V,,,^.,^,^s, C^r.ssed, and that it does prescribe the time, places, and manner of holding the eli^tion for a Delegate to the Congress of tli'> United States. It is in full compliance, both in form and substance, with the Constitution. . This branch of our jurisdiction is, then, limited by this law, and the ascertainment of the fact as to whether the Delegate applying for a scat here was elected under it and pursuant to it. If we extend our inquiries beyond the subjects pointed out by the Constitution, wc are transgressing our powers, and to that extent usurping authority. When we examine as to the qualifications of the Delegate, we again find ourselves limited and our inquiries directed by the Constitution to his age, citizenship, and inhabitancy of the Territory. These are the qualificatioiis laid down in the sec- ond section of the first article of the Constitution, and no State law can either add to them, or dimin- ish them. If a State or Territorial Legislature were to attempt it, as has been done, it is the duty of this House, as it has done on similar j occasions, to disregard them, and consider them null and of no effect. In the word " returns, " we 'perhaps find our jurisdiction the largest, because ! that is nowhere defined or limited by the Consti- jtution. What arc the returns of an election? It I is not only the form in which the result of an election is made, but it embraces the casting up of the votes, and all means by which this result is to be arrived at. It authorizes an-inquiry into I the right of the voters to vote, and whether legal votes have been rejected; and, indeed, into all and j everything that makes up the result of a^i elec- j tion. These are all subjects of legitimate inquiry by : thisHouse; and I repeat that we on this side' of I the question do not decline this investigation to the extent and in the mode which I have indi- cated. We have been always ready to inquire into and ascertain whether the election of Dele- gates in Kansas was conducted according to law — 1 whether illegal votes were received by the judges, and whether legal votes were rejected by them — [ whether the returns exhibit the true result, and if the claimant has the qualifications required by the Constitution. This embraces all our jurisdic- tion over the subject and of course concludes our ! investigation. 1 But io this all we are required to do by the ma- jority of the committee, and those who advocate the resolution and the reasons they have reported ? ' Oh, no! by no means. They are not content to , go into the subjects of investigation to Vhich our steps are directed by the plain letter of the Con- stitution; but they invite us to inquire into other matters, jurisdiction of which has been rightly ' taken, as I think, by another tribunal, to which they of right belonged. Tlioy allege that the Legis- lature which enacted the law under which the ■ sitting Delegate claims his seat was an illegal as- sembly of persons; that it was conceived in cor- ruption and brought forth by violence; that it assumed the guise of a legal and authoritative Legislatin'e for the purpose of imposition and fraud. They insist that wo shall examine into the " election, returns, and qualifications" of the members composing this body, who assumed the duties of legislation for that infant Territory. Now, Mr. Speaker, where arc we to get the au- thority to examine into the " election, returns, and qualifications" of the members composing either the State or Territorial Legislature? I have at- tempted to show, and hope I have succeeded, that the Constitution, that chart of our powers, does not authorize the investigation proposed. The Legislature of Kansas has examined and derided upon the elections, returns, and qualifi- cations of i!fe own members, and we can neither take appellate nor original jurisdiction of the same question; nor have those who have insisted upon the exercise of this power by the House furnished either argument or precedent to justify us. Early in this debate I rememlier to have heard the elo- quent gentleman from Georgia, [Mr. Stephens,] in gallant and knightly style, challenge the advo- cates of this power to produce a single case, in either England or America, in which all the legis- lative assemblies had not claimed and exercised the right to decide upon the elections, returns, and qualifications of their own members. Now, sir, we all acknowledge the qliility of gentlemen who advocate the adoption of this resolution; we have all been made sensiljle of their industrious habits, and have witnessed in them a zeal that would more become a better cause — with books at their command without stint; and not a single case have they adduced that, in the slightest degree, would justify the step which they pro- pose. Mr. ALLISON. 1 think the gentleman from Mississippi does not make anything by that; for it is -impossible in the history of either of the Governments to get a parallel case to the one which is now before the House. Shall it make anything for his side of the question, because in the history of neither Government can there be a case found at all similar to the ojie under discus- sion. I therefore object to the gentleman 's taking anything by such a demand. The case is an un- paralleled one in the history of our Government, and how could there be one like it in Great Britain — a Government entirely dissimilar to ours, and presenting no such case, having at no time a Del- • egate on the floor of the House of Commons to represent the people of a Territory? It therefore comes far short of the case now before the House, and nothing should be made by any such demand. • Mr. LAKE. I will leave for the present the course^ of my remarks, and reply to the gentle- man from Pennsylvania. • He says there. is noth- ing in Great Britain like it — no territorial repre- sentative, and therefore no precedent ought to be expected from that quarter. Well, suppose they have no territorial representatives? Have they not got popular representatives, and cannot the same question arise in all countries where they have a legislative assembly composed of popu- lar representatives? The question, Mr. Speaker, | [it seems to mc, might arise in Great Britain as well as here, though perhaps not as likely to do so. I do not limit tiiose who differ with me on this subject to the finding of examples amongst territorial representatives. Let them show any case, arising out of State representation, in which this House or State Legislatures have, either, exercised the power now claimed by gentlemen to belong to this House. I say they have not done it, and cannot do it. But the gentleman says, that the case is with- out a parallel, and tliat neither side can find cases or precedents to sustain them. I ditff'r with the gentleman; and say, that to the extent tliat we propose to go in this investigation, the book before me (Contested Elections) is full of prece-' dents. We are following the beaten track, both of this and the English Government, and there is no dearth of authorities and sign-boards to show us that we are on the great highway. But tliosa gentlemen who seek to draw us away from this course, may well be asked to exhibit some prece- dent or sign that we shall be right in following them. But, Mr. Speaker, some of the gentlemen on the other side did take up the glove thrown down to them by the distinguished champion from Georgia, and have endeavored to mak* good their acceptance. The gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. KuNKEL,] and the venerable chairman of the Judiciary Committee, as well as the gentle- man from Indiana, [Mr. Barbour,] have all un- dertaken to meet this bold defiance by the intro- duction of authorities, in the shape of precedents, to sustain- their course. Their failure is an ad- ditional argument against them, and is "confirm- ation strong, as Holy Writ" of the position as- sumed by those who advocate this side of the question. I will examine these authorities before I finisl]. Now, sir, I hold that the Kansas Legislature, like all other legislative assemblies that emanate directly from the people, was, from necessity, re- quired to judge of the elections, returns, and qualifi- cations of its own memb(,rs. All must admitthat, in popular representative governments, this is a preliminary C[ueslion to that of legislation. Who are appointed to legislate must be decided before the legislation can comnjence. It is not a certain number of citizens who are authorized to legis- late, but a certain number of representatives of the people. Who are, and who are not, repre- sentatives must, therefore, be ascertained, befora the business of legislation commences. Only those whom the people have appointed and clothed with authority can rightfully legislate for a State, All will admit that the question must be dgcided, and that the decision ought to precede legislation. Now, who is to decide this question ? I hold that it is an inherent right in the Legislature itself. I do not assert that Congress could not have placed this power in some other body or tribunal; but not having done so, I think it be- longs to each branch of the Legislature to decidj> for itself. It is an incident to the power of legislation. When Congress authorized the people of Kansas to elect a Legislature and make laws for them- selves, they conferred incidentally upon that Legislature the right of judging of the elections, returns, and qualifications of its own members. 4 The grant of nower to legislate carried with it all the incidents and means necessarv to, render effectual the power granted. Tiie right to protect tlKjiii- selves from intruders and usuriiers — tiie means, of ascertaining who had tin: p(.'ople's credentials — who had been elected bj' them — were necessary- incidents to the great right of legislation, and in- dispensable to its exercise. By way of illustration, I will point to the clause in the Constitution, which says: " When vacancies happen in the representation of any State, llie executive authority tliereof bliali iscus writs ot' election to fill such vacancy." The authority hereby conferred on the Gov- ernors of the States carries with it the authority to appoint the time, places, and manner of hold- ing an election to fill the vacancy, as fully and completely, and to tlic samccxtent,as that power is conferred on the Legislatures of the States, by the fourth section of the first article of the Con- stitution. The whole doctrine of contempts in courts of justice is anotlier illustration of^ the principle I nave stated. A court fines and imprisons for con- tempt, without having the power expressly con- ferred upon it; but the power is conceded to belong to it as an incident necessary to the execution of the great powers intrusted to its administration. These examples establish tiie principle here eon- tended for — that the grant of a power carries with it all the means and appliances necessary to carry into effect the power granted. It is true, sir, that the Constitution confers on each House of Congress the right to decide upon the elections, returns, and qualifications of its members; but I have no doubt that each would have possessed this right, even if the Constitution had been silent on the subject. The House of Commons, in England, has always exercised the same right; and yet there is no Constitution there to confer it, and no act of Parliament has conferred it. It seems to me, sir, that unless the Kansas and Nebraska bill has vested this power — so indispensable to the right of legislation — somewhere else, it may be safely assumed to belong tq each branch of the Legislature as an inherent right. In corroboration of the views which I have here presented, I will call to the recolleetion of the House 'the remark made by my friend from Maryland, []Mr. Davis,] in the very eloquent Sj3eech with which he delighted all hearers a few days ago on this subject. He represented the Supreme Court as having decided that the ques- tion which I am no\\4 discussing can never arise in a court, because the duty of courts commences wirere legislation ends. The organization of the Legislature must be conceded before the power of the courts can be c;illed into exercise. I have not read the decision, but will suppose it to be a sound politicttl theory. How important is it, there- fore, to concede this power in the Legislature, as the question caiuiot be made in the courts! But, Mr. Speaker, I am constrained lo dissent from my friend [I\Ir. Davis] in the opinion ex- pressed by him, that the act organizing the Ter- ritory of Kansas conferred the power of judging of the elections, returns, and q\iali(ications of the members of the Legislature upon tlie Governor. He says, this pov/eris vested in the Governor by the twenty-second section, which declares, that " the persons having the highest number of legal votes in each of said council districts for mem- bers of the Council shall be declared by the Gov- ernor to be duly elected to the Council; and the persons having the highest number of legal votes for the House of Repftsentatives sliall be de- clared by the Governor to be duly elected mem- Ijers of said House." By this section. Congress directed the Governor to have the firi-t election^ held at such time, places, aifti in such manner as he might direct; lay off thf districts; apportion the representation ;appoint the judges; and i^^ally declare tlie persons elected who had the highest number of votes. The returns of the officers holding the election were evidently designed to be made to the Gov- ernor, there being in fact at that, time no other public functionary to whom they could properly be made. But I cannot think that the language quoted from the act ever was intended to confer upon him the power in question, especially when we recollect that it is a power always exercised by the Legislatures of tlie States, and never, in a single 'instance, that I am aware of, exercised by a Governor. Throughout the whole organic act, the intention of Congress to make the same divis- ions of power that have obtained in t'?ie State governments, is most manifest. This power, if conferred on the Governor, as is supposed, was a remarkable departure from the usages in the States, and without any reason for its exercise by the Governor, at the first assemblage of the Legis- lature, that would not ajiply with equal force to all subsequent meetings of that body. The elec- tion returns all being made to him, it is not won- derful that he should have been authorized to issue certificates of election to such persons as appeared to have the highest number of votes, and which would be presumptive evidence of an elec- tion. But, sir, 1 think the organic act itself con- tains the strongest argument against the idea that this power was conferred upon the Governor by the language which has been quoted from the twenty-second section. The thirty-second section of the Kansas and Nebraska act provides for the election of a Dele- gate to this body, and contains the following clause: "The person liavinii the greatest nunibor of votes sliall be fleglarcci hy the Governor lo 1)>: duly cli;eted, and a ccrtiii- cate tlicrenr shall be ;|ivcn accordingly." The language last quoted is almost identical with that cited above to show the Governor's power to declare members of theCouncil and of the House duly elected. The language is not only the same in the quotations, but is used in reference to kindred sulijects, ami must have the . same meaning attached to them. If Congress intended that the Governor should have the power to judge of, and determine, the elections, returns, and qualifications of the members of the Council and the House of Representatives, it is most cer- tain that they intended»to confer on him the sama ])ower in reference to the election of Delegate to this body. But Congress could not confer upon the Governor of Kansas the power over the elec- tion of Delegate to this House that my friend from Maryland claims they have done over th« memliers of the Council and the House of Rep- resentatives of the Territory. The Constitution having placed the power in this House, it canriot be maintained for a moment that Conjire'ss in- tended to vest the same power in the Governor ■of Kansas. It could not be done, and doubtless was not attempted. It seems to mc clear beyond .cavil, that Congress neverinteudod to conferupon the Governor of Kansas any other power over the elections, returns, and qualifiijations of the members of tlie Council and of the House of Pv.ep- resentatives than is usually exercit5ed by Gover- nors of the States in similar circumstances, and that his certificate was only prima facie evidence of the election, and not conclusive. But, sir, the cry is still, that tlie members of the Legislature were elected by armed stran£;ers, who drove the citizens from the polb, or so intimi- dated them as to keep them from voting;; and all this, they, say, calls for remedy and redress. I admit that if the members who composed the Legislative Assembly were elected by stran- gers, and not by the citizens of the Territory, it was a great outrage, and ought and could have been remedied, lif the views which I have pre- sented on this subject are deemed sound, then their remedy \vas by contesting before the Legis- lature 4tself the election of these spurious mem- bers. Then was the time and then the place to apply the correction to this evil. It was the duty of those who now complain that they wci-e the vietims of this outrage. If they preferred sub- mission to wrong, to a manly resistance at the E roper time and place — if, as the lawyers say, they ad their day in courts and would not demand the redress that they were entitled to, it was their own folly, and their coraplajutsat this day, whilst they cannot cure the evil, publish their own shame. It is not the least suspicious circumstance about this case, that these American freemen (as they are called) should have submitted with so much patient forbearance to these wrongs, never having preferred their complaints at home before the authorities whose duty it v/as to hear them, but reserved them for our ears, who have not the power of redressing them. In.'jtead of resorting to a jury of the vicinage, they changed the venue, and removed the case two thousand miles to Con- *gress, and reqj.iire us to say w"hethor this was or \^a3 not a valid Legislature. To that we answer, that it was a valid Legislature so far as we are per- mitted to judge. We know tliat the organic law of the Territory provided for a Legislature, and prescribed how it«hould be chosen, setting out the qualifications of voters, and directing the Governor to appoint the time, place, ond manner of holding the election. We know that the Gov- ernor performed his duty in this regard, and that the Legislature was convened pursuant to his call. He communicated with them as a legislative body, and a series of laws was passed by them amongst which was one i-egulating future elec- tions. This law, therefore, is accompanied by all the marks and evidences of a valid enactment that any law can po.ssess; and unless we declare that our functionaries are all corrupt, and that neither faith nor confidenc/3 can be jilaced in man, we are bound to say that the Legi.-daturc was constituted according to law, and that these enact- ments have all the sanctity and validity pf laws. Now, Mr. Speaker, I will briefly review the cases introduced by gentlemen on the other side of this question which, they allege, maintain and fortify their position. Remember, sir, that they insist that this House can examine into the elections, returns, and qualification.s of the m«'m- bcrs of the Kansas Legislattin^, and that tlioir authorities sustain that view. The caf;e of Spauld- ing vs. Mead, from Georgia, was relied upon by thd three gentlemen who accepted the challenge of the gentleman from Georgia, [Mr. Stephevs.1 The case will be found in the volum:^ of contostcu cases from 1781) to 1834. It exhibits the following facts: The Legislature of Georgia passed a law fixing the time, place.", and manner of holding elections for membens of Congress, and added to these requirements of the Constitution, that the re- turning officers should make their returns within twenty days after the election. By the return.s made within the twenty days, as was required by the statute. Mead had 4,438 votes, and Spaulding had 4,269. The certificate of election was given to Mead. Three of the counties of the district did not make returns Vi'ithin the twenty days, and they were excluded. The sole olijection to these returns was tiic tardiness v/-ith which they were made. When added to the return.'? rcceivc-d witjiin the time prescribed by law, they changed the result, and showed a majority of thirty-nine votes for Spaulding. Spaulding contested the seat of Mead successfully. The report of the committee was in his favor, 'and received the sanction of the House. I read the following ex- tract from it: " Upon tlie fbrcgoing statement of facts, as the Constitu- tion lias made tUis^ House tlio judge of the elections atwl returns, as well as* the qualificalioris, of its iijejiibers ; as the returns from the State authorities, therefore, are only prima facie evidence of an election, but not conclusivi upon this House ; as there is in the present case satisfactory proof, that the votes of the three counties in question, al- though the returns thereof were not transmitted to the tlov- ernor in season to be considered by liiin, were, originally, good, lawful, constitutional votes, kacins, hccyi giccn In/ qual- ified voters on the day, at the plans, and in the manner pre- scribed by law ; and as neither the voters wl:o gave them, nor Llie candidates in whose favor they were siven, have done, or omitted, anytliing on their part to forfeit their re- spective right, the eoiiiniitt^e are of opinion that these votes ou'^ht to he allowed, and therefore recommend the following resolution." This case, so far from opposing, affirms the view that I have taken of this case. The Georgia elec- tion law contained other requiremeius than those contained in the constitution. It not only pre- _seribed the time, places, and manner of holding the eleetion as required by the constitution, but excluded all returns not made to the Governor within twenty days from the day of the election. .The law was in conflict with the constitution, and was therefore not obligatory upon the House, but was rejected by them. . The next case cited by these gentlemen, or some of them, is the case of Barney vs. McCroery, from Maryland, and will lie found in the second volume of "Contested Elections," at page 167. The lavvT of Maryland districting the State and regulating elections made a district of Baltimore county and city, and authorized the election of two Representatives to Congress, one of ichich should reside in the city, and the other in the coiintij. Four candidates run. Mr. Moore lived in the county, and received G,164 vot^s; Mr. McCreer' lived in the county, and received 3,559 votes; RI . Barney lived in the city, and received 2,063 vote"; aiid iMr. Seat, who also lived in the city , receiv-d 353 votes. Mr. Moore's- election v/as conced.d. 6 Mr. Barney, relying upon the law of Maryland, contested Mr. McCreery's scat, because he re- sided in the county, and not in the city. The conuressional committee in this case say in their report as follows: '•Tlie coininittoe proceeded to examine the Constitution witli relation to the case submitted to them, and find that the ijuahtieations of members are llierein determined, with- out reserving any authority to the State i,cgislatures to change, add to, or diminish those qualifications; and that by thut instrument Congress is constituted the sole judge of the i|ualifications prescribed l)y it, and obliged to decide ai^reeably to the constit\itional rules ; l)ul the State Legis- latures being l)y the Constitution authorized t» i)rescribe the time, place, and manner of holding the elections, in contioversies arising under this authority Congress is obliged to decide agreeably to tlie laws of the respective States. "On the most mature consideration of the case submitted to tliem, the committee are of opinion that Wflliam Mc- Creery is duly qualifnui to repres(;nt the (iilh district of the State of Maryland; and that the law of that State restrict- ing the residence of members of Congress to any particular jmt of the district for which they may be clioseu is con- trary to the Constitution of the United States." The House cannot fail to perceive that this cnso, like the one from Georgia, turned upon the fact, that the law of Maryland undertook to add tiualilicalions not contained in the Constitution of the United States; and the House was bound either to disregard the la\r of Maryland or violate the Constitution. This cttse also sustains the view which I have taken of our power and duty in reference to the contested election before us. Whenever the Constitution prescribes that the _ State Legislatures shall, by law, prescribe the time, place, and manner of hold^ing the election, and the law thus passed complies with the Con- stitution, we will conform to its requirements; but when the Legislature goes beyond the dictates of the Constitution, either in the matter of elec- tions, or^ the qualifications of Representatives, then we are to reject the law or violate the Con- stitution. In these cases the validity of the State laws were tested by comparing their provisions with those of the Constitution, and not by insti- tuting an inquiry into the election, returns, and qualificjitions of the members of the Legislature who passed them. Some other cases have been cited by gentlemen on the othe^side, not more applicable tiian those that 1 have noticed, and equally reconcilable with the principles that have been maintained on this side of the question. Two of then'i occurred in the other end of the Capitol, in which the Senate inquired whether the claimant had been elected by tiie Legislature of the State which he claimed, to represent. This was certainly a very legitimate inquiry, seeing that the Constitution has pro- vided for the election of Senators in that way and no other. If they were not elected by the State Li.^gislatures, they were clearly not entitled to be receiv('d as Senators. But, in none of the cases cited by gentlemen, in whicit the contest was be- fore this House or before the Senate, does it appear that cither body ever inquired into the elections, : turns, and qualifications of the members com- _)osing the State Legislatures;and I fee! warranted, therefore, in repeating the di.'fiant remark of the ^nllcman from Georgia, [Mr. Stephens,] that sucli case can be found in either England or ■rica. ow, Mr. Speaker, we have heard much about , tVaud, corruption, and violence by which the [ Kansas Legislature was elected, and the people cheated out of the rLi^rescntativeS of their choice, ^ou will find thai fraud, corruption, violence, tini invasion, and such like monstrous terms, figure ntost conspicuously in the report of the majority of the committee. You will also find the same, or similar plyases and ideas, composing the staple of the speeches made in support of that report. It becomes worth while now to inquire how far all these grievances, supposing them to exist, will affect the validity of an election. Suppose it to be true, as alleged in the report of the majority, ■ that large bands of organized men came over from Missouri with martial music, with banners flying, together with "all the pride, pomp, and circum- stance of war." Suppose they had tents and arms, provisions and forage, and in one instance artillery, and pitched their tents in and about the places designated for holding the elections, for the purpose of intimidation; and suppose the cit- izens were actually intimidated, and ki^pt away from the polls by the dread of insult or persontil violence; or suppose that they were actually beaten off, or captured and detained from the polls, and prevented from exercising the elective franchise, — would any or all of these outrages in- validate or affect the returns of an election. Do not suppose, sir, for one moment, that I an\ either tlie advocate or apologist of such scenes; but I wish to ask if they can affect the legality of an election.' I certainly think not. If legal votes are presented to the judges and rejected, or if illegal votes are received by them when they should have been rejected, the returns will be invalid Uj the extent of such occurrences; und it would be the duty of the Legislature, avIu) are the judges of these returns in the last resort, to purge the polls and declare the true result. But any violence or traud by which legal voters were kept from the polls, I maintain, would not be considered by those who are charged with the duty of deciding upon the election, returns, and qualifications of members, or those claiming to be members. These views apply to all elections, either for members of the Legislature, or for Dele- gates or Representatives to this House. To illustrate my views, I will suppose a case! Suppose great excitement was gotten up, durifig the canvass, between the contestants in this case — suppose the angry passions of their supporters to be aroused to a very high degree, and that two of the friends of each of the gen|)emen had casually met the day before the election, and from angry words they had proceeded to blows; and suppose the friends of the sitting Delegate had so beaten the friends of his rival as to prevent them from getting to the polls on the next day; and suppose the Hiturns to shov/ the sitting Delegate to be elected by one majority only, and the fact be mado to apjiear that, if the beaten voters could have got to the polls, that the majority would have been reversed,— I ask, ei^phatically, if the returns would be altered so as to, rid the result of the effects of this violi-nce .' I say, no; and bihcve no man in this House c;in be found to say yes. Under our povrer to jtidge the election, returns, and qualifications of members, we would be com- pelled to award the seat to the silting Delegate. Thi: elective franchise is a per.sonal right : it belongs' to the man. He may waive it, he may refuse to use it for a consideration, or he may be brow- beaten and intimidated from its exorcise, or he i may cast it for a consideration at the bidding of i another; but all these abuses of this jjreat privi- j lege, though they may be cfiisund, they cannot i be removed by us when \vc come to judge of the | eUclion, returns, and qualifications of meml)ers. ! Mr. Speaker, we are told, in this majority re-i port, that the Territory of Kansas was not only invaded by an armed force of foreigners, but that they have ever since held possession of it, and that the people of the Territory are now subju- gated by these invaders. The committee have been imjiosedon. Does any man in this House, save themselves, believe this story? Is it not amazing that the majority of the committee should exhibit such credulity? An invading force has held possession of the Territory of Kansas, and actually subjugated the people by physical force; and yet we have a Governor there, whose duty it is to repel invaders, and quell domestic violence bj- the means subject to his control: and if it can- not be done by him, at. the call of the Legislature or upon his own representation, the President of the United States is required by law to send the , Army and Navy and militia from the States to ! his assistance. The Governor is in communica- tion with the President, and the President with us, and yet no note of alarm has come to us or the country from either of these distinguished functionaries. Mr. Speaker, it is not — it cannot be so. You do not believe it. As the story came here with this contestant, it seems to have been gotten up for congressional consumption only. Sir, I am opposed to giving the committee the power of sending for persons for another reason of great force with me. The reasons given in the majority report for the exercise of this extraor- dinary power are mainly contained in the address of Governor Recder (the contestant) to them. His sensibilities seem to be much exiyted in be- half of the dear people whose representative he claims to be. He has described their sufferings and wrongs in their present state of subjugation. He is one of them — their friend; and occupying, as he says he does, the interesting and delicate relation of representative of them, let us see if this picture which he has drawn of them — his " chosen people" — is such as to recommend them to us as credible witnesses. He says they were driven from the polls on tlie 30th of March. Yes, sir, these freemen — the descendants of the Pilgrim Fathers, whose chivalrous love of liberty won for them an empire on this western continent — at the bidding of strangers, laid down the elective franchise, and took up the yoke of the conqueror. Governor Reeder was then Governor of the Ter- ritory, in (be zenith of his power, basking at full length in the sunshine of presidential favor, and then, as now, the ardent friend of the free people of Kansas, able and willing to redress this wrong of being despoiled of the elective franchise. Well, of course he made them all free again, and restored to them tliat jewel of which their conquering foes had deprived them — the elective franchise. No, sir, he says to the committee that he did not, be- cause these freemen were afraid to ask the boon of deliverance. They suffered on, and continue to suffer; and he asks that they may be sent for and brought here, in order that they may tell the story of their wrongs to us; for they are still so intimidated that they cannot tell it in Kansas. This, then, is the picture. Fright drove them from the polls! fright prevented Uiem from com- plaining to him! and fright will keep them now from telling the truth boldly in the Territory! I ask-, Mr. Speaker, if these men claim to be the sonsof revolutionary sires? I ask if the blood of Warren and Hancock circulates in their vein.s? No, sir; in my judgment, if the picture wliich Governor Reeder has drawn of them be true, they are the miserable spawn of the emigration aid society. They are too craven , too spiritless, even to be conductors on an underground railroad. [Laughter.] Yet gentlemen gravely ask you to bruig these men here for the purpose of testifying, and expect you to believe them. Suffering, as they do, under an excessive timidity, you could only get them to testify by slipping them into a com- mittee-room, to tell the story of their wrongs in soft whispers to the gentle ears of a committee. If I believed the picture of their degradation, as drawn by their representative, I would not believe them. The man that submits to outrages and forbears to complain, or to ask for redress from timidity, ought not to be put upon the witness-stand, l)e- cause he ought not to be believed. It requires more boldness to speak the truth than these Kan- sas witnesses scevn to possess. But, Mr. Speaker, I will say that I do not be- lieve this account of any considerable portion of the American people; 1 believe that it is a pic- ture drawn and painted for effect; I believe it is not faithful; it is a caricature. If the outra'^es of which we hear- were really perpetrated at the polls in March, the people of Kansas would jiot have suppressed their complaints, but would have demanded redress. And now, sir, I doubt not that, if a commission is sent out to take their depositions, they will tell the truth. If they are the pusillanimous, abject creatures that this pic- ture would have us believe they are, interference is vain. The Government did wrong to exchange the Indians who possessed the country for such men. It was a bad trade. [Laughter.] Better^far better, would it have been to have left the broad prairies, the beautiful woodlands, and purling streams erf that region to the sons of the forest, than to have cursed it with such a race. A few words more, sir, and I have done. Tlie only purpose declared by the memorial of Gov- ernor Reeder for sending for persons is to prove facts to invalidate the laws of the Kansas Leo-is- lature. If I have succeeded in showing that the proof is inadmissible for that purpose, because it is not within our jurisdiction, then there is no reason for sending for persons, and tliis motion must fail. The memorial sets up no oilier demand for parol testimony, except to show Ahat the Kansas Legislature was illegal, because of the fraud and violence which prevailed at the election of its members. It is true, sir, that he charges, in his memorial, "that said pretended election was not conducted even according to the forms and mode prescribed by the supposed law which purported to authorize it." By " pretended elec- tion" he means the election of the sitting Dele- gate. This charge looks as if parol testimony was required to prove some departure from the law regulating the election for Delegate. But you will see, in a following senti-nce, that he excuses himself from making specifications under this charge, " bv reason that he has beec unable to ; 8 obtain from the cxccntive office in said Terri- 1 1 utive office. If, therpfore, the House is of opinion tnry the necessary information, or any copies of 1 1 that we cannot gci behind the Kansas law, and the returns of said ck;ction." Thus showing, M examine into the election rcturna and qualifica- unmistakably, that f»r legitimate objects persoiisf || tions of the mernbei-s of the Kansas Legislature, arc not M-anled from Kansas as witnesses.* For j, this ap]>licafion to send for persons is" nsolears, a!) pvirposts of legitimate inquiry he relies upon I aixd must fail. To the sonding^ for papers no one iiiformation and records containedin the exec- !,' objects. FhBt««l at Um Office of tli« C«>«gre»sice»l Oieb«- LBJl "Co