F 685 .C6972 Copy 1 SPEECH OP .V HON. J. COLLAMER, OF VE If ON THE KANSAS QUESTION DEi,[Vi:Rr;:D IN THE SENATE OF THE T^ITED STATES, MARCH 1 and 2. 1858. W A S H I N G T N : PRINTED AT THE OFFICE OF THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOHE. 1858. f. SPEECH. The genale having under consideration flie bill for the admission of Kansas into the Union as a State — Mr. COLL AMER said: Mr. President: I am fully aware that a larg;e part of the members of the 3eViate, and probably a considerable number of tlie- community, rejsjard this as a very worn out and threadbare subject; and they desire to have even the Lecompton con- stitution adopted, so that it may be ended. Tiiey desire that they may get rid of bein^; troubled with this matter; not to examine into it carefully and see what they should do, but to avoid the ex- amination ofitatall. I must acknowledge that I participate a little in that species of feeling myself. I am, I will not say exactly lazy, but naturally a littlft tired; and I do not like long, tedious inves- tigations; but, after all, I do not feel disposed to shove them aside merely for my ease. I remem- ber an instance of that kind in a Book which we all ouglit to know. A certain judge made a reso- lution that he would avenge a certain widow of her adversary, for a certain reason: that is, because by her much coming she troubled him. Some may say, " we will end this subject of Kansas in this | way, because, by its much coming here, it will trouble us." Who was that character? He was ' called the unjustjudge,{hat neither feared God nor regarded man. A just judge should proceed to ^ the examination of the subject, though by much coming it wearies him. j Mr. President, there are, in the progress of na- 1 tions and of men, occasional points of time, and j occasional hill-tops of the journey, which present | to us contrasts so very striking that they will j command ihe attention even of a very indilFerent [ obsfM'vrr. These hill-tops in our journey which thus ariTst our attention and present the'ir con- trasts, afford us an opportunity to look inick upon the progress we have made, and upon the foot- steps by which we have advanced to it, and to look forward, too, from the same point to theprog- gress Vi^liich we may calculate upon in the future. The contrast which is presented to us in relation to the action of Congress on the subject of slavery in the Territories is between the present time, and four years ago. How stood this subject on' the 1st of March, 1854; and how stands it nov/? The contrast is a very great one; and it should command the attention even of an ordinary and casual observer. In order to have that contrast presented with some distinctness to the mind, and to enable us to view how we have obtained this difference of position, and to look forward from it to the degree of progress which we arc calculating to make in the future, would require some considerable length of time; but still I think it ought to be presented. Prior to the year 1854, Congress had, by acts of legislation at various periods, settled the su)?- ject of slavery in every inch of territory that this country owned. I do not say it was all done at one time, by one act; but by a succession of acts, making together an entire complete arransremcn'... How stood it then? In the territory which v/e acquired from France, all that portion of it soulii of the line of .3G0 31)' north latitude was open to slavery or not, as the people who might inhabit it should choose. In relation to all that country which we had acquired l)y our treaty with Mex- ico, it was arranged that the States formed out of that territory should be admitted as free States o:- slave States as their constitutions might prescribe at the time of admission. The condition of Oregon was settled and declared to be against slavery, and all the territory acfptired from France in thelsou- isiana purchase north of the line of 36° 30' vv-a^ dedicated to freedom, and had been for a rh.T'l of a century. Occupying that' stand point, could any man, lookiiijr at it in its then condition, have" antici- pated that in four brief years the whole of this ad- justment would be utterly destroyed, all these arranaements of peace obliterated, and that north of 360 30'^ then almost utterly uninhabited, lie would find what the President tells us is this day the State of Kansas, a slaveholding State, as abso- lutely such as South Carolina or djeoriria ? Is not that a very striking contrast? Is it not a contrast that must command the attention even of a casual observer, and demand of us that we should inquire how this has been efTected ? In order to understand the nature of the ar- ranjjement of which I have spoken, we iiave lo^ inquire who made it? from what authority did it spring:? who exercised that authority ? and how long liad it been exercised ? It was tlie action of Cons;ress Icgislatino: on the subject of slavery in the territory beyond tlie limits of particular States When did it begin? It began with the Govern- ment; and it was exercised at every stage of its existence, under the administration of almost every President that occupied tlie chair, by every political party tliat has ever been in power. I do not say that it lias been exercised in any one par- ticular way, but tiie power has been exercised; and it becomes us a little to ascertain how, in what manner, and at what period. I' shall not go into any very great detail on this point; I have had occasion heretofore to do so. Beyond the Ohio, all things were settled according to the arrangement of the ordinance of 1787. That or- dinance was ratified by Congress; and as new Territories were formed, in consequence of new StiUes being admitted from that region, the ordi- nance was vcenaTiied, and slavery was prohibited in every Territory formed northwest of the Ohio river. This was an exercise of the power of Congress over the subject of slavery in the Ter- ritorii'S. ^ When they came to legislate in relation to a country where slavery existed to any appreciable extent, did Congress leave it to the people there to be a topic of discord and contention among thoin in their infancy, and in the gristle of their youth? jN'ot at all. To say nothing now about the case of the cession by North Carolina of that which now makes Tennessee, let me take the case of the Pdississippi Territory ceded to the United States by Georgia. Slavery existed in that Ter- ritory, and did not Congress legislate about it? Certainly they did. Let it always be remei^bered that no princij)le on earth is better settled than lliis: that the power to regulate a thing includes tlie power to prohibit it. The power to regulate commerce includes the power to lay an embargo, and to lay an embargo unlimited in time: it has so been decided. Congress legislated on the sub- ject of slavery in the Mississippi Territory in 179S, during the Presidency of the elder Adams. In forming the territorial government for Missis- sippi, where slavery existed, and where Georgia had ceded it on the condition tliat it should not be abolished. Congress regulated the matter and prohibited the importation into that Territor)' of [■laves from abroad. Congress could not consti- tutionally do tliat in the States until 1808; but ten years before that time they prohibited it in that Territory. That was legislating directly and ex- pressly on tlie subject of slavery in the Territo- ries; regulating it. In 1803, after the acquisition of Louisiana, Con- gress, in the formation of the Territory of Orleans, rnadc three leading provisions on this subject. Slavery existed in that Territory. It existed ex- ten.sively in the lower part of the Territory — ex- tensively,! mean, in proportion to the population. Congress provided, in the first place, that no slaves should be taken into thatTerritory, except in fam- ilies for settlement. Did they dream that they had no power to prohibit the introduction of slaves i into that Territory ? They never dreamed of it at I that day; for it was further provided, thai if slaves should be taken into that Territory for sale, they : should be thereby freed, and the men bringing I them in should be subject topenaltiea. Was not I that directly regulating and prohibiting the im- i portation of slaves into thatTerritory? Clearly. I They went on further to provide that no slaves should be taken there even in the families of tlieir i masters for settlement, if they liad been imported , in the United States since 1798. The meaning of that was this: "We told you when we formed the Mississippi Territory, that we, the General Gov- I ernment of the United Stales, where we could lay I our hands on the importation of slaves, would ' prohibit it; you understood that; anil we now tell you that if you have brought any slaves into any of the Stati;s after that expression of our opinion, you shall not take them into this Territory of ours." Little of trouble, little of controversy, between the diflerent parts of the United States, arose on those occasions. They went on quietly by a sort of common consent until the admission of Mis- j souri,in 1820. Then a diiiiculty arose; then there I was a controversy; and wliat was done? Con- I gress found treat ditficultyin settling it; but they followed a very early example. " Abraham said unto Lot, let there be no strife, I pray thee, be- ] tween me and thee, and between my herdmen and 1 thy herdmen, for we be brethren; if thou wilt I take the left hand, then I will go to tlie right; or, j if thou depart to the right hand, then I will go to ; the left." A line was drawn thmugh where they stood, and Lot looked out upon the great }»!ain — then a great and rich plain of Jordan — a:.;d he journeyed to the east and occujiied it, and tlie controversy ceased. How did our fathers do in 182U? There was a controversy between their herdmen; and they said, let there be no strife be- tween our children, for we are brethren. They ran a line and the strife ended. All was peace from that time until we got some more territory, which we acquired by the treaty of peace with Mexico. There had, however, in the mean time, been anotheracquisition — Texas — about which I do not propose to speak at large now; but on that occasion the same line was run, and no contro- versy existed on that point. ■ In regard to the acquisitions from Mexico, some difficulty arose; and it is said now, and much in- sisted upon, that on that occasi/in a jirincijile was established which required the repeal of the Mis- souri com|)romise in 1854. I have even heard it repeated this session, that the reason why the Missouri com|noniise was ultimately repealed, by the exertions of the South and the northern friends who joined them, was because they jjroposed to extend that line through the territory acquired from Mexico, and the nortliern people would not agree to it. What a strange excuse is this! The question we are discussing in these days is, had Congress power to prohibit slavery in any part of any Territory? because, if they had, they could prohibit it in all. Did not those men who made the proposition to extend the Missouii com- promise line to the Pacific, thereby agree that north of that line slavery should be prohibitL-d ? Certainly they did. They then granted and tried to exercise that very power. Tliey seem to talk now, however, as if there were no reasonable ex- cuse for the northern people not agreeing to the extension of that line. I do not know that they really desire to disguise the truth about that; but the whole truth should be told, if any is, because I hold that the truth half told is a lie. In California and New Mexico — which were acquired from Mexico by the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo — slavery had been abolished. The law existing there was the law of freedom. In a con- quered country all laws, except those which can- not be enforced on account of political relation- ship, remain; all those laws that describe, guide, fix titles to property of any kind. The country which we acquired frAm Mexico, including Cal- ifornia, New Mexico, and Utah, was all dedicated to freedom. Can it be possible that gentlemen of tlie South can say there was anything unreason- able in the representatives of the free States de- clining to vote to dedicate it to slavery, when it was already free, and would remain so unless its status was changed ? I observe that the Senator from Louisiana is making a suggestion; perhaps it is a very important one. Mr. BENJAMIN. I did not mean to inter- rupt the Senator's remarks in the slightest degree. I was merely suggesting to his colleague that his argument might be turned the other way. If he will reflect for a moment, he will see that we got Louisiana, all slave territory, and they took half of it; and it was not a very unreasonable thing for the South to ask for half of the Mexican acquisi- tions, that he says were all free. Mr. COLLAMER. I have no doubt that the gentleman's ingenuity can turn any argument against any man. The suggestion was more loud, perhaps, than wasintended ;and I did notknow but that the gentleman was somewhat in the condition of the lawyer who kept talking loud after the de- cision of the judge. The judge told him there was no use of arguing after the decision had been made. He said he was not arguing, he was only cussing the decision. [Laughter.] The gentleman, it seems, does not like my argument. Suppose two men buy a field, and divide it by an east and west line; and they afterwards buy another fii-ld: does it necessarily follow that the same line should run throu2;h the second field, without regard to its locality, or the circumstances attending the case .' Not at all. But that is not the main point. The point is this: because they could not agree upon the further extension of this line, does that fur- nish any reason why one side should say it would take back all that it ever agreed to give.' Did that afford any reason to the South to say, "we agreed to the division of the Louisiana purchase; we have had our share; we have had Missouri, Arkansas, and Louisiana admitted as slave States; we have used up pretty much all our share; and now we tell you of the North that if you will not divide the new acquisitions in the same way, we will keep all we have got, and break up the old settlement too ?" This constitutes no reason at all; there is nothing in it. But, Mr. President, though there was contro- versy in relation to the territory acquired from Mexico, that was settled before we come to that point of time when the contrast of which I have spoken, as contrndisfinguisbed from the present time, is presented. In ] 850, after various contro- versies, the disputes in reference to the territory acquired from Alexico were settled and arranged. California was admitted as a free State; and ter- ritorial governments were formed for Utah and' New Mexico, declaring that, whenever the people of those Territories should be admitted into the Union as States, they should be received with or without slavery, as their constitutions might pro- vide. These acts of 1850, with some coordinate acts passed at the same time, were insisted upon as a finality. The great point of that arrange- ment, its great virtue, consisted in the fact that it settled everything that had not been settled be- fore. Though it might not be satisfactory to all the northern people, yet after all it was upon the whole reconciled to the people, because it was said it settled the matter, because itended the con- troversy; because there was to be no more strife " between thy herdmon and my herdmen, for we be brethren." There we stood in 1850; there we stood in 1854 all was peace, all was quiet. But, sir, in May, 1854, the Missouri compromise line was declared to be inoperative and void ; not because it was un- constitutional, but because it was said to be incon- sistent with the compromise measures of 1850. We are not left to imagine the reason for the dec- laration that the Missouri compromise line was inoperative and void, because the reason of the act was put into the belly of the act, and it was declared that it was repealed because it was incon- sistent with the compromise measures of 1850, when the fact really was that the existence of that line was one of the compromises; it was the basis of them; it was that without which there could be no finality. I thought then, and I thinK now, that, to say the least of it, this act was a gieat blunder; and Talleyrand said that in politics a blunder is worse than a crime. I have various reasons for thinking so; but the controversies which have re- sulted from it, the condition of the country ever since, and the condition of the country today, speak in a language more potent than any I could use, to show that it was a blunder. It is deeply to be regretted; but I suppose it cannot be corrected. Tlie essential qualities which enter into the ob jection to that act consist in this: there was a quid pro quo for the contract call(;d the Missouri compromise. It was of the essence of a contract. The South received their part, and have kept it; they have got their cake The North had barely entered on the wilderness which they took in the first place; they had firmed a single State, Iowa, from it, and the rest yet remained a wilderness. It was the disregard of that agreement; it was saying, " we will get more, and not restore what we have had," which constituted the ajiparent immorality of it, and which leads the people of the North to view it as a breach of contract, a breach of faith. I know there was constitutional power to repeal it; and I have heard it argued sometimes by those in high authority, that, be- cause Congress had power to repeal that compro- mise, nobody ought to complain when they did "^ repeal it. A man who can reason in that way i.'i a man who seems to have no moral sense, no standard of right and wrong, except that of the legal power to do anything. There is tio reason- ing with such a man. A moral sense so blunted as his cannot be reasoned with. All the measures of which 1 have spoken were southern measures. The Missouri coni|iromise particularly was essentially a soutliern measure. 6 The way to decide whether any measure is the nioasiiri.- i)f any party, or any si-ction, is to ascer tain whfthcr a tnajiirity of that party, or section, vote for it. A very large majority ol" the southern Representatives voted for the Missouri compro- mise line. It obtained a small minority from the North, enough to secure the requisite majority in Congress to pass it; but the majority of the southern Ile|)rcsentatives supported the measure. That made it a southern measure, and it was clearly such. The compromise measures of 1850 were of a similar character; but they are now both disregarded, both broken U]1. Wiiat was proposed in 1854 as a substitute for this legislation.' All these measures were acts of Congress on the subject of slavery in the Terri- tories, begun and continued from year to year, and from Presidency to Presidency, at different epochs, throu^^h the whole period of our political history. All this was to be set aside; and what was to be substituted in its place? We had had a great deal of difficulty on this subject in Con- gress; and it was not deemed advisable to agitate it in Congress any more; but instead of that it was proposed that the subject should be turned over to the people who might settle in the Terri- tories, and that they should be left, perfectly free , to regulate their institutions in their own way- That was the substitute. It is sometimes called popular sovereignty and sometimes squatter sov- ereignty; but, at any rate, it was the substitute for the pj-eviims course of proceeding. From the words in wliich that principle was couched in the Kansas-Nebraska bill at the time it was passed, how did the world understand it, and how was it intended that the world should understand it.' It was declared that the Missouri compromise line, being inconsistent v.'ith the compromises of 185U, was inoperative and void, and that by this declaration it was not intended to legislate slavery into the Territory, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form their institutions in their own way. How should the world understand that.' How was it intended that it should be understood.' Clearly, words cannot make it any plainer than those em- ployed. It was that the people who go there to settle shall be left tree as |ieo[ilc of a Territory, to regulate their Institutions in their own way. That was the version put upon it throughout all the free States, tind by the Democracy. It was insisted everywhere tiiat it commended itself particularly to the acceptance of a republican community, that that peo|)le should regulate their own affairs just as they pleased. It was said, " we do it here in Massachusii,tts, in Vermont, in Illitmis, and why cannot the people of Kansas do it just as well as we.'" Mr. Cass assured the people of Michigan tjiat, as he understood it, slavery could not go into Kansas unless the people of Kansas made a law authorizing it. Not only do the words of the act imply that the question was to be left to the peo- j)le, while a Territory, to settle for themselves, but that was the version put upon it everywhere, and the community were commanded to receive it with acceptance and delight, because of that prin- ciple. Then what did it amount to.' It was an invi- tation to the world, to all men everywhere, "come ye into this Territory of Kansas and there act to- gether as a people, and arrange, discuss, and set- tle the condition of your domestic institutions aa you plea.«:e." That was the invitation. It was to leave it to be adjusted by the progress of emi- gration. Could any man seriously suppose that an agitating topic which had disturbed Congress until they were so tired of it that they must brush it off and get rid of it, would be quietly and peace- ably settled by the people of the Territory.' Could it be reasonably supposed that if that subjext was to be left to those who should emigrate to that Territory, emigration would not be prompted by this very motive.' It was a stimulus to emigra- tion. It was saying to all the pe^iple of the East who were fond of the insiimtionsof freedom and regard the institution of slavery as a great evil, " it is for you now to go there; here is an open, fair field for you; make your exertions; prosecute your emigration; exerci.se your legal powers; make the Territory, as a reward for all your ex- ertions, a free Territory and a free State legally." At the siine time it said to all those who regard the institution of slavery as a divine blessing, "go ye there, and prosecute your exertions; push for- ward your enterprise; stimulate your emisrration ; and as the ix'ward of your exertions, lawfully [>iU forth there, sanctify it if you can to the holy cause of slavery." That was the invitation given forth to the world, and afti'r that invitation is given can any man fairly find fault because the people did go in accordance with it.' Can he find fault that people associai<;d themselves together, rendc;red aid and assistance to each other, material aid and comfort, in prosecuting that enterprise.' It has been done in every quarter of the country — the North and the South. It was to be expected; it was invited What might a man further have calculated .' It seems to me it requiri'd no very great length of foresiirht for a man to have calculated with cer- tainty what would have been the result. Where lie the elements of emigration .' Who have in- ducements to emigrate .' What are their purpose .' What is their character? What sentiments actu- ate them? The people of the South, especially those who are own(n's of slaves, are people of property, men who own land. The South, with six inillions of white people, has not more than one person to every eight or ten square rniles. They have no occasion to emigrate; they have not the elements of emigration; they have land enough where they are, unless, indeed, their sys- tem is of such a kind that they have to keep cull- ing over new land all the time, because they have exiuiusted the old; but even for that purpose!, they have enough for hundreds of years. No, sir; the material of emigration lies east. I cannot but say, at times, that if we look at the subject of African slavery on a broad and liberal scale, and with reference to great periods in the progress of the world, it is after all a very small subject, a very little affair. I think from the foot- prints they have left behind, it is obvious that the family of man makes around this earth great cycles of revolution. They follow the setting sun. The human family are prompted by reasois which they cannot control and which they hardy und(!rstand. Their progress is from the E:i;t westward. At the [iresent moment the great ex- odus of Europe which is throwing its avalancl e on this continent, joine/J with the emigrants fr^m the northern and eastern portions of this country, go to svvfill the great tide of emi2;ration. The family of man is h'd out to possess its (jreat patri- niony. ft is going around the earth; and the little, accidental ci)loniza|^n of a few Africans here, compared with this, is nothing but small eddies along the margin of the great stream. It is a small matter in the long run; but it seems to be enough to agitate our day and our time, tliough I can hardly consider it worthy of the great atten- tion and deep regard of philosophic statesmen. But, sir, as I was saying, the emigration thus passing from east to west, the great current of the family of man going out in each cycle of revolu- tion which it makes, partakes of the degree of civilization which in that period exists. The fam- ily of man now coming to this continent, and going out from our eastern and northern Slates, is deeply impressed with the love of individual independence, the love of freedom; the idea, too, that man, as a laboring being, having liis destiny in.his own hands, shall have his labor guided by the light of his own intellect; that we need no such forinations of society as to require a hier- archy in th^ Church, or a lordship and aristocracy in the State; that labor and intellect shall be to- gether; the laborer shall work by the light of his own intellect, guide his own destinies, participate in all the actions of his Government by his vote, and then he will appreciate the majesty of that system of which he i^ a member. Such people can never look upon the subject of slavery but with regret at least, and generally with displeas- ure. That is the kind of material that furnishes the emigration in this continent. It is of such elements that it is composed, and it is by such principles that it is actuated. Could any man, knowing this, when Kansas was open and the world invited to possess it and to mold its desti- nies, doubt what those destinies would be.' No- thing could prevent it being free, if it was left to the ordinary course and operation of the laws thatgovern emigration. It could hardly have been imagined that those people living right along the border were going to possess the whole of it. That would be to suppose that it must suffer vio- lence, and violent men must take it by force, be- cause they were nearest to it. That would have been a violation of the promised principle and of the plighted faith which the words of the act con- tained, that the people of the Territory should be left free to form and regulate their institutions in their own way. Mr. President, much has been said in relation to the motives and improper purposes with which some people went to Kansas. There can be no reasonable doubt that a very large portion of the emigrants who went there, among other purposes, to push their fortunes as emigrants, were invited there, many of them by this very assurance which the act of Congress contained. They went there not unlawfully, not with a view to make it a free State unlawfully, or by any force or vio- lence; but because they understood they had a right to make it free lawfully; and that is the very i-eason they went there. 1 am of course aware that, when you enter upon an enterprise of this kind, many disturbing geniuses, men who are fond of trouble and commotion, and who might naturally have anticipated there would be much of it there, may have been invited there on both sides — men of violence. There was indeed a great deal of truth contained in the remnrkof the man who was jrturneyiiig ihroui^li Arkansas, be- fore we acquired Texas, with his family and cart. He was asked, " Where are vou going.'" " To Texas." "What for.'" " To settle'on land." " Well," said the Arkansas man, " there is land enough here; it is all around you; you can have as much of it as you want." That was ratliera poser. .Various views were started, until the man, finding himself much cornered, at last came to the point: " I am going, "said he, " where I can fight for my rights." [Laughter.] There are some men who can never value rights they cannot fight for. To have them peaceilbly and lawfully is in no way satisfactory. Some such men, I have no doubt, have gone to Kansas; they have gone to fight for their rights. But that thi.s sentiment pervaded any considerable portion of that community, is utterly without foundation. Again, it is suggested that some of these people went from Massachusetts and other States, to do voting on a particular occasion, and go awav. Where is the evidence of that .' I know it js said, in the report of the committee here, that a man who was a candidate for Delegate to Congress, when he found that he lost his election, went away. I think they are apt to do that ail over the country, particularly where a man is so badly beaten that there is no chance for him at all, he is likely to go and try his luck somewhere else. The people went there to make that a free Terri- tory and a free Slate; and nothing would answer that purpose but to go there and vote, and to stay there to vote. There can be no foundation for the suggestion that they went there simply to vote, and then come away. It is utterly inconsistent, with their purposes. Such, sir, was the plighted faith of this country contained in the Kansas act. The next point we have to inquire into is, how far has that been { carried out; how far has that pliglited faith be(;n redeemed; how far have that people been left free I to form and mold their institutions in their own ' way.' Why, Mr. President, we come now to a point which has been made a great pointof issue from the beginning to the end of tlie controversy ! since the passage of this act. The formaiion of i a Territory by Congress, is really nothing more nor less than passing an act of incorporation for I a city, or borough, or town. A territorial gov- ernment is nothing more nor less tlian a mere municipal corporation created by Congress. Con- I gress are sovereign, I take it, in all territory be- I yond the limits of any particular State. They i have jurisdiction of it; they are sovereign in it. I do not agree to a suggestion made in tiie report of the Committee on Territoties two years ago, ' that Congress have a sovereignty over the Terri- ' tories in abeyance. A sovereignty in abeyance is a paradox; it is no sovereignty at all; it is a sovereignty with no power. Even in the Dred i Scott case the Supreme Court came to this conclu- sion: they say nothing about the country which fell within the old ordinance of 1787; but in the I newly acquired territory they say Congress have plenary power for its government and are entirely sovereign over it within the limitations of the Constitution; they cannot, of course, violate any j of the prohibitions of the Constituti(ui; they can- ! not establish trial without jury, and so on. i When we held the whole of the Louisiana pur- 1^% 8 cliaso, fiom tlifi sources of the Mississippi down to tlio Gulf of Mexico, and from the banks of the riverMississippi to the Rocky Mountains, was this Government under obligations to create a territo- rial £;overnmcnt in any particular part of it? We were underno oblie-ation to make a Territory at all. "What I mean by Territory now is the technical sense of Territory — a municipal corporation in- corporated by law for the purpose of internal 3:ov- crnment. Congress had a perfect ri£;ht toligislaff for that whole country, keep it altogether as a body, make such laws as were necessary for it without callirig in the instrumentalities of second moans, and delegating power to them for this pur- pose. How,*then, can people talk so much about the right of the people of a Territory to make a State.' You might as well say that the people of a county in Virginia can make themselves into a State. They are organized for certain municipal purposes. This territorial incorporation is only for internal government and municipal purpo.'^es. Being a Territory is not an incipient stage to being a State; it vests no such power in them. It is only for jireeent convenience, and for the administra- tion of justice, and the preservation of peace in the '■asiest wa)^ When this act of incorporation for Kansas was passed, and the terms and conditions were stated in it, and especially on this topic of which I have spoken, how was it organized.' How did it go into effect.' Laws, good laws, no matter how gooil they are, furnish no security to men, nor to the rights of men. It is only in the execution of the laws that that security can rightly be found. How did they organize that corporation.' Sup- pose an act of incorporation for a bank, a rail- way, a toll-bridge, a turnpike, is granted iiy any Stati- to Messrs. A, E, C, D. and theirassociates, and 'it is provided that they may organize them- selves at such a time and place, the first meeting to be called by the Secretary of State: and sup- pose that when the Secretary of State issues his notice for the meeting of the members of that corporation for the jiurpose of organization, in- stead of tile M( ssrs. A, B, C, and D, mentioned in the charter, there should come Me.ssrs. E, F, G,and H,and, impersonating them, take posses- sion of the meeting and make themselves the cor- poration: that would be an attempt at organization under the act; but would it not be an entire usurp- ation.' Would it be that corporation which the State created.' Clearly it would not. That was the case here in the very first meet- ing of the people to make an electii)lls, and made tin; organization. It was an utter, . absolute, entire usurpation and military conrpiest. and the Territory never was organized according to the provisions of the act of Congress. Now, sir, what sort of excuses have been made for this.' How is it attempted to be got rid of.' The actual residents of the 'ferritory have, over and over again, insisted on having this wrong re- dressed or corrected in some form; but v/hat have been the answers .' President Pierce, in his mes- sage to Congress, said he could not correct it, because the Executive had no power to correct the laws made by the Legislature under the forms of law. I do not say that he could. Some have said that the courts could correct it. Sir, what- ever is law for the Executive to carry into effect, is law for a court to administer. They cannot go behind the regular authentication. But when tlxe President seemed to concede that there had been violence there, and said he had no power to cor- rect it, why on earth did he not tell Congress to inquire into it and corrf.ct it.' There can be but one answer — because he was gratified to take tiie possession and keeping of the stoh-n goods. The House of Representatives, however, did investi- gate it, and their committee examined under oath the very persons who carried on thi8 invasion. The results of that examination are iiefore the world, matters of history and certainty. What did the Senate dor Did it pass the bill which the other House passed for a reorganiza- tion of the Territory.' Nothing of tlie kind. It was said here that the invasion only extended to the few districts where the people entered protests to the Governor. The people had been driven off, scattered, and intimidated by force and arms; and, sparse as the population was in the largest part of the Territory, they gave it up; that is to say, they did not know how to take proceedings to correct it. In some portions they did, and in three or four districts they filed protests with Governor Ileeder against these violent proceedings; but did they get redress.' Notatall. Governor Reeder, to be sure, set them aside and ordered new elections; but the moment the Legislature which had been elected by means of this invasion came together, they set aside all the [iroceedings of his, and ratified the original invasion. Now it is said, that, inasmuch as all of them did not protest, and the Legislature passed upon that point, every defect is cured, and we are estopped from making complaint. Here I cannot avoid noticing another thing. When the present President talks of anythingof that kind, he says that the territorial government, which we say was never legally inducted there, has been recognized by the different departments of this Government, and it cannot be corrected or looked into. The same point is now insisted upon by the miijority report in this case. That, to mj' mind, is a very extraordinary answer. What do you mean .' " We cannot correct it and will not correct it." Why.' " Because we never would. We will not now, because we told yriu we would not before." That is the very ground of com- ])laint. It is nothing but one continued, protracted outrage, never e.\amined into, never corrected by ihi.s body. TuESD.w, March '2. Mr. President, when I yielded the floor yester- day, I was speaking of the first attemjited organ- ization of the territorial government of Kansas under the organic act, I endeavored to show that / 9 it was made by force of an invasion from Mis- souri, spreading itself all over the Territory, and overawing and over-voting, in an unlawful man- ner, the people who inhabited the Territory. There have been attempted some excuses for this act. They have been mainly found in what has been alleged to be the conduct of the Emigrant Aid Society in sending out to Kansas persons from Massachusetts, though nothing is said at the same time about the Blue Lodge associations which had been formed in the vicinity for the purpose of taking possession of the Territory at the first bound. But, sir, I do not wish to be led off, as I think the community has been attempted to be led off, from examining into the true character of that invasion, by directing their attention and exciting their prejudices against some other people. I can merely say that the act of the Emigrant Aid So- ciety, in aiding persons who wished to go to Kan- sas for the purpose of settling, and, if you please, making it a free State also, had nothing unlawful in it; it was laudable and desirable. There was no single feature of illegality in it, and the pur- pose which they entertained, though it may call for anathemas and vituperation, really, after all, is not censurable. But, sir, there has been an infinite deal of un- necessary labor expended about that point, for if you examine truly into what the aid society did, you find that it amounted to very little. In the month of February, 1855, before this invasion from Missouri, and the first election, which was in March, 1855, a census was taken of the people of the Territory; the name of each person was put down, and the State from which he came. That census has been returned by the Governor and is in the archives of the State Department here. It was made for the purpose of partitioning out the Territory, and apportioning the representatives to the Legislature amongst the different districts, which was done. On a careful examination of that census, and of the places from which the people came, I have made a little table which is before me. No persons were ever aided by that Emigrant Aid Society except from New England, and,Isay,butaverysmallportionoftho3e. In the month of February, 1855, there were in that Terri- tory only one hundred and eighty -three men from all the New England States. I say not one half of them had had any connection with the society in any way, or knew anything about it; but it is the fact that only one hundred and eighty-three men in all were in that Territory from New England; and this is undertaken to be made the founda- tion of an excuse for the military invasion from Missouri of between four and five thousand men g;oing in armed, with banners flying, drums beat- ing, and marching with all the array of war. If it were true that those people had gone there, even, if you please, with the horrid notion of abo- litionizing Kansas — an awful idea ! — can it be made the foundation for any sort of justification for this invasion, conquest, and subjugation of that country .' Did that act of invasion, that mode of attempt- ing to organize the government, leave the people of Kansas "free.'" Certainly not. Has the Sen- ate of the United States — has the Government of the United States done anything on earth to re- deem the pledge of " perfect freedom .'" Have they endeavored to redress these people ? Have they endeavored to correct that wrong ? As I said before, we are told that if there was any objection to those persons who were elected members of the Legislature, the people could go to that Legisla- tureandhaveitcorrected. Whatamockery is this! You may go to the usurpers in order to pass on the legality and correctness of their own usurpations ! I fancy that gentlemen hej-e, and especially those who are lawyers, understand the distinction be- tween a challenge to the array of a jury, and a challenge for favor of particular members. When the challenge is to the array, how idle it would be to undertake to call upon those very jurors thus collected, to pass on the question whether they were legally brought together. I know that in challenges to favor, the good old practice of the common law was this: if an individual is chal- lenged, triers are appointed, and they pass upon his case; and when they have passed upon three of them, they become so many members of the jury; the triers are dismissed; the jury go on passing upon the challenges to individuals, until you fill up the jury box; but you see they are expurgated, and persons are called that are not obnoxious to the objection. But how could that Legislature thus usurped, thus put into power by an invasion from abroad, aiding and assisting a very small minority of that people, pass upon the challenge of the array .'' And yet we are told that we are estopped from going into that matter, be- cause the Legislature passed upon it! No, sir, there was no mode of correcting this wrong but by an act of legislation, and that has been denied. Now, sir, in order to trace how it is that the constitution which we have now before us is the child, the result, the ultimate fruit and conse- quence of that usurpation, it is necessary to see how it was that those who were thus inducted into power perpetuated that power, how their ac- tion operated to produce this constitution in its present form. That can be done briefly. When that Legislature assembled they proceeded to pass laws, as they called them. Among those laws was one which required that every person who might be permitted to vote at all, should, if challenged, take an oath to support the fugitive slave law. In the next place they passed an act which declared men subject to penalties and imprisonment if they should publish or declare anything which ques- tioned the right of a man to hold slaves in the Ter- ritory of Kansas. That is a topic that they were not permitted to discuss at all; that was put under the ban. Then provision was made that men might vote on paying taxes, but no time of resi- dence was required — of course intending that all those who lived near there could come in, settle for a day, pay a tax of fifty cents or a dollar, and vote, so that they might be saved the trouble of military expeditions afterwards. The purpose, the object, of those laws is perfectly obvious. No man in the exercise of ordmary discernment can possibly avoid seeing what it was. It was to drive the free-State people out of that Territory; it was to disfranchise them. Is it possible that any State or Territory, when Congress have passed a law and fixed the penal- ties for breaches of that law, can go on and ab- solutely disfranchise men if they will not swear to support it ? Did the Congress of the United States, in passing the fugitive slave law, ever declare or intimate that they supposed people 10 could be disfranchised aa citizens unless they ^^(ou!d swear to support it? Has any State or Territory a ri2;ht to add new sanctions, new pen- alties and new consequences to the breach of a congressional act ? Again, it is said now that the slavery question is the question which, above all others, was intended to be left to the people there, and to regulate which they were to be left " per- fectly free;" and the Missouri compromise, we are told, was repealed in order that they might be loft to act freely upon it. Can it be possible that they were to be gagged on that subject, and were to be absolutely prohibited from discussing it altogether? Yet that was the legislation. It is perfectly certain that they not only intended this to be the effect, but they carried it out accordingly; i for when they undertook to p\Uthese laws in oper- ation wc know what was the result. Printing presses were destroyed and declared nuisances. Ijills were found against them as a nuisance, and the nuisance was abated without a verdict! A bridge, across which free-State people could pass, was a nuisance, and that was ai)ated ! The types and presses were thrown into the river. The city i of Lawrence was to be abated; and if any man made any sort of a defense it was constructive treason ! The people were imprisoned; they were hunted out; and if the officers whom the minority appointed at any time and place wanted assistance they called in a posse — who? Persons from Mis- ' souri. They overrun the country; the people were hunted out. I will not attempt to describe the ravages, the violence and blood which followed this in all its tracks. That was the season of 1856. One tiling, however, must be perfectly certain — that the free-State pcopl« then there, and who should go there while these test oaths and this gag law continued in force, were disfranchised people; they could take no participation in an election. The circumstances under which they were permitted to vote were such as utterly for- bade their exercising the right of suffrage. How long did these laws continue in force? Until the 20th of February, 1857. That date becomes im- portant. I What took place while these laws were in oper- ation, and while these people stood thus disfran- chised ? An act was passed by the Territorial Le- gislature by which the people were asked to vote whether they would have a convention to form a State constitution. That question was put to the people. The free-State men could not legally par- ticipate in that election, and did not participate in it; and yet they are found fault with because they did not, and it is said they are estopped because they did not. What next? The second election of a Legislature took place in October, 1856. The same laws were then in force, and the Legislature which met in January and February, 1857, was elected by the same minority. The whole body : of the free-State people of that Territory were ut- terly excluded from that election, in the manner I have stated. They had nothing to do with it; they could have nothing to do with it — not merely that they did not desire to have anything to do with it, but the very forms of the law were made to deprive them from having anything to do with it, and did deprive them. It ill becomes men who are now trying to take advantage of that, to say to them, " you could have voted." " Did you meaD we should '" Evidently you did not. Cer- tainly nothing was put to these people but this: you shall have slaves or you shall be slaves — oni or the other. The men who made these laws die not expect them to vote; and they did not meai them to vote. The laws were made to prevent it and did prevent it; and they cannot find fault nov that men did not vote, whom they meant to pre vent from voting. The second Legislature was elected under the influence of these laws. It met in January, 1857 That was the Legislature which passed the ac that called the convention. Now, Mr. President bear in mind that Governor Geary, who was thei there when that Legislature passed the act calling the convention together, disliked it, because it di( not provide for a submission of the constitutioi to a vote of the people. He communicated wit! them on that subject, and he says that they tok him they could not agree to put into the acta prO' vision that the constitution should be submittec to the jieopie; that they had had communication! with their southern friends on the subject, an( they could not do it. He vetoed the bill for tha reason. So says the Senator from Missouri; anc he says they passed it by a two-thirds vote ove: him. Yes, they did. What would you expeci them to do? Who made them ? What were thej made for? They were put into power by a mi nority of the actual residents, aided by an inva sion from abroad, for a distinct, particular pur pose. They went on to carry out that purpose and shape their course accordingly, to make { slave State there. They meant to make it st despite the opinions of the people there, or thej would have submitted the constitution to a fan vote. They would not submit it to the peo])le because theirsouthern friends disliked it. Wher the Governor vetoed the bill they jiersisted in it they would have a convention, and would makt no provision for submitting the constitution to th( people. Why? Because the people would vot< against them. Is that making a constitution bj the people, and for the people ? Was that a con vention elected by the people ? Were they acting for the people ? Clearly not. An election of delegates was made, and thej met together in convention. They met in the beginning of September. They adjourned becaust a general election for the Legislature of the Ter ritory came on in October, 1857. From April 1857, the Territory had been presided over, firs by acting-Governor Stanton, and afterwards bj GovernorWalker, who, when they had been then long enough to ascertain the real condition of tht people of that Territory, gave out assurances tc them that they should have a chance of voting ai the October election, fairly, under the United States laws — not under the territorial acts. Thf people on those occasions frequently said to the Governor, as he tells us, " you cannot control these men; you have not the appointment of the judges of election; you have no control over them: if you knew them as well as we do, you would know that we could have no fairness in an elec- tion from them." There were some other men sent there, to whom I might allude — Governor Geary and Governor Reeder. When Governor Geary was sent there, he was sent upon a strange errand. I remember I saw the man when he was here about to go, and I looked at him thinking what an errand he was 11 sent upon; and so it is of the officers who have been sent there. They were told, "now you must execute those laws; it shall be done by the whole powerof this Government; but you are to see that there is fair and ample justice done to all that people." The thing involved a palpable in- consistency, a gross impossibility. You might as well have told these men " you are to go out, you understand, to do all kindness and equity and justice to the children of Bethlehem, but you are at the same time to carry out the decree of Herod." The thing was impossible. Iknewit was impossible when the man started away. I knew he would be involved in difficulty, and ne- cessarily must be. I knew, indeed, that he made some little effort himself to get the acts which had been passed in the Territory repealed before he went, but he did not succeed; he could not get it done; the Senate would do nothing about it. When the October election of 1857 was about to come off, Mr. Stanton first, and Governor Walker afterwards, endeavored to persuade the people to go into the election. Before that time, however, the election of delegates to the conven- tion came on. That was soon after the arrival of Governor Walker in the Territory. He went out beset with that delusion which seems to be cher- ished so much about here, that there is but a little factious disturbing minority of the people of Kan- sas who make all the trouble — that they are in a state of rebellion ! Governor Walker went there with that notion, and at first he could smell rebel- lion in everything. If the people associated in Lawrence to light and clean their streets, or build a bridge by common consent, he could see noth- ing in it but treason. He wanted a great army to environ that town; but after all, I do not know that he succeeded in shooting anybody, or that he found out any treason. He became disabused of this. So did Stanton, and so did Geary. They ascertained what the condition of the country really was when they had been there long enough to have a personal acquaintance with it, and then they began to see it in its true light, and they be- gan to try to carry out the direction they had re- ceived, that they should do justice to the people. I say, in regard to the election for delegates to the convention, that Governor Walker and Secretary Stanton tried to persuade the people to go into it, but all the time gave them the most direct assur- ances, coming from the President himself, that whatever constitution the convention might form should be submitted to their vote for ratification or rejection. That was the assurance they had. There was another element which entered into the election of delegates. The Legislature had ordered a census to be taken, and the delegates to be apportioned to the districts according to the census. A census was taken; and what I have to say of it is that in all the counties it was very imperfectly done; in many counties, and some of them very populous, it was not done at all. I know the Senator from Missouri says that the people prevented it; but how could the people prevent men from taking a census, where there was no officer to take it? Nor do I see how it is possible to prevent a man taking a census. He can inquire of the neighbors, or of anybody, who lives here? who lives there? who lives in this house ? and who in that house ? It seems to me a strange thing to say that you cannot take a cen- sus, cannot count the people. It is very much like the boy who could not tell how many piga there were in a certain lot; he had counted all that were there but one, and it was a spotted one, and kept running about so that he could not count it. [Laughter.] I do not see any difficulty in count- ing. Where there were officers, they could have taken the census truly. Where there were no officers, the people were not to blame; but in some counties where there vrere officers, they did not try to take a census at all. There were some fif- teen counties that were nominal counties, that did not have any census. Some of those were populous counties — populous for that country. You will perceive that that people as a body, as a mass, had no opportunity to be represented by delegates in the convention. In the next .place, it is true that the mass of the people had no confidence in the officers who were to conduct the election of delegates. They had no participation in the selection of those officers; and they were not appointed by the Governor. In the third place, the assurances which they re- ceived directly and expressly from the organs of the Government, authorized by the President him- self, were such that the people said to themselves, "really we do jiot care very much about the con- vention; we do not much care about their consti- tution; we do not care who writes it; we do not much care what it contains; because we are as- sured that we shall have the opportunity to vote directly upon it; that we shall have the oppor- tunity to reject it if we do not like it; to approve it if we do like it: that is what we are told, and therefore we need not trouble ourselves about the election of members of the conveiuion." Were not such tlie assurances given ? It will hardly be de- nied, I apprehend; but to make it perfectly clear, let me make a few quotations. The President, in his instructions to Governor Walker tiu'ough the Secretary of State, on the 30th of March, 1857, said: " When pucli constitution should bR submitted to the peo- ple of the Territor}', they must be piotficted in the exercise of their right of votina; for or ;i;|ahi.'it that instrument, and the fair expression of the popular will niu.-st not be inter- rupted by fraud or violence." Can anything be more explicit than this? Gov- ernor Walker, in an official dispatch to the State Department, dated June 2, 1857, said: " On one point the sentiment of the people is almost unanimous — that the constitution mu>t be submitted for rat- ification or rejection, to a vote of the people, who shall be bona fide residents of the Territory next fall." In his inaugural address to the people of Kan- sas, Governor Walker declared: " With these views well known to the President and Cabinet, and approved by them, I accepted the appointment of Governor of Kansas. My instructions from the President, throughthc Secretary of State, under date of the SOthMarcli last, sustain ' the regular Legislature of the Territory in as- sembling a convention to form a constitution.' And they express the opinion of the President, that wliou snch con- stitution shall be submitted to the people of the Territory, they must be protected in the exercise of their right of voting for or against that instrument, and the fair expression of the popular will must not be interfered with by fraud or violence. I repeat, then, as my clear conviction , that unless the convention submit the constitution to the vote of all the actual resident setUers of Kansas, and the election be fairly and quietly conducted, the constitution will be, and ought to be, rejected by Congress." These were the assurances which the people received. Might they not, then, very well have said, "when the time comes for us to vote, when 12 we may vote under these assurances, we will vote, if that fair opportunity be presented to us; but we know these nun, Governor, better than you do; we doubt whether that time will ever come; but, as you say it sliall come, and that tiie constitution will be rejected unless it does come, we will trust it; we will not make war; we will exercise no vio- lence about it; we will trust to the assurances we have received from you as the organ of the Gov- ernment, coming, as you #ell us, from the head of the Government. " Is it not strange to talk of that people having been estopped ? What is the doctrine of estoppel ? Among lawyers it is understood to be taking some objection, by which you prevent testimony from being taken; you estop a man from examination into the truth. It is said in the books to be odious even in the law; but it is absolutely intolerable in legislation. But, sir, the doctrine of estoppel is pushed a little beyond this, and with great moral propriety, in courts of law. Wherever one man gives to another man assurances of facts upon which he knows that man is to act, and the man does act upon them, the man who gave such assu- rances is never permitted to dispute them. If the honorable Senator from Maine, who sits beside me, [Mr. Fessevden,] is about to buy a horse of A B, and asks me whether that is A B's horse, he knowing I once owned him , and I tell him it is A B's horse, and he buys it, the doctrine applies. How .' Knowing that he was about to buy it, and giving him that assurance and permitting him to act un- der it, I am estopped afterwards from claiming that horse to be mine. If I could prove it to be mine I should not be permitted to do it; and this commends itself to the acceptance of every man. It is called estoppel in pais. What was done to these people? They were told, as an assurance coming from the President of the United States, "if the convention was elect- ed when you could not vote, or if it was called for by a vote in which you could not participate, no matter about the constitution it may make; it is to pass under your sanction, if it is ever adopted at all — then let it go." Now, sir, I ask, in all moral propriety, by the application of any sound ethics, are not this Government, this community, this Senate, as an integral part of this Government, now estopped from telling that people that they should have voted in the first place.' Have we not led them into this security? Have we not given them, through ourorgan, these direct assur- ances, and induced them to act on them? Yes. Then we should be estopped from saying that they have not done as they should. It is we who should be estopped, not they. This should be the end of the complaint that the people ought to have gone and voted for the delegates. It is very observable, Mr. President, that as long as that unscrupulous minority there, who had been installed into power by an invasion, re- tained power, we heard constantly in the Senate, "let there be no intervention in the Territory; we cannot interfere at all in any way; they must work it out themselves; we have turned it over to them, and they must work out their own salva- tion, for through much tribulation you must enter into the kingdom of Heaven; we cannot interfere at all." "Well, but, "it was said, "they stole that power; and do you calculate to sustain them, and make yourselves receivers of stolen goods?" " Oh!" it was replied, " there is an estoppel; we cannot inquire into it." That went on for some time; no relief could be obtained. The people endured it. They, to be sure, made some little eflbrt. They did what (hey could. They could not make any effort according to territorial law. They kept reading and reading over the assur- ances which their organic act contained, under which they went there. Congress told them that the people of the Territory should lie left perfectly free to form their institutions in their own way. The people said: " That is English; it is all ver- nacular; we can read that as well as a learned man; we have not been left free thus far; we have been invaded, conquered, and subdued, passed under the yoke, and that condition of things is attempted to be perpetuated by the very laws these men have made; in short, they have us here as absolutely as ever the Samnites liad the Romans in the Caudine Forks. What shall we do? Well, we will get together, inviting all to participate, with us, and we will make a constitution; we will let the people vote on that; we will send it to Congress, and see if they will not accept it, for we do not despair of the justice of our country." They made the Topeka constitution. But what if they did? They made it, not organizing any government under it to bo put in force, but making a Legislature, and choosing the necessary officers for an organization, altogether subjunctive, alto- getherconditional and preliminary, subject to the action of Congress. The House of Representa- tives accepted it; the Senate rejected it. They have, from time to time, continued that organiza- tion, not yet despairing but that they would be enabled to show Congress what was their true condition, and that they would obtain relief. They had nothing but vituperation and abuse from this Government. They were called by every possiblename ofvituperation — I was going to add, that the language of billingsgate could present. I shall spend no more time about the Topeka con- stitution, but pass on in the history of events. In October, 1857, so strong were the assurances from Governor Walker and Secretary Stanton to the people, that they should have a fair election of a Territorial Legislature under the congres- sional law, that they finally concluded to go into it. Though they had been thus far all the while cheated and deceived by the assurances of the Government; though they had been told they should be left free and had not been; though they had often been told that they might go to Con- gress for redress, and did go and did not get it; though they had received assurances of fairness but did not have it; yet after all, with great for- bearance, they concluded once more to make an effort, and they went into the territorial election last October. What did it disclose? The Gov- ernor received the returns. It is not necessary that I should go over them. Hundreds, thou- sands of fictitious names were added to the returns coming up from places where there were known to be not even a hundred voters. Then we are told — " estoppel, you must not touch it." The Governor did indeed find a way to realize in some way his assurances. He said these returns were not certified in legal form-r-not that he could set them aside for any corruption of substance, cor- rupt as he said they were. Even if every name waa copied out of the Cincinnati Directory and he 13 knew it, lie said he could not touch that; but he operative, these men might not be able to suc- ceed in any of their purposes. To avoid all this, they went on to provide that the constitution, as they said, sluuild be submit- ted to the people for th^ir adoption or rejection, in the manner following to wit: each man was to vote "the constitution with slavery," or 'Khe constitution without slavery;" and if a majority voted for it with slavery, it should all be adopted as it was; if a majority voted for it without sla- very, then the clause which provided i'or the perpetuation of the existing slavery in the Ter- ritory should be continued, but no more slaves should be introduced. What is the English of all this.' " Nobody is to be permitted to vbte to re- ject this constitution. It is not to be submitted to the people for their ratification or rejection, as we say, but it is to be submitted for ratification or rejection in such a manner that it cannot be re- jected. In the next place, this shall be a slave- holding State in any event, in either alternative, on either horn of thg dilemma, vote as the people may." Was that submitting a constitution to the vote of the people for ratification or rejection .' Was that submitting even the question of whether it should beaslaveholdingState or not.' It clearly was neither. It was a cheat and a delusion. Again, they provided that, instead of having the elections conducted by the regular judges of elec- tion, the lawful off.cers, men should be appointed by Mr. Calhoun, removable by iiim, and should make their returns, not to the Govurnor, but to Mr. Calhoun. After the convention adjourned, had finished its business, and he was thereby out of office, the votes were to be returned to him — a man who was not an offict;r known to the law. He cannot be impeached for his conduct in this matter; he is under no legal sanctions whatever. These instrumentalities are resorted to for the first time in the history of the cmintry, as far as I know. I am not aware of any previous example of the ap|ioiiitment of officers, making returns, and supervising elections by men not known to the law, not amenable to law. I know they state, in the schedule to their constitution, that these persons should be subject to the same penalties as legal officers under the laws of the Territory. It hajipened that there were no lav/s of the Terri- tory on tile subject at that time; i)ut if there were, these men could not be sulijected to them, for that would be an act of legislation, ami the convention had no power of legislation. It will be observed that these proceedings were 14 =1= after the la.st Oi-.tobei' election. A vote was taken on tlie ait^t of December, as ordiTcd by the con- vention in their schedule. They have returned some six tlioiisiind votes as having l)een cast on that day; but the gentlemen who inspected them, and were present on the occasion of the opening of these votes, tell us there could not be more than two thuusainl of ihcm "genuine. They knew the country, knew the people, and state that fact. Now, sir, what is Congress asked to do? We are a.sked to take a constitution so made, this child and result of original violence and C'ontinued i fraud, and put it upon that people against their will. When they complain of fraud it is said they are estopped; and now you propose to cram this constitution into the mouths, and stuff it down the throats efihe people; you will not permit them to say anything; they are estopped I That is what we are asked to do, and various reasons are given for it; but should we do it? Ought we to do it because we may find the sanctions and forms of law thrown around this proceeding ? There never wSh a usurpation, there never was a tyranny im- posed on a people which was not under the forms of lAw. The forms of law are the last things to give way; but should we try to shrink behind those forms, and refuse to know the truth ? The first claim on this ground, the first argu- ment i)» support of this measure, is that this con- stitution was made lawfully. That word has va- rious senses and applications. It may be said that anything is lawful that is not directly unlaw- ful. If i^ thing is not unlawful, you may say it is a lawful act. There was nothing unlawful in the p(>ople assembling atTopeka to make a con- stitution. There was nothing unlawful, I take it, in tlie Cin(;innati convention. It was a lawful meetinic; that is, it was not unlawful; but that is not what we are after. The question we should be upon, and that alone ^hicii should justify the proceeding is, is it authoritative? That is the question. Suppose the convention which assem- bled there, waiving all other points, was assembled by a vote of all the people; it was not unlawful; but was it authoritative? That entirely depends on this question: had that convention any such authoriiy t'rorn the source of power in the Terri- tory, that is, the Government of the United States, as enabled them authoritatively to proceed? I in- sist that they had none at all. Something is said, and more alluded to, about the treaty with France; and it is intimated that as to the country which was within the Louis- iana purchase, the treaty with Prance gave some sort of authoriiy for making a State. I should like to know what it is. I know that treaty provided that the p(^oplo then in the ceded Territory, tlie French subjects who were there, (for they had no right to provide for others,) should be protected in their property. Kansas was an utter wildermss then, with no people in it. The treaty said further that they should have the privileges of citizens of the United States, and be admitted into the Union at the proper time. That is the substance of the provision Did that authorize them to form a State constitution? There was that whole region of Louisiana, from the mouth of the Mississippi to its head, and extending west to the Rocky Mount- ains, all included in this purchase. Supjiose there had been fifty thousand or otie hundred thousand people in that vast region: would any man say that pcojile had a right to make it into aSiaie and that iheir taking iiroceedings by a convention for that purpose would have been authoritative? It is not true that either the whole or any part of that region, whether shaped into a Territory or not, has any such inherent power, or any such authority derived from that treaty. I undertake to say therf is not a single word in that clause of the treaty but would have been equally good law if it had not been there. It was well enough to provide in the treaty that the inhabitants of the ceded country should be pi'otected in their rights and property. That is said from abundant cau- tion, but it is in the law of nations even if it were not in the treaty. No authority was derived from that. Then, where did they get authority to make this constitution r Have they had any enabling act? Not at all. Did tliey need any under that treaty ? The people of Louisiana had one; the people of Missouri had one; the people of Iowa had one. They were all within the limits of the country ac- quired by that treatyr If Kansas did not need any enabling acts, over what part of the ceded country did that requirement extend ? Did it tiike in much or little ? I supposed all portions had the same right. There is nothing in tlial treaty which tends at all to intimate that there was any such power given to that people, nor has the conduct of the Government shown any cotemporaneous construction like that, but it is directly the other way. There is a very great importance in Icnowing whether a thing is done authoritatively or not. When any election is hoUlen, or any proceeding taken by authority of law, it is totally imma- terial how many people vote or how many stay at home. When the law is passed by competent authority, the vote thus given is conclusive; it is not permitted to be rebutted; no fact can be ad- mitted against it; all the world is informed " there' is the law; go and vote under that law, because you are to be bound by it at any rate; if you do not like what is to take place, go and iiy your vote prevent it if you can." If an election is held in any district, in any city, in any State, or in the Union, by authority, the vote pas.-ed under that authority is conclusive. I insist, liowever, that the Territory of Kansas never had any au- thority for proceeding to form a State constitu- tion. Congress has never passed any enabling act for Kansas. I know that the Presidentseems disposed now to say (and some gentlemen here seem disposed to affirm) that there is something to be found in the act organizing the Territory of Kansas, which amounted to an enabling act. I should like to have the words pointed out some- where. Is an enabling act to be found in those very important words which declared that the people of the Territory should be left perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institu- tions in their own way ? Is that it ? If that is it, ; they might have formed a State constitution as soon as they got twenty men there. Kansas has not sufficient population for one Representative in ] Cong^ess now; nor is it put on any ground of that I kind; but it is said the act organizing the Terri- tory is itself an enabling act. If so, it was an enabling act the next day after a man went tliere. Congress, however, never understood it as an .enabling act; and- the President, who signed it, 15 never understood it so. Wlien these difficulties arose, President Pierce rccumniended to Coneress to )iass an enabling; act for the Territory of Kan- sas, to be put into operation whenever it should have tlie proper number of inhabitants.. An attempt to jia* an enabling act succeeded in this body during the last Congress. If Katisas already had such an act, why was that attempt made; why was that bill passed by this body.' Most clearly it is left to this late day to discover, and that, too, without saying where you can find it, that tiie territorial act is an enabling act. I do not know but that it may be referred to some other words in the act, those which declare that the Legislature shall have power to legislate on all rightful sulijects of legislation; but those words are in all the territorial organic acts. If the Kansas act was an enabling act because of those words, every territorial act Congress have ever passed was an enabling act, and they never needed any otlicr. The practice of the Government shows that this idea is entirely without foundation. It is a mere assumption. Then I say this proceeding was without au- thority; but the President and the friends of this measure keep repeating that it was done according to law. I admit that it was not unlawful; but is everything that is not unlawful, therefore author- itative ? Certainly not. I do not deny that del- egates may assemble in a convention to form a constitution, and the people may even vote for it, and ratify it, and organize a government under it, Sjtibjunclively, conditionally, and present that con- stitution to Congress as a petition for admission as a State; and if Congress choose to ratify it, it is all very well. But what is the effect in such cases .' Congress admit States in their discretion — I do not mean caprice — I mean a judicious dis- cretion. When a constitution comes here formed by authority, we have simply to see whether the conditions on which that authority was granted have been complied with. There is a sort of plighted faith, " if you do so and so, we will ad- mit you," as in the case of Minnesota; and if we find that they have done so, we ought to admit them. When, however, the act is done, as I may say in inv'Uum, done by the people themselves without authority, then before Congress ratify it they should inquire into all the circumstances Arkansas came with a constitution made by a convention under the authority of the Territorial Legislature. The case was fully examined, and it was decided during General Jackson's admin- istratiim, by his proper legal officer, that that had no binding force; but after all it was not unlawful; Congress might ratify it if they chose; it was a mode of petitioning. Michigan came pretty much in the same way. After a fult' examination those two States were admitted. Thin how does the matter stand .' If a pro- ceeding of this kind is taken in any form, it may be thai prima facie we should consider that it is all right. If it is not disputed, we should receive it. If it has been fairly conducted, we should take it. If nobody objects to it, the case is prima facie good. There is a great deal in thut prima facie. I have always thought it was a pretty good defi- nition of a young lawyer wlio, when called upon to explain what he meant by a prima fucie case, said he meant a case good in front and bad in the rear. [Laughter.] That is a true definition. This prima facie case, not made by authority, is a mat- ter to he examined into, especially when it is ques- tioned. On this occa.sion question is made. When Arkansas presented herconstitulion, nobody ques- tioned it; the people there were satisfied with it. When Michigan presented her constitution, the people there were satisfied with it. When this case, however, is presented here, got up in the manner I have stated, (without my finding any other fault with it now, without going over what I have previously said,) the people do find fault with it; and we are asked to look into it and see if it is really what it purports to be. Will you look into it.? will you examine whether it is fair ? Resolutions were offered to this body to enable the Committee on Territories to examine it, but the Senate refused to clothe the committee with power to obtain the means of examination. I take it this is a pretty good indication of what is to be done. I am aware that the Senate do not mean to inquire. What do you mean to do ? " To insist that this is authority at any rate; we will stick to it; and as to the point whether the pro- ceeding was done fairly or not, we will not know; we are afraid that if we undertake to inquire, we shall ascertain that it is not fair, and therefore we do not mean to inquire." To my mind, this is making a very extraordinary use of the doctrine of estoppel. There is another topic i-unning collaterally with this to which I wish to allude. During the last four years there has run along with this proceed- ing another pretty important point cininectcd with it, and that is what I call the political dogma that slave property, if you call it property, is precisely the same in legal character as any other property; being such that its owners have a riglit to carry it into the Territories, by virtue of tlie Constitu- tion of the United States. That idea began, I be- lieve, with Mr. John C. Calhoun; and for some time after he started it, it was almost universally scouted. There were very few men found any- where in this country who received it. It lias been presented , however, on plausible grounds. It has been asked, " cannot the f)eople of every State go to the Territories with their property all alike.' Cannot a man go there from Virginia with the same property as a man from Massachusetts; and a man from Vermont go there with the same prop- erty as a man from Georgia.' Certainly, all can go alike; but the property of one may perhaps l>e of such a kind that it cannot be carried there at all; but that is not the fault of the law. If there is any difficulty of that sort, it results from the na- ture of the property. It may be, if you please, tropical fruit, that would perish before you could get it there. That is the misfortune of the owner if he undertakes to carry it there; it is not owing to the law. I come back to the question whether slave prop- erty is such as can be carried out of its Slate — j whether it is the same as other property ? Here I ; cannot avoid, because it is thrust continually in the way, speaking in some measure of what is called the Dred Scott decision. As I have said, I the dogma of the right to carry slave property, like other property, beyond the limits of tlie States, ' at first was not received at all. Did anybody sup- I pose that it was the correct doctrine when Con- i gress passed laws fixing certain lines, and saying I slavery should not go north of them ? Did they 16 dream of anythinj^ of that kind then ? No. Even in modern times, since we obtained the territories acquired from iXJexico, was it adopted as a cor- rect doctrine ? I believe in the compromise of 1850, when ('iingress made the law that New Mexico should lie admitted, wither withoutslavery, when tliey came to form a State constitution, the hon- orable Senator from Georgia [Mr. Toombs] op- posed that, because it did not go far enough. He insisted that Congress should go on and repeal the existing law of Mexico, in order to let them fairly in. I am right, I believe, in that. Mr. TOOMBS. Yes, sir. Mr. COLL AM ER. I am certain as to that. An honorable member of the other House from Georgia [Mr. Stephens] took the same ground; and when what was called the Clayton compro- mise was off'i-red in the House of Representa- tives, it was laid on the table, on his motion, on that very ground. This doctrine was not con- sidered good then. It has grown up and reached its pre.sent elevation since iliat time. I do not propose at this time to go into a critical examin- ation of the Dred Scott decision; I do not propose a review of it. I shall simply speak now as to this particular point. What is that decision.' Is there anything authoritative in it.' The Supreme Court hail a ease before them. The court decided, on a full hearins:, tiiat they had no sort of juris- diction of tli(! case, and ordered it to be disinis.sed, or sent to the court below to be dismissed. How came they, then, to have authority to make a de- cision.' They had no authority, no jurisdiction, of the case. They said they had not. Clearly, whatever else they said was extra-judicial. I do not say that ihe Supreme Court should never pass on any political question; but I do say that it would be very much to be regretted that they should be 01)1 iged to do so. If we desire that that court shall sustain its position and command the confidence of the country, it certainly ought to be kept clear and steered clear of being obliged to break down that confidence by running across a political question which agitates the whole coun- try. Tiny should avoid it if they can; but it may be that a case before the court involves a question in deciding which they must jiass upf)n it. When they must, they must. I cannot but say, after all, I should apply to such a case the ' words of the Prince of Denmark to the ghost: \ " Thdu coiii'st in such a questionable shape, \ That I will .speak to tliee." If it comes in such a shape, involved in the question that they must speak to it, very well; but nothing else can excuse it. I think it is very much to be regretted that the judges.of that court, or any of them, should have thought proper to ^ employ ilieir extra-judicial lucubrations in put- ting forth px catkedra indorsements of a political dogma. The indorsers of accommodation paper very seldom find that it is a profitable business. They either fail to give currency to the paper, or else they have to meet it themselves. In examinino: the question whether the Consti- tution of the United Stales recognizes and pro- tects slave property, as it is claimed, the same as other properly, I cannot but say that I think, in the first place, it has been disposed of by very cheap logic. Most of it is a mere assumption — an assumpiinn, in my judgment, exceedingly ar- rogant in some of its forms; but I wish to give it what I believe to be a candid and honest exam- ! ination; and I will not be tedious about it. I do j not say that slaves are never property. 1 do not ' say that they are, or are not. Within the limits of a State which declares them ta be property, they are property, because they are wiihin the jurisdiction of that government wliich makes the declaration; but I should wish to speak of it in the light of a member of tiie United Siatete Senate, and in ihe lanijuage of the Unitid States Consti- tution. If this be property in the States, what is the nature and extent of it.' I insist that the Su- preme Court have often decided, and everybody has understood, that .slavery is a local institution, existing by force of State law; and of course that law can give it no possii)le character beyond the limits of that Slate. 1 shall no doubt find the idea better expressed in the o|)inion of Judfje Nelson, in this same Dred Scott decision. I prefer to read his language. He declares: '• Kvery Siale or nation posse.sses .in cxclu-sivc sovercisnty ami jnilsiliction williin her own territory; and In-r laws afl'eci and liind all property and persons r('>idhi<; within it. It may rej;nlati' the nianner and circumstances under wliicli property is held, anil the condilion, cafiacity. and Stale, of all persons then^in ; and. also, the remedy and the modes of adininistcriiij; justice. .\.nd it is equally true.tliat no State or nation can affect or bind property out of its terrilor*-, or persons not residing witliMi it. No Stale, therefore, can cnaci huvs to operate lieyoud its ciwn dominions : and, if it attempts to do so, may be lawlnlly rel'used obedii'nee. Such laws can have no autliority extra territorially. This is tht: necessary result of the indepundonce of distinct and sepa- rate sovereignties." Here is the law; and under it exists the law of slavery in the different States. By virtue of this very principle, it cannot exiend one inch beyond its own territorial limits. A Slate cannot regulate the relation of master and slave, of owner and property, the manner and title of descent, orany- ihing else, one inch beyond its territory. Then you cannot, by virtue of the law of slavery, if it makes slaves property in a State, if you please, move that property out of the State. It ends whenever you pass from that State. You may pass into another State thai has a like law; and if you do, you hold it by virtue of that law; but the moment you pass beyond the limits of the slaveholding Stales, all title to the property called property in slaves, there ends. Under such a law slaves cannot be carried as properly into the Ter- ritories, or anywhere else beyond the States au- thorizing it. It is not property anywhere else. If the Conslilution of the United Slates gives agy other and further character than thisto slave prop- erty, let us acknowledge it fairly ami end all strife about it. if it does not, I ask, in all candor, that men on the other side shall say so, and let this point be settled. What is the point we are to in- quire into.' It i.* this: does the Constitution of the United States make slaves property beyond the jurisdiction of the States authorizing slavery .' If it only acknowledges them as property wiihin th;it jurisdiction, it has not extended the properly one inch beyond the State line; liut if, as the Su- preme Court seems to say, it docs recognize and protect them as properly further than Stale limits, and more ihan the State laws do, then, indeed, it becomeslike other property. The Supreme Court rest this claim upon this clause of the Constitu- tion: " No person held to service or labor in one Stale' under the laws thereof, shall, in consequence of any law or rcgii- 17 Ijitioii tliorein, 1)6 (iiscliarged IVoin such service or labor ; hut shall l)e delivered up on cinim of the party to wlioin such service or labor may be due."' Now the question is, does that guaranty it? Does that make it tlie same as other property? The very fact that this ehiuse makes provision on the subject of persons bound to service, shows that the iVamers of the Cojistitulioii did not regard it as other property. It was a tiling tiiat needed some provision; other property did not. Tiie insertion of such a provision shows that it was not regarded as oilier property. If a man's horse stray from Delaware into Pennsylvania, he can go and get it. Is there any provision in the Con- stitution for it? No. How came this to be there, if a slave is jiroperty? If it is the same as other property, why have any provision about it? Again, you will observe that this provision re- lutes only to those who may esca|)e. The horse escapes and runs away into another State, and the owner can pursue him there. Can he pursue him any better there because he escaped, than if he rode him there? If the owner rode the horse from Delaware into Pennsylyania, he could still, I take it, go home on him. He would not need any provision of the Constitution for that. But here they seemed to find it necessai'y to make pro- vision that the slave should go home with the master, if he escaped. They provided only for those who escaped; and therefore, if a man takes Ills slave over voluntarily, this provision of the Constitution is that he. cannot take him back, be- cause it only covers those that escape. Then it is not like other property. It not only does not put it on the ground of other property, but it ab- solutely abnegates the idea of its being like other property. Othei- properly he could bring away, whether it ran off or was carried off. With slaves it is different. Then it is not like other property. That recognition does not put it on the ground of other property. In the next place, what do you mean by guar- antying property t,o be the same as others? How is others? I take it that guarantying rights over property means, to enable the owner to take it and use it, and sell it to others to use anywhere and everyv^here. But, even in relation to escaped slaves, does this provision of the constitution en- able the owner of those sljives to go where they have escaped, to a free State, and there take them and keep them, Snd hold them, and sell them? No such thing. It only authorizes him to take them home, into and under that law where he is entitled to their service. Property he can take, keep, hold, sell, and use, anywhere. The Consti- tution, I repeat, only enaWes him, as to escaped slaves, to take them home — not to sell them and use them in the free Slate where he finds them. It seems to me, on this slight view of the sub- ject, the strangest thing in the world thatanybody can say that this provision of the Constitution (and it is thoonly provision under which the claim is made) actually guaranties this property abso- lutely, makes it the same as property generally, puts it on the same footing, and guaranties own- ership over it in the same degree. Obviously, clearly, and plainly, it does not; but what is it? Nothing more nor less than a recognition of the idea that one man may have interest in another man's labor under the law of a State, and that if the man owing the service escapes from that State, the person to whom he ov/esthe service may take 1 1 him back, there to be entitled to receive the ad- jl vantage of that right. In short, it recognizes jj slavery, if property at all, to be property local I within the State whose laws made it such, notan !j inch beyond it; and all it does is to enable a man '} from whom a person owing service has escaped i against his will, to reclaim him. It can be carried j no further than a recognition of slavery in those I States where the laws make it so, to be used there and taken ba«k if it runs away, but leaving it still precisely as it stood before. The law that makes it, makes it such only within the territory where that law exists. The moment you willingly pass outof thatlimit with what you call the property, it ceases to be property altogether. How, then, can you take it to a Territory ? Tl)is seems to me to be an end of the assumption that it is made the same as other property by the guarantees of the Constitution. It is an assumption without any SQrt of foundation. Mr. M A.SON. If it would not derange the Sen- ator's line of argument, while he is on that topic, I desire to put an inquiry to him. As I under- stand the basis on which his present argument rests, it is the assumption that slavery exists only as the creation of positive law. I hold the very opposite; and if he has any authority on which to base his position, I should be gratified to hear it. I hold, on the contrary, that slavery is a condition only, the condition of property; that property is a condition which the slave brought from Africa, a condition recognized by the common law of this country, and therefore property ever after- wards unless abrogated by po.sitive law. Mr. COLLAMER. Mr. President, I did sup- pose, though I did not know exactly whether the honorable Senator from Virginia was of that school, that it was claimed even on a higher ground; that it was not the accidental condition of the man in Africa, brought here, but that it was a Divine right, begun by authority from on high, and sanctioned by revelation. This has been claimed. I do not know that I am competent to meet these arguments and these claims of right; but when an occasion presents itself, when I have time to do so — I have other topics to advert to now — I should desire to be heard on that point. I merely desire now to say to the Senator, that if he will turn to the Dred Scott decision he will find what I have already read, and the court put this right on the ground of its local authority. Chief Justice Taney, in his opinion, says that it has been claimed and argued before the court that this condition of things is recognized as a part of the law of nations, and he utterly repudi- ates that whole idea. If the Senator will look at the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Prigg vs. the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, he will find that the Supreme Court decided that the local law of the States where it exists, is the true foundation of the right to hold slaves; and the same decision has been .made repeatedly in thS State courts, even in the slaveholding States tliefli- selves; and the Supreme Court of the United States have repeatedly taken that ground. I shall not, however, notice this point now, but proceed with my argument. In my view, the security, the saH^ty, of the in- stitution of slavery essentially depends, in all time, on holding it to be a local institution, the 18 creature of local law. If the time shall ever come when this is attempted to be made a national question, to be passed upon by the people of America, it must be perfectly obvious to the very extensive discernment of the slaveholdin^ com- munity itself what the result must be. In this country then; are less than a third of a million of slaveholders; there are nineteen millions of free white people. If it ever is to be made a national question, so that the nation may pass upon it, no man can doubt what will be the result. That can be determined by the simplest rules of arithmetic; it is a mere question of numbers. If it is in- tendi,'d to keep within the pale of the Constitu- tion, to preserve the unity of the States, to sus- tain this Government and remain one people toj^jetlur, tiiere is no way in which this institution can l)y possiljility be preserved, but by holding- it at all timrs to be entirely a local matter, and having its orifjinand existence in local law. This is the only way it can ever be protected. tt seems to me, with that view of the subject, that those gentlemen, especially from the south- ern States, who seem to be trying to precipitate this issue, to push on this point, to extend this institution beyond its local limits by the action of the Geni-ral Government, are endeavoring to push this question upon the people as a national matter, in which they must participate, and shall participate'. The decision to which I have alluded is of that kind; all these proceedings are of that kind. What result does that bring about in my mind .' These men know what 1 have said to be true as well as I do — they know that slavery can- not be made national in this country, if you keep it together; and every effort made to precipitate an issue of that kind is not to abide by that issue, but it is when sufficient excitement has been made, when a collision has been produced, that a sepa- ration sIkiU ensue. I can see nothing else to be the design; 1 do not believe in the want of dis- cernment of those statesmen. They must look at it as I do. But that is not all; another step is connected with it. You desire to make Kansas a slavehold- ing State — that is, to have the constitution so formed and adopted. You will not submit it to the people, from a consciousness that the people are opposed to it. What do gentlemen mean by such a proceeding.' Suppose you were to have a constitution providing for and perpetuating sla- very in Kansas.' You know that the majority of that people are against it. Is that any benefit to the cause of slavery? Is it desirable to you to ir- ritate a community by having forced on them such a state of things against their will.' Are you go- ing to get any good from that irritation .' Can you have slavery there by virtue of that constitution.' We all know you cannot. Suppose you have a slave-State constitution — I care not how strong and how perpi.tiial and liow incapable of change it may be — do we not know that at the very first filir election by that pijople a Legislature will be cl\8sen who, when they get together, will utterly refuse to pass any laws for the protection of slave property.' They will pass no act for punishing a man who may entice a negro to run away. They will declare that no master shall adminisler stripes and correction to a slave, except by judgment of acourt,and if he does he shall be guilty of assault and battery, and the negro shall be a witness against him. What is your slave property worth if you do not pass any law for the protection of it, though the constitution provides for the right of slavery.' 1 take it that it cannot be unconsti- tutional to pass such laws. They could not pro- noun(!e the failure to pass them unconstiiulional. How, then, will you get along.' We see there is nothing in it; and when this is pushed as it is, it must be for so me other purpose, some other object. We are told what the purpose is of pushing this constitution on that people against the will of the majority. We are told it from authority. I do not wish to quote things from mere recol- lection, but I will read some of the words of the President himself on that topic. The President says, in his message: " (t has been solemnly adjutlieateil by the hiirhest Jiiilioi.al tribunal known to onr laws, that slavery exists in Kansas by virlui! of the Coiistiliition of the United States, and that Kansas is tlM?rcl'ore at this nioiueiit as much a slave State as Georgia or South Carolina. "t^lavery can, therefore, never be prohibited in Kansas except by means of a constitutional provision, and in no other manner can this be done so proniptly, if a majority of the people desire it, as by admitting it into the Union under tjic present eousiirution. "TiH> peoph^ will then be sovereign, and can reiulate their own alfairs in their own way. If a majority of them desire to abolish domestic slavery within the Slate, there is no oilier possible mode by wliieh this can be rtleeted so speedily ashy prompt admission, and the Le^rislature already elected may, at its very first session, submit the (juesiion to the vote of the people, whether they will or will nut have a coffvciuion to amend their constitution." I would not intimate that, from so high author- ity as this, there was really intended to be any practical duplicity about that; I do not believe it; I do not intimate it; but I would ask southern gen- tlemen do they naean to admit Kansas, under this constitution, for that purpose — for the purpose of making it a free State in the most speedy manner.'^ If they do not, if that is not what they mean to do, I think coinmon candor would require them to disclaim it. Certain it is, that theses remarks could never be expected to extend to those gen- tlemen. Who are these remarks intended for, then .' As the common saying i.s, they are for the marines; they are to afford an opportunity, an excuse for men who professedly represent a free- State people to vote for it, and to get themselve.i intentionally deluded, as the inan said lie expected to be disap]iointed. [Laughter.] There is some other purpose for this. No ob- ject of that kind is seriously intended, for amongst other things you will observe, that if Kansas be admitted with the Lecompton constitution, wo have to adopt the State election which took place under it. " Oh ! that is to be settled by their Le- gislature." It is.' Whtfis to be the Legislature.' Can anybody answer me.' The amount of it is, whoever Mr. John Calhoun gives certificates to, will be the Legislature; whoever he elects, are elected. Can any rnan tell me who they will be? He knows, and will not tell. It may indeed be that, after all that h;is hajipened, and e.-specially after the re'cent investigations by the committee of the Territorial Legislature, Mr. Calhoun will not think it advisable, in aid of the great purpose which he serves, to give the slaveholders, the mi- nority there, after all their frauds and all their de- ceptions, the election certificates. It wopld be too gross, too jialpable. It would not rnily be receiving the stolen horse, but it would be con- clusive evidence of who had stolen hitn. Suppose 19 he dops give the free-State men the Lcgjislature, he will give them a bare majority. Now, who shall be Governor there? Generally it is said, you cannot tell who is Governor until after the election; but here you cannot even tell after the election; no man can tell now who is to be jGov- ernor: Calhoun cannot tell liimself, or if he can, he will not. We understand distinctly that one side or the other is to be cheated. I do not intend to aid in taking that position of things by which either my opponents or myself are to be cheated; but if we adopt this constitution, we take that position. You may say that the candle-box was discovered full of votes in the wood pile back of Calhoun's office, and we can count out the votes there. But j will he give certificates according to those votes ? Who has any authority to decide. The returns were to be made to Mr. Calhoun. Mr. Calhoun is to decide. There is the end; there commences the estoppel. We are to be estopped now — that is the end of it. He splits the difference, as is com- monly done by men who do not know how lo de- cide either way; he gives a majority of the Legis- lature to tlie free-State people because there are most of them; and he gives the Governor to the other side because they need him. I should like to know how any constitution can ever be amended in that state of thing.s. The Legislature under- takes lo pass a law to call a convention; the Gov- ernor vetoes it. Calhoun will not certify the election of two thirds of the free-State candidates to the Legislature. They cannot overvote the Governor, and there is the end of it. But the President says that if they are made a ' State, then indeed they will become an independ- ent people, and can manage their affairs in their own way. Ah ! well, that is another step in the progret^s of popular sovereignty. In the first place, they were to go there as people of a Territory, to manage their affairs in their own way. In the next place, they were not to do it then; but when the version given by the Cincinnati conve)ition came out, it was that they were to be perfectly free in making a State constitution. Now they have got to that point; and you say a majority of the people shall not make a constitution at all; because, if they do, they may be likely to make the Topeka constitution, or some one that they choose. They cannot do it, then; but at last the President has got tn the point, that the only way a people can form a State constitution, is to be first made into a State; and the most solemn and cor- rect way is to pass them through the furnace of slavery, make liiem a State in that form, and they will then just be fitted to turn free. Besides, they can never manage their affairs in their own way, though you have told them so over and over and over again, until they can get out of the clutches of this Govenunent. He say.s, when you admit them as a State, then they may manage their own affairs. Ah, iiuh'ed ! tliat is another step in the progress of popular sovereignty. Never, while a Territory, can they manage their affairs, nor in making a St«te constitution, nor until they can get, somehow or other, out of the guardianship and beyond the tyranny of this Government over them,und be formed into an independent State; and then they can do as they please. It is pecu- liarly an advantage to them if you can make a slave constitution for them, because that will per- mit the people to do what they have all desired to do, and that is, make it free ! Inasmuch as this constitution was not made by authority, as I have shown, it presents itself to us as a thing done by the act of this convention, not unlawfully, and is presented here for our consid- eration. Now it is insisted upon at great length, that that is not an expression of the will of the people. On the face of it, prima fucie, it may be so. If you stopped with the vote on the 21st of Decemljer, you might, ;)rf«i«./i/c(e, say , ' ' I presume it is all right;" but wiien it is suggested, when it is pleaded , when it is directly alleged in the plead- ings, that this is not the expression of the will of the majority of the people of Kansas, then comes the question for us to examine. Had it been by authority, it would have been conclusive. "Not being by authority, but by the voluntary proceed- ing of the people who went into that convention, i't is for us to examine into the truth of it, to as- certain whether it is the will of that people or not. I shall not enlarge on the points I have hereto- fore made, but simply come to this one: on the 4th day of January last, under an act of the Ter- ritorial Legislature, a vote of the people was taken on the very question of the adoption of this con- stitution by avUliority of law, and under the sanc- tion of the Legislature, and they voted, by ten thousand majority, against it. Whenever pro- ceedings are taken that are not authoritative, and they present themselves to Congress for our ac- tion, how are we to act in our discretion? If it is done by authority, it is conclusive; but if not done by authority, and it presents a prima facie correct case, as was the case in Arkansas and I Michigan, admit it; but when it is disputed, then it becomes a substantive fact, to be approved affirmatively. The f8rf^t to be proved is, that it does present the view of the majority of the peo- ple; not only prima, facie so, but that it is in fact so, and that is to be ascertained by examination. The moment we touch this examination it shows us not merely that this is not the will of the peo- ple, and is not the desire of the majority, but it abnegates it, and shows conclusively that it is contrary to the desire of that people — not only that they are not for it, but that they reject it alto- gether. Why, then, do you not examine it ? We are estopped, it is said; we cannot get at the truth; there is an estoppel. We, as Senators, are will-, fully to shut our eyes to the true condition of the people of that Territory. I have a word now to say in relation to the re- port of the committee, presented by tlic honorable Senator from Missouri, and his remarks upon it. I cannot go into a detailed examination of its parts, but I wish to group togeAer its leadingpoints. It consists of three essential elements. In the first place, it is assumed that this proceeding was done j by law, and is, therefore, authoritative, and that j there is an end of the question. I have said all ! that I wish to say on that point. I say it was not [ done by authority ; it is, therefore, not conclusive, 1 and, of course, that leaves the subject open to our ! examination. i The report insists next, that the people of Kan- j sas ought to be bound by it because they did not ! vote against the calling of the convention. I have [ explained that. The laws disfranchised them at i the time that vote was taken. It is said they are LIBRftRY OF CONGRESS 20 estopped because they did not participate in the election of delegates to the convention. They did not choose to vote then, because of the nature of the census; because of tiie want of confidence in the officers wiio were to conduct the election; and more especially because they were assured by the Governor that whatever co'nstitution the con- vention miirht make, they should have a right to pass upon ic. They have been cheated out of that. In the third place, the report insists that these people should be estopped and bound liy tliis pro- (^eediiig, because they did not vote on ilie 21st of December on the question then submitted to the [leople. I have explained how that submission was made. The people did not choose to be the dupOTs of that trickery. There is a good reason why they did notvoteon that occasion. Besides, iheir own Territorial Legivslature met before the 21st of December, and directed them to vote upon- the constitution on the 4th of January. They tlien did vote upon, it, and voted it down. They had been repeatedly assured by this Government, by its officers, that they should have that right, and they exercised it on the 4th of .January. Tlie Gov- (•rnment should be'estopped from saying that they have not acted properly in doing so. The next ingredient in the composition of the majority report is, that everything operates by way of estoppel. Each one of these acts estops the people. I need not repeat or add to what I have already said on that point. There is noth- ing in the nature of the acts which could operate as an estoppel. There is one other clement, an essential one. We complain il'.at the people of Kansas were sub- jugated by military force; that they have been kept in thraldom and oppression until lastOctober; and that then proceedings \vere taken to make a constitution in the matuier I have described. For - what purpose.' To frustrate the territorial gov- ernment going on, when it is now, for the first time, in fair legal operation. When it was in the hands of tiie usurpers there could be no interven- tion. The moment it is in the hands of the ma- jority of the people, intervention is loudly called for, and Congress must help it through. For what purpose ? To put down a people wlio have taken possession of their true rights; and in order to do that, make a great deal of complaint in relation to those people. 1 cannot go over the report in its detaihs'; but I will state a few of the terms of reproach and vituperation employed in order to excite jn-ejudice and get up aiiimosity against the majority in Kansas. I find such expressions as these in the majority report: " They went there the worstofaspurious population;" " hired mer- cenaries of Abolition societies, trying to do what Congress had no r^ghtto do;" "committingmost revolting outrages;' a m^ ii^'^'Z.' '"""i mil mi I ment, wrangling, a ^ "16 085 218 5 spirits encouraged by restless fanatici-sm; ^^k, olition agitators and disturbers, habitually setting all law at defiance;" "contumacious." I extract these few epithets from the report. This is one of the elements which is interwoven with, and en- ters into, the warp and woof of the whole of this report. I have no answer to make to such charges. 1 simply present them. I think, Mr. President, that for the reasons which I have already given, this constitution ought not to be received Ijy us, and enforced upon an unvv-illing people. It is a violation of the very first principles of our Government. If we do it, we directly give countenance to all the violence and fraud out of which it has grown; we crown them witli success; we encourage their repetition. But that is not all. In a popular Government like ours there are two very iniportant points to be considered in the transaction of all public busi- ness. One is to do everything right, and the other is to do it in such a way that the community can see it is right, so that public confidence may be preserved. Our Government is based on public confidence. The moment we lose it, we lose our hold on the people; we lose our support; we are without foundation. Tlie object of a great many is to make peace. Make peace by doing what.' Doing injustice. Can any man suppose that peace is to be obtained — I mean satisfactory quiet, sucli as an intelligent people may be satisfied with — by acts of violence and injustice, or by giving coun- tenance to, and crowning with success, acts of violence and injustice.' If we make a peace in that coercive manner, we make it at quite- too dear a rate. We may buy it at too dear a price. We buy it at the price of forfeiting the confidence of every man who desires to see justice in the coun- cils of his country. Such men lose confidence in us when thej'^ sec the h ighest departments of this Go vertmient taking advantage of and snatching at an opportunity to make peace when they have done it without re- gard to the true justice of the case and the true principles of ourGovernnticnt. When such things are done in high or low places no final peace can be secured by them; or if it is, it is secured at too great a sacrifice, at too high a price. It will stir the whole community who fairly examine this matter, and excite in them di'Ferent emotions as men are difl'erently constituted. But, sir, one thing is clear, that if we do it we weaken the al- legiance of the people of this country to ourselve.'^: they can no longersee in us the iinpersonation ol" justice and truth and right. I say its effect on a Government conducted like ours is that prayers and tears and secret curses sap its mr.ldering base and steal the pillars of allegiance from it. ^»