■^y'. ■ •< a o- "s o > ^''^^^It^ ^^"^o^'^'-V ^^°-*>^^'.^ />§t\/.^ 4> ■<-. THE ISSUE FAIRLY PRESENTER ^"^3 THE SENATE BILL THE AMISSIOJ( OF KANSAS AS A STATE. DEMOCRACY, LAW, ORDEE, AND THE WILL OF TPIE MAJORITY OF THE WHOLE PEOPLE OF THE TERRITORY, BLACK REPUBLICANISM, USURPATION, REVOLUTION, ANARCHY, AND THE WILL OF A MEAGRE MINORITY. PUBLISHED BY ORDER OF THB DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE, WASHTNGTOX: FEINTED AT THB UNTOIir OFFICE. 1S56. ■'', s MAY 17-1991 ' % COPY 5^£ ,.,\ 5>vi^' ,9^ n^ TO THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES. The Democratic National Committee — with the hope of allaying in some degree the wild excitement now prevailing in ixiany sections of the country in reference to the unhappy state of affairs in Kansas, and also of disahusing the public mind upon the subject of the designs and principles of the democratic party with regard to the question of slavery in the territories — ask the attention ol the public to a practical issue now made up between the two parties, in the course of recent congressional legislation. We propose fairly and fearlessly to appeal to the people, whether the bill passed by the democratic senators on the 2d of July instant_, to admit Kansas as a State by a prescribed process, is not preferable to the adoption of the crude, partial, and revolutionary measure commonly called the Topeka Constitution. Other questions may he incidentally glanced at; but our main purpose on this occasion will be to show, by a distinct and definite appeal to the record, that (whether in or out of Congress,) THE BLACK REPUBLICAN LEADERS DO NOT DESIRE PEACE IN KANSAS PRIOR TO THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION! The question of human slavery has been a topic of partisan dis- cussion ever since our government began ; but it is in relation to the territories of the Union that it has presented itself in the most com- plicated and dangerous form. To discuss this question at length, in any of its various aspects, is wholly foreign to our present purpose. We shall not undertake to determine why the God of nature made the African inferior to the white man; or why He permitted England to fasten the institution of slavery upon the colonies against their repeated and earnest remon- strances. Nor can we tell what Heaven in its wisdom may intend to work out of the relations of master and slave, as they now exist in several of the United States. This, however, we do know, and will add, that when these States, as independent parties, agreed to come under a common Constitution and into a common Union — it was upon terms of perfect equality, for the mutual and equal benefit of all, and that African slavery was one of the recognized subjects of that compact. All power over it was expressly reserved to each member of the confederacy. Nothing was yielded, and no new right in this respect was added, except that each State bound itself to return to any other, upon de- mand, fugitives from legal servitude. We know, too, in relation to any comiTactj.it is always good faith and good morals to keep it in vfhole, as well as in part; in the spirit as well as to the letter ;_ in regard to Territories as well as in reference to the States of this Union. An evasion of a promise or covenant is as immoral as a bold and open breach of it; and involves, in addition, the contempt which inevitably falls upon trickery or cowardice. It is obvious, then, that the success of any attempt practically to disregard a particular feature of the Con- stitution, wliether relating to the rendition of fugitives from labor, or any other distinct guarantee to the citizens or the States, would ope- rate as a virtual abandonment and demoralization of the whole instru- ment, an event which the Union could not long survive. The ordinance of 1787, which seems to have been established with- out much objection at the time, adjusted the subject of slavery in the Northwestern Territory. Again in 1820, Congress, after an angry and exciting controversy^ passed a law, excluding the institutioii from that part of the Louisiana territory which lies north of a certain par- allel of latitude. In 1845, when Texas was admitted into the Union, this line of inhibition was also applied to that State. But when the acquisition of territory from Mexico once more pre- sented this subject, the mode of adjustment by a geographical line was considered, and finally rejected by Congress; and this mainly by the votes and influence of the very same brood of agitators who now affect to regret the abandonment of the principle ! This result created the necessity of resorting to some other mode of settling the question. Finally, in" 1850, after a period of great agitation throughout the country, the leading patriots and wise men of both parties, such as Clay, Webster, Cass, and others, decided upon leaving this question •where it always ought to have been left, and where the true spirit of oiir institutions places it — in the hands and under the control of the peo- 'fjU of the Teiritories themselves, restrained only by the Constitution.^ The whole nation rejoiced in this wise adjustment, and all parties claimed it ap a finality as to this principle of territorial organization. For once, the question of slavery in the Territories was settled upon tlie principles of our revolutionary fathers, who demanded a voice and a vote in regulating their own institutions ; the same great fun- damental principles of human government, which underlie and uphold our whole republican system — principles suited to all Terri- tories and to all times, and as "broad and enduring as eternal truth. This form of adjustment Avas denominated non-intervention by Con- gress — self-government by the people of the Territories. In 1854, when it became necessary to organize the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska, it was deemed just and proper to extend these principles of seli^government to those Territories, regardless of the restrictive Missouri line. It seemed manifestly unjust to accord such hisxh privileges to citizens who might reside in tlie Territories of Washington, Utah, and New Mexico, and deny their enjoyment to those who sliould go to Kansas and Nebraska. Nor did it seem right to reject the practical use of a great principle, whicli had been so universally approved by all pa'rties. The Kansas-Nebraska act accordingly became a law of the laud. Then it was that the abolition party renewed their schemes of agi- tation. Up to that hour, they had scarcely ceased to denounce fhe Missouri dema,rcation as unconstitutional, arbitrary, and unjust. Their indignation at its adoption had been unbounded. No public man who had sustained it, that was within their reach, escaped their ven- geance. Bui no sooner had this arbitrary rule been superseded by one more republican and reasonable, than their admiration for the former suddenly burst forth in the strongest terms. They now af- fected to see in it the force and virtue of a solemn compact of f»-ood faith, justice, and liberty ; and proceeded to denounce tliose who fa- vored its re})eal with as much bitterness as they had employed at an earlier day, a<.';ainst tliose wlio had sanctioned its adoption. Eeckless and inconsistent upon this ■subject to the very last, these desperate agitators are now engaged in charging the unhappy state of society in Kansas +o the legislation of th6 Democratic party, and as consequent upon the incorporation of the principles of self-gov- ernment into the organic law of Kansas Territory ; forgetting, or wiifuliy overlooking the fa-ct, that in Washington, Utah, and New Mexico, all orgaiiized upon the same principle, there is entire quiet and good order. It would be equally logical and true to say in reply and in defence, that they themselves became the authors of the evils in Kansas, by rejecting the extension of the Missouri line fo the Pacific, as a final adjustment, when proposed by Judge Douglas in 1848. Some other mode of adjustment vvas thus, and by their own act, ren- deied absolutely necessary; and that ap])liBd to Kansas was devised by the wisest men of the nation^ in 1850, to meet the exigencies then presented. But the real purposes of the agitators cannot be concealed. Ex- citement on the slavery question is the very life-blood of their fanat- ical organization. Take this away, and there remains to them only a few minor and kindred topics, by the agitation of which they can hope to secure position and notoriety. Upon the subject of Kansas, these leaders sanctimoniously, and with atfectation of great humanity, claim before the public a desire only to advance the interests of peace, and to secure for the settler in that Territory a just and equal State government, of his own nnawed and untrammelled choice. They have uniformly contended in Con- gress that the free State party were largely in the majority, and that all they desired was, that the popular will should be fairly reflected on the sul)ject of slavery ; and that the proper remedy for the evils in Kansas was her prompt admission as a State. Mark, now, the progress of events in Congress, and judge of the sincerity of these professions. On the 23d day of July, Mr. Toombs, a southern senator, submitted a proposition for the early admission of Kansas as a State, by authorizing the present inhabitants, in a pre- scribed manner, to foim a State constitution in November next. The main features of this measure, as finally passed by the Senate, are hereto appended, so that the reader can come to his own conclusion as to the fairness of its provisions. A leading and vital idea of this bill, it v/ill be seen, is to terminate at once all inducement on tho part of outsiders to force temporary population into the Territory, with the view of controlling a decision on the question of slavery. The sole right to influence such decision is confined to citizens who may have already become hojia fide inhab- itants of the Territory ; thus ending this angry struggle, and giving peace to the whole country. This movement produced a deep sensa- tion in the Senate and throughout the Union, and no small share of consternation amongst the Kansas agitators, who saw in it the ele- ments of destruction of their vocation. It struck all right-minded men as eminently just and wise in its provisions. Even Senator Hale, so distinguished for his aversion to everything emanating from a southern source, could not restrain his admiration, and almost invol- untarily paid it the following just tribute : " But, sir, I do not want to dwell on that subject, but to speak a very few words in reference to this bill which has been introduced by the Senator from Greorgia. I take this occasion to say that the bill, as a whole, does great credit to the magnanimity, to the patriot- ism, and to the sense of justice of the honorable senator who intro- duced it. It is a much fairer bill than I expected from that latitude. I say so because I am always willing and determined, when 1 have occasion to speak anything, to do ample justice. I think the bill is almost unexceptionable." Aiiex having been read in due course in the Senate, it was referred to the proper committee of that body ; which subsequently returned it with amendments, accompanied by an elaborate and able report, in which the subject is thus treated : "The existing government in the Territory of Kansas was organized in pursuance of an act of Congress approved May 30, 1850, instituting temporary governments for the Territoiies of Nebraska and Kansas, preliminary to their admission into the Union on an equal footing with the original States, so soon as they should have the requisite popu- lation. The organic law of Kansas is identical with that of Nebraska in all its provisions and principles. Each is based on that great fun- damental principle of self-government which imderlies our whole sys- tem of republican institutions, as promulgated in the Declaration of Independence, consecrated by the blood of the Revolution, and consoli- dated and firmly established by the Constitution of the United States. Each recognizes the right of the people thoreof, while a Territory, to form and regulate their own domestic instituti(m8 in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States, and to be received into the Union, so soon as they should. attain the requisite number of inhabitants, on an equal footing with the original States in all respects whatever. These two Territcn-ies were thus organizetl in 1854, under the authority of the same act of Congress, with equal rights, privi- leges, and immunities, and with the same safeguards and guarantees for the quiet enjoyment of their liberties, without molestation by for- eign interference or domestic violence. "• In Nebraska the inhabitants have enjoyed all the blessings which it is possible for a law-abiding people to derive from the faithful ad- ministration of a wise and just government. Life, liberty, and prop- erty have been held sacred, the elective franchise has been preserved inviolate, and all the rights of the citizen have been jirotected against fraud or violence^ by laws of his own making. These are the legiti- mate fruits of the principle, the practical results of fidelity to the provisions of the Nebraska organic act. There was no foreign inter- ference with their domestic affairs, no fraudulent attempts to control the elections by non-resident voters. Emigrant aid societies, with their affiliated associations and enormous capital, did not extend their operations to Nebraska, and hence there were no counter schemes formed to control the elections and force institutions upon the Territory regardless of the rights and wishes of the bona fide inhabitants. The principle of the organic law, the right of the people to manage their internal affairs, and control their domestic concerns in obedience to the Federal Constitution, was permitted to have fair play, and work out its natural and legitimate results. Hence, peace, security, and progress, in all the elements of prosperity in this Territory, have vin- dicated the wisdom and policy of the Nebraska act. "Fortunate would it have been for the peace and harmony of the republic, and still more fortunate for the unhappy people of Kansas, had they been permitted, in the undisturbed enjoyment of their ac- knowledged rights, to derive similar blessings from the same organic law. Your committee can perceive no reason why the same causes would not have produced like results in Kansas but for the misguided efforts of non-residents of the Territory, citizens of different States, who had no moral or legal right to interfere with the elections and legislation of the Territory, to seize upon the legislative power through the ballot-box, and thus control the local and domestic institutions of a feeble and sparsely settled Territory." This measure of peace and justice, so well described in the report, came up in the Senate for final passage on the 2d day of July, and was steadily resisted by the Republican Senators, during a prolonged session of twenty-one hours. Notwithstanding the declarp.tion of Mr. Hale, that the proposition was a fair one — ' ' almost unexceptionable ' ' — it encountered the bitterest hostility. Objection after objection was presented, and promptly removed by the friends of the bill — until it was made niamfeM that the Republican Senators had determined to cccept no measure of peace. Mr. Seward discarded all attempts to accommodate it to his views, and vauntingly declared that ^Hhe day for compromises had gone by." It was first objected, that the laws of the Territory restrain the free discussion of the question of slavery, and impose test oaths for suffrage and office, and consequently the pro-slavery party would have the ad- vantage. The friends of the measure answered, that all such laws are in conflict with the Constitution and the organic act of Congress, and the bill may be made to provide for their repeal. Then it was alleged that many of the free State men had been driven out of the Territory, and therefore the bill would make Kansas a slave State. This objection was promptly met by an amendment in the 11th section, giving all such an opportunity to return and have their names registered, and participate in the election for delegates to make a con- stitution. It was next said that the penalties for abusing or obstructing the right of suffrage were too light, and these were immediately increased. ' s The last discoverj was, that the President, with tlie consent of the Senate, had the right to appoint the commissioners, and they had no confidence in this appointing power. To meet this ditficultj, General Cass rose in his place and gave them a pledge, on the part of the President and the Senate, that the commissioners should be selected from both political parties, and all be men of the highest integrity and ability. Then they evinced their want of sincerity in all their obiections to the details, by voting in a body for the proposition of Senator Wilson to strike out the entire bill, and insert, instead, a single section, re- ]>ealing all the laws now in force in Kansas, and leaving the people in anarchy and confusion ! The senator from New Hampshire, (Mr. Hale,) having recovered from his right impulses under the party lash, came forward and moved to defer the eifect of the bill to July, 1857, so that the struggle might last another year — in order " that Kmisas and liberty might bleed" till after the presidential election ; and in this he was sustained by the vote of every republican senator ! Mr. Seward, the file leader of- the factionists, did his part by mov- ing to strike out the entire bill, and inserting anotlier admitting Kansas into the Union under the Topeka constitution, and was sus- tained in this by his entire party. Many other amendments were- ofi^red, all designed to defeat the object of the bill, or to force its friends to cast votes liable to misrepresentation. But at last the test vote could no longer be avoided. They had said t^e remedy for the evils in Kansas was her prompt admission as a State; that the territorial laws were odious and oppressive, and must ]>e repealed; that the elective franchise had been abused, and it must be protected ; that the free State party were largely in the ascendancy, and the voice of the majority must be heard. The bill provided for ftU these things. What tlien did these black republicans do? Did they act up to their professions by favoring this measure of relief and ])acification for Kansas? It is almost incredible tliat they did not. They resisted it to the bitter end. They deliberately voted against tlie repe- jrf^cted to by the democratic senators because it was the work of a party, "and not of the whole people ; because that work was commenced with- 9 cut aiitliority of law, and prosecuted in open defiance and menace of the government and its authority, emanating from and partaking of a spirit of rebellion at every step; because its recocfiiition by Congress too I'M furnish authority and precedent for revolution against the govern- 'nient, oji the ground of alleged grievances, icithout any previous effort to gain redress by 'petition — a step too hazardous, as we believe, for any government. K very "brief history of the Topeka movement will he tiufficient to convince all of- the truth of these allegations, ORIGIX AXD AIVI OF THE TOPEKA MOVEMENT. Preparatory to tlio Topeka movement two conventions were lield — the first at Lawrence on the 14th of August, and the second at Big Springs on the 5th of September. The proceedings of tlie Lawrence meeting are based on the declaration, '' Tliat the people of Kansas Territory have been since its settlement, and now are, without any law-making power," &c. At the Big Springs convention the following resolutions were uaan- iniously adoj^ted ; " Besolved, That this convention, in view of its recent repudiation of the acts of the so-called Kansas legislative assembly, respond most heartily to the call made by the people's couventiou of the 14th ultimo for a dele;^ate convention of the people of Kansas, to be held at Topeka on the 19th in.-itant, to consider the propriety of the formalioa of a State constitution, and such matters as may legitimately come before it. ^^ liexolved, That we owe no allegiance or obedience to the tyrannical enactments of this spurious legiahitvre; that their laws have no validity or binding force upon the peo- ple of Kansas; and that every freeman among- us is ?.t full liberty, consistently with his obligations as a citizen and a man, to defy and resist them, if he choose so to do. ^'Jiesolccd, That we v/ill endure and submit to these laws no longer than the best iii- terests of the Territory require, as the least of two evils, and will resist thenj to a bloody issue a,s soon as we ascertain t}?at peaceable remedies shall fail, and forcible resist- ance shall furnish asy reasonable prospect of success ; and that, in the mean time, we recommend to our friends throughout the Territory the organization and disoipliue of volunteer companies, and the procurement and preparation of arms.'' xlddressGS of the most inflammatory character v/ere made by Gov- ernor Eeeder and others, avowing their determination to resort to force in case their views were not adopted by the government ; tluxt ^ ' they must c-onqtter, or mingle the bodies of the oppressor icith those of the oppressed in a oomrnon grave.'' But all doubt on this point v*7is settled by the action of the conven- tion itself, immediately after it met on the 4tli day ©f October, 1855, as can be seen by the proceedings. A resolution was oflered by ?dr. Smith instructing the various com- mittees to shape their proceedings with reference to an immediate organization of a State government, irrespective of any action of Con- gress. The proposition was adopted at the end of a long debate, in the course of which Mr. Detahay, who now claims a seat in Congress under the constitution made by that body, made a powerful appeal against it, on the groimd that it made the convention "'on act of rebellion" against the government; but he was answered by the ma- jority that ^'they shoidd not, and woidd not, toait one day for the action of Congress." The constitution framed by the revolutionary convention was sub- mitted to a vote of the people, and it is a di-sputcd point whether it 10 received 700 or 1,700 out of the 6,000 then in the Territory! Jta advocates only claim for it the sanction of 1,700 people, whilst the other side say it did not receive half that number. Colonel James H. Lane, claiming a seat in the United States Senate, on behalf of the State erected by this constitution, was deputed to convey to Congress the memorial of the so-called legislature, praying for the admission of the State so constituted into the Union. The scene which followed its presentation in the senate will long be re- membered. The document was handed to the venerable Senator from Michigan (Mr. Cass) within a few minutes of the opening of the ses- sion, with the request that he would present it, which he did. In the course of the debate, on a proposition to refer and print it, the discovery was made that the paper was not an original one ; that the signatures were all in the same handwriting ; that it was blurred on every page by erasures and interlineations. A closer examination ju'oved that it was a virtual fraud ; that it bore no evidence of autho- rity ; that the revolutionary ground on which the convention and members of the legislature had first based their action had been stricken from it, and that it had evidently been recently shaped to suit ' the vieios of the repuUican onemhers of Congress/ They had taken ground that the Topeka convention was "a peaceable assembling of the people to petition for redress," and the memorial was mutiiated to suit their partisan ends. Like Mr, Delahay, they had not the courage to stand up to it if called "rebellion." It must be shaped to suit their partisan issue, though fraud and forgery became the agents of the work. This disfigured document, so imposed upon the Senate, was indignantly hurled back by a vote of 32 yeas to 3 nays^ and has remained in silent oblivion ever since ! It is true that the minority of the Committee on Territories in the Senate made a very unfair, though futile attempt to redeem this move- ment from the odium cast about it by its rebellious and revolutionary aspect, claiming that it was only "a peaceable assembling of the people to petition for redress of grievances." To accomplish this end, the true imi)ort of the opinion of Attorney General Butler, in the Arkansas case, was deliberately perverted. Such portions only were used as answered the ends of the committee; and in this way many honest people have been misled as to the analogy between the Topeka movement and that of the people of Arkansas. Had the committee used the entire opinion it would have been fatal to their case. The Attorney General, it is true, conceded the right of the people peace- ably to assemble and to make a written constitutiuu, a report of their prayer to Congress for admission into the Union ns a State, but he added, '■'■ provided alioays, that such measure he cornmcriccd. and prose- cuted in a peaceahle manner, in strict subordination to fJie territoi^ial government, and in entire subserviency to the j^otuer of Congress to adopt, reject, or disregard them at pleasure." We submit to the people of the United States to determine, without further comment, whether it is fair or candid to pretend that the Topeka constitu'lion falls within these rules and principles. 11 MICHIGAN VINDICATED AGAINST AN UNFAIR COMPARISON Attempts have also been made to find a precedent for this lawless niovenient in the circumstances surrounding the admission of the State oi Michigan. But the following remarks of General Cass, in reply to Mr. Sumner, on this point, and the views of his colleague, I\Ir. Stewart, presented in another part of tliis address, will settle the un- fairness of that plea beyond cavil. Mr. Cass. I have listened with equal regret and surprise to the speech of the honor- able Senator from Massachusetts. Such a speech — the most un-American and unpa- triotic that ever grated on the ears of the members of this hi^'h body — as I hope never to hear again here or elsewhere. But, sir, I did not rise to make any comments on the speech of the honorable Senator, open as it is to the highest censure and disapprobation. I rise for another purpose. The honorable Senator has so misunderstood and misap- plied the case of Michigan, which he brings forward as a justification of the proceed- ings in Kansas, that, as I know the facts connected with it, I feel bound to say a few words — and but very few they will be — to the Senate upon the subject. The honorable Senater has spoken of ihe right of the people to form conventions with a view to obstruct the authorized laws of the country. I deny such a right. I do not deny the right of any portion of the American people to form conventions : but con- ventions formed to obstruct the existing laws of the country, unless they succeed, are rebellion. The conventions to which the Senator alluded were held in times of revolu- tion. He referred to the early proceedings in Virginia, while the country was in a state of revolution ; when the people rose up to assert their rights ; when the Government was apposed to them ; and when they had to take measures in iheir own hands to put cL;wn British tyranny and oppression. These were acts of revolution, and justified conven- tions; but the American people now have no justification for acts of rebellion. W!i"'m do they rebel against? Themselves. The majority always can control the elections, and give form and substance to their representatives to procure any measures they please — not, perhaps, to-day, or within a week, or a month ; but the time must come shortly when they will be felt. So much for the States. And Congress is always ready to afford relief and protection to the Territories. Michigan was guilty of no such crime as that, T am proud to say. The proceedings in that State have no analogy with the proceedings in Kansas. The convention in Michigan was not for the purpose of opposing ths law. Let me explain the circum- stances in a few words. The ordinance of Congress of 1787 provided, as I have already said in the Senate, for three States certainly, and two more at the will of Congress, within the Northwest Terri- tory. If the number was increased to five, the first three States were to be bounded on the north by a line running due east from the southern extreme of Lake Michigan. Congress made provision for the three States — Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois. When Ohio came into the Union, she proposed that her boundary, instead of being the east line, siJiould, if it was found that that line would strike Lake Erie south >i.i' the north cape of t^e Maumee Bay, be a straight line from the southern extremity of Lake Michig;in to tihe north cape of Maumee Bay. When her constitution came before Congress for acceptance, a committee of the House of Representatives, at the head of which was John Randolph, took charge of this sub- ject, and that committee reported that Congress ought not to change the line. Congress had, in the mean time, provided for the territory of Michigan, wiih the east line for its aouthern boundary. The Senate will recollect that the provision of the ordinance of Congress of 1787, with respect to tlie States to be formed in that region, was, that when they had sixty thousand i.'ihabitants they should be admitted, by their delegates, into the Union. The words were, " should be entitled by their delegates to take a seat in Cofi- grsss." It was contended, in early times, in that country, and, for myself, I think cor- rectly, that the people, at any time when they numbered sixty thousand, under that ordi- nance, had the ri;i;ht themselves, through the action of the Territorial Legislature, to c<:)me forward and claim admission. That was the foundation of the proceedings of the State of Michigan based oh the law which I now state. Michigan had a population of sixty thousand, and came forward for admission into the Union. A convention was called, not by the act of the people — that is, not by the act of individuals — but by a law passed by the Territorial Legislature. Their convention as- 12 eoTabled anrl formed a State constitution, and came forward claiminof their boundary to the line established by the ordinance of Congress, and not acknowledging the Ohio fine. My honorable friend from California, who was then a citizen of Ohio, I presume was ia the State at the time. He knows there was almost civil war. He must remember thaJ the militia of Ohio and Michigan were called out. I was here in the Cabinet, of Generai Jackson. I knew his anxiety. We were all apprehensive that a war might bre!j.k out. In reply to Mr. Wade and Mr. Trumbull, who had argued that the admission of Michigan into the Union furnished a precedent for accept- ing Kansas on the Topeka constitution, Mr. Stewart submitted the following overwhelming argument : " If the Senator will hear me, I will show him that he is mistaken in every particular. Ill the first place, the ordinance of 1787 authorized a certain number of States to be formed out of the Northwestern Territory, and authorized their admission into the Union whenever they should have sixty thousand inhabitants. Acting upon that authority, the Territorial Legislature of Michigan, afier we had that number of inhabitants and more, passed a law to enable the people to elect delegates to a State convention to form a State constitution. Those delegates were elected, and they formed a State constitution, and submitted the adoption of it to the people of the Territory, and the people adopted the constitution. They elected a legislature under it, and they elected their senators to Con- gress. The people elected a representative to the other House. They came here, and dema,nded admission into the Union. All this was done in virtue of the territorial laws of Michigan, acting in virtue of the ordinance of 17H7. When they came here, Ohio disputed the southern boundary. That boundary included the mouth of the Maumee river. It had, up to that time, been within the jurisdiction of the Territory of Michigan, It had not been within the jurisdiction of Ohio. All the officers, township and county^ justices of the peace, and all others, were Michigan officers down to the southern boun- dary vi^hich we claimed; but Ohio claimed a right to that portion of the Territory, Congress took up the subject, and determined that Michigan should release that boun- dary, and carry it ten miles further north, as a condition of being adm.itted into the Union; and they determined that that consent should be given by 'a convention of the people,' That is the language of the law of Congress. They did not say how that con- vention should be called. They did not say that it should be called by the legislature. They did not say that there should be legislative consent ; but they said a convention of the people of Micliigan should consent to that boundary. The legislature afterwards called a convention, and that convention rejected the proposition. The people then took up the subject themselves, and they called a convention. That convention accepted the proposition, and that acceptance was sent to the President of the United States. He transmitted it to Congress ; and Congress, after full debate, decided that that acceptance was within the terms of its own law. Therefore, you see, sir, that there was Jiot a move- ment in Michigan, from the beginning to the end, that was not in accordance with the provisions of a law, either of the Territory or of Congress, or of both. Now, here ia the Topeka constitution, formed throughout v/ithout law from its inception to its end, admittedly by its friends, and yet it is said to be a parallel case to Michigan. I submit that there is not a single circumstance, from its commencement to its end, that is parallel; and I hope (although I confess ttiat I have no ground to hope, from past experience) that it will not be asserted, at least here again, that the case of Kansas and the case of Michigan are parallel." There are also a few additional features of this Topeka isovement which are not inappropriate at this point. They may serve to illus- trate the sincerity and consistency of its advocates as the friends of the colored race and the opponents of laws not authorized by a ma- jority of the people. One is the 1st section of the 11th article of the constitution, to be found on page G31 of the report of tlie House committee to investiT gate Kansas affairs, which provides that the constitution shall not be amended or altered prior to the year 1805, nine years after its adop- tion. The black republicans have indulged in unlimited denuncia- 13 tlons of tlie laws of Kansas, because a majority of the people did not authorize their adoption, and yet, at the same time, you see they in- sist upon the recognition of a constitution, unalteraUe for nine years, brought forth in the most informal mode, and unsustaiued by that great element of authority, the popular will. Another is, that at the time the constitution was made it was deter- mined to submit to a vote of the people the question of admitting or esccluding free people of color from the State; the decision to be bind- ing upon the legislature. The vote on this subject can be found in the report of the committee, between pages 718 and 755, inclusive, showing a decided majority in favor of '' exclusion." On page fi45, under the ominous caption of " Constituiional Pro- clo.mation/'' James H. Lane^ as chairman of the executive constitu- tional committee, announces the result of the vote as follows, to wit : " And I do furtber proclaim and make known, that of the votes east at the aforesaid election for and ajrtiinst the passai^e of a law, by the General Assembly, providing for the EXCLUSION OF FREE NEGROES FROM THE State OF Kansas, the result of such Vote to operate as instructions to the first General Assembly — a ■majority are in favor of eccclu- i-ion^ as ascertained by the returns of said election now on iile in the office of the execu- tive comiuitte<3. "James H. Lane, Chairman Executive Committee.'^ Here is a specimen of the humanity and liberality of tliose who ere so constantly "shrieking for liberty in Kauvsas," who are dailv fehedding crocodile tears over the liardtships of the do^m-troddeiii negro. They are the advocates of the same provision, resisted in 1819 by Mr. Adams and others, the insertion of which in the con- stitution of Missouri kept her out of the U^ion until she repealed it. These phihmthropists mean to have Kansas free, indeed — ^f'ree of colored freemen as well as of slaves! Expulsion of the colored race,, bond and free, from the enjoyment of the rich valleys and inue air of free Kansas, is what they mean by liberty and equalitj- — the hypo- ci'ites. We have now, fellow-citizens, given you the history and character of the measure which the friends of Colonel Fremont v/ish you to sustain in preference to the wise and just law passed by a democratic Senate ; and we shall await your verdict with confidence. We are entirely certain that you will never sanction a measure so fraught with mischief to our institutions — so tarnished with violence, insub- ordination, disorder, and fraud, and so unsustained by that great element of governmental power, the" will of the people. DEBATE IN THE SENATE. We now ask you to read the following remarks, of Mr. Toombs, delivered on the 2d of July, in explanation of the character and effect of his bill, and his views and purposes in presenting it. We are quite certain that you will agree with us that they are able, clear, and patriotic, and evince no want of courage or frankness in the author of this great measure of freedom and justice. Mr. Toombs said : Mr. President and Senators : It was not at first my purpose to add anythinfr fo the observations which I made when I gave notice of the bill which is substantially the one 14 now before the Senate. I have never been unrler the necessity of making one speech to explain another. Though that was brief, it told plainly what I wanted, what I meant to do, and how I intended to do it. At the same lime, I declared my willingness to accept suggestions from those who agreed with me, so as to do these things in the most efFectual manner. With that view, I accepted with pleasure the few amendments to the bill pro posed by the Committee on Territories, and was c>«bli■ ->r * 7^ * * We next call your special attention to the following extracts from speeches delivered in the Senate on the 9th of July, pending the question on General Cass' motion to print twenty thousand copies of the Senate bill for circulation. They are selected in the order in which they were delivered, and will serve still further to illustrate tiie noble and just position of the democracy, as well as the inconsist- encies and absurdities indulged in by the opponents of the bill : Mr. ToucKT. Mr. President, the House of Representatives has passed a bill for the admission of Kangas into the Union upon the so-called Topeka constitution. The Senate, not satisfied with that pretended constitution, on the ground that it was a mere partial revolutionary movement — that it was against law — that it was adopted by only a portion «f a part^ which had no power to act for the people of Kansas, or to impose on them a constitution, have submitted a proposition and passed it, by which the question shall be submitted to the bonajide settlers of Kansas, and a constitution formed, if they see fit io form one. The bill which was passed by the House of Representatives, and sent to the ' Senate, has been amended by substituting the bill of the Senate, and sending that to the House; so that the issue is made between the majority of the Senate and the majority of the House of Representatives, upon one point only — namely: whether a constitution fairly formed by the whole people of Kansas, in the manner provided by the Senate's bill, is to be preferred over the revolutionary constitution which was attempted to be made at the Topeka convention. Now, sir, I desire that this bill of the Senate — which is so just and fair in itself— which provides against every evil, so far as 1 can judge, that has been complained of— may be spread before the country in the fullest manner for the information of the public; and I know of no mode in which it can be done so effectively as by sending out the bill itself without note or comment. Let the people judge, from an inspection of the bill itself, whether we ought to hare adopted it — whether we, v,ho originally proposed to leave the whole subject of their domestic institutions to the people of Kansas, intend to carry out that measure in good faith. For one I v/es committed to that measure at the outset, and I intended that the people of Kansas, fairly and freely, without any external interference from any quarter, sh&uld, as every State does, and as every community has been accus- tomed to do iVoui the first settlement of this country down to the present time — exercise the right of self-government, and decide for itself upon its own domestic laws and institu- tions. Sir, I wish to appeal to the people of the country, by the bill which wo have presented, and now again present to the House of Representatives, both as an original proposition, and as an amendment to their bill — whether we do not now propose to carry out that doctrine fairly and tiuly as we avowed? I desire no better vindication of my course than that the people shall read this bill. There was only one objection to it, and that was the want of numbers; but the House of Representatives has waived that objection, and we have waived it. We do so on the ground of the difficulties now existing in Kansas, and we apply a remedy. That remedy is, by the action of the bona fide settlers, forming a constitution for themselves without exrernal interference, and we mean to up- hold them in their right to form the-ir own constitution, aud to establish their own do- 17 inestic institutions, as every State in the Union now does, and lias hitherto been accus- tomed to do. As I said before, I wish this bill to go to the American people. It has been misrepre- sented; it is nov/ grossly misrepresented. Instead of taking the misrepresentation, I wish the bill to go to the people, that they may see what it ia, and that intelligent men everywhere may understand what it is. Mr. Fessicnden. Will the honorable senator allow me to ask him in what particular it has been misrepresented? Mr. ToccEY. Misrepresented, sir! It is represented as a mere slave measure; it is represented a,s an unfair measure; it is denounced and misrepresented as designed for other purposes than to secure to the hona fide settlers of the Territory the right of self- government; and there are thousands who will never know, until it is too late, what is the true character of this bill and what are ita provisions. I desire that the bill may go before the people at the north, and throughont the vvhole north, that they may see and know v.'ho they are v.-ho are disposed to leave it to the people of the Territory to govern themselves, to make their own lav/s, to establish their own institutions, and who propose a diS'erent and an opposite course. * * * ■;:■ * * Mr. WicLt-Ki;. I do not desire to engage in the discussion of the merits of the bill; I only wish to say a word in regard to the publication of it. I am very glad to find that the senators from Ohio and Massachusetts are v/iliing to print twenty thousand extra copies of the bill in order that the people may understasd precisely the position which the majority of the Senate occupy on this question. The senator from Massachusetts certainly must know that this bill has been shamefully misrepresented — I do not say by ftny senators here, but by the public press of the country — and I am satisfied from what I have seen, that there are really some very intelligent editors in the country who do not comprehend this question, who do not understand this bill as it has been passed by the Senate. Why, sir, the misrepresentntions of the public press are of such a character that no public man dare now go before an assembly and read a newspaper as authority. I grant you, this bill will be published in the newspapers; but where will you findapnb- lic man who will risk his reputation by reading a newspaper as authority to 'sustain any fact which he may aflirm? I know that in the State of Ohio no public speaker dare allude to a newspaper as authority for any statement he may make. Therefore it is that ^Z desire to get this bill in an ofdcial form. It will theu be a document which cannot be controverted. The public press very oftnn misrepresents senators. They have even gone 80 far as to say that the senator from Massachusetts the other day, in a public speech v;l>ich he made in the city of Philadelphia, declared that Mr. Buchanan had affirmed that, if he had a drop of democratic blood in his veins, he would let it out. Now I am sure that it is a misrepresentation of the public press. The senator from Massachusetts is an intelligent man, and never could have uttered any thing so destitute of truth as that. I only allude to this to show the misrepresentations of the public press, not only as to public men, but as to public measures. We desire, on this side of the chamber, that our position shall be understood. Let the people read the bill, and my word for it they will never give snch a construction to it as has been given to it by the senator from Ohio, (Mr. Wade.) At all events, let it go out. We shall meet them at the ballot box; we s-hall argue this question there;, and if the judgment of the people be against it, we shall submit. We shall not threaten revolution, as some of the leading newspapers on that side have done. We shall not threaten force and violence. We shall threaten another appeal to the ballot box at nome other time. Mr. BiGLER. Mr. President, I have listened to the remarks of the senator from Massa- chusetts with surpi-ise. He has gravely inquired for the time and occasion when the bill (which it is proposed to print) was misrepresented. Why, sir, there can be no difficulty in answering that question. He has done so himself. Immediately after making the in- quiry, the honorable senator asserted, with great earnertress of manner, that the inten- tion 'and purpose of the bill is to carry put the work already commenced by the_^ border ruffians of Missouri! Will the senator say that such statements are not a palpable mis- representation of the measure? Will he pretend that the language of the proposed law justifies any such conclusion? What feature of the act has brought the senator to the belief, that the intention is to carry on the work of usurpation, fraud, arson, and murder, which he has told us has been begun in Kansas? What language in the bill looks to a •work of that kind — that justifies, invites, or countenances it to the slightest extent? Now, sir, when this measure was fir.1t under consideration, the senator made a state- ment similar to that v.'hich he has dropped this morning. He then said the intention 18 •was-^o brin^ Kansas info tbe Uuion as a slave State. Will not such statements be picked up by the press in his part of the Union, for the purpose of creating the impres- sion that there is some hidden purpose in the bill calculated to do injustice to a portion of the people of Kansas? And yet the senator manifests surprise that misrepresentations should he anticipated. Now, sir, I assert, unqualifiedly, that the bill intends no such purpose as that imputed to it by the senator from Massachusetts; and I ask him to point to the section or clause that justifies his assertion. Its language and purpose are elear, so much so, that the \Tayfaring man cannot misunderstand it. It simply intends that the people — the bona fide citizens, now in Kansas, shall, by the expression of their will, uncontrolled, decide the question of slavery for themselves — shall determine whether they will have the insti- tution or not. Is this not fair? Have we not been told by both sides, that they ask iiothing more? Is not this in accordance with the spirit of the organic law? But we are next told by the senator from Ohio, that if a little more time had been given for the organization of the State under the bill, it would have been more accepta ble. Tkis is extraordinary logic to come from those who insist upon the admission ot Kansas, immediately, on the Topeka constitution ; a measure adopted when the popula- tion was far less than at present, and which, on the face of the proceedings connected with it, only purports to come from a portion of the people — those not content with the territorial government. Again, he alleges that a certain class of the inhabitants have been driven out. The honorable senator is certainly aware that the eleventh section of the bill, as passed by the Senate, m.akes a provision, that all those who at any time had been citizens of the Territory, and had left, temporarily, because of the bad condition of society, or for any other reason, shall have the right to return and participate in the election. Mr. Wade. Does this bill give any additional right to the people to return there ? Have they not a right to go there whether your bill passes or not? Is there anything gained by it ? Mr. BiGLER. Certainly the people can return to the Territory, whether the bill passes or not ; but that is Hot the point. The senator knows that the 4th day of July, 1856, is named as the time when the bill shall take effect. Those who are citizens at that time are to have the right to vote for delegates. The senator, and those acting with him, objected to this feature, alleging that the free State party had been driven out of the Territory, and therefore the tendency was to make Kansas a slave State. This objection ■was promptly met by a provision from the committee, which I have just described, that aH who had left could return and participate in forming a State government. The com- missioners appointed to superintend the election are directed to enter the names of all such on the list, and permit them to vote for delegates ; so that all the qualified %-otors ■who were in the Territory at the time the Topeka Constitution was made, and all who have at any time made their residence there up to the 4th of July, 1856, will have a part in making the constitution. Surely, Mr. President, no man who advocates the Topeka constitutfon can consistently object to this bill on the ground that all the citizens are not to participate in carrying out its provisions. Any objection to the Senate bill on that point will apply with destructive force to the Topeka movement. It is most extraordinary, Mr. President, that we should be lectured — no, I will not say lectured — but edified from the other side, on the necessity of order and form in our movements — that we should not attempt suddenly to force a measure on the country which is not intended to accomplish the end which appears on its face, and at the same time be urged to sanction the Topeka constitution, a step which all must agree ■was taken, not only without authority of law, but in derogation of all law, and which pro- gressed in menace of the government, at every step, and which has been marked by violence and disorder in every stage of its emanation. N/3W, sir, I wish to say to the senators from Massachusetts and Ohio, very distinctly, that when they describe the tendencies of the bill as forcing slavery into the Territory, and as perpetuating the work of the border rulfians — if they mean to say that I seek to produce such consequences, they misrepresent my motives. I simply intend that the honct Jidc citizens of Kansas f^liall, without dictation from any quarter, decide the question of slavery for themselves. This is all the bill intends, or is calculated to produce. I have liked this measure from the beginning, because I thought it contained the elements of peace and quiet, together with those of perfect fairness to all ; its leading idea being the prompt termination of the contest as to the local policy of the Territory touching the institution of slavery. We have been tuld l.>y the other side that there was no remedy 19 for (lie state of society in Kansas but her prompt admission into the Union as a State, and this is what the bill provides for. We have been told, also, by these gentlemen, that they had no confidence in the local government of Kansas— that it was controlled by the sliive power entirely — that free State people were driven from the polls. In order to iple power to pro- tect the ballot-box against aggressions from Missouri or any other quarter. They can even call in the aid of the military to accomplish this end. Now, sir, I am not to be misunderstood on this subject of intrusions from Missouri. I countenance no such. I have uniformly discarded and condemned them. I seek only a fair and free expression of popular will. But we have been exultingly told that we have abandoned the doctrine of non-inter vention by the bill. I do not intend to argue this point at length. The senator from Michigan, when the bill was under consideration put that allegation down. I certainly do not intend to impair the doctrine by any act of mine, for I intend it shall be a iinality on this subject. But 1 can see a very clear distinction between annulling laws clearly Hnconstitutional, and in violation of the letter and spirit of the organic act, and a law of Congress dictating or interdicting a local institution — saying that the people should or should not sell ardent spirits — that they should or should not hold slaves. It should be observed, again, that the proposed action has special reference to the preparation of Kansas tor admission as a State, and not to her policy as a Territory, I am aware, Mr. President, that some features of the bill look like interference; but the Kansas-Nebraska act declares that the action of the local legislature shall be confined to rightful subjects of legislation. Will it be pretended, then, that interfering with the right of free discus sion is a rightful subject of legislation ? I do not care to raise the question of congres- sional power, for I hold that, however the question may be decided, it is politic for Con- gress not to exercise the right to interfere with the question of slavery in the Territories. In conclusion, Mr. President, I wish to repeat that the vitality of this bill is found in that feature which so promptly terminates all motive, on the part of outsiders, to force a temporary population into the Territory for the purpose of shaping its policy on the subject of slavery. So soon, then, as the bill shall become a law, that feature will take effect. Thereafter it will be idle for the advocates of slavery on the one hand, and the enemies of the ius'itution on the other, not residents, to continue their efforts and excite- ment. I seek to adopt a measure of peace: and much as I dislike the precedent for the admission of States with very small population, I am willing to forego this, because I think the exigoncies demand extraordinary measures. But I cannot vote for the admis- sion of Kansas on the Topeka constitution. It would be the recognition of violence — of usurpation, and because it would be unjust to a portion of the people — would countenance revolution, attempted without any previous application for redress — for the Topeka con- vention took the subject into their own hands, without asking redress at the hands of Congress at all. Both sides have invited the proposed measure by seeking early admis- sion into the Union, and I have no fear of the result; the provisions of the bill will ba embraced. The senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Wilson] has said that the consequences will be to bring Kansas in as a slave State ; and yet that senator has uniformly claimed, as have all on the other side, that three fourths or nine tenths of the people of Kansas are for a free State, and I have shown that all who may have left have the opportunity to return. Up to the introduction of this bill we have been told by the other side that all they desired was a fair expression of the will of the people. This bill will afford an op- portunity for such expression, and those who oppose it must take the responsibility. I shall vote for the motion to print. Mr. Douglas. I shall not detain the Senate long. The excuse heretofore given for resisting the law and shooting\lown the officers of the'Iaw in Kansas, has been that the same legislature which made the Kansas code passed two or three statutes which the resistants did not like — statutes invading the liberty of the firess and the freedom ol speech, and imposing certain tests for voting and for jurors. It was said that these par ticular laws were barbarous and monstrous — that a free people should not submit to them, and that, whilst such laws stood on the statute book, they were justified in resisting the constituted authorities of the Territory. Well, sir, the Senate has passed a bill 20 wKtcli declares all such obnoxious provisions or laws in the Territory null and void. Kvery statutory provision which hus been irivea as an excuse for resistance to laws, has been blotted out. What excuse now have you for getting up rebellion, and- riots, and bloodshed, and house-burain;j,-3 in Kansas? If now you resist the law, you are resistinj^ statutes that are acknowledC5- y v°-'^. <^. .^^V:^^^^^ ^^^.^k^^oV ..^V^ife.\V .^^"^y. V, V ^^ °* O ^' ^i^^^**^ ^' t. .^ ■* ■•-p. J^^'^ BINDERY INC. I»l ^ DEC 91 ^^ N. MANCHESTER' INDIANA 46962 .v^ PvL^-'7^o >^.'>!5^S^^^. o^V.^^^^^ -OV-"