^ Class r fo ^v5 Book i i£. ¥ SPEECH OF HON. H. S. GEYER, OF MISSOURI, ON THE KANSAS CONTROVERSY. DELIVERED IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, APRIL 7-8, 1856^. WASHINGTON: ^J^lINTED AT THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE OFFICE. IS66. r^s i '.i r ri Y KANSAS CONTROVERSY. The Senate, as in Committer of the Whole, having under consideration the bill to authorize the people of the Terri- tory of Kansas to form a constitution and State government, preparatory to their admission into tiie Union, when they have the requisite population — Mr. GEYER said : Mr. President, my posi- tion, as the sole representative of the people of Missouri in this Ciiannber, will not permit me to decline a participation in a debate which has no other attractions for me. I engage in it, there- fore, as a work of necessity rather than one of taste and inclination. The circumstances under which it was inaugurated indicate the purpose to make political capital out of the disturbances in Kansas, with a view to the pending elections, State and Federal. In sucha confroversy I could have no disposition to engage here in the Senate; but the debate lias embraced questions of endur- ing interest, of the legislative history and power of Congress in respect to the Territories, the con- stitutional and political relations of the Slates and people of this Union towards each other, and their reciprocal obligations and duties, as well as of the events in Kansas since the organization of the government in that Territory. Upon some of these topics I intend to addn^ss the Senate, and especially on those which more immediately concern the people of Missouri. All agree that there have been disturbances in Kansas, but we disagree as to their origin, nature, and extent. The honorable Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Hale] opened this discussion by a bold denunciation of the PresidiMit of the United States as the instigator of mob violence in Kansas. This was followed by tlie S(niator from Massachusetts, [Mr. Wii.sov,] the Senator from Illinois, [Mr. Tkumihili.,] and the Senator from Iowa, [Mr. Harlan,] in an attempt to throw on tlie people of Western Missouri the entire responsibility for these disturbances. The subject having been refi^rred to the Com- mittee on Territories, we have two reports. That of the minority is founded on theory, differing from all others, and aifirms that the acts of all parties engaged in the disturbances were justifi- able under the temptations presented by the Kan- sas-Nebraska act; or, in other words, that the re- sponsibility for all the acts of violence which have been committed or threatened rests with the Con- gress which passed that act. On the other hand, the majority report places the responsibility where I am disposed to place it — upon those who oper- ate at a safe distance, and expose themselves to none of the dangers of the strife which they foment and promote. Mr. President, the minority report undertakes to apologize for my constituents, as well as for those who engaged in the contest at the instiga- tion or under the patronage of associations in the other States, but does it on an assumption that I cannotadmit, and I feel a stronger desu*e to vindi- cate them against that apology than all else which has been said in this Chamber. I cannot agree that they have yielded to a temptation, which it is said this law presented, and the encouragement it gave to acts of violence and disorder; and that they have been unable to restrain themselves when unprovoked by assaults from another quar- ter; nor will I consent to accept for them a defense intended for their assailants, and which for that purpose only, regards the acts of both parties as justifiable, if not praiseworthy. In order to sustain the conclusions of the mi- nority report, its author goes back a great dis- tance, and brings under review " the action of Congress in relation to all those thirteen Terri- tories" which are now States of the Union, and affirms that " it was conducted on a uniform prin- ciple to settle by a clear provision the law in rela- tion to the subject of slavery, by which it was expressly prohibited or allowed to remain, not l(!aving it in any one of those cases open to con- troversy — that this was done under a power too clear to be doubted, and resulted in securing peace and prosperity — that by the act of the (!lh of March, 1820, a contract was made that Missouri should be admitte-d without prohibition, and slavery/orct'fr abolished in the restof the territory ceded by France, north and west of that State — that under this arrangement Missouri ivas admitted ns a sliivpliolding Statn, Arkansas organizfd as a T- i-ritoi y.and slavery allowed tlierein, and aficr- vards adniiUed as a slavelidldinj; Slate. Tliat in 18 JO a second contract was made, the slaveholding Slates ai^'reeing that the organization of Now Mexico and Ufah as Territories without pndnbi- ti.m should, together with the existing laws, settle /(;rcrertl.c whole suhject— that both the contracts, called compromises, were broken and disregarded by the act of 1H54— that this measure is a novel experiment, as well as a breach of faith, i>rocIaim- iiig an cpiiion or exjiress recog- nition of slavery. It should be reme-mljered also, that the whole of the other nine were covered eitherby the compact of 1787, or the so-called com- promise of 18:20, recognized as such by the south- ern Stales, until they were obliged to surrender all hope that it would be observed, convinced by successive repudiations that it never had been regarded by the other parlies as obligatory on them. It is worthy of remark, also, that Con- gress did not undertake, nor did the southern Slates ever ask them, to establish, or even to recognize, slavery by law anywhere. Bui it is enough that, in all the Territories where slavery actually existed to any consider- alile or general extent, and in at least two where it did not in fact exist — making nine out of eighteen — there was no interference with the subject by Congress. So that the act of 1854 is not " a novel experiment." The legislation of Congress in relation to the Territories is claimed in the minority report to " furnish a practical cotemporaneous construc- tion" of the Constitution, establishing the power of Congress in the Territories on the sulyect of slavery to be absolute and unlimited, and that, beyond the possibility of doubt or apology for skepticism. This pn.sition the honorable Senator from Vermont [Mr. Collamer] has attempted to reinforci' in his speech, and, as I entertain a very different opinion, 1 propose to examine the pre- cedents upon which he relies. The ordiiiant^e of 1787 embraced all the terri- tory norihwest of the Ohio; and, although it was recognized by Congress aficr the adoption of the Constitution in the acts organizing territorial governments in that district of country, it was not reiinacled. The new government was bound by all the contracts of the Confederalion. That obli- gation, in respect to the ordinance of 1787, w\i3 recognized b)' Congress in the acts referred to, which assented to the organic law already in force, but did not attemjit to reenact or repudiate any "article of the com|)ael between thr- original Slates and the peo])le and Stales in the Territory." These acts of Congress were passed in the execu- tion of a contract of recognized obligation, not under an independent power of legislation. And here I take occasion to remark, that what oc- curred in respect to the recognition of llie com- pact of 1787 occurred also in respect to the sup- posed compromises at a later period. It appears that southi-rn representatives, when ihey suppose I that they have made a contract, do not seek for 1 excuses to eseajie from its obligation, (although lit be not legal,) while it is observed by other ' parties. Although the original com)v\ci was with- out constitutional authority, they did not scruti- nize the powers of the Confederation in order to contest the legal validity of the .sixth article, or any other of the compact or organic law con- tained in the ordinance-, it was enough for them d to know that a compact was intended, and they recognized the moral obligation to observe it. So, for thirty years after the Missouri compromise so-called, and until they lost all hope of its recog- nition or observance by the other parties, they adhered to it with unwavering fidelity. 1 passed over the act of 2d August, 1789, be- cause, although the honorable Senator from New Hampshire claimed it to be a reenactment of the ordinance of 1787, the proposition was abund- antly refuted by the honorable Senator from Georgia, [Mr. Toombs,] whose interpretation of the act I understood to be assented to by the hon- orable Senator from Iowa, [Mr. Harlan;] and that is, to adapt the ordinance to the present Constitution by transferring to the executive department of the new government the power of appointing and removing oiRcers vested by the or- dinance of the Congress of the Confederation, and to provide for the case of vacancies in the office of Governor. This is all that was intended or accomplished by the act. The honorable Senator from Vermont [Mr. Collamer] endeavors to sustain his jiroposition, that the disputed power over slavery in the Ter- ritories is establishiid by the cotemporaneous construction of the Constitution, by referring to the act of 1798, providing for the government of Mississippi Territory, the first instituting a ter- ritorial government independentof any compact, and in territory over which the United States exercised jurisdiction, though Georgia claimed adversely. That act did not purport to prohibit or regulate slavery in the Territory, but left it to the local law by excluding the sixth article of the ordinance of 1787. The assi'rtion of a general power over the subject is inferred by the Senator from a clause prohibiting the introduction of slaves from any place "without the United States. " Was not the honorable Senator aware that this clause depends on the power to regulate com- merce, to prohibit the foreign slave trade, except in States cxistiiif^ at the adoption of tlie Constitu- tion, prior to 1808, and everywhere in the United States afterwards ? The actof 2(Jlh March, 1804, providing for the government of the Territory of Orleans, (part of Louisiana,) was referred to by the Senator for the same purpose. It contains thesAme provision, enacted under the same power, and proliibils also the introduction of slaves which had been imported into the United States against law, after the 1st May, 1798, or by any person other than a citizen of the United States, bona fide emigi-ants, and settlers. Of this act it is eniaigh to say, that it •was not passed under any claim of powi'r to pro- hibit or establish slavery in a Territory, but is to be referred to the power before-mentioned. The honorable Senator omitted, however, to state that the act was repealed in less than a year by the act of 3d March, 1805, and therefore it is not available as a precedent, still less does it afford evidence of the cotemporaneous construction claimed. There was an attempt to abolish slavery in Arkansas in 1819, in direct opposition to the ; principle which the honorable Senator from Ver- [ inont says was uniform, that is, " where slavery was actually existing to any considerable or general extent," as in Arkansas, " to suffer it to remain. " In that case there was a well-sustained effort on the part of the northern Representatives to impose a prohibition, and finally there was a tie vote — eighty-eight to eighty-eight. Arkansas was saved by the casting vote of tlie Speaker. A majority of all the Representatives of every non- slaveholding State, with perhaps one exception, voted in favor of the prohibition.* This, accord- ing to the minority report, was a violation of prin- ciple by every State, a majority of whose Repre- sentatives voted to prohibit slavm-y in Arkansas; and the decision against the prohibition must be regarded as a construction of the Constitution against the power claimed. ''The eighth section of the act of 1820, called the Missouri compromise, was not passed in the execution of any power to organize territorial governments. It is either a compact, or an ordi- nary provision of law; if the former, it is not a precedent for^any act prohibiting slavery in the Territories under the Constitution, independent of a compact. As an ordinary act of Congress, it depends for its effect wholly on the Constitution. As a compact it may not be legally obligatory, but it imposes a moral obligation on the parlies independent of the law. The act in question is a precedent only as an ordinary act of legislation, passed, as the Senator from Vermont says, by the southern States, and being repealed, or, more properly, declared " inoperative and void" by a constitutional act of Congress, it ceases to be a precedent of any authority. The legislation of Congress respecting slavery in the Territories, embraced by the eighth section of the act of 1820, is to be referred to the obliga- tion of the su))posed compact, and not to the assertion of a constitutional power independent of any compact. The prohibition of slavery north of 3(P 30' in Texas was by compact between that Slate and the United Stales. Its validily de]ien(ls upon the power of Texas, and not upon any iudependentact of Congress, under the Constitution. On the other hand, the acts for the organization of New Mexico and Utah are precedents against the exercise of the power claimed. The Senator from Iowa relies upon the acts of Congress enabling the people of the respective Slates of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, to form constitutions; providing that they should not be repugnant to the ordinance of 1787, as examples of the legislative construction of the Constitution, in favor of the power claimed over the Territo- ries; but it is obvious that the clause in question was intended only to recognize the obligation of the compact, and not the exertion of an inde- pendent power under the Constitution, otherwise it nTust be regarded as nothing less than an attem[)t to dictate a constitution, the assertion of a i)ower which no Senator here will attempt to maintain. Then; is, however, a precedent in which t!ie authority to dictate the provisions of a Stale con- stitution was asserted by Congress, independent See Appendi.v, No. 1. 6 of any compact, in the act of Fubruary, 1811, antlioi-izin;^ tlic people of Loviisiana to form a conslitiiiion and State Efovernmeiit, which pro- vided tliat " the constitution shall contain the fundamental principles of civil and relijjious liberty, to secure the trial by jtiry, the writ of habeas corpus, &c. Tliat tlie laws should be promuljjated and the records kept; judicial and legislative preceedings conducted in the language in which such proceedings, &c., in the United Stales are conducted and published." This ex- ample of c<>ni,'ressional li^gislation would certainly not be regarded at this day as an authoritative exposition of the Constitution. Pending the Missouri question, in 1819 and 1820, the Legislatures of the non-slaveholding Slatis, almost without exception, resolved that Congress possessed the constitutional power; and liie Representatives of all of them almost unani- mously voted to impose upon Missouri, as a con- dition to the formation of a State government, that slavery should be forever prohibited by the constitution. No such power is claimed now; it is referred to only to test the value of legislative precedent in settling a question of legislative power. I admit that the cotcmpoi-aneous exposition of the Constitutions, as well as laws, is of the higliest authority. The received interpretation of the several clauses of the Constitution to wliicli the honoraiile Senator from Vermont referred, however, is founded on cotemporaneous hislcjry, not legislative precedents, or examples of legis- l^xive conslructmn. An act of Congress, where the question of its constitutionality is fairly pre- sented, fully considered, and directly decided, is doubtless entitled to high consideration as a pre- c<'d"'iit; but it is by no means of conclusive au- thority. Having now shown that the constitutional power asserted in the minority report is not main- tained by cotemf)oraneous construction, I pro- po.se to extend the inquiry still further. The honorable Senator from Vi'rmont,in his nport — liie constitutional question being din^etly in the way — makes a very summary disposition of it. Referring to the alleged practice of Congress, in .settling the law on the subject of slavery in the Territories by a clear provision prohibiting or tol- erating it at discretion, the report informs us that ''This was done by Coneiess in tho exercise of the same poMiir wiiieh iiiokleil [[u: I'onn of their orniiiiic laws, and oiipoiiited Ihinr execuiivL- and jurtioinry, and somcliini^s liicir Ipsisjniivi- ofliciTs. It was ihe jjower provided in the (.■iia-!ituti to the United States.' "Seiilinir the sulijeet of slavery while the country re- mained a Territory, was no hii'lier exercise of power in CiriLMTss than the rejniation of the fnnetions of tlie^erri- tori;:l cove rtiinent, and actually appointiii!; its prineipal fiinelionail.'s. 'i'jiis praeliee eonueetieed with this national r.overiinient, and was rnntinued, with uninteniipted iini- torniily, tor more than sixty years. This praeiical eotein- p 'raneiius eon.~lruelion of the eoiistitutioiml jioircr of this Guvernnient is too clear to leave roonj for doubt, or oppor- tunity lor steeplicisni." Mr. President, 1 have had occasion to examine the subject, and l)eliive I have traced to tlnir origin the errors into which many have fallen in respect to the source and extent of the power of Congress over the Territories. I have recently fully discussed the question at large in another, and, perhaj)s,a more appropriate forum. On the present occasion I shall content myself with pre- senting rather the heads of an argument, or state- ment of propositions, than an elaboration of the points. It is not my purpose to deny the constitu.tional power of Congress to institute temporary gov- ernments in the Te'rritories, establishing what the Senator froiu Vermont appropriately terms inunicipal corporations; and that is the whole extent of ])ower exercised in practice under the Constitution prior to 1820. But I cannot agree that the power of settling the law on the subject of slavery in the Territories is vested in Con- gress. The power of Congress to organize municipal govermnents for the Territories, has been claimed, First. Under the power to dispose of, and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory and other property of the United Slates. Second. As resulting from the power to ac- quire territory by treaty or conquest. Tliird. As resulting from the fact that the ter- ritory is within the United States, and not within any State. Fourth. IJiuh'r the power, after the first of Jan- uary, 1808, to prohibit the migration or importa- tion of such pirsons as any State then existing may think pro[)er to admit. Fifth. Under the power to admit new States into the Union. From whatever source the power is derived, it is a power to create a corporation or temporary government only, and does not carry with it su- preme, univ(!rsal, and unlimited power over the persons or property of the inhabitants, nor author- ize the abolition of slavery, or interference in any form with the laws of property. 1 can find authority, I think, for the establishment of a mu- nicipal 2:overiiment, but none in the Constitution of the United States giving power over persons or prope^rty , which does not extend to persons and property within the Stales as well as Territories. The clause of the Constitution, article one, sec- tion nine, in respect to the migration and impor- tation of persons from abroad, was relied on as the source of the powc^r assert(!d in the Missouri con- troversy. It was claimed that Congress possessed the power to prohibit slavery in that State, as necessiu-y to the execution of the power to pro- hibit th(; migration and imporlation of slavi^s; but after the debate on that memorable occasion, I know of no man who has ever looked to that clause as the source of the power to prohibit slavi;ry in the Territories or elsewhere. There have been some cases in which the subject lias been mentioned in the Supreme Court of the United States, but the question of )iower never decided. The first is the case of McCullough vk, Maryland,* decided in 181!), in whicli the argu- ment is to deduce a power to incorporate a Bank of the United States, under the general clause giving to Congress }iower to pass all laws neces- 4 Whcaton, 424. sary and proper to carry into effect the powers granted by the Constitution; and in order to ilUis- Irate the argument, the Chief Justice, delivering the opinion of tlic court, said: '■'The power to make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property helongiiig to the United folates,' is not more comprehensive than the power ' to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the powers of Government.' Yet all admit the constitutionality of a territorial government, wliiclt is a corporation." This is the first intimation of the recognition of that power even to create a corporation. In the case of the American Insurance Company vs. Canter, decided in 1826, Chief Justice Marshall delivered the opinion of the court; and he there expresses some doubi as to the source of the power to create even a territorial government. He says: " Until it becomes a State, Florida continues to be a Ter- ritory of the United States, governed by virtue of that clause (art. 4, sec. 3.) which empowers Congress to make all need- ftil rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States. " Perhaps the power of governing a Territory may result necessarily t'rom the fact, that it is not within the jurisdic- tion of a particular State, and is within the power and ju- risdiction of the United vStates. " The right to govern may be the inevitable consequence of the riglit to acquire territory " Whicliever be the source from whence the power is derived, the possession of it is unquestionable." Afterwards the construction of the clause con- ferring upon Congress the power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations re- specting the territory or other property of the United States, was directly before the Supreme Court in the case of the United States vs. Gratiot, decided in 1840. Mr. Justice Thompson, deliv- ering the opinion of the court, said: " The term territory, as here used, is merely descriptive of one kind of property, and is equivalent to the word ' lands ;' and Congress ha.s the .same power over it as it has over any other projjerty belonging to the United States; and this power is vesleil in Congress without limitation, and has been considered the foundation on which the territorial gov- ernments rest." That is, the subject of the power is property, and the property only of the United States, not that of inhabitants of States or Territories. The minority report assumes that, under the power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other prop- erty belonging to the United States, Congress may not only organize municipal governments, but po.ssess a power absolute, universal, and unlim- ited, over the local laws, the persons and property of the inhabitants within any Territory within the United States, and not within any State of the Union. This, in my opinion, is a great error, which, I think, may be traced to the misappre- hension, by commentators and others, of the opin- ions of tin; Supreme Court which I have quoted. In the commentaries on the Constitution by tlie late Mr. Justice Story, the power to govern is said to result from the power to acquire territory, and that no one ever doubted the authority of Con- gress to erect territorial governments within the territory of the United States, under the general language of the clause giving power to make needful rules and regulations respecting the ter- ritory or other property belonging to the United States; that this power is clearly exclusive and universal, and the legislation of Congress is sub- ject to no control, but is absolute and vtnlimited except so far as it is affected by stipulations in the cessions or the ordinance of 1787, under which any part of it was settled; that the final result of the vote which authorized the erection of the State of Missouri seems to establish the rightful authority of Congress, although not then apnlied, to impose a restriction of slavery as a conaition of admission. Chancellor Kent, in his commentaries, seems to have adopted the views of Justice Story. He says: " With respect to the vast territories belonging to the United States, Congress liave assumed to exercise over them supreme powers of sovereignty." " Exclusive and unluii- ited power of legislation is given to Congress by the Con- stitution, and sanctioned by judicial decisions." Now, it has been shown that, in no act of Con- gress passed under the Constitution prior to 1820, did Congress assume supreme powers of sover- eignty. Municipal corporations were established for the government of the Territories, and to thia extent only was the power of Congress recog- nized by judicial decisions. There is no adjudged case affirming the jjower to be exclusive and un- limited. The commentator, after quoting and remarking upon the clause conferring legislative power over the District of Columbia, proceeds: " The general sovereignty existing in tlie Government of the United States, over its Territories, is founded on the Constitution, wliieli declared that Congress ' i>hould have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regula- tions respecting the territories or other property belonging to the United States.' " This is a misquotation of the Constitution; the word territory, which has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to mean land, gives place to ter- ritories; a term applied after the adoption of the Constitution, and not before, to the district of country erected into municipal governm(?nts or corporations. But Chancellor Kent, appreciating the nature of the power he supposed to have been assumed, remarks: " l^pon the doctrine taught by the act of Congress, and even by the judicial decis:on.s of the Siiprcme (jourt, the colonists would be in a state of most complete subordina- tion, and as dependent upon tlie will of Congress as the people' of this country would have been upon tlie King and Parliament of (ireat Hritain, if they could have sustained their cliiiin to hiiul us in all cases whatsoever. Such a state of absnUite sovereignty on the one hand, and of absolute dci)eri(l('ncc on the other, is not congenial with the free and independent sjiirit of our native institutions; and the estab- lishment of distant territorial governments, ruled aecordmg to will and pii'asure, would have a very natural tendency, as all proc(msular governments have had, to abuse and op- pression." Mr. President, is this not a fearful power to be deduced by complication from a power to insti- tute a municipal government, itself im])!ied as incident to some power granted by the Constitu- tion.' It is nothing less than an asserticm of a power opposed to the fundamental principles of free government, to establish an absolute domin- ion over the persons aiul property of all the in- habitants of the Territories of the United States. I think I find, in the proceedings of tlie con- vention, in the articles of confederation, and in the ordinance of 1787, compared witli the Consti- 8 tution of the United States, conclusive evidence thai the convention did not contemplate the estab- lishment of colonies. The ordinance of 1787 liad covered tiie whole of the territory then sup- posed to belon" to the United States, and over which they hati jurisdiction. I see that the Sen- ator from Connecticut [Mr. Toucey] signifies his dissent to the i^roposition. Mr. TOUCEY. I do. Mr. GEYER. I know there was a contro- versy about territory south of the Ohio. I said " then supposed to belong to the United States;" and at the time of the adoption of the Constitu- tion the ordinance did cover all territory over whicli Congress had tlie admitted jurisdiction. In the convention which formed the Constitu- tion, Mr. Madison made propositions to confer upon Congress several distinct powers, and among others, " to dispose of the unappropriated lands of tlie United States: to institute temporary gov- ernments for new States arising therein;" and "to exercise exclusive legislative authority at the seat of the General Government, and over a district around the same not exceeding square miles." Two of these projiositions were found incorporated in the Constitution in other language, but in apt words to express the inten- tion of the convention. The power to establish temporary governments for States or Territories is not found in the Constitution. Certainly there is no such power expressly granted; and that omission is of itself conclusive, in my judgment, against the power now claimed. That conven- vention, when about to confer powers of exclu- sive legislation over persons or property, found apt words in which to express their intent. The mover of the propositions certainly under- stood them to be distinct. It never occurred to him that a power to dispose of unappropriated lands comprehended a power to institute temporary governments, and still less general and exclusive legislative authority; nor, I apprehend, did the convention, by substituting " territory or other property" in lieu of "unappropriated lands" as the subject of tlie power granted, intend to include the other powers proposed. If it had been designed to confer a power to exercise general and exclusive legislation ov^r the inhabitants in the Territories in all cases whittso- ever, it would have been the easiest thing imagin- able to have expressed that intention by the inser- tion of a few words in the clause which provides that Congress shall have power "To exercise exclusive jurisdiction, in all cases whatso- ever, over such district, (not cxfcciliiig ten miles sq\iare,) as may, liy cession of pailicular .SiaK's and tlic acec|itanco of Congress, become the seat of ti'ovcrnnient of the I'niled Slates; and to exercise like aulliority over all places pur- chased by the consent of the Legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for tlieerection of forts, maga- zines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings.'" Why not insert also " to exercise like author- ity over the territory belonging to the United Stales, or which may hereafter be acquired," if so large a jiowor was intended to be granted ? It will be observed that the original proposition was limited to the seat of government; the latter part of the clause, embracing sites of forts, arsenals, &c., was added by the convention; and while the subject of legislation over territory within the exclusive jurisdiction of tlie United States was before them, if they had intended to confer the disputed power, apt words to accomplished it would have been inserted. I agree that all needful rules and regulations may be made in reference to anything which is the subject of the power granted by the clause in question. Whatever Congress can regulate un- der that power, it may dispose of, and dispose of absolutebj ; and whatever Congress may dispose of, it may regulate; and it cannot regulate any- thing under that clause which it cannot dispose of absolutely. In Story's Commentaries it is said, truly, that "the power is not confined to 'territory,' but extends to other property belonging to the United Stales; so that it may apply to the regulation of other personal or njal property rightfully belong- ing to the United States." The learned com- mentator, however, afterwards says, that "the power of Congress over the public territory is clearly exclusive and universal; but the power to regulate other national " property is not neces- sarily exclusive unless " Congress liave acquired by cession exclusive jurisdiction: that is to say, the power in question attaches to territory 'as property;' but the regulation of other property belonging to the United States depends upon its being of a particular description, over which Con- gress acquires jurisdiction under another clause of the Constitution." But I submit that both the power and juris- diction of Cotigress over the subject of the grant under the clause in question, depends upon the ju'oprietary interest of the United States in it, whether it be territory or other property. There is no power to dispose of it, or regulate it, unless it is the property of the United States; and, if it is, Congress may dispose of, or regulate it, wherever situate; but the power and jurisdiction depart with the proprietary interest in territory, as well as in other property. All dilhculty in ascertaining the subject of tlic power under the clause respecting the territory, &c., will be solved by accepting the interpretation of the Supreme Court of the United States, in the United States vs. Gratiot; substituting the words " jniblic lands" for " territory," the clause will nntd — " Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respect- ing the public lands or other property belonging to the United States." This would be sensible and consistent; but substituting for the word " terri- tory" something which is to indicate a local gov- ernment, calling it by the name of " province" or " corporation" Mr. CASS. Colony. Mr. GEYER. Yes, sir; insert the word " col- onies," and it will read: "Congress shall have power to dis]iose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the colonics or other property belonging to the United States." Let It stand in that form; and where is your power to dispose of the ]uiblic lands.' It cannot cover both; it either means land, the original primary sense of the word, or it means wliat the advocates of ihe power to prohibit slavery in the Territories contend for — colonics. Tliat tlie subject of the power represented by the word "territory" is theunappropriated lands, appears by the proviso, or latier branch of the clause in question, " that nothing in the Consti- tution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United Slates or any particular State." "This," said Mr. Madison, "is proper in itself, and was probably rendered absolutely necessary by jealousies and questions concern- ing the western territory, sufHeiently known to the public." The claims mentioned were un- doubtedly claims to unappropriated lands, and had no r(;lation to colonies, municipal govern- men.ts, or legislative power over the persons or property of individuals. The primary sense of the word "territory," undoubtedl}' is land, or a tract of countr)'; and it does not appear to have been employed in any Other sense before the adoption of the Consti- tution. In the resolutions by Congress, and the cessions by the States, " lands, ' ' "unappropriated lands," "territory," and "tract of country," arc terms employed to mean the same thing; sometimes two or three of them are used as con- vertible in the same instrument. The term "ter- ritory" was in no instance emploj-cd in the sense of colony, nor applied to designate a political or municipal division or government. What are now called Territories were organizi'd as "districts" before and for some time after the adoption of the Constitution, The governments northwest and south of the Ohio were for "districts." The term "territory" was gradually substituted for "dis- trict" in legislation, since the adoption of the Constitution. Whatever is meant by the word "territory," is the subject of the power. Congress may make rules and regulations concerning it, whether sit- uated in a State or elsewhere. The power at- taches to the territory wherever it is; and if it is a power to abolish slavery. Congress may exercise it in the States wherever the United States have property. It attaches only to " territory or other property belonging to the United States " at th.e time of the exertion of the power, and not to that which never did belong to them, or which has been disposed of. To organize a municipal Government or cor- poration for a district of country, to prohibit slavery, of interfere in any way with the law of property, is not to " make needfvil rules and reg- ulations respecting the territory or other pro})erty of the United Slates " within such district. Such a government extends over all the territory and all the inhabitants within the limits defined, whether the territory belongs to the United States or not; and is no more necessary or proper where the Government owns all, than where it owns none of the territory. Therefore, the power to institute such a government, and more especially, an unlimited power to legislate in all cases whatsoever over persons and property in the Territories, caimot bo deduced from the clause in question, which is no.thing more than a delegation of power to Congress as the agent of tlie UHited States, the proprietor of real estate and other properly, to dispose of that property and to make rules and regulations resj)ecting it, wheresoever situate; that is, for its protection, preservation, and management, while it remains the property of the United States, and no longer. Another source of tlie power of Congress over the Territories is supposed to be found in the power of acquisition. The power to govern is claimed as an incident to the power to acquire, to be exercised by Congress under the general authority " to make all laws which shall be ne- cessary and proper for carrying into execution the powers vested by the Constitution in the Government, or any department thereof. " Now it occvtrs to me that, when territory is acquired by treaty, the power to acquire quoad the subject of the treaty, is exhausted. The acquisition is complete when ratifications of tlie treaty are ex- changed. The power of acquisition is executed, and needs no legislation to carry it into execu- tion. But it is said, and may be conceded, that the United States acquire the exclusive sovereignty and political jurisdiction of territory acquired by treaty or conquest. Such, undoubtedly, is the effect of the acquisition under the law of nations. It does not follow, however, that Congress has unlimited power to legislate over the territory or the inhabitants acquired. Congress derives no- intra-territorial powers from the laws of nations. The sovereignty and jurisdiction are vested in the nation, not in Congress. I deny that Congress can acquire any power to legislate over the ac- quired territory, or the persons and property of the inhabitants, even by the express provisions of a treaty, or exercise any power not granted by the Constitution. It may be true tliat the people would be with- out any goverijment at all, unless Congress pos- sess the power to establish it; but it does not necessarily follow that the power to organize a government, and legislate for the territory and its inhabitants, results from the power of acqui- sition. It may be a casus omissus; but unless the power can be deduced from some other source, it docs not exist. The sovereign undoubtedly has power over the acquired territory, and might change or abrogate the laws; but, J repeat. Con- gress is not sovereign, and possesses no power not granted by the Constitution. The source of power under consideration fails, also, for the reason that the power, if it exists, may be exercised over any territory — as well that within the original limits of the United Slates, as that acquired by treaty or conquest. And again, according to all the rules of con- struction, a legislative power cannot be deduced by implication from a power which is itself im- jilied. The power of acquisition is not among the powers vested by the Constitution in the Gov- ernment or any department thereof: it is an inci- dent to the war or treaty power. I come now to the consideration of the power to admit new States as the source of the power to institute temporary governments for the people of the Territories. Lroni tliatstnirce tln^ majority n!porl derives the power in qmstion. The prop- osition is, that tJic organization of a temporary 10 governmpnt is necessary and proper, ns n means, to en;iljli' the people to mold tli'ir institutions, and org;iini/.e a State government under the author- ity of the Constitution, preparatory to its admis- sion into tiic Union. It is objected, however, tiiat the Constitution contemplates the admission of States in cases where it would not be necessary to institute a temporary ji^ovcrnment, and whore the power could not be exercised by Congress — that the power of admission comprehends all States, whether formed out of territory of the United States, or of one or more States of the Union, or even of a foreign State, as in the case of the annexation of Texas. Undoubtedly, in such case, it would not be necessary or proper, or even competent, for Congress to institute any goverimnent, whether the territory forming the new State was acquired by treaty or otherwise, after the adoption of the Constitution, and whether the United States are the proprietors of the whole or none of the "territory or property" included. Eut the institution of a temporary government is necessary and proper when the territory is within the limits of the United States, and not within a State. In that case there is no conflict of juris- diction to prevent the exercise of the |io\ver by Congress, which, if it exists at all, "results ne- cessarily from the fact, that the territory is not ■within the jurisdiction of any particular State, and is witlun the power and jurisdiction of the United States." It docs not depend on any pro- prietary right of soil — there may be no " territory or other property belonging to the United States" within it to be disposed of or regulated; nor upon acquisition — it is immaterial to the question of powcrwhether the territory was or was not within the original limits of the United States; nor upon the number of the inhabitants — it may be more populous than any State in the Union, or contain few or no inhabitants. The power of Congress over it is the same. The institution of temporary governments for the people of a Territory is undoubtedly neces- sary and proper, though not always indisponsabh; as a nuans preparatory to tlie foruiation of a new State, and its admission into the Union;and where the Territory is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Uniti'd States, the power of Congress to organize a government results of necessity as a means appropriate to the accomplishment of a constitutional end. The power to create a government or munici- pal corporation for the people of a Territory is nowhere conferred upon Congress by express grant; it is claimed only as an incident to some power, " vested by the Constitution in the Gov- ernment of the: United States, or a department thereof." Therelbre, from whatever source it is . derived, to which soever of the granted powers it is referred, it is limited to the necessity from which it arises, and is not a supreme, universal, and unlimited power over persons and property. The power over persons and propcirty under the Constitution of the United States nuist be, and is the same everywhere. It must be exer- cised in subordination to the principles of the Government. It does not depend on the nature of the property. To change inc law of property, — to prohibit or abolish slavery — to emancipate slaves, to confiscate any other kind ofjiroperty, or to divest vested rights, is a substantive, indepiMid- cnt j)ower. If it exists no treaty would aHbni protection to the inhabitants of acquired terri- tory. No legislative power can be extinguished, or conferred upon Congress, by treaty. If the power to create a municipal corporation, or to organize a government in any form for the people of the Territories, luid been expres.siy granted , it would not carry with it, as an incident, a power of legislation in all cases whatsoever over the peopli' and their property. Still less can such a power bi' deduced by implication from a power itsi.'lf implied. Now, sir, I demand to know, is a prohit)ition of slavery a rule or regulation, needful or other- wise, respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States? or is it necessary to the execution of the power to dispose of land.' If "to dispose of territory" means to organize a municipal government for the people, the pro- hibition of slavery — an interference with the law of property or with vested rights — is not neces- sary to the execution of the power, nor is it in any way a means adajitcd to the end. The power, if not otherwise limited, cannot be exercised to the prejudice of the people of any portion of the Union. All have equal rights in the common ter- ritory to take and to hold there any property recognized by the Constitution and local laws. Here allow me to correct an error into which those northern gentlemen have falh.n who sup- pose that we of the slavcholding Siat'-s claim to carry our domestic institutions with us on remov- ing into the Territories. So far as my knowledge extends, we only insist that where, by the law of the Territory, our property will lie protected when there, we have a vested right to go there with that property — as much so as any citizen of any other State in the Union with any other prop- erty; and that it is an unconstitutional interfer- ence with that right so to legislate as to deprive us of the protection which the local law would atTord, and thereby elVrctually exclude us from the Territory. Slaves are jiroperty, recognized by the Constitution, and as well protected as any other. Emanci))ation by law divests vested rights; and, if you can prohibit slavery for the future, you 'may at any time emanci|)ate, iiy act of Congress, every slave in any or all the 'lerri- lories. The supreme, universal, and unlimited power which is equal to jirohibition is equal to abolition and emancijiaiion regardless of vested rights. Finally, the organization of a temporary goverinnent is necessary; but it is not neci^ssary to emancipate skives, to prohibit slavery, to con- fiscate property, or to change the local law of Jiroperty; nor is it necessary, or just, or even deft.'Dsible, to interfere with the right of any citizen of the United States to remove to the country open to others with any property recog- nized by the Constitution and laws of the United Stales and the local law of the Territory. Mr. President, I come now to another part of the subject — the"p(\'\ce and prosperity" which it is said have attended interference by the Con- 11 gress of the United States with the local law of property. I deny that there has been uninter- rupted peace, by which is meant exemption from agitation of the slavery question; and wliat little we have had is not attributable to any such cause as that assigned. I have shown that up to 1S20 there was no legislation on the subject which could affect the peace of the Union in any way; but the peace which we have enjoyed is attribut- able to another cause. I do not know whether I may not be alone in the opinion, but it seems to me apparent, that at all times, when there have been two great national parties, and so long as they have adhered to their organization, and continued their struggle for the ascendency, there has been no formidalile agitation on the subj(;ct of slavery. The first attempt — certainly the first successful attempt, to prohibit slavery in the Territories followed almost immediately the utter destruction of the old Federal party, soon after the Hartford conven- tion in 1S14; and the troubles which we now have, and have had, since 1848, are the result of the crumbling of the two parties, to some ex- tent, in that year, and the disorganization and dismemberment of the Whig party since that time. Mr. President, I shall have occasion to speak of the proceedings and acts of a portion of our northern brethren on the subject of slavery, and I take leave now to say, that, however general the terms I employ in reference to them, I by no means design to include a majority of the people of the non-slaveholding States. I believe they are ■ generally conservative, abiding the compromises of the Constitution, and respecting the rights of the southern States. Unfortunately, in common with their fellow-citizens in other States, when not stimulated to exertion by the rivalship of national organizations, they are too apt to relax their vigilance, and suffer the unworthy minority to act in the name of all, by which they are made responsible for acts they condenui; but, whenever the consequences have excited apprehensions of danger to our institutions, they have rallied to the support of the Constitution and the preservation of the Union. They will do so again. Soon after the acquisition of Louisiana there Were decided manifestations of discontent at the North, not on account of the Africans then held in slavery in the acquired territory — their condition was not changed, nor on account of any appre- hended increase of their numbers — for Congress prom]>tly exercised its constitutional power to prohibit the importation of slaves into that Ter- ritory; so that the practical effect of the annex- ation was to restrict slavery extension — but the real cause of the discontent then exhibited was the compromises of the Constitution, which se- cured to the southern States a portion of their political power. During the war of 1812, and almost in the midst of it, a convention was held at Hartford, in Con- necticut, where, among the subjc^cts taken into consideration, were the slave power under the apportionment of Representatives, the admission of new States, and the exclusion of foreigners from office. The proceedings of the convention resulted in several propositions to amend t'lc Constitution. The first, to exclude the slave population altogether as a basis of representation; second, that no new State should be admitted without the concurrence of two thirds of both Houses. The sixth amendment proposed is not unlike one of the planks in the platform of annthe't- new organization. It proposes to exclude from I office all persons thereafter naturalized. The re- t port of the convention to tifrir constituents sets forth the reasons for each projiosition, from which 1 read extracts: "The first amenrlmetit proposed n^latcs to the apportion- ment of Kepresentatives among the slavelioUling States. i This cannot l)e claimed as a right." * * * * "Uhas proved tiiijiistand unef|iial in its operation. Had tin's efl'ect h.i'ii liursrcii. tli<' priviliiie would probably not have been ilrmaiid.'il ; ecrtniiily not conceded. Its tendency in future j will be adverse to that harmony and mutual confidence which are more conducive to the happii\oss and prosperity of every confederated State, than a mere preponderance of power, the prolific source of jealousies and controvtrsy, can be to any one of them." " The next amendment relates to the admission of new States into the Union. " This amendment is deemed to lie highly important, and, in fact, indispensable."' * « * " Af the adoption of the Constitution a certain balance of power among the original parties was eon.sidered to exist; and there was at that time, and yet is auning those parties, a strong affinity between their great and general interests. By the admission of these Stat(^s that balance has been materially aflVeted, and, unless the practice be modified, must ultimately he d« slroyed." "Another amendment, subordinate in importance, but still in a high degree expedient, relates to the exclusion of for- eigners, hereafter arriving in the United States, from the capacity of holding offices of trust, honor, or profit. " That the stock of |)opalation already in these .States is amply sufficient to render this nation, in due time, suffi- ciently great and powerful, is not a controvertible question. Nor will it he seriously pretended, that the national de- ficiency in wisdom, arts, science, arms, or virtue, needs to be replenished from foreign countries." The Federal party did not long maintain if.«! organization after the close of the session of the Hartford Convention. Its last struggle for su- premacy was made in the elections in 1816, when it was signally defeated. At the commencement of the first session of the Fifteenth Congress, in 1817, it was made a matter of boast by the Re- publican press, that there were only six Feder- jalists elected to the House of Rppri'scntutives in all New England. During that session, on the 4th of April, 1818, Mr. Livermore, of New Hamp- shire, introduced into the House a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution in j these words; " No person shall be held to service or labor as a slave, nor shall slavery l)e tolerated, m any State hereiifter ad- 1 mifted into the Union, or made one of the United States of America." I This proposition met with little fivor at the time, but afterwards it was attemjitrd to be en- I forced against Missouri withriut any amendment j of the Constitution. I At this period, Rufus King was a member of I the Senate, and was then, as he had been before, I an aspirant for the Presidency. The Federal ' party, of which he was a distinguished member, i had dissolved. There was no hope of succes.s ' for him, or of preferment of his adherents, but by 12 a sortioniil or^auizalion; and at tlio next session of tlic snmc Cong:rt.'S3 coinnii.'nci^d the asjiVatioii of tho slavory question, m hich, in its progruss, lliioatoiiLd llic stal)iliiy of our iiistituiions. A rnsoluiion for llie admission of Illinois into the Union was earnestly opposed, because the constitution contained a clause allowing slaves to be employed in that State on hire, ibr a limited period; and on the filial jiassage there was a for- midable northern vote against the resolntion. 15ul there was a more perfect union of tlie northern Representatives, and its purpose was more fully dt-volojied, on the bill to authorize the people of Missouri to form a constitution and State govern- ment. In the House of Representatives a clause was inscrtc^d, making it a condition of admission that slavery should be forever prohi))ited: it was stricken out by the Senate, and the bill was lost by the disagreement of the two Houses. It was at the same session that the attempt was made to Crohibit slavery in Arkansas, to which I have uforc alluded. The agitation was continued dui-ing the whole of the recess. The Legislatures of most of the non-slaveholding Slates adopted resolutions af- firming the constitutionality of the proposed re- striction, tho same, in substance, that iVlr. Liver- more proposed to impose on all new States by an amendment to the Constitution. They instmcted or requested their Representatives to vote against the admission of any State with a constitution which did not contain positive prohibition of slavery. >Sonie of them demanded the imposi- tion of the restriction on Missouri by name. Under these circumstance the Sixteenth Con- gress met, and, after a severe struggle and unpar- alleled excitement, passed the act of 6th March, 1820, of which I shall speak hereafter. This memorable agitation of the slavery ques- tion in Congress occurred during a period of exemption from political jnirty controversy; but it was not a time of peace. It was the period called the "era of good feeling," when, in my judgment, more mischief was perpetrated, more constitutional heresies recognized l)y Congress in its legislation, than during any other equal period in our history. It was tollowed by a short period of exemjition from agitation of the slavery controversy, not the consequence, however, of the legislation of Congress, but the result of the reorganization of national, political parties, com- menced in 1825, destroying all hope of the suc- cess of a sectional ]iarty. There wi;re AI»oiiiionists tlien as now, of both wings, to which the honorable Senator from Ver- mont has alluded. They were comparatively quiet, however, until about the year 18.33, when they commenced operations in the North with great activity. In 1835, (here were two great parties completely organized, both national, and therefore not disposed, if tlu-y could alTord, to encourage Abolitionism or Free-Soilism. The conseqvunce was, that the abtdition orators were not favorably received, or kindly treated, in the northern citiis. Their n)eeiings were suppressed by violence in Uiica, New York; Monijielier, Vermont. In Boston tliey were denied access to Fanucil Hall; and whAi they assembled at an- other place they were expelled by a mob, I have before me an account of the cedebration of the twentieth anniversary of that riot. It appears that the newspaper press of both political parties, in all the north(;rn States, were earnest and eloquent in their denunciations of thatabolition movement. I commend totheediiora who now sustain organizations much more dan- gerous, to read again tJieir productions, and recon- cile, if they can, the present with the past. Here is a sjiecimen from tne New York Courier and Enquirer: " It is lime now for tliis siihjrrt to bo taken in liand seri- ously. Tin; inovijinunts of llie iiniiiediati; Alioljliiiiiists in- volve not iiien^ly llio wcllare of our coniitry, but tire veiy cxisrRnce oflierin-titulion?; and every cili/.i'n. from Maine to Missisi-ippi, who lias not already niiulc np his mind to a willingnef^s to see our ('onfederacy dissolved, oor wliole frame of government broken up, and an e.tpcriTiient made to b.ntor it amidst the confusion, misery, and liloodshcd of a revolution, is bound to grapple at once with the scdiliotii fanaticism now abroad. It has become the duty of all classes and all parties — of tlie iiall of legislation — of the press — of the pulpit, and of t^very good citizen within his own particular sphere of inllnence, to assist in putting down this TREASON that is atalkin'^ liirough our borders." There are several other extracts from different journals of that period, of like import, and not less worthy of perusal. It may be instructive to contrast the past with the present position of the northern press. The Reverend Theodore Parker, comparing the present with the past condition and prospects of his party, in a speech delivered at the celebra- tion to which Ihave alluded, says: " Since this day twenty years ago. what a step I See all. these parties coming up into power — the Free-Soil p;irty, the Republican parly — which are only the wings of the great anti-Slavery party wliieh is to he, and will command the continent. Just now, it is very plain that thi," only (|Ueslion before the people, at tie:- next naticinal eli-c'ion, will be, ' Shall the slave poW(!r jxissess the presidential officer, or shall the power of freedom possess it." I say, there is to be only one question before the p'jople, and thai is the question." J he Legislatures of some of the non-slavchold- ...Q States were not les.s decided than the press in the condemnation of political agitations on the subject of domestic slavery. I have before me resolutions passed by the Lr'gi.slature of Nev/ York, in 183G, condi'inning all such agitations in clear and emphatic language; contrasting strongly with the resolves of the Legislature of the same State during the pendency of the Missouri ques- tion, and with some very recently adopted. The same remarks will apply to the resolves of otlier northern Legislatures at the ditfercnt periods mcntioni'd. Political agitation on the suliject of slavery was renewed by northern members (X'nding the jirop- ositions for the annexation of Texas, and ri'sulied in n provision making it one of (he conditions that slavery should i'oreverbe jirohibited in States to be organized north of 2'y^ 3U'. Nor did that quiet agitation; it was resumed during the Mex- ican war, when an attempt was made to ]>rohibit slavery in anticipation of the acquisition of ter- ritory by an aim ndment to an appropriation bill. The peace of the country wasa;jain inteiTupted by the renewal of the agitation of the disturbing question of domestic slavery in the first attempt to legislate for the territory and people acquired 13 by the treaty with Mexico in 1848. The con- ti-oversy was attended with greater excitement in Congress, and caused more apprehension among the people than any other since 18:30, until it was finally adjusted by the compromise measures of 1850. The efficiency of thi' Democratic party had been greatly impaired by the defi;ction of its Free- Soil members who organized a new party at Buf- falo. The Whig party, greatly reduced in num- bers, was also composed in part of Free-Soilers, who cooperated with the party organized at Buf- falo and the Abolitionists, in [iromoting, instead of discountenancing, agitation in Congress. The compromise of 1850, we are informed by the minority report, "secured votes from the free States, enough, with those of the slaveholding States, to adopt it;" but " it was not satisfactory to the free States;" and the Senator from Vermont tells us that they acquiesced in it very nductantly. It is undoubtedly true that the Al^olitionists and Free-Soilers in the North were dissatisfied with that compromise; and those of them who pro- fessed to acquiesce in it, did so because acquies- cence seemed to he very general, and there was no hope of preferment without it. Many of them succeeded in getting into the Thirty-Third Con- gress under the name of Whigs; and, during the discussion of the Kansas-Nebraska bill in the House, they contended that opposition to that bill was a principle of the Whig party. My honorable friend from the other House, now near me, [Mr. Lindlet,] knows that I speak by the card, when I say they so asserted. The Aboli- tionists and Free-Soilers who made that pretense, are now known by another name. The conserva- tive National Whigs from the North, who were in that Congress, with few exceptions, although they voted against the bill, have been made to give place to the representatives of a new sec- tional organization, animated by a spirit of aggres- sion — the source of our troubles now. Mr. President, I will now direct my attention to the allegation that solemn compacts were broken and compromises disregarded by the pas- sage of Ihe Kansas-Nebi'aska act in 1S54. The first is the so-called Missouri compromise. I have already mentioned the agitation of tlie slavery question, and the failure of the first Mis- souri bill at the second session of the Fifle(;nth Congress, and the proceedings and resolves of the State Legislatures in relation to the admission of Missouri. At the first .session of the Sixteenth Congress, a second bill to authorize the people of Missouri to form a constitution and Slate govcrn- m(?iit, became the suljject of a most exciting and fearful controversy, which terminated in the pas- sage of the act of (iih March, 18'J0, by which it is said the slave-holding States secured the admis- sion of Missouri by agreeing and enacting that ! slavery sliould be forever prohibited in the terri- tory north and west of that .St^tte. What I have lo say in regard to that act will be better understood by reference to the proceedings of the session. There were three distinct meas- ures pending in both Houses. One was the abo- lition of slavery in the Territories. Notice of a bill for that purpose was given in the House of Representatives by Mr. Strong. Resolutions were introduced by Mr. Taylor, of New York, and a joint resolution by Mr. Foot, of Connec- ticut. Notice of a bill to prohibit slavery in the Territories was given, and the Ijill introduced in the Senate by Mr. Thomas, of Illinois. A bill for the admission of Maine, and the Missouri bill before mentioned. The Maine bill was the first to pass the House; it was amended in the Senate by adding the provisions of the Missouri bill, and. a provision prohibiting slavery in the territory north and we.st of Missouri; thus co(istitating, by the union of the three measures in one bill, what has since been called an " omnibus." The House disagreed to tlie amendments, and pas.sed the Missouri bill, with the restriction of slavery as a condition of admission. The Senate, which had before disagreed to the restriction in Missouri, it was known would not yield: there was what the Senator from Massachusetts, [Mr. Sumxer,] in the debate on the Nebraskabill, called " adead lock." The act of Massachusetts authorizing the peo- ple of Maine to form a State government, con- tained the condition, that the new State should be admitted into the Union before the 4th of March. The Representatives from that part of Massachu- setts forming the nev>r State implored a speedy adjustment of the question. Things had become critical, more so for Maine than Missouri; and the 2d of March was a day of activity. A joint committee of conference had been appointed on the disagreements between the two Houses, and, upon their recommendation, the Maine bill wa3 relieved of the amendments of the Senate, and passed; the Missouri bill was amended by striking out the restriction on the State, and attaching to it, as the eighth section, the ninth of the omni- bus, prohibiting slavery in the Territory — the ap- propriate subject of a separate bill, which might as well have been attached to the Maine as tho Missouri bill, except that it related to territory adjf)ining Missouri. Under this arrangement, Maine was admitted into the Union; Missouri was not. What, then, is the nature and effect of the pro- vision in the act of 18^?0, the repeal of which is complained of? It must be conceded that, un- less it is a part of a compact obligatory on the northern as well as the southern States, it has no higher sanctity than any other act of legislation, repealable at any time. In the minority report, it is regarded as a stip- ulation in a compact obligatory on the southern States, though not binding on the northern States, except as an ordinary act of legislation; it being the doctrine of that report, as 1 understand it, that a State or section can only be bound by the vote of a majority of its Representatives, meaii- ing, of course, moraUy bound by the measure tis a compact. The test vote on the so-called compromise was taken in both Houses, on the 2d March, on striking out tin; provision prohibiting slavery in that State, as n-com mended by the committee of conference. In the Senate, one free Slate oidy voted in the affirmative; thrto were divided. In tht! House of Representatives, of the members from llu! free Slates, only fourteen, out of one ' hundred and one present, voted in the affirmative ^ 14 and the majority of the Reprcsunlatives of every free State voted in the negative, except Rhode Island, wliich divided.* It appiars, thin, that accordins: to the principle of the minority report, not one of the non-slave- lioldins; States was a party to the alleged compact of 18:10, or under any legal or moral obligation to observe it as such; and from what has since occurred, it may be inferred that their Represent- atives acted upon that principle from the first — only as many of their immber voting for it as were necessary, together with the votes of the southern Representatives, to carry a measure wliich they knew was understood by southern members to be a compromise, and which they did not intend should be ol)ligatory on the States represented by them. It was aeecpted by the southern States, in the hope of receiving exemp- tion from future agitation and aggression; and that they expected to accomplish. They have never asked Congress to legislate slavery into any terriiin-y,or establish it anywhere by law. They have always stood on the defensive, claiming only the protection of the laws and exemption from aggression. The people of Missouri having formed a con- stitution and Slate govenunent for themselves, under, and in conformity with, the jirovisions of the act of 18:20, anticipated no op])osition to the admission of the State into the Union, and put the new governmiiiU in full operation; but it was soon ascertained that northern States, having secured the admission of Maine, and the prohibi- tion of slavery in the Territories by law, chose to regard the act of 18i20 as an ordinary act of legislation, not a compact; rejindiating all obliga- tion, legal or moral, to admit Missouri as a slave- holding State. This is apparent from resolutions passi.'d by the Legislatures of New Vork and Vermont, as well as the acts and votes of the Rep- resentatives of all the northern Slates in Congress. The resolutions of Vermont, which I commend to tlie special attention of the honorable author of the minority report, in terms deny that there was any obligation to admit Missouri, and in- struct their Senators and Representatives to vote against the admission of Missouri. Those of New Vork reatfirm the resolves of the year before, against the admission of any new State whose constitution does not prohibit slavery. The resolutions will be found on pages 2G and 50, Senate Journal, second Session of the Six- teentli Congress. At that session Mr. Lowndes, of South Caro- lina, introduced into the Hou.se of Representa- tives a joint resoluliiui, in the ordinary form, for the admission of Missouri. AftiT an exciting debate, it was rejected by a vote of 79 yeas to 93 linys— a majority of the Representatives of every non-slaveholding State voting in the negative.! The ostensible cause of opposition to Missouri was a clause in her constitution recpiiring the Legislature to pass laws prohiij'iting the migration of free negroes and mulattoes into the Slate; which, it was contended, contravened that clause of the Constitution which declares the citizens of * Sue Appendix, No. 2. f Soe .'Vppcmli.v, No. 3. each State shall be entitled to all ilie privileges of citizens of the several States. The Senate passed a resolution, with a proviso to the effect that it should not be construed to give the assent of Congress to any clause in the con- stitution of Missouri, if any there be, contra- vening the clause of the Constitution of the United States respecting the (utizens of the' several States. In the House, many aniendmi'nts were ])roposcd to the Senate resolution, ri-quiring thai the clause objected to should be expunged from the consti- tution, as a condition precedent to the admission of the State into the Union. One of them, per- haps more, projiosed to constitute the Legisla- ture a convention, with power to amend the con- stitution as demanded; one was so aissurd as to require the clause to be expunged by the Legis- lature before the 1st of December, 1821, under a constitution which required the concurrence of two successive Legislatures in an amendment to the constitution. All failed, liowever. Mr. McLane, of Delaware, submitted a reason- able proposition, the effect of which would have been substantially the same as the resolution afterwards passed; that is, to require such con- struction of the Constitution and laws of the State as not to deny citizens of each State any of the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States. It was rejected, as wore other ame;idments of the like import, obviously because the real cause of opposition was not the clause complained of in the debate, which conferred upon the Li'gislalure no power wliich had not been exercised in other Slates without complaint. Massachusetts, whose Representatives always voted against every proposition to admit Missouri under her existing constitution, ostensibly on the ground that, by excluding from the State; free negroes and mulattoes of othin- States, citizens of other States were denied the privileges and immunities of citizens of that Stale, had, at the time, a law in force which provided: "Tliat no person, being an Alriean or negro, other than a subject of the Emperor of Morocco, or a eitizoi) ol" some one of the United Slates, (to be evidenced hy a certificate frotn the Seeretaiy of the State of which lie sliall be a cilixen,) shall tarry within this Commoinveallh for a longer time than two months ; and, upon complaint made to any justice of the peace within this (Commonwealth, that any such person lias been within the same more than two montlis, the said justice shall order Iho said person to depart out of this Commonwealth ; and in ease that the saiil African or ncjio shall not depart, as aforesaid, any jusiic-e "f the p:;ace within this Commonwealth, upon complaint and proof made that such person lias conlinued within this Commonwealth ten days after notice ^ivcn him or her to depart as aforesaid, shall commit the p;Tsoi|«to any house of correction within the county, there to be kept to hard labor, agreeably to the rules and orders of the said house, until the session^ of the peace next to be liolden within and for the saiil county ; and the master of the said house of correction is hereby required anil directed to transmit an attested copy of the wrmani of commitment to the said court, on the first day of their said session ; and if, upon trial at the said court, it sliall be m:iile to appear that the said person has thus conlinui'd within this Common- wealth contrary to the tenor of this act, he or she shall bo wliip[)cd not exceeding ten stripes, and ordered to di-part out of this (^immonwealth wiiliin ten days; and if he or she shall not so dcpirt, the same process shall be liad and pniii>hment iiirticlec'inK iii- j consistent wiUi the principle of iioii-interveiiliDn by Con- i gress with slavi'ry in the .'•'lates anvomise of a sectional controversy, always dangerous to the harmony and stability of the Union, fails of its purpose if it is not applied to all cases where such controversy may arise. The compromise of 1850 adopts a principle of legislation for the j government of Territories, applicable, and to be api)li(;d, to all such legislation for any Territory, or it is a mere temporary expedient of legislation, not a compromise of a controversy. The next subject of complaint is the provision in respect to the right of suffrage. It is said that persons are entitled to vote on a very short resi- dence. In Kansas and Nebraska it could not be otherwise; a provision that would require any length of residence as a qualification, in ti-rritory not previously settled, would be misapplied. It should always be borne in mind, when we refer to examples of territorial legislation, that down to the year 1820, all Territories were organized by establishing for them what is called the first grade of government — vesting the [lowers of legis- lation in u governor and judijjes. In the Terri- tory of Orleans, now State of Louisiana, there was added a council; not eloclive, however. Un- der this organization, the IVrritory was settled, and the people prepared for the second grade of government, with an elective Legislature, and it wa.s then very proper to require some length of residence as a qualification of voters. 17 The next objection is to the provision allowing aliens, who have merely made a declaration of an intention to become citizens, to vote. This provision was, I believe, inserted as an amend- ment. I was not present at the time, and do not know the reason of its adoption. It is by no means remarkable, however, that such a provis- ion should be found in the legislation of Con- gress for the Territories, since it is found in that of several of the States. It seems to me more remarkable that the honorable author of the mi- nority report did not perceive that it might prove a cause of disturbance in Kansas as it has else- where. The minority report complains that "the sub- ject of slavery, which Congress has been unable to settle in such a way as the slave States will sustain, is now to be turned over to those who have or shall become inhabitants of Kansas," to arrange " regardless of their character, political or religious views, or place of nativity." This objection imjjlies that Congress ought to have made some test of character, or of political or re- ligious views, or place of nativity, as a qualifica- tion for .suffrage or oflice; but I apprehend that such legislation for the Territories would scarcely be tolerated, altliough it might settle questions as exciting as any connected with slavery, and which have already produced disturbances more serious than any that have occurred in Kansas. 1 need not recount the scenes of disorder, riot, and even bloodshed, at St. Louis in 1854, and more recently at Cincinnati, Louisville, and New Orleans, far transcending in violence, and more fatal in their results, than any in Kansas. The minority report proceeds: " Tims was tlic proolainatioii to the world to become in- habitants of Kansas, and enlist in this great enterprise, t)y the force of numbers, by voto^, to decide for it the great question. Was it to be expected that this gri^at proelama- toin for the political tournament would be listened to with indilfercnce and ajiathy .' Was it prepared and presented in that spirit? Did it relate toasuhjeet on which tlie p(!ople were cool or indifferent.' A large part of the people of this country look on domestic slavery as 'only evil, and that continually,' alike to master and to slave, ami to the com- munity ; to be htft along to the management or enjoyment of the people of the .States where it exists, but not to be ex- tended, more especially as it gives, or may give, political supremacy to a minority of the people of this country in the United States Government." The conclusion of the honorable author of the report is, that it was the right and duty of all parties interested in that question to make an effort to overcome each other on the theater of this political tournament, and proceeds to justify the organization of the aid societies, by saying that associated oilort was as commendable fur this purpose as any other could be; and that " it was their right and duty to put forth all reasonable exertions, by lawful means, to advance the great object," — political supremacy. It was to accom- plish what 1 have shown the Hartford Convention proposed to accomplish by an amendment to the Constitution — to overpower the southern States by depriving them of that portion of representa- tion which is founded on^slave population. Do we not see, sir, that froin the beginning the policy was first to prohibit slavery in the Territories, and make them free States, as thiy necessarily must bo under such legislation, until a sulHcieat number should be brought into the Union to re- peal that clause of the Constitution which gave to the southern States a portion of their political power.' This reminds me of a part of the history of the past, which I omitted yesterday. In 1818, on the 12th of March, John Q,uincy Adams, then Secretary of State, vindicated our title to Texas by an unanswerable argument, in a letter to the Spanish Minister. At that time the effort had been tnade to abolish slavery in all the Territo- ries, with a viiw to the great object of political supremacy. If the atteinpt had been successful, Texas, then being a part of our territory, might have been formed into half a dozen free States; all the territory west of the Mississippi, except Missouri, would also have been organized into free States, and the time would not have been far distant when that much desired object, political supremacy, might have been accomplished, as originally proposed at Hartford, by an amend- ment to the Constitution. But, sir, the first at- tempt had failed, and the result. of the controversy then pending in Congress was doubtful; when there occurred what then seemed to me a myste- rious change of policy. In the very next year the whole of Texas was ceded to Spain, and §5,000,U00 paid in exchange for Florida. This is one of the reasons why I said yesterday that, during the " era of good feeling," more mischief was perpetrated than in any other equal period of our history. Well, sir, Texas was ceded; the whole contro- versy M^as then confined to our territory in the north of it; and, in my opinion, but for that, there would not have been a sufficient number of north- ern votes obtained to carry the legislation of 1820, even with the prohibition of slavery north of the line then established, leaving open to southern States only what is now Arkansas and the coun- try immediately west, and that upon the princi- ple of non-intervention, which left it equally open to the northern States. Now, Mr. President, I propose to notice some of the circumstances attending the passage of the act in question. The first Nebraska bill (differ- ing from that afterwards passed) was reported to the Senate on the 4th January. On the 16th of the same month, 'Mr. Di;con, of Kentucky, moved an amendment proposing to repeal the Missouri prohibition. There was no such provision, or anything equivalent to it, in the bill. On the next day, the Senator from Mas- sachusetts [Mr. Summer] t)ffered his amendment substantially to reenact the prohibition. I was at that time confined to my room, but I remember very well seeing a document, not exactly the same I have in my hand; I think it had more signatures to it than are here a)ipendi!d. This pamphlet is dated January the IDih. The prop- osition to organize the two Territories was re- ported as a substitute for the bill, on the 23d of January, and consequently this paper could not have had reference to it; but the subject was before Congress. It was known that a large numberof the members of the two Houses would notconsrni to voti.> for a jiroposition containing the pruhibilion of slavery, whatever they might 18 otherwise be willing to do. This document.which was evidently gotten up for agitation in advance, jHirports to be signed by " S. F. Chase, Senator from Oliio; Cliarles Sumner, Senator from Mas- -sncluisetts; J. 11. Giddings and Edward Wade, Rejiresenlalives from Oliio; Gerritt Smith, Rep- resentative from New "V ork; Alexander De Witt, RejM-eseiitativc from Massachusetts;" in which they say: " VVe arraign tlio bill as a proj;s violaiioii of a sacred ptedgc ; as a criminal betrayal of precinus rijihts ; as [lart and parcel of an atrocious plot to (.'xcliidc from a vast iin- occu|»ird region, ininiigraiits from the Old World, and free laborers from our own .■>tatcs, and convert it into a dreary region of despotism, inhabited by masters and slaves." Such is tlie language employed with respect to the Inil when it contained no provision on the subject, leaving the Missouri prohibition unrc- jiealed, which, if it had any force, excluded slavery. But the object was to get up the political agitation of the slavery question. 1 need not tell Senators here wliat was the result of it. If any of them have forgotten it, let tluMii read the Jour- nals, and see how the memorials came pouring in upon us during the pendency of the bill; some of whicli were written before the substitute was reported. The address invites the people to take their maps, and see how (extensive and valuable the country, and how great the cnonnity of excluding forcigner.s and )iorthern laborers " from the rich lands and large territory" embraced by the bill; and proceeds: '• It is hoped, doubtless, by compellinethc commerce and tlio whole travel between tlu! liast and the West to pass for hundreds of miles through a slavcboldiu!; region in the heart of the continent, and by th(; intiucnce of a territorial poverninent controlled by the slave pc)\vcr. to cxtiniiuish freedom and establish slavery in the Stales and Territories of tile Pacific, and thus pernianenlly sulpjwi;ate the whole country to the yoke of a slaveholdin;^ despotism." The note appended shows that the signers had not, at the time of the first ]iublication, any knowledge of any other proposition on the subject of slavery than those ollered by Mr. Dixon, then a Senator from Kentucky, and the Senator from Massachusetts. The note states tjiat the Ne- liraska bill w;is promjitly printed , and after remain- ing some time here amendments were reported, wliicli proposed two territorial governments; to strike out the clerical errors before referred to, and insert elsewlicre in the bill a clause exc/'pting from the laws of the United States extended over the territory " the Missouri prohibition." Some other names had appeared in the first edition, and we find here an aj)ology for their non-appear- ance in the second: '■ .So far as other sifjuatures than those of the independent Democrats in Congress have been printed m ciinneciion with the foregoing appeal, it has been through mistake. 'J'he independent Democrats represent the only povcrj'ul polil- ical orsanizalion lully committed again.-t the extension and nationalization of slavery, and, therefore, though they trust that then! are many in both llou>i's who will with" them oppose the repeal of the Missouri prohibition, they yet Uiought it best that an appeal to the peoph; of tin; country, ►etiing forth their reasons for oppi)>ilion, and their determ- ination to raise imcw the stanil'nii of lihcitij and Dcmocraai. t/iould it he licatcn down in the impending struggle, should hear ouhj their oiin siiinutures." 1 uiulerstand from this note that the names of Senators and Representatives had been subscribed to the first edition without their consent " through mistake," and, they being unwilling to be com- mitted to an undertaking of doubtful success, the six "independent Democrats" take upon tliem- selves the whole responsibility of renewing the political agitation on the subje'ct of slavery by this proclamation of a political tournament — a struggle for su])remacy by sectional organization. You will remember, sir, the debate in both Houses of Congress, and the effect on the public mind. Almost the instant it became proI)able that the bill would be passed by the House of Representatives, the first aid society that I ever heard of was formed here in Washington. One of the members of the House of Representativea from Massachusetts, (Mr. Goodrich,) was the president of the society, and another from Indi- ana, (Mr. Mace,) the secretary. It is now pre- tended that tliis, and other such societies, were organized for the purpose of ])urchasing tickets by wholesale and selling them by retail, at cost, to the emigrants who desired to go to Kansas; but that of which I speak was organized here by politicians, with a view evidently to efficiency in the struggle for political supremacy. The aid society incorporated in Alassachusetts declare that their object is " to determine in the right way the institutions of unsettled Territories in less time than has been required in Congress." I quote from their circular, part of which was read by the honorable Senator from Tennessee, [Mr. JoNKS.] The same society issued an address to the people of Missouri in September last, professing to explain the motives and purposes of the or- ganization, the substance of which appears to be that — "Thousands of emigrants were attracted by the soil and climate of Kansas, and the society was organized for the purpose of enablins: them to go conveniently and cheaply, to procure tickets at wholesale, and sell them to emigrants at retail at cost, and furnish facilities to men who mean to live in a free State." These /rtc(7i/ie. are free States, and several Territories in which slavery is proliibited, to which emigrants who desire to live in a free State might go unarmed. Mr. Thayer, in the circular of February last, says that "the repeal of the Missouri compromise made Kansas the best field for the ojierations of the company;" 20 douljtli-.ss because it was the only debatable grouiRl. South of 3(P 30' is the cotton rejjion, where slave labor may be [jrofuably employed, and the tendency of emigration from the southern States is in that direction. Hence it is, that the States south of that parallel have been settled most gen- erally by slaveholders. There, soil and clfniate settle the (pustion. There is an inducement for them to go, and they go as readily as the emi- grants from any other portion of the Union; but in the latitude abovi! that and below 41° is the debatable ground. That is the latitude of middle States — Virginia, Maryland, and Kentucky. The emigration from those States is small. Its tend- ency generally is southward; but few who emi- grate with slaves go directly west. The induce- ments in point of soil are only those portions which will produce hemp and tobacco. It was, therefore, possible that slaves might have been introduced into Kansas for that purjjose; but slave population was excluded from Nebraska by the climate, and therefore, Nebraska, the twin sister of Kansas, had no attractions for these emigrants from ]Sl-\v England; not a man of them wants to go there, because it serves no pur])ose in ex- cluding the southern people, who could not be induced to go there; but Kansas is the only spot left to them in which there is any climate and soil adapted to any culture in which slave labor can be profitably employed, and for that reason, it was the only field "for the operations" of the emigrant aid society. Is it not manifest, then, that these societies are political organizations, under the control of a sectional party, to effect, by associated capital, what they failed to accom|ilish by the legislation of Congress.' is it not a substitute for the law? Is it not intended to do the very thing which was attempted by the i'vlissouri prohibition — to exclude the southern people from the Territory.' It was not the necessary consequence of the Kansas act; but the organization and operations of the asso- ciation are defended on the ground that the act tempted these people to do things which are wrong in themselves; but being tempted, and yielding to the temptation, they become entirely justifiable and commendable ! I said yesterday, and now repeat, that I will not place the defense of my constituents on any such ground. Had the emigrant aid society forborne, Kansas would be more apt to be a free Stale than now. As I have said, the emigration from the States in the same latitude has a general tendency to the South; but the slaveholder emigrant moves slowly, and necessarily so. He has something to take care of, and to take with him; and there- fore, in any competition, according to the ordi- nary laws of emigration, he .would bo outdone. Those who need to be shipped off from the State to which they belong, by an organized, incorjjor- ated association, have little or nothing to carry with them, and can go easily. They therefore, in that latitude, would in all likelihood have fountl themselves largely in the majority, when they came to organize the government. A man who has slaves in the middle States, we all know, re- gards iheui as a part of his own family; attends to their comforts and moves with them, and takes care of them. This rerjuires time. Hehasprop- erty which he nmsl dispose of; and before any number of such emigrants could accomplish that, thousands of those who have little, or nothing at all, might have settled the Territory of Kansas, and made a free State, without extraordinary effort. I believed so at the time of the passage of the Nebraska act, and so I said to the Senator from Massachusetts, [Air. Everett,] because I thought the temptation was not strong enough, as the matter stood, to stimulate the people of the southern States into any extraordinary effort. When the first aid society was formed here in Washington — where all these political agitatifms originate — I often had occasion to converse with some honorable members of the other House who voted against the Kansas- Nebraska act, upon the subject of thht organization. I told them then that it would destroy their hope of making Kansas a free State, if anything could, for tlie language employed l)y the press in announcing the exist- ence and objects of the organization was calcu- lated to excite the people on the frontier. It was boasted' that they intended to accomplish by that organization what they had before tried to do by law, that they would accomplish it, and that before any number of the slaveholders could get- there they would have possession of the Territory. What was likely to be the effect of such declara- tions on the inhabitants of that froiuii'r? They had been held in check by a barbarian wall erected by this Government, arresting the progress of set- tlement and civilization westward. The emigra- tion, as all of us who have had any experience in the West know, crowds to the western boundary — to the furthest verge of the territory open to settleinint the pioneer class of populalitni will go. During the year before, when the Nebraska bill was pending in Consfress, letters from almost every quarter were addressed to mi^, as a citizen of Missouri supposed to know something about Kansas, making inquiries about the country; and when they were informed that in all like- lihood it would be opened to settlement, they rushed in that direction. The consequence was that, before the Territory was organizi'd, the whole frontier was thronged with persons anxious to settle in Kansas. They were not able to go into the Territory because the Indian intercourse laws prevented it. They planted themselves on the frontier; some of them rented a small piece ofland for temporary occupation; and at the time of the announcement of the passage of the Kansas-Ne- braska act, the line between Missouri and Kansas, I am informed, could be traced for miles by the fences. But these were not all slaveholders — they were people from Indiana, from Illinois, some from Connecticut, and almost every State in the Union, thronging that frontier waiting the opening of Kansas to settlement. When it was announced that a new appliance had l>een resorted to for the purpose of getting possession of the Territory, even those people who were them- selves, many of them, in principle opposed to slavery, became indignant, and afterwards cooper- ated with pro-slavery men. These movements in the North excited appro- 21 Kensions in the minda of the people of western Missouri for the security of their property, and certainly there was reason for it. I am not now upon the question, what did the society intend, but how were their resources, operations, and purposes represented by the press in their inter- est, and understood in Missouri? There were some in western Missouri who remembered how little their rights were respected by the North in the memorable strusrgle of 1820. (Some of them • — the descendants of Daniel Boone — are now re- siding- in Missouri, within six hundred yards of the Kansas boundar}'.) They believed that the movement was directed immediately against them, and I have no doubt they were greatly ex- asperated. No question that some of them were betrayed into violence of language, and, perhaps, irregularity of conduct. The apprehensions to which I have referred were not at al! allayed by the action of the Gov- ernor appointed for that Territory. He chose to remain at home until October, though he received his appointment on the 29t!i of June. In the mean time emigrants passed over, and some of them in no pleasant mood, in consequence of threats uttered against them. I have stated what tlie con- dition of that frontier was. As soon as it was known that Kansas was open, they rushed over. I think that was some time in the latter part of July or August. They went in dilTerent direc- tions, and made their "locations," as they call them; but they left crops on the Missouri side of the line, or in the States from which they had come, as stated by the honorable Senator from Illinois [Mr. Douglas] the other day. Having made their locations, they worked as long as they could during that fall. They were at the election in November; and instead of its turning out to be, as the minority report represents, that a majority of the settlers in the Territory were, at that time, free-State men, there were but three hundred and twenty-seven of them out of upwards of two thousand voters, making an allowance for what Ihey aUege to have been Missouri votes. The number of votes cast were two thousand eight hundred and twenty three, of which there were — for John W. Whitfield, two thousand two hun- dred and fifty-eight, for J. A. Whitfield, two hundred and forty-eight, (which were probably intended for John W.,) and for all others, three hundred and twenty-seven. A vote of two thou- sand two hundred and fit'ty-eight against three hundr(?d and twenty-seven may be regai-ded as decisive of the question of which party had the majority there. Most of the emigrants were without houses or shelter for themselves or families in Kansas: some went over to Missouri, and others to their old homes in Illinois and Iowa, and other western States, to spend the winter. They were not all Missourians, or pro-slavery men, but settlers in Kansas intending to return with their families in the spring. During their al>scnce, Governor Reeder found it convenient in January to order a census to be takcn-in February, when he must have known that a large number, if not a ma- jority, of the voters could not he present. Yo'u reside in the West, Mr. President; you have a knov/ledge of the prairie country, and can estimate the ditTiculty of taking a census in the prairies in the month of January or F'ebruary, and you know how little those at a distance are likely to hear of it; but it was taken in the ab- sence of a large number of those who ought to have been enumerated, and the returns have figured largely in this debate. The time appointed for the election of membera of the Legislature was the 30th of March. The proclamation of the Governor giving notice of the election was issued on tiie Sth of that month. The first intelligence of the time appointed was received at St. Louis from New York or Boston, arid was transmitted thence to western Missouri. ' I have no charges to make, but there are some circumstances connected with the arrangements for the election that are not to be overlooked. Ordinarily, the navigation of the Missouri opens before the middle of March; of tlie Ohio, earlier- Emigrants generally prefer to travel by water — indeed, at that season they could not well do so by land. Now, the fall election exhibited a large majority of acknowledged legal voters against the free-State colonists. Itv/as necessary, therefore, to reinforce them, and the measures of the Gov- ernor seem to have been adapted to that end. The census was taken, and the election ordered, while most of the pro-slavery voters were absent; and it so happens that the emigrant aid society had notice of the election, and a very large number of their colonists were far on their way towards Kansas before it was known in western Missouri that the day of election had been appointed; but it did become known probably sooner than in- tended to the settlers who had wintered in Illinois, Indiana, and Missouri. They immediately ex- erted themselves to get to Kansas in time for the election. The consequenee was, that the boata ascending the Missouri were croM'dcd with emi- grants, not from Missouri, but most of them from States far east. I send to the Secretary, and ask him to read horn the report of the speech of Mr, Oliver, of the House of Representatives, who was a passenger on one of the boats, the state- ment which I have marked. The Secretary read as follows: "And here, sir, let iiic st;ite a fact wliicli fell U'itliin my own observation. I left St. Lmlis on flie lOtli or lltli of March in tliat year, and the !mat upon uhirli I went up tlie Missouri river was literally erowdi d with passenfjers, nearly all of wliorn I fonnd to be per.-ons iVoni the free Slates, and travelina lUider the l)atronaf.'e and allspices of the emigrant aid society. Many of their friuiks Wen; labeled, as I noticed, with cards having upon them the name of Thayer, the agent of the society at St. bonis. I conversed with many of those p(;rsons on 'the way up the rivt^r. I a.-kcd thcin where they Were f^oinj;. and the genera! reply was-, tf) Kan- sas. I spoke of its heinu (plite early for pniifTration, because it Was tiie monlii of March, and very inclement; tjiere fell a snow seven or eiaht inches in depth before I reached my home. I asked them why they had .started o((t so early in the sprin?, while the weallicr Was so Unpleasant .' The answer -{enerally was, that tbey desired to reach K.insas at the earliest prissihlc nioineut. and particularly to be there on the :il1tll day of March, for the |iin|)oso, as 'they said, of volin'4 for ineniliers of the 'J'erritorial IjCjislaturc. Nearly all of the boats that went up the Missouri river early that sprinc were crowilcd with passeni,'(-rs from the free States, traVeliii!; under the auspices of this einiiirant aid scciefy. " WvW, sir, the election took place on tin- •'inth of .March, 1P.').">; and it i.s a well known fact, susceptible of the clearest proof, were it necu»'sary, that liiuulrcls of lln>se 22 einij;niiits, in less than one wfi'k aftor the elfclioii was oviT. Were t^cen rcliirninfr, as thoy said, to Uicir hoiiii's in till- Kast on stL-ainlioats and by land, sayitii: lh:it they liad fiilHIIod their obhu'aiions to those undc^r whosi^ auspices they hiid gone there ; that t!iey had seen thi; Territory ; that iney did not like th<' aiipearanee oC it ; and lliat tliey thouijht they couhl he nineh more liappy at their old lioines in tlio : East tliai\ in the Territory. In proof of the assertion that these eniisrants were mere adveniiirers, 1 [n;;: to stale the faet, that lliere were not more than ei^lit or ten females to , two or tlirie hundred males in tliat emigration, and that tlieir travi-liii!; eqnipaae.s consisted, in tint main, of hand- i sacks and small trunks. Some of them had pnns, ami ' liearly all of tlieni side-arms and other weapons of oli'onse I and defense." Mr. GEYER. Now, Mr. President, we ac- ! count for a small part of the increase of popula- [ tion; there were other aiiditions from the same | quarter. When they arrived in the upper part j of the river, it of course berame known tiiat they ' were g:oiug; into Kansas for the pur])ose of voting j at the eK;ction, and that they were not bona fide j emigrants; but, in addition to that, I liavi; it on good authority, tiiat intelligence was received on the Missouri side of the line, that those who had I wintered in that State would not be allowed to vote. You will remember that there had been organized what was called the Kansas legion, to which the attention of the Senate was called in the majority report, and in the speech of the Senator from Illi- nois, [Mr. Douglas.] That Kansas legion, it was understood, had determined to prevent those who were bona fide, emigrants, and who, com- pelled by the inekniency of the season , had sought shelter in Missouri during the winter, or at their homes in Indiana or Illinois, from voting. They resolved that they would vote, went into the Ter- ritory for that ))ur))0se, and I suppose did vote, as they lawfully might. There were others v.'ho went from Missouri, (not all Missourians, how- ever,) who were not entitled to vote, and did not intend to vote, unless others who entered Kansas about the same time, no better entitled, were allowed to do so. There was much excite- ment and great disorder in the neighborhood of the polls, and perha[is some illegal voting on both sides; but many who went from Missouri did not vote. I have it, on the authority of a gentleman v.'ho was at one of the precincts, that an entire comjiany, as it is called, never went to the polls at all; but watched another company from the East, and told them that, if Ihcy had a right to vote, those from Missouri had the same right, and would exercise it; and neither party voted. The minority report passes over the period froni the first settlement of tin; Territory down to ihe.election in 1855, on the 3(Jlh of March, and gives this account of it: " On the day of election, large hodics of armed men from the Slate of .Vlissonri appeared al the polls in most of the disiriels, and by most violent and tnmnllnous carrias^e and demeanor oviMawed the di'feiiseless inhabitants, atid by their own votes elected a lar-je majority of the members of both Houses of said Assembly.*' That is a sweeping allegation, and requires proof. We have the deelaralion of the honorable author of that report that there was no evidence before the committee of any sucii fact. They had no power, he said, to send fi>r persons and papers. Then why not ask for it.' Had it not been announced liere over and over again that there were, under the eaves of this Capitol and within its walls, the missionaries who hud been sent out by the chairman of the Kansas executive committee and committee of safety (so-called) on a mission of agitation in the States. They were about this Capitol, ready to be made v/it- nesses, and to receive their pay from the Treas- ury. Is it not most extraordinary that a report should be made involving the character of our citizens without a jiartiele of evidence .' It is very true, that afie-r the report was made there cairie the executive minutes from Kansas, which liave since been printed; but the author of the report had not even that to give color to the charge. The honorable Senator from Massachusetts made the charge first, and he read from General Pomeroy's memorial, giving an account of the election at the several precincts; and that was re- cognized and indorsed as conclusive proof by the honorableSenatorfrom Illinois, [Mr. Trumbull.] We have the unsworn testimony, then, of Gen- eral Pomeroy, who is the agent of the emigrant aid society, and one of those who are now on a mission of agitation. I do not question his verac- ity as to any fact he may state on his personal knowledge, but he must have told what is stated in that memorial on hearsay; for, with all his properties, he has not the power of ubiquity. He could not be at all the polls in Kansas, and testify of his own knowledge what occurred there; and I have a right to demand higher and more reliable evidence to support an accusation so gravely made in this high place. The honorable Senator from Iowa [Mr. Har- LAx] followed; and here 1 must beg leave to say that I heard with amazement a most extraordi-' nary declaration which I quote from his published speech. He said: " I do not propose to enter into a eencrnl review of all these facts; but thatlarjte bodies of nu-n Irom an adjoining State (firf enter Kansas for the avowed purpoes of controlling her elections, and by false swearing in some districts, and by intimidation and force in others, (with guns and knives, and revolvers, driving away tln»otficers of elections and free- State voters wlien necessary for that purpose,) did deposit votes in sullieient numbers to determine the character of lier lirst Legislature." "The war, the arson, the carnaje and bloodshed have been occasioned by a perseveriniieflort on the part of armed bands of men residing out of tin' Territory to cotnpcl the t>eoplc to ae(|niescc in tlie consummation of this hish-handeil ontragi' on their rights as freemen, is a part of llie history of the country wliieli no amount of learuins:, no itrcnglh of io^k. ami no fuc of eloijucncc can ever obliieralc.'' Anticipating an inquiry for his authority he says: " I respond by imiuiring for the niilhority of the world's conviction that honis Napoleon Wits clevat'd to the tlnone of his imperial uiule ' by loree ami Iraiiil.-" ■' It appears, then, in the opinion of that Senator, that because, under ordinary circumstances, we receive, and sometimes credit, intelligence of events in Europe upon the authority of public journals, newspaper articles are not only compe- tent evidence, but conclusive proof of a charge against an entire community offeree, fraud, and perjury ! Ijut the honorable Senator does not stop there. He says he has been in western Missouri, and 23 conversed with the people ; and they will not deny the leading facts stated; and " if these facts are doubted, or called in question by their friends on this floor, it will not be received by them as a com- pliment." Does he mean to say that they admit the perpetration of force, fraud, and perjury? Does he mean to say he has ever heard any man of any respectability in Missouri, or Iowa, assert that he has knowledge of the facts charged? Mr. President, the people of that country — as in every other new State I believe -— are excitable, but they are not prone to deeds of moral tui-pitude. Neither the people of Missouri nor Iowa can be tempted to the commission of perjury; they may be provoked to acts of violence, but not crimes involving moral turpitude. Mr. HARLAN. "Will the honorable Senator allow me to interrupt him ? Mr. GEYER. Certainly. Mr. HARLAN. Immediately preceding my arrival here, I conversed with citizens living in and around Council Blufls, in Iowa, and, among others, I remember, distinctly, conversing with Mr. Jollie, who represented himself as being one of the officers in Kansas at the time when this election is said to have taken place. He said that he himself administered the oath to numbei-s of persons whom he personally knew to be citizens of Missouri, who went so far as to swear that they were then residents of the Territory, and expected to live and die in the Territory. Yet they, then, to his certain personal knowledge, returned to Missouri before night. Mr. GEYER. Mr. President, if he adminis- tered any such oath it was not under any law of Kansas. Persons were not called upon to swear "that they expected to hve and die in Kansas." But if the fact be that tiiey swore that they were residents of Kansas, does it follow that they committed perjury ? Did nobody vote who went there at the same time from other quarters as residents ? Is the fact, that they went back to Missouri, even if they had ever been residents there, evidence that they committed perjury, when they said that their residence was then in Kansas? As I have said, the fact is known — it cannot be successfully contradicted — that many went from Kansas and wintered in Missouri, and in other States, and well they might. They had no shelter in Kansas to j)rotect them from tiie storms of winter. It was the policy of the Gov- ernor to order the election at an inclement season of the year. Some of the emigrant aid voters went to Missouri to stay during the winter. The fact that a man crossed the line for shelter after the election was over is no proof of perjury. I did hope that the charge would be recanted; I did suppose that, as a Christian gentleman, the hon- orable Senator from Iowa would retract the charge, but he adheres to it. Who is Mr. Jollie who invented and administered the oath? Where is he ? What is he, that an honorable Senator ventures on his authority to make so grave a charge against his countrymen and neighbors ? Mr. President, the deceptions that have been Practiced in regard to this subject are enormous, ince this debate was commenced, I saw an article in a newspaper, which I cut out, and intended to make use of, wherein a citizen of Iowa, (as lie said he was, but a most unfortunate and greatly injured pro-slavery man, according to the account given by himself,) said that he had a house and a piece of land near Topeka, and that the Abolition- ists from Topeka turned him and his family out of the house, tore it down, and stole the logs. [Laughter.] When I first saw it, I thought I could make something out of that; but I took the precaution, first, to inquire of persons who have been on the ground, and who knew the men, and then I believe I ascertained the true state of facts. I found that this very man was himself an Abo- litionist, that he went into partnership with a brother Abolitionist, that they built their house together, that he got his family into it, occupied it, and would not let the other come in. He kept within " tho pale of the law." There was no process by which he could be expelled; there was no law by which he could be punished. Then his brother Abolitionists of Topeka went out to the spot, turned him out, and took posses- sion of the logs, and gave them to the other part- ner in the concern. This shows how unreliable are newspaper articles as evidences of occurrences in Kansas. Some time since a proclamation was issued by the President in consequence of dispatches re- ceived by him from J. H. Lane, (chairman of the executive committee,) now claiming to be a Senator, and C. Robinson, (chairman of the committee of safety,) now claiming to be Gov- ernor of Kansas, informing the President that "an overwhelming force was organized upon the border for the avowed purpose of invading Kan- sas, and butchering the unoffending free-State citizens." It happened that, on the very day the Senator from Massachusetts was delivering his speech, the Pioneer Association of. lackson county assembled at Independence to adopt a constitu- tion. They had been informed of the proclama- tion, and of the information upon which it was issued, but had not learned by whom furnished. The Senator from Massachusetts had said that the proclamation would be received with joy by the people of western Missouri, because it was aimed at those innocent individuals, Robinson, Lane, and their associates. A mass meeting was immediately held at Independence, and it was resolved (I have the resolutions before me) that the information of a contemplated invasion from Missouri, by whomsoever communicated, was untrue; that there was no organization for such purpose existing or contemplated. The persons whose names appear in the proceedings, as W( 11 as the officers who signed them, are men who have position in society. I have the proceedings of another mass meeting held at Lexington, Mis- souri, at which an address to the President and people was adopted, in which the dispatch of those two high functionaries of Kansas is quoted and pronoum-( d an umnitigate'd falsehood. The meeting declares that west ofJeilerson there is but one piece of artillery, (not in the national depot of arms,) and that piece is one of those captured by Colonel Donijihan's regiment, and was presented by the State of Missouri as a com- pliment to the Jackson county company. All the 24 artillery captured by Cnlonol Doniphan's rngi- inriit, It will bt' rcmrnibcrfd, wan ri'linqnislied by the General Goveriniieiit to the State of Mis- souri. Here, then, wo have more cviilcnfc of the questionable character of information furnished by the free-State men of Kansas. Sir, I liave accounted for tlie larg:c accession of )>o|nihition in March, ]S.")a. It was composed of people who l)elony;ed to Kansas, and had wintered m Missouri, Indiana, Illinois, and Ohio. They came back earlier than they otherwise would have done in consequence of t)ic order of an election at tliat extraordinary season. Some of tliem were oblijred to go Ijack to the State of Missouri after the election, and seek tlio hospitality of the people of tliat State; so that there is nothing in the fact of their going over, or com ing back, to justify the al- legation that they were not legal voterins Kansas. The Governor approved of the election of ten councihnen and sixteen rc])resentalives. He re- jected nearly all the votes in one district, and returned a Mr. Conway, and a Mr. McCarty, of whose existence the Governor had serious doubts. He rejected tvro councijmen and nine represent- ativi^s. A new election was ordered to be liehl in May. The Governor left the Territory on the ITih of AjM-il to visit his family, and did not re- turn until about the 23d of June. During liis absence he appears to liave discovered, for the first time, that there had been any serious dis- turbance in Kansas. In a speech, delivered at Easton, Pennsylvania, lie said, " It was too true that Kansas had been invaded, conquered, sub- jugated, by armed forces from beyond the bor- ders." It is somewhat remarkable that the Gov- ernor made this discovery of imjiortant events in Kansas at a distance of a thousand miles from his post, about the time that he discovered, also, that the President had received information of his interest in the Pawnee speculation, and he perceived at once wluit was to be his fii^te. The President' was charged by the Senator from New Hamjishire [Mr. Hai.e] witli gross 111 glretof duty because lie did not instantly, upon tile jHiblication of Governor Reeder's sperch, in- terfere by sending an armed force into Kansas. liUt, as the Governor liad never made an official 1 Ji'port of facts stated in the speech, the President ! might be supposed to understand his duty better ' than to interfere upon the authority aiimc of ] Governor Reeder's .^jieech, if he ever read it. ; It is a significant fact, tliat Governor Reedcr j would not lake the responsibility of re])orting to the President, on liis official oath, what he stated [ in his speech, or anything like it. Ho either t betrayed liis trust, or his statement at Easton is t untrue. If he was faithful to his duty and the 1 ol)ligationof his ofHcialoath, her(»ported officially j all invasions of Kansas during his administra- tion. But I infer that he obtained his informa- ! tion of till- invasion of which he sneaks from the j source which furnishes an abundant supply of similar information located in New York and j Boston. I The jiowcr of the Governor is unquestioned ' to regulate the first election, and to declare duly I elected the person.-} having the highest number' of legal votes. He did adopt regulations for the election; he published them, and they were for Kansas the law, under the authority of the or- ganic act, and the election was decided in pur- suance of it. Yet we are told, by the honorable SeMiator from Vermont and others, tiiat the peo- ple of Kansas are not bound by it. What, sir! Have the people of Kansas an appeal on the question of the legality of an election — to hold a controversy with arms in their hands to settle the election and returns of members of their General Assembly? It was the act of the constituted authority of Kansas, binding upon the people of Kansas, when tliose certificates were granted. It was decided according to law, and under the authority of law, and just as obligatory as if it : had been decided by Congress. I shall not enter at large into 'the controversy about the power of each branch of the Legisla- ture to judge of the election and returns of its members. It is enough to say that, at the; election ordered by Governor Reeder, two members of the Council, and six of the House of Reprosenta- I lives, were elected in place of those rejected by I him. The other three were the same who had l)een elected, and took their seats in the General Assembly, as having been elected at both elections This left undisputed ten councilmen and nineteen representatives, with the undoubted authority as a Legislature; and if anybody had a right to judge of the elections and returns, under the certificate of the Governor, it was in them. But suppose it to be a doubtful question: is it to be settled by an appeal to mob law ? Neither the regularity of the election, the sufficiency of the returns, or the qualifications of memliers, is an open question in determining the validity of a law enacted by them, in any tribunal. And are men to turn out and resist the execution of laws, because they suppose that they were passed by the votes of members who arc disqualified, were elected by illegal votes, or obtaini'd their seats by force, or fraud .•' Suppose we should pass a bill in the Senate, by a majority of one, and that vote given by the honoraljle Senator from Illinois, [Mr. TiuiMnuLi.,] whose seat has been contested. There is a Senator near nii- who believes he was not entitled to a seat. Now, if the bill supposed, is passed by the other House and approved by the President, its validity cannot be made to de- pend ujion tli(- validity of the election of the Senator from Illinois; yet the question would be open in that case, as much as it the bill had lieen carried by the votes of any number of members where seats were contested; and if individuals and mass meetings may decide that question, their right to resist the law would not depend upon the correctness of the decision. If resist- ance to a law is justifiable, where it is passed by the vote of any number of members of the Legis- lature who are not entitled to their scats, and if those who resist arc the judges of the validity of the elections, they are justified, whether they decide right or wrong. The atiemiit at revolution in Kansas is at- tempted to be justified, or excused, because there have been some laws passed by the Legislature alleged to be of a very objectionaljle character. 23 The honorable Senator from Vermont quotes on€ of these acts, and complains against it because, as he says, it assumes that slavery exists bylaw, when it did not. Whether it does or not, how- ever, is a gTave question of constitutional law. If I am -right in the opinion that the Missouri prohibition was unconstitutional, slavery does exist in Kansas — a question whicli is not to be referred to mass meetings or Topeka conven- tions. Besides, the law referred to is itsrlf a recognition of slavery, and that is all-sufficient. The laws of Virginia and other slave States do no more. Gentlemen say that slavery cannot exist anywhere except by authority of law. Agreed: Ijut there never was a law in any of the States tolerating slavery, to authorize any per- son to reduce another to slavery. All that there is in the legislation on the subject is to be found in acts recognizing the authority of the owner and securing to him the jiossession of the slave as property. Slavery exists by law wherever the law recognizes its existence. I have before me some curiosities in legislation, which it would be well enough for gentlemen who are disposed to indulge in severe criticism of the laws of Kansas, to find an apology for re- bellion, to look at. The first act to which I will call their attention is that of Vermont.* The marginal note of the third section is in these words: "Two justices empowered to examine strangers on com- plaint of overseers of poor." It appears in the body of the section that, if the result of the examination is not satisfactory, the constable of the town is to transport such stranger out of it; and further, by another section: " If any person so removed shall return, to reside within the town, without permission of the selectmen, he or she shall be whipped not exceeding ten stripes, at tlie discre- tion of the justice before wlioni the trial shall be had." Mr. BUTLER. Does that apply to white people .'' Mr. GEYER. Yes, sir; white or black, if they are strangers; [iaugiiter;] that is to say, if a citi- zen of any other State, white or black, male or female, should under that law, go into Vermont, they were liable to be ordered out of it by the overseer of the poor; and if they came back after being ordered out, they were liable to be whip[)cd on their return. But Vermont is not singular. Mr. BUTLER. I wish my friend would in- corporate into his speech an old law of Massa- chusetts, which i have found. 1 would remind my friend of an old. league between the four New England States, made while they were colonies, expressly repudiating trial by jury for the recla- mation of fugitive slaves. They called them "slaves" too, or rather "fugitive servants," and they say that they sliall be delivered upon the certificate of one magistrate. f Mr. GEYER. I am not objecting to these laws. They are jK)licc laws, and I leave the people of those State.s to interpret them; but while we are looking for curio.sities of legislation, gentlemen may as well look at home. Here is another from the State of New York: * Laws of Vermont, 1808, vol. 1, pp. 3.64 and 403. t See Appendix, No. 6 . " Any householder entertaining a stranger for fifteen days without giving notice, to forfeit five dollars. [Laushter.] If the justices think proper, they may cause the strangerto be removed out of the town." And by another section it is provided that per- sons removed and returning, shall be retrans- ported and may be whipped; " if a man, not ex- ceeding thirty-nine lashes, and if a woman, not exceeding twenty-five lashes; and so as often as such person shall return after such transporta- tion."* [Laughter.] Such is the entertainment provided for strangers according to the law of New York. I have before referred to one specimen of legis- lation in Massachusetts. I now turn to the last efltbrt of the Legislature, to fulfill the obligation of that State, vinder the Constitution, to return fugitive slaves. By the personal liberty bill, so called, passed in 1855, fugitive slaves arrested may be admitted to bail on habeas corpus, and are entitled to a trial by jury. The claimant is required to state, in writing, the facts on which he relies with " pre- cision and certainty." " And no confessions, admissions, or declarations, of the alleged fuuitivi' a^'aiiist liiinsclf, slinll be given in evidence. Upon every (|urstinii ni'fiirt iiivulved in the i.Jsue, the bur- den of proof sliiill lit- on tin- cbiiiiiant, and the facts alleged and necessary to be estalilislu'd must be proved by the tes- timony of at least two ereililjle witni sses, or other legal evidence equivalent thereto, and by the rules of evidence known and secured by the common law ; and no ex parte deposition or affidavit sliall be received in proof in behalf of the claunant, and no presumption shall arise in favor of the claimant from any proof that the alleged fugitive or any of his ancestors had been actually held as a slave, without proof that such holding was legal." The obvious design of this act is to defeat the execution of the fugitive slave law. It not only undertakes to establish rules of pleading and evi- dence, but substantially provides that no proof possible shall be available to the claimant, byre- quiring proof that the alleged fugitive was lawfully held to slavery according to the law of Massa- chusetts; that is the obvious intention of the last clause of the part I have quoted. The next section provides thatany person who shall remove, or attempt to remove, any jjcrson "who is not 'held to service or labor' by the ' party' making 'claim,' or who has not 'escaped' from the 'party' making ' claim,' or whose 'ser- vice or labor ' is not ' due' to the ' party' making 'claim ' within the meaning of those words in the Constitution of the United States, on the pretense that such person is so held, or has so escaped, or that his ' service or labor ' is so ' due,' or with the intent to subject him to such 'service or labor,' he shall be punished by a fine not less than one thousand nor more than five thousand dollars, and by imprisonment in the Sti>te prison not less than one nor more than five years, "f You will observe, Mr. President, that there are frequent ([notations of words and phrases from the Constitution, and marked as such. The Con- stitution provides that — " No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in conse- quence of any law orregidation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due." * Laws of New York, edition 1802, pp. 5GS-9. t t-ee .\|)i)endix, No. G. 26 Tlic clause of tlic Massachusutls act last quoted is n manifest attempt to keep within the letter, and at the same time defeat the intent of the Cunstitutioii and of the act of Conj^ress passed in pursuance of it. Evc^ry person who attempts to arrest a fujrilivc, or assist another, must be pre- jiared at all times to prove that tlio claimant is the owner, and that the escape was from him, and not from his bailee or ajeiit, at the' hazard of beino; punished as a felon, and under the ei2;hth section paying heavy damages to the fugitive, to be recov- ert'd in a civil action. By the same act all officers of the State are proliibited, under heavy penalties, from issuing process in fugitive slave cases, or assisting in the arrest of a fngiiive. Any person acting as counsel or attorney for any claimant of an alleged fugitive undf'r the act of Congress, is to be disqualified and prohibited from practicing in any court of the State. This legislation, so obviously designed, so cun- ningly contrived to defeat a compromise of the Constitution, is approved and sustained by Sen- : aiors who are most loud in their complaints of the disregard of a legislative compromise by the con.stitutional repeal of an act of Congress, and who are now more consistently employed in justi- fying rebellion in Kansas on the ground that bad [ laws were enacted by the Legislature. ] Now, Mr. Posident, I turn to the proceedings which resulted in a convention to form a consti- tution and Slate government for Kansas. While the Legislature was yet in session, measures were adopted to call meetings with a view to organiza-j tion. Governor Robinson, in his late message, says that the first movement was in July. The first meeting was held at Lawrence, where it was ri'solved to hold a convention to consider and determine upon all subjects of public interest, and especially the speedy formation of a State con- stitution. The reason is stated in a preamble to be that the Territory always had been, and then was, without any law-making jmwer. I On the 5th of September, the Big Springs con-! volition was held, and adopted resolutions con- fessedh' insurrectionary, nominated Governor Reeder as the candidate for Delegate to Congress, and fixed the day of election after that appointed by law. The first Topcdta convention was held on the 19tli and 20th of Septembi-r, and resolved to liold another convention, to be chosen on the Second Tuesday of October, (the same day ap- pointrd for the election of Delegate by the Big Springsconvention.) The convention thus called, Mas chosen, and assembled at Topeka on the fourth Tuesday of October, and formed what is called a State constitution. It has beim conceded here, by the honorable Senator from Vermont, that, if tlie organization of the Kansas legion and the Big Springsconven- tion have any connection with the meeting at Lawrence, or the conventions at Topeka, their proceedings furnish evidence of a design to dis- place tin; existing government, set up a new one, and maintain it by force of arms if necessary; but he argues that neither the Kansas legion nor the Big Springs couviMition is in any way con- nected with the proceedings ill the other meetings and conventions, and therefore he took no notice of them in the minority report. The question has been very fully discussed by the Senator from Blinois, and I think he has shown very clearly, by reference to the proceed- ings at the several meetings and conventions, that they are connected together in a direct line, all having the same end in view. I propose only to invite the attention of the Senator from Vermont to a few facts, not unworthy of consideration, which he apj^eurs to have overlooked, and which tend to sustain the view of the subject taken by the Senator from Illinois. By reference to the published documents it will be seen that the grand vice general of the Kansas legion organized the meeting at Lawrence, of which the grand quartermaster gen(!ral of the same legion was secretary, and both these grand offi- cers were members of both the conventions at Topeka. Colonel Warren was a member of the Big Springs convention. How many more of the members of that organization were active in the proceedings of the assemblages mentioned cannot be a.scertained now, as their names have not been disclosed. The president of the consti- tutional convention, the assistant secretary, and fifteen or sixteen of the thirty-six members who signed the constitution, were members of the Big Springs convention. Several of these, and others of their associates at Big Springs, were in the first Topeka convention, which recognized its proceed- ings, and appointed the same day for holding the elections. The election for Delegate to Congress, and for the members of the constitutional con- vention, was held on the sanii- day, conducted under the superintendence of the same persons, and Reeder, the nominee of the Big Springs con- vention, and the members of the constitutional convention , one half of whom were his associates at Big Springs, were elected by the same people; and Robinson, Governor elect, also a member of the last convention, recognizes the proceedings at Big Springs, and quotes a part of them in his message. The whole proceedings, from })eginning to end, show that the same spirit animated all the assem- blages in succession; though that at Big Springa was more indiscreet than the others in disclosing the ]>urpose to resist the laws to a bloody issue if they did not obtain a peaceful remedy by an appeal to the judiciary or Congress. The fad that one half of the constitutional con- vention, or near it, was composed of members of tlie Big Springs convention — that Guvernor Reeder, who was present at that couveniion and participated in its proceedings, was their nominee for Delegate — that the first Topeka convention recognized their proceedings, in connection with those lirought to the notice of the Senate by the honorable Senator from Illinois, ought to be regarded as conclusive against the position of the Senator from Vi;rmont. I find that, of the signers of the memorial pur- porting to be that oC bona fide residents of Leaven- worth county, Kansas Territory, praying the admission of Kansas into the Union, the first is James Redpath, who is the persnii, I jiresume, that signed the constitution as " reporter." He 27 was, I am credibly informed, a member of tin; late Republican convention at Pittshur», claiming to be a delefi^atc from the State of Missouri. I believe that he is a i-eporter sure enough, and, as 1 am informed, of some paper in the habit of pub- lishing " roorbacks" as news from Kansas. But the Senator from Vermont does not appear to be entirely satisfied that the meetings and conventions which he recognizes were peaceable assemblies, to petition for the redress of griev- ances. He takes some pains, both in the minority report and in his speech, to set forth and prove that grievances existed which justify revolution. The first Topeka convention understood them- selves to be engaged in a revolutionary movement, and they set forth a formidable number of griev- ances to justify it. Peaceable assemblies to peti- tion for redress need no such manifesto as that issued at Topeka, and no such defense as has been made for the assemblies in Kansas. The Kansas legion is a military organization, and that it was prepared for active service, was made manifest in the Wakarusa war. It was a party of armed men of that legion who forcibly rescued a prisoner from the lawful custody of the sheriiF, swearing that they recognized no law, and relied only on tlieir rifles; and when the Governor called the militia to enforce the laws, a large body of m'^n armed with Sharpe's rifles was promptly embodied and ready for resistance, at Lawrence, and maint:Tined their attitude of hostility until Governor Shannon, becoming apprehensive of a serious collision between the men assembled by his authority to execute the laws, and the men in arms to oppose them went to Lawrence and there entered into an engagement by which peace was restored. Mr. President, the convention at the Big Springs recommended thinr friends to " organize and dis- cipline volunteer companies, and the procure- ment and preparation of arms;" and thus far we have seen that their recommendation has been attended to. We know that military corps have been organized, and supplies of arms and muni- tions of war have been provided; we know that the chairmen of the executive committei' and committees of safely have appointed missionaries of agitation, and sent them into the free States to recruit men and procure arms and munitions of war; we know that a shipment of arms has recently been made to Kansas. And now 1 will mention a few fads, indicating the determination of l!ie friends of the movement in Kansas, in the free States, to carry out the recommendation of the Big Springs convention, and cocipertitc with them to the full extent proposed. At the Repuliliean convention recently held at Pittsburg, Mr. Mann (and alluding no doubt to the proclamation of the President) said: "'n)o tirst drop of huiiian blood shod in Kansas hy thi; ajithority of the United States will be tlu; end of slavery, not only in tliis country but upon the globe." Yes, sir, insurrection or no insurrection; even if armed insurgents are openly n-sisting the au- thority of the law, and it becomes necessary to .subdue them by arms, it is said that the first Federal gun that shall be fired in Kansas, in the execution of the laws, shall be the death of slavery everywhere. They have the means, they think. Mr. BELL, of Tennessee. Who said that? Mr. GEYER. Mr. Mann, at the convention at Pittshurij. Mr. SEWARD. Abijah Mann, of New York. Mr. CRITTENDEN'. It has been said here, I think. Mr. SEWARD. I have not heard it said here. Mr. GEYER. Here is something which is, I believe, of a later date. A large meeting was held at Worcester, Massachusetts, at whicli Gen- eral Pomeroy, the agent, and Mr. Thayer, the secretary, of the Massachusetts or New England Emigrant Aid Society, were present, and ad- dressed the people; the report of the proceedings was publish(;d in the Worcester Spy, of Satur- day, 9th February, the concluding j)art of which I will read: "Mr. Pojiieroy's remarks were reeeivnd with many demonstrations of.applanse, and at their conchi-^ion a col- lection was tak(.'n up in aid of Kansas; abont fifty dollars were contributed in cash, and written pledges given to the amount of .l^l.'iO more, which is only a beginning of what Worcester will and can do for the cause. " At the close of Mr. P()meroy's address, the president called upon Eli Thayer, Esq., to address the meeting, and Mr. T. responded in eloquent terms. He said he was a peace man, and his oft'er to furnish a thousand superior rifles, (Mr. Thayer is engaged in the maiinfaeture of a newly invented ritle, said to be far superior to Sharpe's,) was based upon an earnest and sincere desire to pri^ent the shedding of blood. A. large number of men were engaged in their manufacture in this city, and a portion of them would be completed in the coming week, but as it was de- sirable that some additional armssliould be sent to the Ter- ritory at once, he proposed to pay for ten Sharpe's rifles at twenty-five dollars each, on condition that, during the com- ing week, other citizens of Worcester would subscribe enough to make up the number to one hundred rifles. " Several gentlemen subscribed for a rifle, and sent their names to llie chair; and before the audience left the hall, twenty-three rifles, equivalent to the sum of i^5~'i, were subscribed for. Hfr. Thayer's generous proposal was re- ceived with great ap[il luse, and a committee of three was appointed to solicit subscriptions for the requisite number. . Of course they will find no difficulty in securing the mate- rial aid necessary." Here, then, we find the agent in Kansas, and the secretary, both actively engaged in " the pro- curement and preparation of arms," as recom- mended by the Big Springs convention, and it seems thai the secretary is himself engaged in the manufacture of " facilities" " superior to Sharpe's." It appears that the missionaries have stirred up the people of Chicago, the city of the residence of the honorable cliairman of the Committee on Territories, to activity in furnishing material aid in the same cause. In the Kansas Herald of Freedom, of a late date, I find, what I will now read, under the head "A Noble Letter: " " The editor of the Chicago Tribune writes us from that city, under date of February 15th, from which we make the following extract: "' Chicago, Fehruanj 1.3, 1852. " ' Editor Hf.rai.d or Frrkdom : There is about two thousand dollars subscribed to help the free-Slate cause, which is placed in the hands of an executive committee, to bi! checked on by your conuniltee of public safety, and other proper persons, not to purchase scrip, but to pay for muni- tions, necessaries, &c., for the as.-istance of the free-State cause. We shall raise considerable more means, and when the spring opens you may look for a large number of emi- grants, who will h indle an ax or Sharpe's rifle, as the occasion may require. 28 " 'The wliolo western Slates are prolbundly moved with inS. TIU UUNi:.' " I liave before me, also, some elei^ant cxtnicts from the New York Tribune, and will read a part ' of a one, as a specimen: " The people of Kansas, and the friends of freedom for Kansas, must conthtuc to do what they have liceii doiuf; ever sinec tlie pasna^eof the Kansas- Nebraska MIL Conforinin!i to the principU; oi' squatter sovereignty, on wliieli thai hill assumes to found itself, Ihcy must pour free settlers into Kansas, well armed with, Sharpens rijUs, or other convenient weapons." It then proceeds to appeal to yoinio; men of ardor and enthusiasm, and calls upon ihern to go to Kansas, and take part in the impending; strui::glo for the sake of "glory and a quarter section." Thus we find the appeal of the insurgent convention to their friends to raise and organize troops, and pro- cure and prepare aj-ms, recognized and nsponded to, with a view to the contemplated issue. Mr. President, the measures have b(!en taken which are necessary to keep the peace in Kansas. If no violence is designed by either party, no one has a right to complain of those measures. If violence is designed, it is the duty of the Presi- dent to maintain a force there, which shall keep them in check. This, 1 apprehend, is all that need be done. Tlu- laws are equal to the preservation of peace in that Territory. But, sir, they demand admission into the Union, either now or at some distant day to be fixed by Congress. I will say now that I have no objec- tion to the passage of a general law )irescribing the tirms on which new Slates formed out of the Territories may bo admitted into the Union; but I am altogether disinclined to yield to demands, accompanied by threats, from revolutionists in Kansas. Nor am I disposed to allow them to occupy the immense territory which ihey claim as a State, and to come into the Union, with a population of less than twenty-five thousand, according to their own representation, on an equality with any State having one Rcprosentativ<; in the otlur House. I cannot consent to it. To agree to that course is to settle the question by Congress yielding to the demands set up by an insurrectionary organization under the influence of llie emigrant aid association. It is to sur- render at once to that unquiet spirit of aggression which for more than forty years has warred upon the institutions of one half of the States of this Union; has sought to exclude their citizens from the common territory of the nation, and to annul even the compromises of the Consiituiion, which promise protection for their property, and secure 10 tiiem a portion of their jiolitical power. lam unwilling to yield to that spirit. I donotapprc- hend any serious trouble. I said, yesterday, that whenever agitators have succeeded in disturbing the peace of the country to an extent to create serious apprehensions of danger, the great body of the people have proved them.selves loyal to the Union; and I believe that, if the present agitation is continued, the pi.-opliMjf this country will again rebuke the fomenters of discord, and maintain (he supremacy of the Con- stitution and the laws. I have spoken of the action of parties; but I desire it to be undi'isiood that, when I speak of the present organizations, I wish to distinguish conservative men, who act with the associa- tion called Republican, from the two wings of that party known as Ai)olitionists. I condemn no man for voting against the passage of the Kansas-Neln-aska act. There are ditferences of opinion on that sui)ject. There were such differ- ences among conservative men at the time of its [)assage among the members of the House of Rep- resentatives: many of those who voted against the bill afterwards shared the fate of others who voted for it, because they were conservative. Hy the union of Abolitionists with a new organiza- tion called Know Nothings, every conservative member from Massachusetts was immolati'd The same thing occurred in other States. What I mean to say to honorable gentlemen of the Republican party, who are not Abolitionists, is tliis — if they do not wish to be made responsible for the action of their associates, let them at once dissolve the connection, and seek a healthy organ- ization which shall be national in its character, and manifest their fidelity to the Uni<*n by ri^Uy- ing to the support of the laws and the Constitu- tion. APPENDIX. [Xo. 1.] HorsK OF RErRESF.NTATivEs, Fchrunry 18, 1819. The hill estuhlishing a Territorial Government for Ark- ansas. Mr. Tayi.or, of New York, moved to insert a section pro- vidiiip that neither slavery nor iiivolnntary servitude shall he introduced into the said Territory, olherwise than fortlie punishment of crimes, whereof the parly shall have Iwi-ii duly convicted ; and all children horn of slaves within said Territory shall he free, hut may he held to service until the af;e of twenty-five years. The question was divided, and put on the ttrst part of the clause down to the word '• couvieled,'" inclusive, and da- eided in the neiativo— 70 to 71; Uie second clause was agreed to — 75 to 73. Frid.kV, February VJ.-rOn a motion to commit the hill, with instructions to strike out the second clause of the amenilmcnt, and on the qui stiou there were — yeas 8«<, nays 68. The question was decided in the affirmative hy the vote of the Speaker. The votes of the free States were as fol- lows : Yens. Nays. Veis. Nays, Xew Hamii=liire.... 1 4 New Jersey 4 Vermont .'> I'ennsvlvania 1 22 Massachusetts.... 4 1.) dhio 3 3 Uhode Island 2 Indiana 1 ('onnecti<'Ui 7 llliiini- 1 New York 3 24 — — Total 1.) So Delaware voted, ay 1, no 1 ; all the votes of the other States were in the alJirmative. 'J'he committee reported hack the bill amended ai^reeably to the instructions; anil the c]iiestion hciii:; taken to concur with the select committee, it passed in tli'' allininlive. The free States voted as hcfore, except that Massachusetts gave one less ui the negative. 29 Mr. Tati.or, of N(!W York, llioii moved to amend by | inserting the first clause of the foriiier iuiieiulmenl ; and it i was determined in the negative — yeas SG, nays 90. The' votes of the free States in tiif atlirniative were the same as I their ne;,'ative votes on the question hist prcoHlinc, except that the alRrmafivc vote of New York was one less than the negative vote before. — Home Journal, second session, Fifteenth Congress, pp. 263 to 294. [\o. 2.] I.s THE Senate, March ^, 1820. • On motion of Mr. Barbour to amend the Mispoiiri bill of the House to strike out from the fourth section of the bill the provisions proliibiting slavery or involuntary servi- tude in the contemplated State otherwise than in the pun- ishment of crimes, as recommended by the committee of conference, it was agreed to — yeas 27, nays 15. The free States voted as follows : Yeis. Nays. Yeas. AVj/s. New riampshire,. I 1" New Jersey 2 Vermont Pennsylvania 2 Massachusetts 2 Ohio." 2 Khode Island 1 1 Imliaiia 2 Connecticut 1 1 Illinois 2 New York 2 — — Total .5 15 Senate Journal, first session SiHeenth Congress, p. 201. HoiTSE OF Represent.vtives, March 2, 1820. On the question of concurrence with the Senate on the above amendment it passed in the atfirmative — yeaa 90, nays 87, the free States voting as follows : Yeas. Nays. Yeas. Nays, New Hampshire... 6 New Jersey 3 3 Vermont 6 Pennsylvania 2 21 Massachusetts.... 4 16 Ohio 6 Khode Island 1 1 Indiana 1 Connecticut 2 4 HIinois 1 New York 2 22 — — Total 14 87 House Journal, p. 276. [No. 3.] House of Representatives, December 13, 1820. The House resumed the consideration of the resolution (reported by Mr. Lownoes) declaring the admission of the State of Missouri into the Union ; and on the question, '• Shall the resolution be engrossed and read a third time .'" it was determined in the negative— yeas 79, nay.s 93; the free States voting as follows: Yeas. Nays. Yeas. Nays. N'.'W Hampshire 6 New Jersey.. .. 2 4 \ ennnnt ' 6 Perinsylvani|. . . 1 22 Mas.sacliuscfts ...1 18 Ohio 5 llhode Island 1 Indiana 1 Connecticut 7 Illinois 1 New York 1 21 — — Total 5 92 Delaware ;iave one vote in the negative. The votes of Maine are in. ■hided with Massachusetts.— Homjc Journal, second session Sixteenth Congress, p. 70. [No. 4.] House of Representatives, Feh-uary 12, 1821. The vote being taken on Mr. Mai.lory's amendment to the amendment of the select committee to the joint resolu- tion of the Senate for the admission of Missouri, it was determined in the negative— yeas 61, nays 107. Tlie votes of the free States were as fcdiows : Yeas. A'/j/«. Yeas. Nays, New Hampshire... . 4 2 New Jersey 4 Vermont 6 Pennsvlv.Kiia 15 6 Massaebuscttg 14 6 Ohio." 2 3 Rhode Island 1 Indiana 1 Connecticut 4 3 Illinois 1 New York 15 9 _ _ Total 61 34 The vote of Maine is included with that of Massachu- setts. — House Journal, second session Sixteenth Con'rress. p. 220. ° ' [No. 5.] House of Representatives, Fehruary 26, 1821. The joint resolution for the admission of Missouri upon a fundamental condition therein contained, as reported by Mr. Clay from the joint committee, being under consider- ation on the question, " Shall the resoiulion be engrossed and read a third time .'" it was determined in the affirm- ative—yeas 86, nays 82. The resolution was then read a third time, and on the question " Shall it pass.'" it was de- termined in the affirmruive — yeas 87, nays 81. The vote of the free States was as I'ollows : Yeas. Nays. Yeas. Nays, Maine 1 6 New Ymk 6 it New Hampshire.... 5 New Jersey 4 l Vermont 5 Pennsylvania 4 ]9 Massaehusetrs 1 11 Ohio g Rhode Islanil 1 Indiana 1 Connecticut 1 6 Illinois 1 House Journal, second session Sixlcenlk Con"ress on. 276, 277, 27S. ° " "^ [No. 6.] Senator Pwti.er refers to the clause in the eighth article of the league or confederation of 29ih May, 1643, entitled, "Articles of conleileraii^in between the Plantations under the Government oi' .Mas.-acliiisetls, New Plymouth, Con- necticut, New llavim. in New England, with the Plantations in combination with them." The iiarticnlar claus(^ referred to is in these words : " It is also agreed that, if any .servant run away from his master, into any of the confederat(! jurisdirtimis, that in such (rase (and upon certificate Ironi one magistrate in the jurisdiction out of which said servant fled, or upon other due proof) the said servant shall be eithi-r delivered to his master, or any other that pursues and brings such certificate and proof."