r-l ->1 \^' m WSMi \ n r C.P .ec la of 'K\t>■^^• Jc)lmi SVierjTian -v Class __A_k!i_L. Book .$S5 SPEECH OF HON. JOHN SHERMAJ^, OF OHIO, In reply to Mr. Stephens, of Georgia, and Review of Mr. Oliver's Minority Report. BEFORB THI HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, JULY SO, IBflff. The qaeslion being upou the adoptiou of lUe following resolution : Resolved, That John W, Whitfield is not cnlilled to n Beat in tliis House as a Delegate from llie Territory oi" Kansas — Mr. SHERMAN. I do not propose, Mr. Speaker, to follow the gentleman from Georgia, [Mr. Ste- phens,] in rambling from the question before the House. His eminent ability, as well as my inex- perience in this forum, deter me from such an attempt. He has discussed topics to which I will not refer — such as the Fugitive Slave ! Law, and the rights of negroes in the Xorthera and Southern States. The controversy now before the House turns upon the question whether or not the two bodies recently assembled at Shawnee Mission was a Talid Legislative Assembly of the Territory of Kansas, elected in accordance with its organic law. If so, then Gen. Whitfield is entitled to retain his seat here, and I would not vote to de- prive him of it. It is true, there are other questions involved. If the alleged Legislative Assembly was valid, the election law passed by it contained uncon- stitutional tests and qualifications, which were intended to exclude and would have excluded a large number, if not a majority, of the legal voters from the polls. From the testimony of eighteen witnesses, taken before the ivansas In- vestigating Committee, it appears that the same organized invasion from Missouri which con- trolled the previous elections in the Territory, participated in the one of October last, but to a less extent. In eight electiou precincts, 852 illegal votes were cast. But one party voted, and in most cases the election law was utterly disre- garded. The dollar tax and test oatlis were only designed to exclude a particular class of voters ; and this being doue by other means, they were generally disregarded. How far these facts af- fect the election, I shall not stop to inquir«*. If the Legislative Assembly was itself a usurpa- tion, it is scarcely necessary to inquire how far its edicts were observed. But the gentleman from Georgia claim? that Congress has no power to make this inquiry. There he and I entirely differ. I claim that this is a question to be determined by Congress alone. The Territorial Government of Kansas is a mero creation of Congress. It owes its or- ganization, its existence, and its vitality, entirely to the act of May .30, l.Sr)4, known as the Kansas- N«braska Act. Its officers are dependent upon Congresj for their salaries if paid at oil, they are to be paid by your appropriations. AH th» powers of the Territorial Government are granted, limited, and distributed, by Congress. The very existence of Kansas as a Territory proclaims itg dependence upon Congress, and it is only when its people take steps to form a State Government, that they exercise the least independent political power. It is Congress that divides its Govern- ment into three departments — the Executive, the Judicial, and the Legislative. Two of these de- partments are intrusted to the President; he ap- points the Governor and the Judges. They are mere tenants at his will — be may remove them at his pleasure. It is no figure of speech to say he is Governor and sole Judge in the Territory; for if his deputies violate his imperial will in the least, their fate is sealed. He is responsible for their conduct, and should be held to a strict ac- count for all their official acts. The only political power conferred by Congres* upon the people of the Territory was the right to select a Legislative Assembly, to be composed of two Houses — a Council and a House of Repre- sentatives — to be elected at such time and places as the Governor should appoint. This Legisla- tive Asssembly have power to pass laws, under certain restrictions, for the government of the Territory. The right to vote at this election was expressly confined to " free white males, above the aj^e of 21 years, who are actual resi- dents of the Territory. In other words, the actual settlers were invested with limited legis- lative powers, sufficient for their government and protectioQ while inhabitants of the Terri- tory. This limited power was baptized with the pleasing name of '-popular sovereignty;" and was declared to be the panacea for all sectional con- troversy. The people of the Territory were as- sured, by an express Congressional declaration, that they were perfectly free to form and regu- late their domestic institutions in their own way. We are now told, that previous to and on the day of election, an armed invading force from the State of Missouri, of near 5,00oJmen, marched into the Territory in military array; that this force was divided so as to extend to every Council district, and every Representative di.-itrict but one; that these invaders, by fraud and force, controlled the elections, and deprived the actual settlers of the Territory of their only political right. This is a question of fact. To enable you to determine it justly and fairly, you have sent a commission of your own members into the Territory, havs caused the tetitimony of 323 witnesses to be taken, and you have now before you all the official documents relating to this election. Mr. Speaker, so far as the facts of this con- troversy are concerned, I do not wish to add anything to the report of the Committee. To that part of it which relates to the election of the 30th of March, and which affects the question now before this House, I invite the severest scrutiny. It is contained from page TO page 36 of the report. It is a bare statement of the result of the testimony, with dates, names, find references. Every material fact there stated is sworn to by one or more credible witnesses, belonging to different parties. They corroborate each other in most of the essential facts ; and where they differ, it is easy, by a comparison and review of the whole testimony, to ascertain the truth. I must say that, in my brief practice at the bar, I never met with or read of a case, in- volving complicated facts, where there was a more " general consistency, v/ith immaterial va- riances," in the testimony of witnesses, than in this investigation. This may be accounted for from the public or historical character of the facts sworn to, their publicity being a guard against perjury. And I should not have tres- passed upon the time of the House, but for the counter statement made by the minority of the Committee. To this I ask your attention. Before doing so, it is but proper for me to say, and I do so with great pleasure, that ray colleague, [Mr. Oliver, of Missouri,] who made that state- ment, was required to perform his duty under cir- cumstances of great embarrassment. His conduct, and that of many of his constituents and per- sonal friends, was involved in the inquiry; and while it was his duty to aid in eliciting the truth, it was but natural for him, and his sense of duty and honor would require him, to excuse and pal- liate their acts as far as possible. This embar- rassment must have been increased by the overwhelming character of the testimony, which left him a cause and friends to defend, without facts upon which to place their defence. The report of the minority covers 41 printed pages ; nine of the pages are devoted to the elec- tion of 30th March. Three of these contain nothing but extracts from ex parte depo-itions, not taken before the Committee, not taken before my colleague, but taken after we left Missouri ; and the first notice we had of them was the pub- lication of the report. Mr. OLIVER. I would ask the gentleman whether the majority of the Committee admitted and put on record no testimony except that taken before the Committee. Mr. SHERMAN. I do not recollect any case, except the testimony of H. Miles Moore. Mr. OLIVER. Do you recollect the testimony of Charles Robinson ? Mr. SHERMAN. The statement made by Moore, while he was confined, was attached to the testimomy, and shows under what circum- stances it was taken. The rebutting statement of Charles Robinson was taken when he was confimed in prison, and was sworn to before a notary public. A Wyandot by the name of Walkw ba4 BWOfa to bis alleged declarations, and, he being a prisoner at Lecompton, we gave him an opportunity to explain. -Mr. OLIVER. And H. Miles Moore— his deposi- tions were also put on record. Mr. SHERMAN. I have already stated that. I say again, that of the nine pages relating to the election of 30th March, three are mere extracts of ex parte testimony. The residue of my col- league's statement, not embraced in theninepages, relate to other matters. It is made up chiefly of of.icial documents which had been published be- fore by the House — such as the correspondence between Shannon and the President, ex parte statements which I never saw until they were published, and overruled testimony reduc'ed to writing in form of affidavits. The ex parte testi- mony is of three classes. The first class is the letters of Governor Reeder to his friend, Mr. G. R. Lowry. Now I will state the circumstances con- nected wijh these letters. Mr. Lowry, without any process against him, was driven from the Territory. Governor Reeder was also driven from the Ter- ritory, and, as I believe, for the mere purpose of depriving the Committee of the benefit of his local information and aid. They left their private papers and clothes in their trunks in the town of Lawrence, each having his own key. When that town was sacked, then- trunks, in which were these papers, were broken open, and the letters abstracted. A lawyer from Atchison, fresh from the sacked town, brought these stolen letters to the Committee, but the Committee refused to receive or publish them. We refused by so doing to share the ignominy of a shameless breach of the law, which in every civilized country respects the confidence of private friendship. They are now a part of the minority report. It is not for uie to make exception to the gentleman's pub- lishing them, if he chooses so to do; but they were rejected bji the Committee, on the ground that they were improperly obtained. And I appeal to everj^ gentleman of the House, whether the cir- cumstances under which these letters were ob- tained would have justified the Committee in publishing them. Another class of these ex parte statements, em- bodied in the statement of the minority, con- sists of affidavits taken after we left the Territory, and after we left the State of Missouri. We never saw them until they were produced here, as printed and engrafted on the rei)ort. They were taken when mj' colleague was not present, and they appear to have been sworn to before a Justice of the I'eace, in Missouri. They are to be found from pages 1136 to 1206 of the testimony; but they are properly no part of it, and, as I will show hereafter, some of them are entirely false. A third class of the ex parte testimony relates to the sufficiency of the houses in Pawnee to ac- commodate the Legislature. In the early part of our investigation, Governor Reeder proposed to prove that there was sufficient house room in Pawnee to accommodate the Legislature, and that the excuse given by it for its removal was a mere pretext. The Committee, however, rejected the evyleuce, as totally irrelevant and incompetent, on the ground that it did not allect any question before them ; and in this decision our colleague concurred. And yet, after we left the Territory, yfp find that ex parte testimony on the subject '5-- 8 has been taken by the sitting Delegate, and en- grafted on tlie report. This is matiifeslly unjust to Governor l^ecdor, and was unwarranted, and cannot be jiistitied. There is still another class of ex. parte testimony embodied in the statement of the minority, and dwelt upon at great Icngtii. It is that in regard to the murder of Doyle and others. Now, sir, the Committee unanimously e.Kcluded all evidence as to events which look place after the 19th of March, 18r)(j, tlie date of our appointment; and the testimony in regard to these murders was excluded with all the rest. Mr. OLIVER. What do I understand the gen- tleman to sav in that regard ? Mr. SHERMAN. That all evidence as to events after the I'Jth .March, 18:>f), was excluded by the general consent of the Committee. Mr. OLIVER. Will the gentleman allow me here to make a statement to the House? Mr. SHERMAN. I would prefer that my col- league would wait until I get through, when he will have ample lime. Mr. OLIVER. Allow me two minutes to make a correction ? Mr. iSHERMAN. I will state what I know the gentleman wishes to refer to ; that a witness of the name of Rev. Pardee Huller was examined, and testified as to events that occurred before the 19th of March, and by inadvertence he also test- ified as to one event that occurred after that date. No objection was made, and the atten- tion of the Committee was not called to it. On that basis, my colleague claimed to have a right to put on record evidence in regard to the mur- der of Doyle. But the Committee adhered to the rule, and excluded all of it. This was manifestly just, and was concurred in by Governor King, the counsel of the sitting Delegate Under this rule, the robbing and murder of Free State men, the sacking of Lawrence and Ossawatomie, and all the multitude of crimes Committed upon that class ofscttlers, since our appointment, was excluded, and therefore it was not right to spread upon our records an act of retaliation which no man attempts to justify or defend. I have thus been particular in calling the at- tention of the House to those parts of this counter Statement which are not founded upon evidence taken before the Committee. The material facts in the statement of the minority are contained in pages from 11 to 34 ; and these I propo.=e to examine in detail, because it is the only part that relates to the matter now before the House. The Committee in the report allege — " Ererj; f/ecauu lias lieeii controlled, not by the acUial pattlc-rs, bui by cili/.iMis of Missouri ; and, as a fonse- quence, every offictr in ilie Terriiory. irom consuible:' lo LegislaiorA, i^xcepl those iippoiiittMl by lli" I'reaideiil, own Iheir position" to iiou-resuliiut votiTs None have L.uc.n electrd by Uic settlers. .lUd ^our Cominiti>;« have been unable lo find thai any poiilioul power wbiitever, how- ever ui. important, hns beeu exerclged by the people of the Terriiory." Now, Mr. Speaker, there has been but one ex- ception taken, by either my colleague or the gen- tleman from Georgia, [Mr. Stkpuens,] to this broad and sweeping declaration ; and (hat excep- tion is worse than the rule. It is founded upon the statement of the report, that General Whit- field did receive a plurality of the legal votes, at the election for Delegate, iu November, 1854. The evidence takenbefore the Committeeclcarly shows that, out of the '2,842 votes cast, only 1.114 wero lecral votes: 1,729 of the votes cast for Mr. Wlnl- I field were by residents of Missouri. This fact :s I not controverted hv the gentleman from Georpia ; j and yet the gentleman asks what evid.-nce th.;r.i I is that fraud or force was used in the election? \ Yes, sir, the evidence is full and ample. No man I who reads it can question it. It is true that Geii- '; eral AVhitfield received a plurality of all the ■ votes cast, and the reasons have been stated ; : but what would have been the result of that eicc- ! tion, if the Missourians had not gone into tho ; Territory, no man can tell. I say that the first , election in the Territor.y, in 1854, now referred ■ to as an exception to the general rule of force i and fraud, will form a dark mark in the history I of that Terriiory ; and is the more to be con- ' demned as the first startling event in the practi- j cal working of squatter sovereignty, as adminis- I tered in Kansas. i Again: The Committee allege that "compa- ! nies^ of men from Missouri " were arranged in \ regular parties, and sent into every Counci/ (V.i- trict in the Territory, and into every EepreioUa- \ live, district hut one. The numbers were so dis- i tributed as to control tlie elections in each dis- j tricl:' Does my colleague deny the facts ? Not at all. But he seeks to create the impression that this statement is not correct, by showing that in five I election districts there was no invasion. Admit * it, and yet every word stated by the Conr.uit- tee is true. Three of these election districts were attached to other election districts, to form Council and Representative districts. The in- vasion extended to the election districts to wlii^h they were attached, thus controlling their vote. Thus, the 8th election district was attached to the 7th, iu which 209 illegal votes wore cast. The 12th election district was attached to the 11th, in which 321 illegal votes were cast; and the 17th was attached to the 4tb, in which C5 illegal votes were cast. The 9th and 10th election districts were attached, and formed the only Rep- rescntcUive district to which the invasioh did not extend. The formation of these districts was well known to my colleague ; and yet, by not ob- serving them, he seeks to make a c.onti;adic(ioa whore none exists, and in doing so very modestly says : " These contradictory statements, to the undersigned, seem wholly inexplicable, and he leaves them for the majority to reconcile or explain as best they may. ' Sir, the fact thus made prominent by my colleague, that this in- vading force was so marshalled as to control all the members of the Assembly but one, and yet so as not to extend into five election districts, throws a flood of light upon the manner in which it was conducted, and the design of those who moved it. It shows one feature which is always taken into consideration in determining the degree of crime. It shows deliberation, premeditation, and, to u.'^e a technical phrase, when applied to criiainal transactions, malice aforethougiu. These dis- tricts were carefully conned over. No voiiiig force was wasted, no man was sent into a dis- trict vvhere his vote was not wanted to con- trol the election; and so completely was the ])lan carried into execution, that while, out of the 18 election districts, there was an invasion into only 13 of them, yet in every Council district, and in every Representative district except one, the movements of Missourians extended. Is this denied ? If so, I -would like to have my friend from Missouri state into which Council district, and into which Representative district, except the one 1 have named, the invasion did not extend. Mr. STAXTOxX. How did the Committee ar- rive at the number of legal and illegal votes ? Mr. SHERMAN. I will come to that presently. Now, sir, it is claimed b}' my colleague that the Free State candidates were not voted for by a majority of the actual settlers of the Territory. A table has been prepared by him, to show that only about 800 votes were cast by the Free State men for Free State candidates. But, sir, while this is true, it is also true that the Pro-Slavery candidates did not receive the votes of one-fourth of the legal voters of the Territory. If it is true that the Free State candidates received only 783 votes, it is equally true that the Pro-Slavery can- didates received only 634 legal votes. Here is a table showing the number of legal votes •ast in each Representative and Council district : REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICTS. 1 2 S 4 h « 7 8 9 )0 11 12 IB U S o 74 382 25 32 6! 100 224 15(5 6.^ 12 100 117 80 160 1,407 II '^ ^ ^ «j . 1 c" Sc 19 25S 12 4 49 35 152 120 2(5 64 59 18S P <8 c3 tv-3 3 M 1 634 OOmrOII. DI8TBICTS. s M c2 > "a > H a a a s 6 2 aT3 D Ik 5 i,'ive ih-.-ni a fuir fijhi. ihey would do ii. He thouylil tliTe wouhl he no iit^e in doiiif; thai, and invited me to ^o down a short distance with hiin. We went lo a waijon. and he lilted up a cloth and some hiankels. and reniarkcd lo me that iheie was a coujili- nl • liull-dogfs' they had. loaded with mn»ket-l)alls. 'I'liey were all covered up ill t);e hay. with i he excepiion ol' ihe nms of them, they were a couple of lira««caiin(ni. I then left there, and went up to Ihe house where the election was held. I sup- pose I was voted for by ihem lor meniher of Council on that day." Others tell ns, that stich was the feelinjj nniong the citizeas there, th;ii if there had been a fair chance, there would have been a fight. There was no equality of forces; there were 700 men, armed with rilles and cannon, to 200 or 300 un- armed and scattered settlers. 1 have heard the inquiry here, Why did not the citizens repel the invaders ? It was eloquently put, some months since, by my friend from Alary- and, [Mr. Davis.] The answer is easy. It is furnished by the evidence. But, sir, actual vio- lence was used ; men, armed and organized, as- saulted citizens, and drove them from the polls. In this very district, three men were thus pre- vented from voting. Mr. STEPHENS. I should like the gentleman to read that part of the evidence which shows that they were driven from the polls. The testi- mony on the part of the contestant is, that there was not a man there that day prevented from voting. The testimony of Mr. Ladd is, that Mr. Stearns was driven away, not to prevent him from voting, but for another cause. The driving ofiF of Willis and Bond had nothing to do with voting. Mr. SHERMAN. In reply, I will only refer to the testimony of witnesses, to show that Stearns, Bond, and Willis, were driven away because they were charged witli being tibolitionists. And here I may remark, that every man in the Territory was called an abolitionist, who was in favor of making Kansas a free State. These men were driven from tlie polls ; one was shot at with a pistol, and only escaped by jumping down the river bank. Mr. STEPHENS again interrupted. Mr. SHERMAN declined to yield the floor. I pass to the second district. What a spectacle was there presented 1 Ilaveyou read the plain, un- varnished testimony of several witnesses, about Jones, now sheriff, under appointment of the Legislature, going there with his men, and dri- ving the judges from the polls ? When he had, after giving them five minutes in which to resign or die, driven off two of them, he went with some of his men in pursuit. He caught Umberger, and bronght him to the polls, lie then by force took Judge Wakefield, an old man, from his friends, and compelled him to get up in the presence of a drunken rabble, and make a speech. Mr. STEPHENS. Will the gentleman let me put him right? Mr. SHERMAN. I cannot yield. The gentle- man has had his nour without interroptlon, and I prefer lo go on. The testimony on the subject is clear. It is given by Burson, Wakefield, and several others, who were witnesses. Mr. STEPHENS. And denied by the judge of the election. Mr. SHERMAN. That is one of the «r;)ar/f affi- davits which I will refer to hereafter. Its mate- rial statements are entirely overthrown. In regard to the third district, I will call the gentleman's attention to the case of Charles Jordan. He is a native of Virginia, and a line- S|)ccimen of the hardy Western pioneer. Ilia head is blanched with seventy winters. He has lived almost all his life in slave States. Born in Yirgiiiia, he first emigrated to Kentucky, pass- ing through Illinois and Missouri. From there he went to and settled in the third district of Kansas. He went, like a patriarch of old, with his family gathered around him. He says : '■In tlie morning, between nine and ten o'clock. I arrived at Mr. Slinsnn's, where the eleciion was h»ld Three oihers were in my comjiaiiy. and as we were fjfttiiii; over the slile, four youii? men. all arnif d. approached us.' The front one acco»t"d me. as 1 stepped over the fence, about in this laiifjuape: • Voii ore well how am I, God dfimii you." or 'by God,' I .Tin not certain which. As riiid, 1 passed him. without heeding or noticing him. ♦ * * * 'Phe flag was floating over ns. just about where we were sin'nding. I told them I had defended my couitiry ; that that was our true Hag, the stars and stripes; and under that flag I never iii- tend lo voti\ while it floats over a sediiious mob. « * * I'here was a gentleman they rnlli-J "Texas" ascended the Slile. and proclHiined that they warned everybody to come forward and vote; that it vras everybody's jirivi- lege to vote, and he wanted both parties to come, and liave the thing fairly tested. He concluded with instructions to the I'ro Slavery parly. IJe told them when they voted not to leave the ground, but to stay there lill the polls vi-ere closed, or the Aboliiioiiists would flock in, overpower them, and they would lose all their trouble,. He gaid he had come liirllier. perhaps, than the rrsi. ajid had undergone more ihan the rest, as he had been four and a half days on the road. 1 nevt-r learned where hecamelVom. I tlien advised my p.iriy to leave, which wc ilid. I think, pretty generally. 1 then came home » ♦ * « j djj „o( vote, bccaute I saw we were entirely overjowcred by the numbers from abroad I was a Free Male man. | .'aw we had to b- perfecily silent on all political matters, or we would get inio dilliculiy. Wli'ii 1 relerred to the flag, an old genileman asked me if] had seen any vio- lence; I said 1 had not, but had seen ^ome menacing, with insults added lo injury, and would not vole." Here is the case of a man who, from his age, his service to his country, and his character, should be respected in every community — yet he was driven from the polls — not, it is ti'ue, by actual violence, but by insult and menace from an armed force, without being permitted to exer- cise h|s right to vote. There was a majority of Free State men in that district, but their candi- date was induced to and did withdraw, because the numbers present from Missouri rendered it idle to make a contest. Mr. STEPHENS. In the third district, the test- imony shows there were no Free State candi- dates in the field. A ME.MBER. The candidate withdrew. Mr. STEPHENS. There were not men enough to agree to run a ticket ; yet it is said he was driven from the polls. Mr. SHER.MAN. That district embraces the town of Topeka, one of the largest towni in the Territory, and entirely Free State. There can be no doubt of the position of aEfairs in that district. Mr. Ilalliday was the candidate. He wiilidrew, and the testimony is conclusive, that he withdrew for tlie reason I have stated. I will not consume my time by going through all the other districts. I say tliat, from the armed forces around the polls, the Free State meu were either prevented from voting, or their candidates were withdrawn. Such was the case in the 4th, 7tli, 13lh, 14th, 15th, and the 16th districts. Now, sir, I desire to e.^amiiie the statements in the minority report, in regard to two or three election districts. As to the first district, my colleague seems to rely upon the ex jjurte state- ment of Salters. I ask, if there is any gen- tleman here who has not heard of this worthy chief deputy of Sheriff Jones, and the man who signed the passes fur free white men, some of which have i)eeu published? His ex parte ath- davit was taken after we left the Territory. He states that — " Tin- re, were about 200 Free Stme iefieiice, ami liie ollieis toUl me tlie/ liail voted " This statement is shown to be false by m.any witnesses. The census shows that there were 3G9 voters, and that only 177 voted. Their names are given on [lage 121 of the report. The highest legMl Pro-Siavery vote ever cast in that district was in November, 1854, when Whitfield received 46 votes, out of 300 rotes cast, all of which were legal ; and at Lawrence, in October, 1855, Whitfield received 42 votes. Now, in the face of these facts, and contradicted by many witnesses, stands Salters. I pass him by with- out further comment. Mr. STEI'HEXS. The testimony taken by the Committee is contrary to that. Mr. SHKR.MAN. The testimony which the gentleman comments upon iu the .second district is that of Parris Ellison, a man who, acting as judge of the election on the 30th of Jiarch, seized the ballot-box, after his associates had been driven aw.iy, swung it around his head, and ran out into the crowd, and hurrahed for Missouri. He was ouc of the men upon the jury which indicted Cliarles Robinson for treason, and his testimony was taken after we left, and is part of the batch oi' ex j>arte statements to which I have referred. In regard to each of the other districts, my colleague satisfies himself with a statement like this: '• Third Dislricl.—Th(f testimony in relation to this dis- trict is, I nil ilie I'co-Sliivery parly had a majority amon^ Ihe aciuai st-tli>r» of iho district. '' It is not alleged that there was a majority of actual residents who voted the Pro-Slavery ticket, but that the Pro-Slavery men had a 7na- jority in the district, llow can any man say it. Where is the evideitce of it. If that was so, why this invasion, why march 4,900 men two hundred miles into these various districts? Why this armed foray, if they had a Pro-Slavery majority? Why eiiilanger tlie perpetuity of our institutions, by thus striking down, for the first time, the right of the people to elect their own representatives? I shoald like to have that question answered, and, until it is, I will not waste further time upon this branch of the inquiry. After one has read the testimony, how strange is the conclusion of my colleague, contained in this summary allega- tion, that the Free State party was in the minority in the Territory at the March election, in 1855, for members of the Legislature; and that that election wa.s not carried, eitiier by force, violence, or non-residents, but that a majority of the Legislature was duly elected, as certified to by the Governor, and was properly constituted as a law-making body. Why, sir, the bare admissions made in the minority report contradict this conclusion. The action of Gov. Reeder is not controverted. It is not claimed but that he did right in setting aside the election iu the 1st, 2d, 3d, 4th, 7th, 11th, and ItJlh districts. Now, sir, it is admitted that the 5tlj district was carried by fraud, and that it is a Free State district. In the 13th district, the judges were driven from the polls, and took their poll-books and papers with them, and left. Now, these districts, in which the fraud and vi- olence is either admitted or is palpable, elect a majority of both Houses. I have here a table showing the arrangement of these districts: COUNCILMEX. RePKUSEXTATIVES. 1st dist. 3 2d " 2 1st dist }■' 4th 5th 2 2d 1 3d ) 7 th 1 8 th J 3d 5th 7th 8th 13th " ■) 16th " / " } 11th" 1 12th" / 13th 16th 16 The number of Coancilmen was 13. The number of House was 26. In addition to these, one Free State Council- man, M. F. Conway, was elected in the 6th Council district, and one Free State Rejiresenta- tive, S. D. Houston, was elected in the 8ih Repre- sentative district, composed of the 9th and 10th election districts. In all these districts, the Free State majority was beyond all reasonable dispute, except in the 13th and 16th districts. Even excluding these, the House would have been a tie, and the Council one Free State majority. Mr. STEPHENS. In the 16th election district, in which the election was set aside by Governor Reeder, the second election went just as the first one did, and Governor Reeder commissioned the same men. Mr. SHERMAN. The testimony will show that this second election in the 16th district was the only one which was not fair. Mr. STEPHENS. I say that the testimony shows that it was perfectly fair, that it was con- sidered to be lair, and there was no protest against it by the Free State party. Mr. PHELPS. I desire to make a statement. Mr. SIIER.MAN. If I submit to every inter- ruption, it will (jccuiiy all my time. If gentle- men will extend It as much as they use it, they may interrujit me as much as they please. In answer to these assertions, I state that the testimony is as conclusive as any testimony can be, that at the election on the 22d of May, to fill the vacancy, several hiinilreil residents of Jlis- souri went over to that election, and voted there. Mr. SiTEPIiEXS. If there is a particle of proof til at over litty Missourians went over, I de- sire to see it. Mr. SlIEILMAX. In regard to the action of the Governor, referred to by the gentleman a few moments since, I may here say, thai it resulted in nothing, because the same motives which in- duced the invasion, caused the allejied Legishi- ture to, and it did, set aside his oOicial certili- cates, upon whicli the gentleman now relies. While my colleague, by general statements, disputes the conclusions of the report, he does not controvert any distinct fact or allegatiou contained iu it. The report gives facts, and sustains them by names, dates, and references. They are given in such detail, that, if not sus- tained by the proof, it could be readily noticed, j Yet, no distinct fact alleged in the rei)ort is ilis- I pnted, and my colleague contents himself with a \ general denial, and iu this way endeavors to overthrow the sworn testimou}- of hundreds of witnesses, many of whom are his own friends and constituents. Thus, while admitting "that a liirge number of Missonrian.-^ went over to the Territory on the day of election,'' he says th.at they went merely to prevent illegal voting by Eastern emigrants; but he says that only a few, whose names are given, are proven to liave voted ; and not as many, in all. as there were Eastern em- igrants Avho voted illegally at Lawrence. And yet the proof is conclusive, that no Eastern em- igrants voted except at Lawrence; and of these, not over fifty illegally, and these fifty were bona fide settlers in the Territory, '.lut had not selected their claims. And it is as conclusively proven as any such fact can be, that 4,908 residents of Jlissouri, who came in armed and organized bands, with cannon, flags, guns, and all the paraphernalia of war, voted, and their names are found in the poll-books. No doubt, many more came, who, like my colleague, did not vote. If my colleague's assertion is true, I would like to know how he will answer these questions. How came there to be 6,300 votes cast, when there were but 2,900 legal voters in the Terri- tory, and, of these, less than one half voted? If the Missourians only went to prevent the Eastern emigrants from voting, why did they go into every Council district, and every Represent- ative district but one, when it is admitted that all these emigrants were at Lawrence? Why did they marshal 5,000 armed men, merely to prevent the white males among 500 emigrants from voting? for tne extent of the en- tire Eastern and Xonhern emigration, lliatsfiring, is shown by them to be 500, including women and children. Sir, it is idle to di.«pute the facts in this case. ■ I have been astonished that gentlemen, in the face of testimony that would convict of crime in any court, will still deny or evade. They may excuse and palliate, they may talk about Emi- grant Aid Societies, and Congressional inter- ference, and all circumstances of mitigation which ingenuity can devise, but it is too late for denial— the glaring facts stand out, proven by testimony beyond reasonable doubt, that at the first Legislative election, the first and the only opportunity of the people of that Territory to exercise the ]iolitical power given to them, they were controlled by non-residents. Why, then, will gentlemen still talk to U3 about popular s'overeignty, and appeal to us to leave the people of the Territory to settle the question of Slavery for themselves. Why, sir, ever since this controversy w-.is reopened by the repeal of the Missouri Comjiromise, the settlers have only asked that jioor boon. They have again and again, and now a[)peal to yoii for pro- tection against non-resiilents, and you deny the power of Congress to even consider their com- plaints. You refer them to the President and the Judiciary; and yet, the other day, you refu.-ed to direct the President to take the only steps by which he can protect them in their rights. The gentleman from Georgia, turning to me, says that in the amendment to the Army bill, offered by me and adopted by the House, we gave the Pres- ident extraordinary powers. Why, sir, he has already exercised all the powers given by that amendment, but not for the peaceful purpose there stated. Instead of preserving the jjcace and preventing the commission of crimes dis- graceful to the age, he has taken sides with the invading party, and has caused the arms of the United States to be distributed among mere partisans, to be used for purjioses of oppression. The House only declares that the .army and military stores shall not be used in that way, and I trust it will adhere to that position. Sir, while I would take nothing from the con- stitutional powers of the President, I would add nothing to them. Look at his action heretofore ! Read the testimony of Governor Rceder, when he came to Washington, and fully detailed all the incidents of the 30th of March ! Think how the rights of that infant settlement were talked over — chaffered with — bartered! How a mission to China, or another trust of equal profit and im- portance, was discussed, as a means to induce a resignation byReeder! This interview between the Governor and the President presents a pain- ful scene, upon which I do not wish to comment. Contrast the conduct of the President with the Shawnee Mission Legislature and the Topeka Legislature — the one elected by the means I have staiid, and of which he was fully informed by Reeder — the other a movement of citizens, and none but citizens, of the Territory, to avoid the evils of a base submission to wrong on the ono hand, and anarchy on the other. The one is recognised — paid out of tiie national Treasury — and sanctioned and sustained by the military force ; the other is dispersed by this same force, and its members harassed by groundless prose- cutions. Sir, with all respect to the President, as a man, I must condemn his conduct in this struggle between the citizens of Missouri and Kansas, as a mixture of weakness, indecision, and wrong, unworthy his high position. He not only refused to protect the citizens of Kansas from invasion, but now, with the facts fully proven, he insists upon enforcing the enactments of a Legislative Assembly imposed by it; and, more than all, he sustains a Judiciary that has allowed all its powers to be perverted to sustain oppre^- eion and -wron j. Judge Lecompte holds the ofiRce of Chief Justice at the pleasure of the President; and yet, in .May, 1855, this man attends a bit- terly partisan meeting, addresses it, and sustains resolutions which look to and lead to unlawful violence, suppress the liberty of speech, and prejudge the very question which we are now told should be left to his judgmeut. He so administers the criminal law, that no crime is punished, if it be committed by a Pro-Slavery mau — that arson, robbery, and murder, are done, and sanctioned by his officers, without fear of punishment. He allows indictments against houses, printing presses, and bridges, to be found in his court; and then, without notice to the owners, or trial of any kiud, allows llie property to be destroyed by a mob, marshalled under his oflicers. To facilitate this kind of law and jus- tice, and enable his oiUcers to be present, he adjourns his court. He revives the doctrine of constructive treason, aud under such charges allows leading citizens of the Territory to be arrested and detained in custody, and refuses the prisoners the privilege of bail. They are charged with treason! Treason against what? Surely not against the Kausas-Nebraska bill. Since the passage of that law, no man gainsays its force. Each of these prisoners is willing to leave the question to the people, undeterred by non- residents. Mr. STEPHENS. I would ask the gentleman whether he is willing to leave the question to the people of the Territory to settle? Mr. SHERMAN. 1 will answer that at some other time — I do not choose to be interrupted. To do so, would draw me from my present pur- pose, wiiich is to show that the Judiciary, as a remedy, is utterly futile. Here is a certified copy of the indictment, charging with treason men who are now held in ignominious servitude, while wo are parsing our days in trying the validity' of the Legislative Assembly whose acts they are charged with resisting. The crime alleged against them is, that they will not consent that a Government of force and fraud shall be substi- tuted for that which you provided for them. The indictment does not, on its face, allege a case of treason; and, besides, it alleges facts which everybody knows are utterly untrue. The overt act (as lawyers call it) is laid on the 20th of May — the day before Lawrence was sacked. On that day, sir, Charles Robinson was in the cus- tody of armed men in Missouri. He was stopped without warrant, while passing with his wife on a national highway, and detained until this indictment was found. No overt act, within the meamug of the Constitution, is alleged. All the others who are named in this indictment, l>ut one, were absent from the Territory at the time when the treason is charged to have, been com- mitted. Sir, there is no remedy for these wrongs, nnlceg Congress administers it. It opened this '■ Direful spring Of woes uiiiriimbered," by the repeal of this Missouri Compromise. It is the governing power, and must take the re- sponsibility. If we cannot agree upon the only true and radical remedy — the restoration of tha Missouri restriction — let us, at least, prevent a civil war ; let us withdraw the arms of the Uni- ted States from excited men ; let ns suspend the execution of laws whose validity is denied ; let us stop the hounds of Judge Lecompte, lest our country be disgraced by another " Campaign in the West," so infamous in English history; and beware lest a repetition of that historical crime shall bring again the fate of James II and of Jeffries. Take from him the power to punish honest men for fictitious crimes. I trust that every representative of the people of the United States is willing to put a stop to these evils. To do this, three things must be done. Tiie sitting Delegate has no just right here. Although I entertain feelings of much kindness for him, personally, yet I shall vote for his ex- clusion, because he is the representative here of the force and fraud which carried the election on the 30th of .March. In the next place, the pretended laws of Kansas ought to be declared null and void, or repealed. And then the mili- tia of that Territory ought to be disarmed, and the whole force of the Government should be used, if necessary, to keep the peace. For God's sake, keep the peace ! I would, if it were possi- ble, tie down every citizen of the Territory to his home, and protect him from invasion and judi- cial oppression. The worst evil that could befall our country is civil war ; but the outrages ia Kansas cannot be continued much longer with- out producing it. To our Southern brethren, I especially appeal. In the name of Southern rights, crimes have been committed, and are being com- mitted, which I know you cannot and do not approve. These have excited a feeling in the Northern States that is deepening and strength^ ening daily. It may produce acts of retaliation. You are in a minority, and, from the nature oi your institutions, your relative power is yearl' decreasing. In excusing this invasion from Mi* souri — in attempting to hold on to an advantage obtained by force and fraud — you arc setting an example which, in its ultimate consequences, may trample your rights under foot. Until these wrongs are righted, you must expect Northeri men to unite to redress them. It may not be th' year, but, as sure as there is a God in heave such a union will be effected ; and you will gaii nothing by sustaining Northern agitators in viO' lating the compromises of your fathers. ! BffKLL & BLANCHARD, Printars, Washington. nr^i^ LIBRARY OF CONGRESS iillllillillllilimiiii III! 11" nil mil 11" III! ^ 014 136 027 9 # '"