LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 016 085 214 8 REPORT OF THE KAXSAS CO^TPERENCE COMMITTEE. SPEECH OF HON. JACOB COLLAMEll, OF VERMONT. 2.:)t f^i'^ Delivered in the Senate of the United States, April 27, 1858. The Senate having under consideration the report of the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the bill for the admission of the State of Kansas inio the Union — Mr. COLLAMER said : Mr. PuKsiDENT : I do not propose, at this time, to occupy the Senate at any great length ; hut I shall endeavor, as succinctly and as distinctly as I can, state, in the first ])lace, why I, together with those who act with me, opposed the Senate bill, without g ing into the argument on its mer- its ; and, in the second pl.ace, why we voted for the amendment of the House of Representatives ; and, in the third place, why we cannot vote for the proposition now offered. First, as to the Senate bill : its substance was, if adopted, that it admitted Kansas into the Union aa a State under the Lecorapton Constitution, without any further action of the people. Our objections consisted essentially in these: that that Constitution was framed by a Convention ■which was the fruit and result of usurpation and fraud ; that the usurpation which had been insti- tuted originally, continued so as to deprive the people of the opportunity of free voting on the subject of calling a Convention ; that an unfair and imperfect census was taken, by which a large part of the people were deprived of the chance of voting for delegates; that the Consti- tution was formed in defiance of the will of the people^as manifested in their then recent elec- tion for a Territorial Legislature, and was made, in point of fact, only by those who acted in and approved of it, by a minority of those originally elected to the Convention; that the Constitution was professed to be presented to the people in a disguised and deceptive form ; that the people themselves were deprived of the opportunity which had been promised to them, of passing upon the whole CoDStitution ; that ao election was held, wherein they professed to obtain some six thousand votes for the Constitution with Sla- very ; that an election for State officers was made under that Constitution by officers not in any way appointed by the people, and unknown to the law; that that election was fraudulently conducted; and that, besides all this, the peo- [)le, at an election held on the 4th of January, by virtue of an act of the Territorial Legislature, by a very large majority, repudiated it. These, pnt together and aggregated, constituted our ol jee- tion to the Lecompton Constitution ; and for these reasons we considered that it ought not to receive the attention of Congress ; that the State should not be admitted under it; and that it was not entitled to be regarded in any measure as a Constitution presenting the views of the people of Kansas. In all these respects the Senate, by a large majority, voted us down. Our objection was not merely that the Constitution had not been sub- mitted to the people. We insisted that, in point of fact, the people had, on the 4th of January, under lawful authority, voted directly to reject it by a very large majority. That, to be sure, among others, was ground of complaint ; but all these objections, and others which were present-' ed by other gentlemen, were aggregated in the complaint. The Senate, however, decided that, in point of fact, the Lecompton Constitution was the Constitution of Kansas, so far as the action of Kansas wfts concerned ; and that it was only for Congress to say whether they would accept it; that the people had made that Constitution legally by their delegates — not only formed it, but adopted it, and that the only question of difference existing there was one in relation to Slavery, which, as they said, was fairly submit* tpd. They therefore passed a bill admitting Kan- sas as a State with that Constitution. I next call attention to the amendment pre- sented by the House of Representatives. What was its character? Why was it voted for? So far as 1 could understand it, the substance of it, without recurring to paniculars, insisted on three things : first, that the Lecompton Consti- tution should be submitted to a vote of the peo- ple, and if they adopted it, very well — it was to stand ; but, second, if they did not adopt it, they should proceed, by a Convention, to form such a Constitution as they wished ; and that, upon be- ii)!.'- ratified by the people, they should be ad- ni'iiDed as a State with such new Constitution ; aiid, third, in order to secure fair elections on the Constitution, a board was formed, consisting of the Governor and Secretary of the Territory, appointed by the President, and of the presiding officers of the two Houses of the Territorial Leg- islature, elected by the people ; and this board was to direct and control the elections and their returns, pass upon them, and finally decide them. That was the proposition which came to us as an amendment from the House of Represent- atives. Why did we vote for it? In the first place, it would be suflScient for me to say that here were presented to us two alternatives — on the one hand, the Lecompton Constitution, which had been rejected by the people of Kansas, most imperatively and conclusively, aud, on the other, an offer to submit it to the people, accompanied by a provision, that if they did not like it they might make another Constitution which they did like. Could there be any hesitation as to how we should vote in regard to these two al- ternatives ? Could there be any doubt as to the choice we should make between them ? In the next place, if we voted against the House amendment, we deprived the people of Kansas even of the right of establishing a free Constitution ; we left tbem to have the Lecomp- ton Constitution imposed upon them, and gave them no opportunity to form a free one. Hence we voted for that proposition. Again, it was fair — it was fair even to those who claim that the people, iu forming their Constitution, may make it a free-State or a slave-State Constitu- tion, as they please, because it offered that op- portunity. That proposition wa^s a very liberal step for those gentlemen to take — and there are some such in the country — who bald that the people, in the formation of a State Constitution even, have not the right to enslav'e their fellow- men. But those gentlemen, if any such there were in the two Houses, voted for it with great liberality. And why ? First, because it was the best of the two alternatives offered to them. Next, because, after the knowledge of the vote of the 4th of January, disclosing ten thousand majority against this Constitution, there was every moral certainty that when the Lecompton Constitution, with Slavery, was presented to the people of Kansas, it would be rejected ; and there was therefore no hazard in voting to give them an opportunity of that kind. But, sir, we were induced to vote for the House amendment for ai ot'ier consideration; and that is, that it provided a fair board by wiiich elec- tions were to be conducted. We said the pre- vious elections ia Kansas had been controlled by violence, and corruption, and fraud, but here was a ch.nnce to have them safely and honestly conducted; and so much security was felt in the board provided by the House amendment, that we were even willing to say, that when that board had supervised the election, appointed the officers, received the returns, and adjudicated upon those returns, the whole subject might be settled by the proclamation of the President, and we were led to the latter merely from confidence in the former provision. But another consideration, and perhaps the most important of them all, was that the House amendment proposed a course of proceeding which would put an end to this controversy in either event and at all events. If the people of Kansas received and accepted the Lecompton Constitution by the vote of a majority, they were to lie received ; and if they did not, they were to call a new Convention and form such a Con- stitution as they pleased, and when that Consti- tution was ratified they were to be admitted. There was to be the end of the controversy. It was because the House amendment did end the controversy that it commended itself to the ac- ceptance of those who voted for it on this side of the Chamber. Now, Mr. President, I come to the next step : the proposition which is ofl'ered as a substitute for both those bills — the proposition of the com- mittee of conference. I do not propose to go into its details ; but let us see whether it gives to those of us who voted against enforcing the Lecompton Constitution upon the people without their consent, and who voted for the proposition of the House of Representatives, those leading features of security, and those objects which we desired to attain, which were given to us in the latter proposition. I will state its leading pro- visions. The first is, that the Lecompton Con- stitution shall be presented to the people of Kan- sas for their acceptance or rejection. " Oh, no," says the honorable Senator from Virginia, [Mr. HuNTEK,] " it does not submit the Constitution to the people." The majority of the Senate, by the bill they have passed, decided that it was a Constitution perfect, so far as Kansas was con- cerned, not to be passed upon any further by the people ; and he says this bill so treats it. If I understand it, it does not so treat it. It submits a certain question to the people; that is, whether they will accept those land grants ; and it pro- vides that, if they accept those land grants, then, and in that case, Lecompton shall stand as the Constitution ; but it further provides, that if they reject that proposition in regard to the land grants, they reject the Lecompton Constitution. Now, I ask, is it true, as the Senator from Vir- ginia says, that that is consistent with any for- mer action of the Senate? Does it not^ubmit a question to the people by which they may re- ject the Lecompton Constitution ? Certainly it does. Did not the Senate say, in the former bill, to those people, " it is all perfected on your side, and you shall have no opportunity to reject Lecompton?" Yes, they did, unconditionally ; and I say they now propose a question to the people by which the people may reject Lecomp- ton ; and yet you say that you do not subject the Lec-oinjnou Coiistiliitioii to tlii-ir volet The two are utterly iiiconsistfiit ; ami there is no ingenu- ity or sophistry, though the peutleman may have much of the former, if not of the latter, which can by possibility disguise or blink this out of sipht. UiU, sir, as I said, this proposition provides for subniiltinjjf to tlie people of Kansas a question in relation to land grants — whetlier they will ac- cept a certain, proposition in relation to lands. It further provides that, if they will not accept that, then, and in that case, Lecompton goes aside, and the people of Kansas are to remain in thtir Territorial condition for a length of time entirely indefinite. It says they may haveaCon- vention when they have a sullicient number of people to entitle them to a Representative in Congress. That number is now ninety-four thousand; but, after the next census, in 1800, it may be one hundred and twenty or one hun- dred and fifty thousand ; we know not. When that time will arrive, we know not. Then, the amount of it is, that it is an indefinite delay ; it shall f)e indefinitely deferred. Hesides, it is as much as saying to them, '■ we make you this offer of land, but if you will not take this offer of land, liberal as it is, now, see the danger you run of never getting it." Again, this same hill provides that a different board shall be created to direct and su[)t'rvise the elec- tion. It proposes to add a mem tier, the District Attorney, appointed by the President, to the Gov- ernor and 8eiretary, so that they shall have three — a controlling majority of that board over the preMiiing officers of the two Hoiises of the Legislature. We view this as entirely unfair. The first objection that occurs to my mind is the form in which this question is attempted to be presented to the people of Kansas. Tiiis has been very well defined by the lionorable Senator from Kentucky, [Mr. Crittexdkn.] It is to put to them one question, by the answer to whi.'h they are to decide another question that has no relationship to it. You might as well put the question to that people, " will you vote that you will be freemen?" and now we say to you, " if you vote that you will be freemen, yon shall have the Topeka Constitution ; but if you vote that you will not be freemen, then you shall remain in a Territorial condition." There is no more relationship itetween the acceptance of this grant of laud and the character of this Constitu- tion, than there would be between the question proposed and the result that was to follow in the case I have just put. There is no necessary legal sequence or connection between the two questions. The proposition is therefore artificial, deceptive in its conse()uences. You put to a man the question, "Sir, will you take such grants of land ; as a citizen of Kansas, are you willing to receive «uch grants ? " " Yes," says he, " 1 am." "Well, will you vo'e so?" "I do not see why I should not vote so." " Well, we tell you now, if you will vote to accept these grants, you shall take the Lecompton (Jonstitution that you have rejected." In sliort, " if you will not vote againfct a favorable otfer, you shall Lave imposed upon I you a Constitution to which you are opposed, ami you must vote against a favorable offer in order to get rid of an obnoxious Constitution. You must vote against what you desire, in order that you may get rid of a greater evil. If you vote for these grants which are acceptable to you, and liberal in their character, you do it at the peril of taking upon you a Constitution that 3'ou detest." It is the very manner in which the (juestiou is |iut to the people which is oltjection- able. It is artificial in its character; it is calcu- lated to mislead. We have com[dained a great deal that the Lecompton Constitution was submitted to the people in regard to the (jucstion of ijlavery, in a certain manner, which was unfair, deceptive, and dealing in duplicity. That submission^was this: "You may vote for the Constitution with Slavery, or for the Constitution without Slavery ; but you have to vote for the Constitution, at any rate, which has Slavery in it in either case." N'ow, how is it here? We put to you the ques- tion, "Will you vote for these land grants? But now remember, if you vote for the land grants you are to have this slave Constitution, and if you vote against the, land grants you are to have Slavery in your I'erritory without a Con- stitution." That is, you are to have a Constitu- tion with Slavery, or Slavery without a Consti- tution, but Slavery at any rate. Th«t seems to me to be the way in which the question i? put to them ; because you hold that, under the Dred dcott decision, it is a slaveholding Teiritory, and therefore, if the people vote for these land grants they are to take a slaveholding State Constitution, and if they vote against them, tin y are to endure Slavery under a Territorial for.a of government. That is the alternative. The next objection I have to the mariner in which this new bill presents the question is to ihe provision in regard to population. It seemed to be agreed on all hands, and it was provided in the bill passed by the Senate, that the num- bers of the people of Kansas were sufficient to justify their admission. They bad numbers enough to admit them two years ago, if they woiiM make a Constitution to suit you. You thought they had numbers enough to admit them under the Lecompton Constitution. There are numbers enough of them now to justify their admission as a State, if they vote for this Con- stitution ; but you give them to understand that there are not numbers enough, if they vote against this Constitution, to make a free one. We have here a proposition that Kansas shall be admitted if she will have a slave Constitution, and shall not be admitted if she will not have a slave Constitution. There are people enough to hold slaves, but not -people enough to enjoy P>ee- dom ! This, it seems to us, is a palpable injus- tice — an entirely different affair from the ilouse amendment. In the ne.xt place, the proposition which is now before us produces no finality; it makes no set- tlement. It only makes a settlement provided they adopt the Lecompton Constitution, by voting in favor of these giants of land. That will make a finality; and that is the only finality under this proposition — a finality in one resnlt. If the peo- ple do not vote to accept these grants, it provides for no finality, no settlemeDt, but leaves things in statu quo by declaring that the })eople of Kan- sas shall remain under a Territorial (orm of gov- ernment for an indefinite and unlimited period of time. I do not know that that part of tlie prop- osition will really have much practical elfect. It seems to me to be rather brutuvi fulmen, because I suppose Congress can at any time admit them, notwithstanding this declaration; but, after all, that is the effect it is intended to have on the minds of the people of Kansas. It is intended if tills bill passes, that they shall understand thai, if they do not accept this proposition, this shall be a bar to their coming in until they have a cer- tain population. Another objection, and one to which I have alluded before, is that we are not content with thii newly-constituted board to supervise the elections; we are not willing to take results pro- duced under such supervision, so as to say that the President, upon the returns being made to him, shall issue his proclamation, and Kansas become a State, without those returns being submitted to our examination. If a board were constituted in the manner provided in the House amendment, we had so much confidence in that manner of constitu'ing the board that we were willing to pass it ; but we are not willing to have a board constituted in the manner provided in this bill, and trust in the result. The history of affairs in Kansas is such as leads us to be cautious on that subject. We all cannot but know, at any rate a large portion of us are con- vinced, that the elections in Kansas have been, either by violence at the polls, or by fraud and false returns afterwards, so conducted that a small minority of the people have been kept in power. I need not go over the evidences of this. The history of the transaction is full of them at every step. There is another thing that we cannot but re- iBember. Whatever officers, especially leading officers, who have been appointed in that Terri- tory by the Executive of this Governmi nt, the President of the United States, have favored any degree of fairness to the majority of that people, have desired to secure them at all against the influence of violence and fraud, have incurred the Executive displeasure. This remark will ap- ply, 1 think, to all the Government officers there who have evinced any fairness, whether we refer to Governor Reeder, Governor Geary, acting Sec- retary Stanton, or Governor Waiker. In all cases where there has been manifested a disposi- tion to do fairness, and to get rid of frauds, the officers who have manifested such a disposition have certainly incurred Executive displeasure and its consequences ; and therefore we suppose; that whatever offiaers are appointed by the Ex- ecutive will read the history of their own fate in that of those who have preceded them, and will consult their own security in what they are doing. We believe we cannot find any safety in this proposition, when the majority of the super- vising board who have charge of the elections is given into the control of officers created by the Government of the United States ; superseding and overriding the officers appointed by the peo- ple of Kansas. This is a feature which we re- gard as of vital importance, and to wliich we cannot consent. When I say that, 1 speak for myself, and not by authority from any of my associates, any further than I derive it from the action which I have already witnessed at their hands. I have no direct authority to speak for them. Now, sir, the whole of this proposition amounts to this : it is saying to the people of Kansas, you may vote for the Lecomplon Constitution, but if you do not have that, you shall have nothing. We are calling upon the people of Kansas to act on the great question of forming their Constitu- tion — of forming, ratifying, or putting in opera- tion, if you please, by their votes, the Constitu- tion of their proposed State Government It is fundamental, it is the first great principle of self- government. Now, you call upon that people to act on that subject, and do }ou secure to them even what was promised in the Cincinnati plat- form? Its pledge was, that in forming a State Constitution the people should be left perfectly free to mould their institutions in their own way. Now, the people of Kansas are called upon to take action about the adoption of a Constitution, to pass a vote wliich shall put that Constitution in force, or reject it; and are they left free? They are trammelled up to that one single act, whether they will have the Lecompton Constitu- tion or have nothing. They are not left free to form any Constitution they want, to shape any Constitution as they may desire it to be, in rela- tion to any of their institutions. In short, the vote seems to be very much like the case of Na- poleon III, who allowpd the people of France to vote, not whether you will have an Emperor, not who will you have as Emperor, but will you have me for Emperor? That is all. Mr. President, I wish now to say a few words in regard to the views presented by the honor- able Senator from Virginia. He says this bill is in exact consistency with that which the Senate before passed. I have shown in one respect wherein it differs; but that is not all. What was the trouble with that bill? He says that bill merely declared, in relation to the ordinance, that we did not ratify it; that we disclaimed it, and did not provide for the state of things that would result if the people of Kansas should not agree to this condition on which they were to be admitted; and, therefore, this bill goes on to provide for that contingency. Well, sir, if the bill which the Senate passed was obnoxious to that difficulty, why on earth did they pass it at all ? If it was an objection that you ought to make provision for the contingency of the people in a Convention, or by their own votes, refusing to ratify the amended ordinance which you sub- mitted to them, then why did you go on to pass a bill by which you admitted them on condition that thej'^ should not have the ordinance which the Convention had made? The Senator from Virginia says the difficulty is in regard to the ordinance proposing the terms on which the StUrte shall agree to forego the right of taxing the public lands, if it has that right, and the grants in consideration of which it will yield that rifeo])le, hy themselves, or by their delegates; and that, until they do thai, you cannot admit them as a State, unless they have themselves delegated that power to iheir own Convention. Then, I ask, how came the Senate to pass the original bill, by which they jumped over all objections of that kind? I say this is a dilFereot thing, and inconsisteit wilii that bill in that respect. But the truih is, all that amounted to nothing, for the ordinance is no part of the Constitution. Thty claim certain grants cf land. If we receive them under their Constitution, without dischiiming the ordinance, we make the grants ; but the bill passed by the Senate provided that they should be admitted on condition that the ordinance should be of no effect, and further provided that nothing con- tained in the bill should exclude tnem from claiming >vhat had been granted to .Minnesota, (which is what is now offered, ) or prevent Con- gress from making grants whenever it chose. Was not that left right? I see no objection to that part of the bill ; there never wis any objec- tion made to that on this side of the Chamber, 1 believe. Neither the people there nor anywhere else made any objection to it on that ground. No, sir, this is a mere device. There has never been any issue of that kind made in any quarter, by any man, or by any paper in Kansas, here, or elsewhere. It is altogeher an after-thought, a device cooked up for this occasion. The honorable Senator from Virginia claims that this very proposition does that which would settle this controversy, as he thinks. Well, then, he must think they are going to adopt the Le- compton Constitution, 1 suppose; but he hardly intimates that. He hardly believes they will do that. What then? It will leave Kansas in a Territorial comlition, and then, he says, we shall have a guaranty of peace for tliree, four, five, or six years. Wherein is that guaranty of peace? May not, and will not, the same controversy con- tinue in Kansas as heretofore ? Shall we have taken any step to cure it? Not at all. Will they not continue to call Conventions, and ask for admission into the Union when they please ? Certainly; but oh, it is said, we have provided here that they shall not be admitted until they Jbave the proper number. That, however, does not prevent Congress from admitting them, nor prevent them from asking for admission. Every bone of contention, every apple of discord, every point of dirticulty which has ever agitated Kan- sas or the country on this subject, remains, and will remain until they are admitted as a State. It is vain to suppose that we are going to local- ize the quarrel now, any more thitn we have suc- ceeded in doing so heretofore. The people of this Union, in all parts of it, particularly in the North and South, have taken too deep an interest in the question involved, to permit it to go on without their participatin(j in it, in interest at least. They will i)artake in it. Hence, this proposed bill will leave, and it does leave, at any rate in one re- sult, all the ditHculties opea to perpetual ugitulion. Mr. President, disguise this matter as we may, there is oue fact of which, 1 think, we must be morally convinced, thai the Lecompton Consti- tution is abhorrent to the views and feelings and opinions of a large mnjority of the people of Kan- sas. I doubt whether a man can be found wl)o will tjnestion that fact. The very message which tlie President of the United States has sent to us on the sul'jert, imports that. lie says that the peojile of Kansas were so strangely attached to the Topeka Con.