5 
 
 9 
 
F 685 
 .S93 
 Copy 1 
 
 KANSAS AFFAIRS. 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 HON. CHAELES E. STUART, 
 
 OF MICHIGAN, 
 
 DELIVERED IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, JULY 9, 1856. 
 
 ><r 
 
 The Senate having under consideration the report in favor 
 of printing twenty thousand extra copies of the bill to 
 enab.e the people of the Territory of Kansas to form a 
 constitution- 
 Mr. STUART said: 
 
 Mr. President: I have sat here, for six hours 
 and more to-day, listening with other Senators 
 to a debate on a proposition to print a bill 
 which has passed the Senate, and the debate has 
 taken a range as wide as the whole creation, not 
 to say the subject of slavery. I have, as is 
 known to Senators, refrained carefully from any 
 discussion on this topic; and whenever I have 
 interposed at all during this session, it has been 
 to ask Senators to desist. I voted here upon this 
 bill silently, not uttering a word, although several 
 propositions were made in regard to which I 
 should have been glad to explain my votes. I 
 trust, under these circumstances, that the Senate 
 will indulge me for a few minutes while I present 
 some of the reasons which will govern my own 
 action here and at home; and at the same time I 
 say to some of the gentlemen on the other side 
 that I shall present to them some inquiries in 
 respect to their votes on this bill which I shall be 
 very glad to hear them explain satisfactorily and 
 consistently if they can. The subject of slavery 
 is one, and perhaps the only one, in respect to 
 which good men feel apprehension in regard to 
 the safety of the institutions of this country. I 
 think I may say that it is the opinion of patriots 
 throughout the land, that it is the only question 
 which can at any time, so far as we now know, 
 seriously endanger the existence of our institu- 
 tions. Knowing and believing this, I have not 
 only sedulously avoided its discussion here, but 
 I have asked others at all proper times to desist 
 themselves. 
 
 Now, sir, I propose to present to the considera- 
 tion of Senators here the condition that is occu- 
 pied by men holding the opinions which I do in 
 the northern States, and to contrast that position 
 for a moment with the condition of gentlemen 
 living in the southern States. Those gentlemen 
 represent a constituency all of whose opinions on 
 
 this subject harmonize with their own, and whose 
 feelings harmonize with their own. Whenever 
 they advocate the interests of slavery, therefore, 
 here or at home, they are in concurrence with the 
 sentiment, and the reason, and the wishes of their 
 people. If they are attacked at home, they are 
 attacked by a body of men, as they are now by 
 the American party, who insist that they are not 
 sufficiently pro-slavery. All they have to do is 
 to swim with the tide of public sentiment to make 
 themselves popular and strong; while men occu- 
 pying the position which I do in the northern 
 Stales have to address themselves against the 
 feeling of the people ; for whatever gentlemen may 
 say to you, Mr. President, the feeling of every 
 northern man whom I have ever met is in favor 
 of free States, and against the institution of sla- 
 very. That is the feehng; and hence, whenever 
 we address ourselves to our constituents, we ad- 
 dress their reason, their judgment, their patriot- 
 ism—we point them to the landmarks and the 
 compromises of the Constitution — we say to them 
 that they are in honor bound to stand by it, that 
 nothing less than the sacrifice of personal honor, 
 nothing short of a sacrifice of patriotism itself, 
 can induce them to indorse the fanaticism which 
 surrounds them. Under these circumstances, I 
 apprehend the feelings of a man may be appre- 
 ciated whoseesany considerable numberof south- 
 ern men, either in Kansas or out of it, furnishing 
 to our fanatical opponents the annmunition and 
 the weapons with which to destroy us. It was 
 for that reason that I said to the Senator from 
 Illinois the other day, that, if I were to prescribe 
 a sovereign remedy for existing evils in Kansas, 
 it would be utter and total silence in the Halls 
 of Congress; and I ask the honorable Senator 
 here to-day, if he does not believe, and if every 
 Senator does not believe, that the discussions in 
 Congress at this session have vastly magnified 
 the evils existing in that Territory? 
 
 At home, during the last canvass, I took the 
 ground, as all other northern Democrats did of 
 whom I knew anything, that this subject was left 
 bona Jide to tlie people of the Territories to the 
 
 / /#-r6 
 
extent that the Constitution could permit it; that 
 the Democratic party had come to an understand- 
 ing that, so far as the constitutional limits permit- 
 ted it, the people of the Territories possessed the 
 power to settle this question for themselves during 
 the time of their territorial existence. The Sen- 
 atorfrom Louisiana, [Mr. Benjamin,] the Senator 
 from Illinois, [Mr. Douglas,] and every other 
 Democratic Senator who has spoken on this sub- 
 ject here, to my knowledge, states the true 
 ground. If the Constitution prohibits Congress 
 from exercising the authority — if it prohibits the 
 people of the Territory from exercising the au- 
 thority, the people of the Territory, under the 
 Kansas act, do not possess the authority, because 
 Congress did not possess the power under the 
 Constitution to confer it; but if the Constitution 
 does not of itself prohibit it, the people have it to 
 its greatest length and breadth. There is a dif- 
 ference of opinion among Democrats on this con- 
 stitutional question, and we agreed to leave the 
 legislative question in the plainest terms the 
 English language could employ, simply reserving 
 to any one who chose to do so the right to test it 
 before thejudiciaryof the country, and we clothed 
 the judiciary in that bill with the express power 
 to try and determine the question. 
 
 The people, the Democratic portion of the people 
 of the northern country, were satisfied with this 
 adjustment. It was attacked, as 1 knew it would 
 be — itwas attacked , as I told m y personal and polit- 
 ical friends here it would be — violently; and every 
 man who was not a Democrat at heart attacked 
 it for political purposes to buildup and aggrandize 
 a political party that was literally dead under the 
 effect of the compromise of 1850. Under that 
 attack, great men, and good men, and pure men, 
 have fallen, but they have fallen by the standard 
 of honor, and by the standard of the Constitution, 
 where a man would desire to fall who loves his 
 country and respects his name. Eat, sir, those 
 men will rise again by the power of a patriotic 
 people who never fail to reward political virtue. 
 
 In the execution of this act, in my judgment, 
 there has been no fairness at all — none whatever. 
 No sooner did that act pass, than, the evidence 
 is perfectly conclusive, the ultra men on both 
 sides seized upon it for mischief. The evidence 
 is as clear and conclusive as in mathematics it is 
 true that two and two are four; that secret socie- 
 ties were organized on both sides to violate the 
 principles of the Kansas act. What has been 
 the consequence? The very worst that could be 
 apprehended. At this point let me notice a 
 remark of the honorable Senator from Vermont, 
 [Mr. CoLLAMER,] who is a member of the Com- 
 mittee on Territories. He tells us that tJiese 
 facts are conclusive, that the principle of the bill 
 is good for nothing where it is tested, and tliat 
 the reason why it succeeded in Nebraska, and in 
 the other Territories, is because it has not been 
 tried. Is that argument sound ? Let me point 
 the atttention of that honorable Senator to the 
 State of Cahfornia. That State, at the last ac- 
 counts, was in the hands of a vigilance commit- 
 tee; and is he prepared to say on that evidence 
 that the "experiment," as he calls it, of the 
 independent States of this Union is a failure ? 
 He can say it with equal propriety. The viola- 
 tions of a law are not the tests of the wisdom of 
 the law. 
 
 Mr. WELLER. I know that the Senator 
 does not intend to do injustice to my State; but 
 there is no opposition to the law except in the 
 county of San Francisco. There has been an 
 attempt there at the suspension of the courts and 
 the laws; but I beg of him to consider that as a 
 local question, which does notextend beyond the 
 county of San Francisco. I know of no move- 
 ment on the part of the other counties to sub- 
 vert the existing authorities or put down the 
 laws. A state of things did exist in San Fran- 
 cisco which, in the judgment of a majority of 
 the people there, justified them in suspending 
 the criminal court and taking the law into their 
 own hands. That is true. 
 
 Mr. STUART. I did not intend to say any- 
 thing disrespectful to the State of California — far 
 from it. 1 only alluded to the fact that there was 
 an organization called a vigilance committee, 
 which at the last advices was too strong for the 
 State government in that locality, and to ask the 
 Senator from Vermont whether he deems him- 
 self at liberty to say, on that account, that the 
 experiment (for he calls this Kansas bill an ex- 
 periment) of independent States of this Union 
 proves to be a failure.' Not at all; and so of the 
 Kansas act. What, sir, the idea which lies at 
 the very basis of American freedom throughout 
 all the States a failure! — the right, and author- 
 ity, and the ability of a people to legislate for 
 themselves — that is the Kansas-Nebraska act; 
 and that is all of it — that a failure ! That prin- 
 ciple an experiment which was born, so far as 
 this country is concerned, with the Revolution, 
 which is so resplendent this day as to command 
 the admiration of the civilized world ! 
 
 Now, sir, what law could not be violated? 
 What law has not been violated ? You might as 
 well say it was an experiment to suppres.s mur- 
 der in a community, because murder!3 are suc- 
 cessfully committed in violation of law. It is no 
 experiment. But what I complain of is, that a 
 few fanatical men on both sides have disturbed 
 this great Confederacy of States in the most vio- 
 lent manner, and as a consequence of that have 
 stricken down some of the wisest and best states- 
 men in the Union. I have heard with ngret — 
 and I have some personal knowledge of my own 
 which I learned with regret — in respect to the 
 conduct of the late Presiding OtHcer of this body, 
 [Mr. Atchison.] I have said to my friends, and 
 1 say now, that he has done more injustice, and 
 has committed more ingratitude, to his political 
 friends, than any other man in this Union. 
 
 This law went into operation. The officers 
 were appointed, and an election was held. That 
 election never did in its purity meet my judgment; 
 but who has executed the mischief? A man, of 
 whom our opponents have sought to make a 
 martyr. Wipe out the official acts of Governor 
 Reeder, and that case stands to-day remediable 
 without difficulty. If he had performed his duty 
 as he ought to have done it, there never could 
 have been a conflict at all. He should have with- 
 held the certificates. There is evidence in his 
 own record, sent by the President of the United 
 States to the House of Representatives, enough 
 to have satisfied any Governor with three grains 
 of sense that that whole election was irregular. 
 He should have withheld the certificates, and 
 i issued a new proclamation, and called on the 
 
3 
 
 President of the United States for aid to protect 
 the people of that Territory in the enjoyment of 
 the benefits of the act in its very terms given to 
 them. Had he done tliat, there would have been 
 no mischief about the Kansas act. But through 
 fear, or through a desire for fraudulent specula- 
 tions on Indian lands, or both, he perverted the 
 office which he held, and has complicated this 
 subject to such an extent that it is difficult to 
 remedy it. Is he censured by our political oppo- 
 nents ? Is he held up, and his conduct criticized, 
 or, as I have said, is he sought to be made a 
 martyr? Is it claimed for him that he stands out 
 in bold relief the man of all others to be honored 
 by Kansas and the lovers of freedom ? Was there 
 ever such inconsistency before ? 
 
 I shall pass as briefly through the history of 
 this case as possible; but let me ask, what has 
 been said in the Senate, and are those sayings 
 legal and proper? It has been said on the floor 
 of the Senate this day by the Senatorfrom Maine, 
 [Mr. Fessenden] — it has been said here frequently 
 by the Senator from New York, [Mr. Seward,] 
 now absent, that the people of that Territory are 
 justified in resisting the laws. Allow me a mo- 
 ment on that subject. I hold the doctrine in re- 
 spect to those laws to be this: laws enacted by a 
 Legislature elected according to the forms of law, 
 and placed upon a statute-book by courts, and by 
 executive officers throughout this whole country, 
 are to be regarded as binding laws, and it is their 
 duty to execute them. It has been decided by 
 the highest tribunals in the States and the United 
 States, that no court can go behind the law to see 
 whether it was fairly passed or not, and no ex- 
 ecutive officer called on to execute the law can be 
 permitted to determine for himself its validity. 
 Then, when Senators on this floor have told the 
 people of Kansas from this high place that they 
 were justified in resisting those laws, they have 
 told them what courts, acting in obedience to laws 
 and constitutions, have determined to be criminal 
 ever since civilization began. And yet they say 
 they are not responsible ! Men stand here in 
 their places, and say to the people of Kansas, 
 *' These laws have been forced on you by the 
 people of Missouri; they are irregular; they are 
 of no binding effect, and you are justified in their 
 resistance;" and yet they " wash their hands of 
 all the evils that exist in Kansas." 
 
 When it comes to a congressional question, in 
 my judgment it is quite another affair. The 
 authority of Congress put that Territory in a con- 
 dition to be organized; and ifCongressare satisfied 
 that that organization has been irregular, fraud- 
 ulent, and void, they possess the power clearly 
 and beyond dispute to right the evil and afford 
 a remedy. But, sir, the President of the United 
 States and every executive officer, the Supreme 
 Court of the United Slates and every judicial offi- 
 cer, is bound to regard those laws while they stand , 
 as the existing bona fide laws of the Territory, 
 and they are to be obeyed. Entertaining these 
 views, 1 have been anxious from the commence- 
 ment oflhe session of this Congress, that Congress 
 should lake up the subject anil furnish a remedy. 
 That we have the power is beyond all di.spute. 
 I have conversed with my friends, personal and 
 political. I have spent, I may say, I hope, with- 
 out egotism, anxious days and nights upon this 
 matter. I have felt its importance. I have urged 
 
 I men to adopt something as a remedy — a peaceful 
 remedy, and I have implored them to refrain from 
 I these exciting debates. Now, we come to the 
 ! remedy. Two propositions are presented, and 
 i they seem to be the ultimatums. One is presented 
 I by the majority of this body, which proposes to 
 j have a full, free, fair vote of the people in that 
 i Territory. The other proposes to admit iheTer- 
 j ritory as a State upon a constitution made with- 
 j out law, from its inception to its end, and made 
 I confessedly by a part only, and a small part, of 
 I the people of the Territory. In this connection 
 I I want the Senator from Ohio to illustrate a re- 
 I mark which he made to-day, and tell me what 
 j single circumstance there is in the whole history 
 1 of tiie Kansas-Topeka constitution, and the hia- 
 : tory of the constitution of Michigan, which he 
 claims lobe similar? I tell him frankly thai I do 
 not know of any one, and I shall be glad if he 
 will point out to me what one is so. 
 
 Mr. WADE. I have not the proceedings of 
 the Michigan convention before me at the present 
 time, but I know that there was a difficulty ex- 
 isting between the General Government and ihe 
 Territory of Michigan, with regard to the boun- 
 dary between Michigan and Ohio, and I know 
 that during that controversy they formed a con- 
 stitution without any application to the Federal 
 Government. There was no proposition made 
 and no power granted, but they organized a con- 
 vention, made a constitution, and were admitted 
 upon it. I believe that so far the cases are alike. 
 Mr. STUART. If the Senate will indulge me 
 for a few moments, I propose to show that there 
 is not one single circumstance that attaches to 
 Kansas, from the beginning to the end, which is 
 similar to any circumstance in the admission of 
 Michigan into the Union. If there is any, I shall 
 be most happy to be corrected; but this matter 
 has been so often alluded to, and alluded to after 
 remarks by my able colleague, thai 1 shall un- 
 dertake 10 show there is not a single circumstance 
 of similarity between the cases. 
 
 Mr. WADE. Let me ask the Senator if they 
 are not similar in this: there was a Territorial Le- 
 gislature there at the time the people of Michigein 
 formed their constitution, bul it was done with- 
 out the sanction of thai Legislature. It was en- 
 tirely a movement of ihe people themselves, and 
 they made no application to Congress until they 
 presented their constitution. 
 Mr. STUART. Not at all. 
 Mr. WADE. Am I not right? 
 Mr. STUART. Not at all. If the Senator 
 will hearme, I will show him ihai he is mistaken 
 in every particular. In the first place, the ordi- 
 nance of 1787 authorized a certain nuaiber of 
 States to be formed out of the Northwestern Ter- 
 ritory, and authorized their admission into the 
 Union whenever they should have sixty thousand 
 inhabitants. Acting upon that authority, the 
 Territorial Legislature of Michigan, after we had 
 that number of inhabitants and more, passed a 
 law to enable the people to elect delegates to a 
 Stale convention to form a State consiitution. 
 Those delegates were elected, and they formed a 
 Stale constitution, and submitted the adoption of 
 it to the peo[)le of the Territory, and ihe people 
 adopted the constitulion. They elected a Legis- 
 lature under il,and they elected iheir Senators to 
 Congress. The people elected a Represeniativo 
 
to the other House. They came here, and de- 
 manded admission into the Union. AH this was 
 done in virtue of the territorial hiws of Michigan, 
 acting in virtue of the ordinance of 1787. When 
 they came here, Ohio disputed the southern 
 boundary. That boundary inckided the mouth 
 of the Maumee river. It had, up to that time, 
 been within the jurisdiction of the Territory of I 
 Michigan. It had not been within the jurisdic-j 
 tion of Ohio. All the officers, township and 
 county, justices of the peace, and all others, were j 
 Michigan officers down to the southern boundary j 
 which we claimed; but Ohio claimed a right to I 
 that portion of the Territory. Congress took up I 
 the subject, and determined that Michigan should L 
 release that boundary, and carry it ten miles ' 
 further north, as a condition of being admitted 
 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 conven- 
 tion 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 Mich- 
 igan should consent to that boundary. The Le- 
 gislature 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 trans- 
 mitted it to Congress; and Congress, after full 
 debate, decided that that acceptance was within 
 the terms of its own law. Therefore, you see, j 
 sir, that there was not a movement in Michigan, ! 
 from the beginning to the end, that was not in I 
 accordance with the provisions of a law, either j 
 of the Territory or of Congress, or of both. Now, i 
 here is the Topeka constitution, formed through- { 
 out without law from its inception to its end, ad- i 
 mittedly 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 commence-' 
 ment to its end, that is parallel; and I hope; 
 (although I confess that I have no ground to hope, \ 
 from past experience) that it will not be asserted, j 
 at least here again, that the case of Kansas and ] 
 the case of Michigan are parallel. I 
 
 Mr. President, how has this question been ] 
 treated? I am not going over the ground which j 
 has been occupied by the Senator from Georgia ,] 
 and others, so ably and, in my judgment, so ' 
 conclusively; but I am going to call the attention 
 of the gentlemen opposed to me politically, on \\ 
 this floor, to a fev/ of their own acts, and to i 
 ask them how they explain them. I called the ! 
 attention of the Senator from New Hampshire,' 
 [Mr. Hale,] — who, having got through with 
 his speech to-day, has left us— to the fact that, ; 
 notwilhyiauding his assertion that he had never ^ 
 given a vote I'or the Missouri compromise line, 
 because it infereutially admitted slavery south ; 
 of it, — I called Ins attention to the fact that he i 
 voted for it yesterday, and he voted tor it a j 
 few mornings ago, at the close of the sittings ! 
 on the original bills, emanating from the Senator 
 from Georgia. In order that that vote may not 
 be misapprehended, let me state a little of its : 
 history. The honorable Senator from Vermont, 
 [Mr. CoLLAMER,] representing a minority of the i 
 
 Committee on Territories, in a speech yesterday, 
 reiterated his remedy. He said the evils under 
 which we were suffering this day grew out of 
 the repeal of the Missouri compromise; that the 
 remedy therefor was to restore the Missouri 
 compromise; and, as a finale to his doctrine, 
 thus explained to the Senate, he presented his 
 amendment to restore the Missouri compromise, 
 word for word, and every one of the twelve Sen- 
 ators on the other side voted for it; and yet they 
 say they have been always opposed to the Mis- 
 souri restriction because it inferentially admitted 
 slavery south of it. 
 
 Another thing, sir. A principal plank in their 
 platform — one which I contended against in 1854, 
 as I shall ever contend against it, because it is in 
 the very teeth of the Constitution of the United 
 States — is opposition to the reclamation of fugitive 
 slaves, and I think nearly every man of them has 
 declared himself ready to do anythings to suffer 
 anything, rather than go for that. Yet, in this 
 very same amendment, every man of them voted 
 for it. Here it is; I will give the language very 
 nearly, for it is too dark to read it now: " Pro- 
 vided, that any person owing service or labor, and 
 escaping into that Territory, shall be reclaimed 
 by his owner, or the person to whom the service 
 is due, and reclaimed according to law." That is 
 the language of the amendment, and every man 
 of them voted for it. Now, sir, when you re- 
 claim a fugitive from service according to law — 
 when you lawfully reclaim him, you reclaim him 
 under existing laws. If that bill should pass into 
 a law with this amendment in it, the fugitive 
 slave law of 1850 would be the law under which 
 you would reclaim him, and the only law. When 
 a legislative body says that an individual or a 
 people may do a thing lawfully, it is saying they 
 may do it according to existing laios at the time it is 
 done. This shows how far party tactics will 
 lead party men. It was only necessary that one 
 of that side should offer an amendment, for every 
 man to vote for it, no matter what it contained. 
 
 Mr. BELL, of New Hampshire.' Will the 
 Senator from Alichigan permit me to ask him a 
 question ? 
 
 Mr. STUART. Certainly. 
 
 Mr. BELL, of New Hampshire. I ask him 
 on what ground he assumes — I speak for myself 
 and for many other gentlemen who voted with 
 me — that we are opposed to the reclamation of 
 fugitive slaves .' 
 
 Mr. WELLER. You are in favor of it, and 
 voted for it. 
 
 Mr. BELL, of New Hampshire. But the 
 Senator from Michigan says we are opposed to 
 it; and he says that every one of us has declared 
 ourselves opposed to the reclamation of fugitive 
 slaves. I ask him what warrant he has for that 
 statement? 
 
 Mr. STUART. I siy that the principal plank 
 in the platform of the Republican party is the 
 repeal of the fugitive slave law. 
 
 Mr. TRUMBULL. There is no such thing in it. 
 
 Mr. STUART. I am not talking of the last 
 one which you made. I am talking of the one 
 on which you fought the battle of 1854, in oppo- 
 sition to the Kansas act; and that was the repeal 
 of the fugitive slave law, and the admission of 
 no more slave States. That is the ground I op- 
 posed then. I took the stump throughout the 
 
State in which I live, against that ground, as 
 being in open violation of the plainest language 
 of the Constitution of the United States. 
 
 Mr, DOUGLAS. If the Senator will allow me, 
 I will state that the platform distinctly put forth 
 in every part of Illinois before, and I presume no 
 one will deny it, was this: No more slave States; 
 the repeal of the fugitive slave law; the prohibi- 
 tion of slavery in all the Territories; the abolition 
 of slavery in the District of Columbia; the aboli- 
 tion of the slave trade between the States; — and 
 each candidate was required to pledge himself to 
 each one of the measures in every convention in 
 our State. 
 
 Mr. TRUMBULL. Will the Senator from 
 Michigan allow me to say one word here? 
 
 Mr. STUART. Certainly. 
 
 Mr. TRUMBULL. I wish to say, in reply to 
 what my colleague has said, that I ran for Con- 
 gress in one of the congressional districts of Illi- 
 nois, that no such platform was adopted, and no 
 such ground was taken by me. I ran in opposi- 
 tion to the Nebraska bill. No such ground was 
 avowed, as my colleague states. No State con- 
 vention in Illinois ever put forth such ground. 
 County meetings may have put it forth; but it 
 never was the doctrine of the anti-Nebraska 
 party of Illinois. He cannot show a resolution 
 of the district in which I live, putting it forth; and 
 I never heard of such ground being assumed. I 
 have always disavowed it. 
 
 Mr. DOUGLAS. I wish the Senate to notice, 
 that up to the middle of the session my colleague 
 averred that he was a Democrat, and denied any 
 association with Republicans, or responsibility 
 for their platform; but in the State anti-Nebraska 
 platform at Springfield, they took the ground I 
 stated; in the Galena district they put forth that 
 platform; and in each of those other districts they 
 
 Eut it forth. In the district from which my col- 
 iague came, it was necessary to cheat the people 
 by denying that they belonged to the Republican 
 
 ■"iZ: 
 
 Ir. TRUMBULL. Does the Senator mean 
 to say that an anti-Nebraska convention ever 
 assembled in the State of Illinois in 1854? 
 
 Mr. DOUGLAS. Yes. 
 
 Mr. TRUMBULL. At Springfield ? 
 
 Mr. DOUGLAS. Yes. 
 
 Mr. TRUMBULL. I never heard of it. 
 
 Mr. DOUGLAS. My colleague was present 
 in town, and I saw him. 
 
 Mr. TRUMBULL. I never knew of any such 
 thing, but my colleague seems to have been there ! 
 I was not. No convention ever did assemble of 
 the anti-Nebraska party generally at Springfield, 
 during that canvass. I do not know what indi- 
 viduals may have done, but no such convention 
 ever assembled there. T know my colleague is 
 very much in the liabit of talking of Abolitionists 
 and Black Republicans, and of Maine law men, 
 and of putting them all together, and charging 
 them all to be the same thing. I did say that I was 
 attached to no party at the present session of 
 Congress; that I had always been a Democrat. I 
 ajn so still, and expect to continue so; and I be- 
 lieve I shall be so in sustaining Colonel Fremont 
 for the Presidency. He is a very much better 
 Democrat, in my opinion, than the candidate 
 whom my colleague sustains. But I do not wish 
 it to go forth to the country that any such plat- 
 
 form was ever adopted by the anti-Nebraska 
 party, as the Senator states; and I say to him 
 that he cannot produce the action of an anti-Ne- 
 braska convention that ever assembled at Spring- 
 afield, putting forth such doctrines as he states 
 \ here. I do not say that he may not find individ- 
 luals who sustain those doctrines; but lam speak- 
 ' ing of a general State convention. I have some 
 1 knowledge of the general proceedings in Illinois, 
 and I know that no such meetings were ever 
 held, and no delegates were sent from my part 
 of the State to any such convention. 
 I Mr. DOUGLAS. I know such was the case 
 in the Galena district — the first district. I know 
 that it was the case in the Chicago district — the 
 second district. I know that it was the case in 
 the Bloomington district — the third. I know 
 that it was the issue in the fourth district — Mr. 
 Knox's. 1 know that the same issue was made on 
 Colonel Richardson in the fifth district, and on 
 Major Harris in the sixth. I was not in the other 
 districts during the campaign. But I do know 
 that, during the State fair at Springfield in Octo- 
 ber in that year, an anti-Nebraska convention 
 was held, and notice of it was published for weeks 
 previous. We had a Democratic meeting during 
 the same week. I know that when Mr. Lincoln 
 concluded his speech in the State-house against 
 me, and I rose to reply, Mr. Lovejoy, one of the 
 Abolition candidates for Congress now, stepped 
 on the stand and announced that the anti-Nebras- 
 ka State convention would meet immediately in 
 the Senate Chamber. I know that my colleague 
 was present in the town at the time. I know that 
 that was a regular Abolition convention, for the 
 repeal of the fugitive slave law, the prohibition 
 of slavery in the District of Columbia, the pro- 
 hibition of the slave trade between the States, 
 and the admission of no more slave States into 
 ' the Union. I know that that was announced as 
 ■ an anti-Nebraska State convention, and was pub- 
 lished for weeks previous. I know that my col- 
 league denied belonging to it at that time, and 
 never was admitted into the party until about 
 three weeks ago, and therefore is not good 
 i authority on that point. 
 
 ] Mr. STUART. Mr. President, I intended to 
 confine my remarks to the subject under consider- 
 ation, and I have indulged my friends from Illi- 
 nois v/ith a great deal of good feeling, but I am 
 I a little afraid that they will get out of order if I 
 , permit them to go any further, and I want to 
 ' reply to the Senatorfrom New Hampshire. I saw 
 that he did not understand the points that I made, 
 and as I have light now, (the chandeliers having 
 been lighted,) 1 can make it out perhaps more 
 distinctly. Yesterday these proceediags occurred: 
 " Mr. CoLLAMER. I offer the following amendment as an 
 I additional section ; on which I ask for the yeas and nays : 
 j " ^nrf be it further enacted, That in all thai territory ceded 
 I by France to the United Slates, under the name of Lonisi- 
 ana, which lies north of 36° 30' north latitude, and not in- 
 cluded within the State of Missouri, slavery and involun- 
 j tary servitude, otherwise than in punishment for crimes 
 I whereof ihe party shall have been duly convicted, shall be 
 I and is hereby forever prohibited : Provided always. That 
 j any person escaping into the same, from whom lauor or ser- 
 vice is lawfully claimed in any State or Territory of the 
 United Slates, such fugitive maybe lawfully reclaimed and 
 I conveyed to the person claiming his or her labor or seivice 
 I as aforesaid." 
 
6 
 
 My point is that this langua|je, declaring " such 
 fugitive maybe lawfully reclaimed, and conveyed , 
 to the person claiming his or her labor or service | 
 as aforesaid," means, " may be reclaimed under ! 
 existing laws, and conveyed to the owner under j 
 those laws;" and hence I said, that if this amend- 1 
 ment had been adopted, and the bill passed into ' 
 a law, and a person claiming such an individual 
 should go into the Territory to reclaim him to 
 service, he must proceed under the existing fugi- 
 tive slave law, and consequently every man who 
 voted for that amendment voted to indorse the 
 fugitive slave law as it stands, because it says 
 " may be lawfully reclaimed," and there is no i 
 other law but that. 
 
 Mr. BELL, of New Hampshire. Will the [ 
 Senator from Michigan permit me for a moment? i 
 I think he did not understand me. I understood j 
 him to make an assertion that the whole twelve | 
 Senators who voted in the negative on the Kan- j 
 sas bill, when it was pending before the Senate, i 
 ■were opposed, and had all declared themselves! 
 opposed, to the execution of the fugitive slave i 
 law. The inquiry I made was, what warrant he ! 
 had for that assertion .•' I was not aware, as far 
 as 1 was concerned myself, of having given any i 
 authority to any man to make that statement in 
 respect to me; and in respect to many men who ' 
 appear here in the Opposition, I suppose the same ! 
 remark holds true. I think the statement of the j 
 Senator was too sweeping and comprehensive, j 
 and he can find no authority for making it. j 
 
 Mr. STUART. The Senator will allow me to 
 ask him, then, is he in favor of the execution of 
 the fugitive slave law .' 
 
 Mr. BELL, of New Hampshire. I do not now 
 hold, and have never avowed, that there is any- 
 thing in the law against its execution. 
 
 Mr. STUART. What is the Senator's view 
 of it? ll 
 
 Mr. BELL, of New Hampshire. I sustained i| 
 the compromise measures of 1850, and always j 
 supported them as long as they were upheld by j 
 others — every part and parcel of th^m; not be- | 
 cause I approved them all, but becaust I deemed \i 
 tliem the lesser of many evils. Befoio Senators i 
 undertake to represent the opinions of other gen- j 
 ilemen standing here, I think it is well enough : 
 for them to advise themselves a little as to whether I 
 their statements on that subject are not altogether j 
 too comprehensive and sweeping. l| 
 
 Mr. STUART. The honorable Senator has! 
 misapprehended me altogether in one particular. ! 
 I wish to ask him now, whether he is in favor of 
 the present fugitive slave law, and against its : 
 repeal ? | j 
 
 Mr. BELL, of New Hampshire. That is an- ' 
 other poiiit. I may be in favor of the repeal of a ^ 
 law; but as long as it stands as a law on the stat- 
 ute-book of the United States it must be enforced. 
 I have already stated to the Senate that I favored j 
 it originally merely as a choice of evils; and when 
 the question of its repeal is presented, I may go 
 against the continued existence of that law. That 
 is another point. I think it is a departure from 
 the question as made l\ 
 
 Mr. STUART. Now I will state what I said, ! 
 and the Senator will see that he misunderstood me. ' 
 I did not say that every one of the twelve Senators 
 who voted for this amendment was opposed to 
 the execution of that law. I stated that the i. 
 
 principal plank of their platform in my country 
 in 1854 was the repeal of that law, and that every 
 man of them here voted for it; but I did not state 
 anything about their opinions. The opinions of 
 some of them I knew, for I had heard them ex- 
 pressed on this floor. I think the honorable Sen- 
 ator from Ohio has presented instructions from 
 his State Legislature at this session for the repeal 
 of that law. 
 
 Mr. WADE. Yes, sir; and I voted for it two 
 or three times. 
 
 Mr. STUART. I think the State of Massa- 
 chusetts has presented similar resolutions for the 
 repeal of the law, and I think the repeal of the 
 law is an element in the Republican organization; 
 but yet every Senator here claiming to belong to 
 that organization has voted by this amendment 
 to reclaim fugitives in Kansas under and by vir- 
 tue of this law. 
 
 Mr. President, I shall detain the Senate but a. 
 few minutes longer in considering this proposi- 
 tion. I have said enough already to show that 
 the proposition embodied in the bill which haa 
 passed the Senate, did not meet all that I desired 
 individually. My fellow-Senators very generally 
 know that; but I have been long enough in life to 
 learn that a man in a deliberative body can have 
 nothing precisely as he wants it. He must yield 
 something to the opinions and wishes of others. 
 It is presented, therefore, in the existing excited 
 condition of the country, and in the lamentable 
 condition of Kansas, as the only remedy that it 
 is possible to pass. And how is it objected to? 
 Every Senator who has spoken on the other side 
 has acknowledged that upon its face it is a good 
 bill, and that, if it could be carried out according 
 to its own terms and provisions, it would execute 
 a good purpose — it would heal the difficulties in 
 Kansas, and reduce things to order and harmony 
 throughout the country. Now, I say to my hon- 
 orable friends here — opponents, as well as those 
 who think with me — that whenever any man 
 ventures opposition to a bill on the ground that 
 it is to be dishonestly executed, it is an argument 
 which subverts the foundatioii of all law. Hu- 
 man ingenuity cannot pass a law which is to be 
 effective, if it is not to be honestly and completely 
 executed. If you assume that the courts of the 
 country, the President, and the executive officers 
 of the country, will not execute your laws, then 
 you may abandon legislation upon this, and upon 
 all other subjects. I go for this bill upon the be- 
 lief and upon the expectation that, like all other 
 laws, it will be honestly executed and carried 
 out; and the surrounding circumstances of the 
 country, so far from permitting me to leave them 
 as they are, urge me to forego the personal wishes 
 which my friends know 1 had in respect to some 
 amendments to that bill, and to give it my hearty 
 and my full support. 
 
 Now, sir, let nie say a word to the honorable 
 Senator from Illinois [Mr. Trumbull] in respect 
 to his amendment against which I voted. He has 
 heard me state to-day that 1 did not vote against 
 it because I thought the Legislature of Kansas 
 was fairly organized; but he proposed by that 
 amendment to sweep out all law in that Territory, 
 and to leave nothing but anarchy; and 1 was 
 amazed to hear his response to the honorable 
 Senator from Ohio, [Mr. Pugh.] When that 
 Senator asked him if the bill was defective, as ho 
 
insisted it was, for the preservation of peace from 
 this time until that convention should sit and de- 
 cide whether it would come into the Union to 
 propose amendments, his answer was, that his 
 
 f)roposition for peace to Kansas was to repeal all 
 aws and all legislative bodies. That I may not 
 be mistaken about that, let me read what those 
 two Senators said: 
 
 ** Mr. PnoH. It was suggested by the Senator from Ver- 
 mont, and reiterated by the Senator from New Hampshire, 
 tliat there was no provision in the amendment reported by 
 tlie committee to protect the persons who have been driven, 
 as they say, out ol' the Territory, by violence, after tlieir re- 
 turn. 1 think it is sufficiently covered ; but I invite those 
 Senators, or any of their colleagues, to propose any amend- 
 ment which will more effectually protect persons and prop- 
 erty in the Territory, and especially the persons who have 
 been driven out ; and, for one, I shall vote for it, as I have 
 no doubt a majority of those who support the bill of the 
 committee will do. 
 
 " Mr. TRUMBcr.L. I just offered a proposition which I 
 thought would accomplish that by getting rid of the usurp- 
 ers in the Territory who were and are oppressing these 
 people ; but it met with no favor." 
 
 Let me read the proposition of the Senator 
 from Illinois, [Mr. Trumbull:] 
 
 "^nd he it further enacted, That all the acts and proceed- 
 ings of any body of men heretofore assembled in the Terri- 
 tory of Kansas, and claiming to be a Legislative Assembly 
 thereof, with power and authority to pass laws for the gov- 
 ernment of said Territory, -are hereby declared to be utterly 
 null and void and no person shall exercise any power or 
 jurisdiction, or hold any office under, or by virtue of author- 
 ity derived from such Legislative Assembly ; nor shall the 
 members thereof have or exercise any authority as such." 
 
 That, the Senator from Illinois answers the 
 Senator from Ohio, is his remedy to protect the 
 people now in theTerritory of Kansa.s — to protect 
 those men who have been driven out, and who 
 may go back up to the time of the election. Did 
 ever any mortal man hear of a remedy like that.' 
 
 As I have said, I am not going over ground 
 that has been so ably occupied by others; but a 
 suggestion was made by the Senator from Illinois 
 to the Senator from Maine, when he was inter- 
 rogating my friend from Ohio, in respect to the 
 repealing section of the present bill. It was asked 
 (upon tiie suggestion of tha^ being untrue, as I 
 thought, because he was talking to the Senator 
 from Maine at the time; but, if I am mistaken, I 
 can be corrected) wiiether it was claimed that 
 the law which was a test for a practicing attorney 
 was against the terms of the original Kansas act? 
 and it was considered, I think, with some tri- 
 umph, that there was a law which was reached 
 by the amendment of the Senator from Missouri, 
 which did not conflict with the terms of the ori- 
 ginal Kansas act. I have always found that, when 
 a man was prompted, he generally made a mis- 
 take. I say it is in conflict with that act, and 
 with the Constitution of the United States, pal- 
 pably. What is the business of a lawyer by 
 profession? It is to defend men who are arraigned 
 lor crime — men who are prosecuted for a libel, or 
 for anything else — and to defend them with the 
 Utmost freedom of speech. Suppose a man pros- 
 ecuted in that Territory for an infringement of 
 the fugitive slave law. His counsel's mouth is 
 closed by that law of the Territory against argu- 
 ing to a court that it is an unconstitutional law. 
 
 He is sworn to support it; and would he be 
 supporting a law against the constitutionality of 
 which he was arguing? I say, it is in conflict 
 both with the organic act and the Constitution of 
 the United States; and there is not a law reached 
 by the amendment of the Senator .from Missouri 
 that does not conflict with that provision of the 
 organic act which declares that that people shall 
 be perfectly free to form and regulate their own 
 domestic institutions in their own way. Free- 
 dom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of 
 speech of counsel, freedom of opinion in jurymen, 
 all are indispensable to leave a people perfectly 
 free to form the institutions which are to exist, 
 and under which they are to come into the United 
 States Confederacy. It was, therefore, proper; 
 and the suggestion which was made constitutes 
 no exception to the general rule — none what- 
 ever. 
 
 I regret that the honorable Senator from New 
 York is not here; but when the resolution of the 
 Senator from Kentucky was under consideration, 
 he made a remark in respect to me that I thought 
 i entirely unfounded, and exceedingly unkind. 
 He asserted here in the Senate that I had avowed 
 myself in favor of doing nothing for the people 
 of Kansas Territory. I ask, has any man who 
 advocates the Topeka constitution done anything 
 for the purpose of healing dissensions and calm- 
 ing the difficulties in die Territory of Kansas? 
 If there is one of those Senators on this floor who 
 can rise and say he has made a speech for that 
 object — that he has made a speech with that de- 
 sign — to allay strife in Kansas — to allay conten- 
 tion and ili-feeling in the Union, let him rise and 
 point me to that speech. On the contrary, it has 
 been, so far as I have heard — and I have been 
 here every day but one — a series of attacks on 
 the Administration, upon the Democratic party, 
 and in too many instances the people of that 
 Territory have been told that they were justified 
 in resisting the laws. Then we are presented 
 from that side of the House with no remedy ex- 
 cept the Topeka constitution. The arguments 
 of Senators who have preceded me on that sub- 
 ject are so conclusive to my mind — they are such 
 as struck me in the outset, that I do not wish to 
 add a word on that subject. I have not another 
 word to say in respect to the bill which has passed 
 the Senate, and which is under consideration, ex- 
 cept this: it is asked what use is it to publish that 
 bill? Why, sir, I can furnish an incident whicli 
 ought to be conclusive in the mind of every man 
 for publishing il. No longer ago than the last con- 
 gressional election in Michigan, a distinguished 
 gentleman from the State of Ohio, the present 
 chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means 
 of the House of Representatives, came to my 
 town and made a speech, in which he took up the 
 Kansas act, and commented on that part of it 
 which is the language of the ordinance of 1787, 
 respecting the organization of the Territory, the 
 enumerating of the inhabitants, the proclamation 
 of the Governor, and the election, which is ver- 
 batim the language of the ordinance of 1787, and 
 verbatim the language of every territorial act that 
 has ever been passed. He took it up, and de- 
 clared the whole of it an outrage such as had 
 never been perpetrated upon the people of the 
 country before ! To cap the climax of his speech, 
 the gentleman from Ohio declared that a citizen 
 
8 
 
 HHMHIli 
 
 016 089 351 5 
 
 of South Carolina — yes, sir, a citizen of South 
 Carohna — W£i3 the Governor of Kansas, chosen 
 and selected by the pro-slavery Democracy, as 
 he said, to carry out the design of making 
 Kansas a slave State. When I replied to him 
 a few evenings afterwards, and stated the fact, 
 that no gentleman from South Carolina was the 
 Governor of Kansas, an eminent Republican of 
 Detroit jumps up in meeting and asks me who 
 was; and when I told him Mr. Reeder, of Penn- 
 sylvania, he seemed amazed. That was a per- 
 version in respect to the act, and in respect to the 
 officers of the country, which shows you the ne- 
 cessity of spreading this bill far and wide before 
 the people. 
 
 I have faith, sir, to believe that the conserv- 
 ative Constitution -loving people of the northern 
 States will look upon this bill, see that it is fair, 
 and that it furnishes a means of relief. I wish it 
 spread before their eyes. Before that people I 
 expect to go to meet this issue and abide its results . 
 My fate is linked with theirs. They are lovers 
 of the country and supporters of the Constitution, 
 and sooner or later they will come to the conclu- 
 sion to stand by the Constitution, and oppose all 
 parties that are for disregarding and contemning 
 its fundamental principles, destroying its founda- 
 
 tions, and dissolving this Union, which alone 
 can preserve our greatness, prosperity, and hap- 
 piness. 
 
 The Senator from Massachusetts says that 
 when his party have got a majority in the House 
 of Representatives, a majority in the Senate, 
 and Fremont elected President, they are going 
 to abolish slavery in Kansas. Well, sir, I can 
 think of no argument that is proper to meet that 
 except the old maxim that " when the skies fall 
 we shall catch larks. " That is so improbable an 
 event, that I cannot conceive that it is put forward 
 by the Senator here as an argument based upon 
 reasonable expectation, but rather as a mere flour- 
 ish with which to close a sentence. 
 
 Mr. President, I shall now leave this subject, 
 in the hope that every vote I have given on it 
 during this Congress, and every one which I may 
 be called upon to give hereafter, will be fully ex- 
 plained by the views which I have now sub- 
 mitted. It was the only purpose which I had in 
 rising, and it is one which I should not have exe- 
 cuted now but for the fact that we had spent more 
 than six hours of the day, and put it out of our 
 power to do any other business, in considering 
 the question whether we should print twenty thou- 
 sand extra copies of this bill. 
 
 Printed at the Office of the Congressional Globe. 
 
LIBRAR> 
 
 
 
HBRARY OF 
 
 CONGRESS 
 
 016 089 351 5