes " vested" how 
 are the people to get rid of it ?) should have a Governor of twenty years' 
 residence in the Union, or not ; should pass on the taxing power of the 
 
'- - 11 
 
 ON THE PRESIDENT S MESSAGE. 
 
 State, as to the public lands, or not; should have slavery, or not. 
 
 In domestic affairs the constitution may have all the excellencies of Plato's 
 Ideal, More's Utopia, and Harrington's Oceana ; it may he the transcript 
 of angels from the tablets of the Omniscient Law-Giver ; yet, if unsubmitted 
 to the people, I would not vote for its admission. We have no right to 
 force on men what is best for them in our uwn opinion. This has been the 
 plea of despotism for ages. It is the hard dogma that sustains the perjured 
 dynasties of Europe on their thrones. It is founded on the petrefaction of 
 the human heart. 
 
 Neither, in domestic matters, do I care how bad the constitution may be, 
 ethically or politically. If submitted, my approbation follows that of the 
 people. This is non-intervention. 
 
 But when Congress undertakes to protect the people, in judging of these 
 matters of domestic concernment, let it be done thoroughly and well. Let 
 not Congress give the protection which the wolf gives the lamb. Let Con- 
 gress, when it guaranties self-government, see to it that it is not a mockery, or 
 a phantom, but a real, living, glowing reality — an opportunity for public voli- 
 tion, informed by conscience, and irradiate with intelligence — to decide for 
 themselves, under the constitution, as to the lawsunder which they are to live. 
 
 For myself, I but repeat the expression of the Democracy of the capital 
 district of Ohio, when I say that, however we may dislike slavery, we are 
 utterlv indifferent, as a political question, whether slavery goes to Kansas 
 or not ; provided the people pass on it honestly and fairly. Let it be a 
 slave State; let it, on the other hand, be a free State; but let it be a State 
 which is solf-governing, for otherwise it is not republican. 
 
 When the bill of Mr, Dunn was presented to this body, for the pacifica- 
 tion of Kansas, it made provision for the slaves in Kansas to remain there. 
 The Democracy opposed that bill, because Conr/rcss, by it, undertook to in- 
 tervene on the subject. Let the people pass such a provision in their con- 
 stitution, and it shall be no objection to me that it is right or wrong. My 
 answer i.>, it is the people's will ! Congress, by I)unn's bill, was wrong in 
 thus attempting to fix the status of any person in the Territory. The peo- 
 ple can fix it as they please. It is their business. Far better let African 
 slavery be established than an irresponsible tyranny. It matters not, that 
 it may be changed the next day, or the next year. Anglo-Saxon indepen- 
 dence will not brook this organized despotism. The English language has 
 not servile syllables enough to spell out the presumptuous audacity of those 
 delegates of Kansas, who have dared thus to steal the livery of sovereignty 
 in the face of the thirty millions of thinking freemen of America ! It is no 
 question of African slavery, no maudlin sentimentality about the black 
 race ; but it is the right of the white man that is attempted to be filched 
 from him by a pack of land-hucksters and political jobbers. 
 
 I have pledged myself to vote for the admission of Kansas as a slave 
 State, if fairly made so. I am here to redeem that pledge ; and now, to- 
 day, would rather have Kansas a slave State, than to have its self-govern- 
 ment beaten down under the heels of an irresponsible cabal. Fill Kansas 
 with negroes as compactly as the district of my friend from South Carolina, 
 ■where there are one hun<lred and ten thousand negroes to five thousand 
 voters; am I right? (to Mr. Keitt.) [Mr. Keitt, (in his seat.) Yes, that's 
 right. I wish there were more of them.] — but, in the name of Democratic 
 fealty and Democratic sense, let us stand like men of trust and men of 
 honor, to the sovereignty of the people, in whose will constitutions are but 
 wisps of straw, and whose breath can make and unmake law, as it can 
 make and unmake congressmen. 
 
 I said I was utterly iiulifferent as to the character of the domestic insti- 
 tutions formed and regulated in the constitution, provided they were all 
 approved by that perfect freedom of action guarantied to the people by the 
 Kansas and Nebraska bill. 
 
12 SPEECH OF SAMUEE S. COX, 
 
 First. I would limit this only as the United States Constitution limits it. 
 In the third section of the tenth article, it says: "New States may be ad- 
 mitted by the Congress into this Union ;" and in the subsequent section, it 
 *' guaranties to every Stale in this Union a republican form of government." 
 
 Coupled with this naked power to admit — a discretion to be used as other 
 discretionary powers are used — is the limitation that the government must 
 be republican. I hold that a constitution like that made at Lecorapton 
 cannot be republican ; where it has no authority from Congress ; no impri- 
 matur from the people ; and is no reflection of the popular will. The form 
 may be republican in one sense ; but that higher form, that essence, that 
 fifth essence of republicanism, its sine qua non, the popular sense, is not 
 expressed in it ; and, therefore, as Mr. 13uchanan said of Arkansas, it is a 
 usurpation. 
 
 Second. Not only is there no substantial submission of the constitution 
 to the people, but even the formal mode of submitting the propositions of 
 the schedule do not insure fairness in voting or in the record of the voting. 
 The agents to supervise the election have no check from, and no responsi- 
 bility to, any other than the appointing power, which is the president of 
 the convention. The commissioners are appointed by the president. They 
 appoint the judges ; the judges appoint the clerks. The poll books are re- 
 turned to the president of the convention. No check by other officers, 
 territorial or Federal. All is subordinate to the presiding genius whose 
 constitution this is. Can such an election command confidence in the pre- 
 sent condition of Kansas? The President hopes for peace by the accept- 
 ance of a constitution thus ratified. He says that if this opportunity of 
 settling the question in Kansas should be rejected, " she may be involved 
 for years in domestic discord, and possibly in civil war, before she can again 
 make up the issue now so fortunately tendered, and again reach the point 
 she has already attained." It seems to me that a state of anarchy 
 will follow, if this election goes on, and is to be sustained by the strong 
 Federal arm. Germany stood for thirty years with her hand upon her 
 sword ; the rustle of a leaf disturbed her. Kansas is in similar suspense. 
 Never was there more need of heed, caution abundant, and beyond cavil or 
 question, as to the popular expression. 
 
 Third. In the ninth section of the schedule, the voter, if challenged, is 
 required to swear to support the constitution, under the pains of perjury. 
 Is this republicanism ? Is this miserable mode of making a constitution to 
 be countenanced by this Congress? 
 
 Fourth. There is another ground for the rejection of this constitution. 
 There is a fraud recognized in it, which we are bound, while inquiring into 
 its republican form, to notice. The basis of popular will is the basis of 
 representation. This is violated. In the creation of representative and 
 council districts, the Oxford city fraud has been made the basis of estima- 
 ting the population of Johnson county. The entire official vote of that 
 county did not exceed four hundi'ed. Fraud swelled it to eighteen hun- 
 dred by the return of sixteen hundred fictitious names from Oxford city, a 
 hamlet of three dwelling houses. Shawnee, with eight hundred voters — 
 bona fide voters — gets only half the representation of Johnson. Well 
 might Judge Elmore protest against this fraud. Well might Governor 
 Walker complain of it, after having set it aside solemnly. Other frauds 
 are to be found of a similar character. If we are to judge of the republi- 
 canism of the State to be inaugurated, we should discard this constitution. 
 
 This convention sanctioned this fraud, not only by making it the basis of 
 representation, but by electing one of the creatures who signed the forge- 
 ries as their clerk. And I have it from the best authority, that the 
 president of the convention himself is believed, by the body of the people of 
 Kansas, to be implicated in this same fraud. Who that admits this fraud 
 can sustain a constitution founded upon it ? 
 
OK THE president's MESSAGE. 13 
 
 Fifth. I hold, lastly, that that constitution is not republican in form ; 
 because, in the fourteenth section of the schedule, it prohibits — ay, that is 
 the effect — amendment, alteration, or change until after 1864. It is utterly 
 idle to say it meant to provide for alteration, amendment, and chango 
 meanwhile, ad libitum. When a constitution provides a mode and time 
 to amend, all other ways and times are excluded. After implying no 
 change till 1864, then it proceeds to hamper the *' perfectly free" action of 
 the people of 1864, by rctpiiring two-thirds of the Legislature to concur, 
 before they will allow a majority of the people to call for an amendment. 
 And, as if to clinch the whole of this absurdity with another more glaring, 
 it }>rovides that even then " no altorution shall be made to affect the 
 rights of j)roperty in the ownership of slaves." 
 
 Now, I do not seek to intervene in domestic affairs, when I declare that 
 whatever may be the precedents in this respect, I will never vote for a 
 Stale to come in under such impossible, absurd, and tyrannical conditions. 
 Congress guaranties a republican form ; and this constitution fetters every 
 limb of that form, 
 
 "Kut," it is said, "these conditions are void. The State may turn 
 around to-morrow and discard them all." So it may. New York did ; 
 80 did Louisiana. But it was revolution. We have no right to force 
 people into revolution against the established order. It may not be that 
 revolution which, like a tempest, overturns the public authority by "wild 
 sword law" or popular frenzy. It is not that inimitable thunder which 
 aroused America in 1775, France in 1787, or England in 1630. It is 
 rather like a machine, which, having a principle of compensation, corrects 
 irregularities without breaking the machine or retarding its motion. Still, 
 it is revolution ; whether it be a perilous one or not, it is the only way to 
 get rid of the restrictions placed on the popular will by this constitution. 
 To those who say the State may, after admission, alter the constitution at 
 once before 1864, 1 ask this question : Were the delegates in earnest when 
 they forbade amendment till 1864 ? If so, they will attempt to carry out 
 their ideas; and, in doing so, they must resist innovation. If they resist, 
 there can be no assurance of a peaceful, harmless revolution. Those who 
 attempt to amend provoke resistance; and they who vote for this constitu- 
 tion must resist that resistance. The consequences must be revolution and 
 civil war. If the delegates were no/ in earnest in prohibiting amendment 
 till 1864, what a mockery in us to approve of such wind-work, especially 
 when bloody work must or may follow. The tracks of blood ever follow 
 the wrongdoer, and follow him to the bitter, bitter end. 
 
 This constitution is made, in most respects, irrevocable until after 1864. 
 The machinery for amendment begins to run then. Still it is an inevocable 
 law, and it is not only absurd, impossible, tyrannical, but anti-Democratic. 
 Democracy, as taught in Ohio, believes in the repealibility of everything by 
 the popular voice. My State has no power to-day to tax certain banks, be- 
 cause the Supreme Court of the United States, under the plea of " vested 
 rights," has taken away our sovereignty in that respect. "Governments," 
 said Burke, " without the means of change, are without the means of their 
 own conservation." Who, that remembers the scorching logic of Jeremy 
 Bentham and Sydney Smith, on the " fallacy of an irrevocable law," can 
 fail to feel the utter silliness of those who propose to bind down the free- 
 men of Kansas for ten years in most respects, and in one respect forever. 
 I refer to Rentham, vol. 2, ])8ge 402 ; and to Sydney Smith, vol. 2, page 391. 
 
 " A law," says Mr. Bentham, (no matter to what effect,) " is proposed to 
 a legislative assembly, who are called upon to reject it, upon the single 
 ground, that by those who, in some former period, exercised the same power, 
 a refTulatiou was made having for its object to preclude forever, or to the 
 end of an unexpired period, all succeeding legislators from enacting a law 
 to any such effect as that ntfw proposed." 
 
SPEECH OF SAMUEL S. COX, 
 
 Now, it appears quite evident that, at every period of time, every legisla- 
 ture must be endowed with all those powers which the exigency of the 
 times may require ; and any attempt to infringe on this power is inadmis- 
 sible and absurd. The sovereign power, at any one period, can only form 
 a blind guess at the measures which may be necessary for any future period ; 
 but by this principle of irrevocable laws, the government is transferred from 
 those who aie necessarily the best judges of what they want, to others who 
 can know little or nothing about the matter. 
 
 If it be right that the conduct of the nineteenth century should be de- 
 termined, not by its own judgment, but by that of the eighteenth, it will 
 be. equally right that the conduct of the twentieth century should be de- 
 termined, not by its own judgment, but by that of the nineteenth. And if 
 the same principle were still pursued, what, at length, would be the conse- 
 quence ? That in process of time the practice of legislation would be at an 
 end. The conduct and fate of all men would be determined by those who 
 neither knew noj cared anything about the matter; and the aggregate 
 body of the living would remain forever in subjection to an inexorable 
 tyranny, exercised as it were by the aggregate body of the dead ! 
 
 "The despotism," as Mr. Bentham well observes, " of Nero or Caligula, 
 ■would be more tolerable than an irrevocable law. The despot, through fear 
 or favor, or in a lucid interval, might relent ; but how are the Parliament 
 who made the Scotch union, for example, to be awakened from that dust 
 in which they repose — the jobber and the patriot, the speaker and the 
 doorkeeper, the silent voters and the men of rich allusions — Cannings and 
 cultivators. Barings and beggars — making irrevocable laws for men who 
 toss their remains about with spades, and use the relics of these legislators 
 to give breadth to broccoli, and to aid the vernal eruption of asparagus ?" 
 
 Long after Calhoun and his confederates shall have mouldered and have 
 been forgotten, the men of Kansas will look with pily and contempt on this 
 futile attempt to bind them by the decrees of 1857. The men of 1864 — if 
 not the men of 1858 — will laugh to scorn this attempt. The border States 
 of this country are not the places for such despotic experiments. 
 
 " If the law be good," says Bentham, " it will support itself; if bad, it 
 should not be supported by the irrevocable theory, which is never resorted 
 to but as the vail of abuses. All living men must possess the supreme power 
 over their own happiness at every particular period. To suppose that there 
 is anything which a whole nation cannot do, which they deem to be essen- 
 tial to their happiness, and that they cannot do it, because another gene- 
 ration, long ago dead and gone, said it must be done, is mere nonsense. 
 While you are captain of the vessel, do what you please ; but the moment 
 you quit the ship, I become as omnipotent as you. You may leave me as 
 much advice as you please, but you cannot leave me commands ; though, 
 in fact, this is the only meaning which can be applied to what are called 
 irrevocable laws. It appeared to the Legislature for the time being to be 
 of immense importance to make such and such a law. Great good was 
 gained, or great evil avoided, by enacting it. Pause before you alter an 
 institution which has been deemed to be of so much importance. This is 
 prudence and common sense ; the rest is the exaggeration of fools, or the 
 artifice of knaves, who eat up fools. 
 
 " When a law is considered as immutable, and the immutable law hap- 
 pens at the same time to be too foolish and mischievous to be endured, instead 
 of being repealed, it is clandestinely evaded, or openly violated, and thus 
 the authority of all law is weakened." 
 
 if If this irrevocable law be so absurd, tyrannical, and knavish in England, 
 as it seems to be under this analysis, how utterly and abominably absurd, 
 tyrannical, and knavish, is it in a nation like our own ? There, laggard 
 conservatism is so loth to change, that abuses are canonized and ances- 
 try is deified! Here, change is the essential condition,, of . social and 
 
ox THE president's MESSAGE. 15 
 
 political existence; here, 'States are formed in the twinklinnr of an eye; 
 cities grow up in a night, as if under tlio magic of Aladdin's lamp : hero, 
 economical ideas, more powerful than pi^litical tenets, arc ever permeating 
 the l>odj politic, to change it^ form and substance : here, the border men are 
 students of politics, and seek popularity and wealth by amniiorating institu- 
 tions: here, the telegraph throws its thought from the very Cipitol in which 
 •we speak to the borders of our territory ; and the " goblin of steam," under 
 the aid of congressional laud grants, is doing the work of years in a week, 
 and the work of a hundred years in one. l>ehind its power, the dwarf re- 
 moves mountains and bridges rivers; civiliziition follows in the train. 
 Here, in America, more than anywhere else, the poet's verso is appropriate : 
 
 "Beneath our starry arch 
 Nou^^lit restetli or is still, 
 But all tliiii<;3 hold their march 
 As if by one great will. 
 Move one — move all! 
 Hark to the foot fall ! 
 On — on — ever 1" 
 
 Here in America, where the changes of a year are equal to the changes of 
 a century in Europe, and where the changes of a lustrom oidy herald 
 greater changes ; and all through change, working out that secular niag- 
 ni6cence which is the destiny of our laud — we are to have irrevocable laws 
 for our border States ! 
 
 An irrevocable law in such a land ! Enact that frost shall cease in the 
 north and blooms in the suutli — fix the figure of Proteus or the air, by 
 law ; but let us not do such impossible tyranny for ten years, or one year. 
 Why, California spran<T into Statehood — the golden rigol of independence 
 on her brow — in less than a twelvemonth ! And Minnesota and Oregon, 
 within the year, stand waiting to knock for admission. Washington, New^ 
 Mexico, Arizonia, Dakotah, are pushing on toward the goal of independent 
 sovereignty, and two years may see them where their sisters are now. An 
 irrevocable law for sucli a land ! Take Kansas ; read the Indian treaties 
 made by Colonel Manypenny, of 1854 ; and now visit Leavenworth, and 
 ask if such a land is is to be irrevocably bound by the edicts of an irre- 
 sponsible convention ? In the name of republicanism, I trust it will never 
 be pressed in this House. 
 
 It would be bad enough to accept a constitution, made under popular 
 sanction, with irrevocable clauses; but made irrevocable, without such sanc- 
 tion it is monstrous and impossible. " Governments are republican," says 
 Jeft'erson, " only as they embody the popular will and execute it." 
 
 In conclusion, I protest against this constitution, because it is against the 
 principle of self-government — against the organic act — is not the author- 
 ized or legal expression of the people ; because it is anti-republican in form 
 and substance; because it is absurd, tyrannical, fraudulent, and impossiblo; 
 because it undertakes to bind down the sovereignty of the people by irre- 
 vocable laws, which are opposed to the genius of our institutions. 
 
 But beyond all other objections is that implacable one, that cannot be 
 appeased — the demand for its submission to the people, in whole and 
 in part. Whatever may be the legality of the constitutional convention — 
 whatever may be its work, and how irrevocable soever they have sought to 
 make it, why has it not been submitted? Come to this question ! Away 
 with rubbish ! Let us dig down to this primitive rock. " Ah, say its friends, 
 "it will be voted down ; the j>eople will not have it." True, they do not 
 want it. If the press of the Territory be any indication of the popular 
 wish, that is true. But one out of the twenty-one presses of all parties in 
 the Territory sustains it. Democrats and Republicans unite to condemn it. 
 True, very true, it would have been voted down, and therefore it is not to 
 be submitted to a vote. This is Democracy, is it ? Let us, then, rewrite 
 
LIBRPRY OF CONGRESS 
 
 16 SPEECH OP SAMUEL S. COX 
 
 our lexicons. Democracy means, does it ? to withb "]g"'"g"j' ^' '"g|^'^' ""jg^"j| ""^' '"' 
 
 to all who may vote against you? Wise beyond ^ — — — o — 
 
 ■who thus teach ! But the people of Kansas have acted wrong, are culpa- 
 ble, have not acted right in voting heretofore. But are they, for that, to 
 be disfranchised ? Away with such puerility. It reminds rae of the gra- 
 cious Sultan under the old Turkish constitution, who gave to the Ulemats 
 the pri\nlege of questioning his firmans ; but if they exercised it, they were 
 to be pounded to death in a mortar by the jannissaries. 
 
 This is no sectional question. The North has everything to gain by 
 standing by its pledges and principles as enunciated in the Kansas bill. 
 What has the South to gain by an opposite course ? Does she expect to 
 mate Kansas a slave State ? No. Would sbe, if she could, against the wish 
 of the people ? I say no ! Does she wish to resuscitate the waning fortunes 
 of a sectional party ? If yea, then let her place the Northern Democracy in 
 the wrong, where it can be reproached and insulted, taunted and despised ; 
 where our opponents, wagging their heads, may say : " You meant the South, 
 you meant slav'ery, you meant everything else but popular sovereignty, 
 when you mouthed of popular sovereignty." 
 
 Nor will it do for us to answer : " We adhere to the general principle of sub- 
 mitting the whole constitution, but cannot now apply it to Kansas." Such 
 a reply will place us of the North iu the position of the French fleet 
 at Aboukir, which Nelson destroyed — it was neither at sea nor afloat. 
 Give me the open sea, with a small craft, and the flag of popular sovereign- 
 ty, in its integrity, at the mast-head, and I will not ask any favors that our 
 opponents can bestow. I will trust my humble bark on the open sea with- 
 out fear, nay, with confidence and joy ! There is plain sailing for us, with- 
 out tacking and filling, if we pursue the course proposed in the case of Wis- 
 consin, where the condition of admission was the ratification by the people 
 of the constitution. We can pursue that course in this instance without 
 dishonor ; or we can pass the Toombs bill with the amendment proposed 
 by my colleague [Mr. Sherman) last session. It is as follows : 
 
 " And the said constitution shall be submitted to the people for acceptance or rejec- 
 tion, under such regulations as said convention shall prescribe." 
 
 Who can object to such a course ? Will the North — the South — the Pres- 
 ident — the people of Kansas ? Will the Democracy of the Union ? My 
 vote shall be ready for such a solution of this difiiculty. But it cannot be 
 made ready to sanction the Lecomptou contrivance. If it be the only re- 
 cord I have to make here, it will be a " no" that shall echo the voice of my 
 constituency. Let Kansas come as Minnesota, in daylight, to the front door, 
 in honest purpose, and manly bearing; and not as a burglar, in the dark, 
 with the appliances of artifice, and a record of shame ! Her people had a 
 right to expect from this Government, if not from that convention, a full 
 submission of her organic law. This right is denied. Being denied, her 
 people can say, with a bitterness too well warranted by the history, 
 
 "be these juggling fiends no morebeliev'd 
 
 That palter with us in a double sense; 
 That keep the word of promise to our ear, 
 And break it to our hope." 
 
 The events of the next month may alter the position of this question in 
 /his House and before the country ; but for myself, nothing can change my 
 determination to stand by the principles of Democracy, as we have pledged 
 ourselves before the country. In this contest, I adopt as my motto the 
 words of one who has sacrifieed much for liberty in another land : " Noth- 
 ing FOR THE PEOPLE, BUT BY THE PEOPLE ; NOTHING ABOUT THE PEOPLE, 
 WITHOUT THE PEOPLE !" 
 
 I, therefore, give notice of ray intention to introduce an act to enable 
 Kansas to form a constitution, with the amendment abore suggested.