F 685 .693 KciA^i^i-- cWT^^jltr^A. Ct of conflict between them. The last evidence, then, is the vote of the people on the 4th of January, of ten thousand against it ; and the evidence neaily cotomporaneous with that are the resolutions of the Legislature of Kansas, protesting and imploring you not to accept this instrument, that it is a fraud and an imposition upon them. I want to know why it is that this evidence is not entitled to our consideration and to have effect? The President, it seems to me, has given us a most unsatisfactory reason. The President says that in recommending the adop- tion of this constitution to us, as implied in the admission of the State, he has not overlooked the vote often thousand against the constitution given upon the 4th of January ; he has considered it ; but he holds it, and he holds the law of the Territo- rial Legislature under which that vote was taken, to be nieie nullities. Why ? The law was passed by the regularly elected Legislature of the Terri- tory providing that a vote should be taken on that day ; aiid why not? Is there anything in the or- ganic law, is there anything anywhere that forbids it? No ; nothing. The President had anticipated that the consti- tution itself, in whole, and not in part, was to be submitted to the people. The Governor had so contemplated, and hail so assured and promised the people. The President regrets that it was only submitted in part, lie regrets that the entire constitution was not submitted. Though he ac- cepts as an equivalent the partial submission, he regrets that it was not submitted as a whole. The Territorial Legislature, after this constitu- tion was published, innueJiately passed a law to have a vote taken upon the entire constitution — the very course which the President had preferred, and to which Mr. Walker pledged himself. What do they do but carry out and act in peifect accord- ance with the wishes and opinions of the Presi- dent and Governor? And yet the President, who was for a general submission, and would have pre- ferred it, says the act of the Legislature, in accord- ance with his opinion, is a mere nullity. Why? Because, he says, by the previous acts ot the peo- ple and of the territorial government the Territory was so for prepared for admission into the Union as a St ite. That is the reason. He gives no ap- plication of it, but announces as a reason that it was so far prepared because the constitution had been made, ready to be offered to Congress, though that con-titution had not yet been submitted to the people when this law was passed. Tliat was her condition ; that was the preparation she had made. The only preparation was, that u' der the authority of a previois Territorial Legislature, a convention had been held, and a constitution made and published. That was the condition of her preparation; and, because of that preparation, the Piesident says that the Territorial Legislature had i.o power whatever to pass a law to take a popular vote upon the adoption of that constitution, to see what the people thought of it; to collect the evi- dence of ihe public will! What could the Terri- torial Legislature do, to satisfy themselves, to satisfy the country, to satisfy the just rights of the people, but to say a vote shall be taken on the 4th of January next, in which all the people shall declare their assent to, or disapprobation of, this constitution as an entire instrument? What is there in the preparation above referred to to pre- vent it? What lorce had the constitution? Gould the constitution, unaccepted by you, un- authorized by you, paralyze and annihilate the legislative power whit h your act of Congress had conferred upon the territorial government? Does not that power, and all that power, remain as perfect as when you granted it? And cnuld the power which your act gave be diminished or lessened by any act of mere territorial authority? It is palpable that it could not. No matter what; act might be done by the people of Kansas, call it by what name you please — law of the Territorial Legislature, constitution made by the people — no matter by what name you call it — the si preinacy of the Government of the United l^tates remains untouched and unimpaired, and all the power of territorial legishttion which it gave may be exer- cised by the Legislature. Of what avail is this constitution until accepted by Congress, and the State admitted upon it? Whom does it liind? Is it anything more than a proposition by the people of Kansas that "we shall be admitted with this instrument, which we offer as our constitution?" What more is it? Does it bind anybody? Where does it derive its author- ity? The organic law authorized no legislation by a convention. The convention could exercise no legislative power which Congress had given, be- cause Congress gave its power to a Territorial Legislature, to be elected in a certain manner, and to be exercised in a certain manner. The conven- tion could exercise no legislative power. It bound no one. It did not bind the future State; fur, until you accepted it, what prevented the people from calling a convention the next day, and altering or modifying it according to their own views? I3 tiiere anything of reason, of argument, or of liiw, to support such a proposition sa that the people are restriuned fiom making anotljer constitution because they have proposed one not yet accepted and acted upon by Congress? I think not. In my judgment, we have a precedent which shows I am right in this view of the subject. The ca*:c is this : Wi-consiu, then under a territorial government, prosenlid lierself here with a St.ite constitution, and asked for admission into the Union as a State. Congress admitted her, but on the co'idition that her constitution should lie sub- mitted to a vote of the qualified electors of the Territory — and, if a-sented to by the people, that the President should announce that fact by procla- mation, and that thereupon, and without any fur- ther proceedings on the part of Congress, her ad- mission should be complete and absolute. This was the case of Wisconsin; this her state 0/ prep- aration. What, under these circumstances, did the people of Wisconsin do? Did th«.y proceed according to this act of Congress, and submit their constitution again to the people, as required by said act? No, sir; thoy passed that act by, called another convention, applied to Congress at a sub- sequent session, and were admitted into the Uniou as a Stite. Was not their state of preparation greater than the preparation of the Territory tf Kansas? Here Wisconsin was not only in a state of preparation, by having made a constitution, but that constitu- tion had received the approbation of Congress, and she had been conditionally admitted into the Union iis a State. Yet she considered that even tinder ihtse circumstances, she was at full liberty to avail herself, or not to avail herself, of that con- ditional admission — and concluliag not to decline it, she made another constitution, and was there- upon admitted by Congress. If they could do that, if, prepared as they were, that preparation did not preclude them from making another constitution, how is this less state of prep- aration, on the part ol Kans;is, to preclude the Ter- ritorial 1 egislature, not from performing the high act of calling a convention, but simply of taking another vole on a constitution which was yet to be proposed to Congress? Can any reason be shown? No, sir, none. That constitution was, in my judgment, inoperative; and of gentlemen who think dittereritly I would ask, how long would it have operated as binding on the people of Kan- sas? Suppose circumstances had occurred which had prevented any application to Congress for years, how long would this instrument have re- tained its vitality and retained its vigor and au- thoiity? One year? Two years? Tnree years? Four years? How long? Suppose the president, Calhoun, had put this mstrument in his pocket and kept it there all the days of his life, would it all the days of his life have restrained the people of Kansiis from taking other steps and calling Other conventions, and making other constitutions ? If its authority would not have continued a life- time, how lotig could it continue ? No man can set a limit ; and the conclusion, therefore, is that it never had any binding influence — at any rate, never such binding influence (and that is all I am required t"> show) as to have prevented the peo- ple, if they had changed tlieir minds after making the first constitution, from calling another con- vention, and resorting to all means neccssaiy for the establishment of another constitution, and then to offer it to you. It is thf irs to offer, and ours to dispose of, and they are free up to the last mo- ment to make known to Congress what is thi-ir will and what is tluir determination in relation to the fund imental law of the State which they are about to establish. Is not this all perf'ctly clear to our reason ? Are there any fictions of law; are there any tech- nicalities springing out of these instruments, gov- erning their foice and effect, to preVL-nl this con- clusion ? Is this constitution to be made up into a little plea of estoppel against the people? Are the little rules which we are to gather from West- minister Hall, the little saws in actions at law that do well enough to decide little questions of tneiim and tuiini among A, B.and C, to be applied fts the measure to those great and sovereign prin- ciples on which States and peoples rest for their rights and their liberties ? No, sir. This is a great political question, open, free to be judged of according to God's truth and the rights of the people unrestrained, unencumbered, tmimpaired by any fiction or by any technicality which could prevent the lull scope of your justice and your rea- son over the whole subject. Therefore, sir, this state of preparation of the Territory of Kansas for admission into the Union has no effect. The argument is not applied ; the fact is merely stated that there is a state of prepa- ration, and there it would be necessary to stop on any doctrine ; for, in my own judgment, no argu- ment can be made even of any ordinary plausi- bility to show that the state of preparation re- strains the people of thuir natural and indefeasible right and their legal light a- proclaimed by you, to form with perfect freedom thoirown institutions bef)re they come into the Union. There is no technicality about it. Here, it seems to m'', applies that great princi- ple to which I adverted at firsf, that Ifie people have a right to govirn themselves. I mean, of course, in subordination to constitution and law. This people had no constitution, could have no constitution, while they remaincil in territorial dependence; and when the act of the Territorial Legislature was passed requiring a vote to be taken on this proposed constitution, they had full authority to pass that law. Their hands wire not bound. Here was a great act about to be done, an act to bind the State, to give it a new character, to give it new institutions, to ptit upon i' a con- stitution — that panoply of the rights of all. This was the great act to be done; it is an act which none but the people can do through themselves or their proper representatives. It is in all cases di- rectly or by reference the act of the people. The la*s which they establish are not of that transient character which can be made to-day ami repealed to morrow. They are made for permanency. They are the great innnutable and eternal truths and prin- ciples on which all government must rest. They are expected to l.>e permanent. The people dele- gate to others the power of passing temporary and repealable laws. They reserve to themselves the great riglit of passing those which are permanent and can only be repealed by themselves. Was it not of consequence, was iinot of import- ance to know the will of the people, whether they really did approve of this constitution which was about to be oflered to Congress — a law which, when Congress puts its imprimatur on it by ad- mitting the State, is to be permanent ? Would it be any harm to take the vote over and over again, so long as doubt remains? Congress has the power. What objection could there be to it? You may say " It is an unnecessary care of the peo- ple's rights; you have had their decision once; therefore, it is not necessary to have it again ;" but out of abundant care, and abundant zeal you may choose to take it again and again, and ascer- tain whether there may be change or variation in the public opinion. Who can say aught against it ? Do you oVjject to it because it is taking too great care of public liberty, paying too great re- spect to popular rights ? Nobody will take that ground. But it may be said you might delay the appli- cation to Congress by these repeated elections. — You must avoid that as far as you can. In this case it has not delayed it. In this case this vote was taken before this constitution came before you ; while it yet slumbered in the hands of President Calhoun. No objection can be made, then, that this was made the cause of, or intended merely for the purpose of delay. The result shows that it was necessary and proper. The result shows that notwithstanding the vote of six thousand, in favor of it, there were ten thousand who were opposed to it. I say, therefore, this is not the coustituiioa of the people of Kansas. It may in a certain sense be a constitution offered by the con- vention to the people of Elansas ; but which the people of Kansas by ten thousand majority have rejected, have as lawfully rejected in the last vote, as it was lawfully approved by the six thousand first voting ill the preceding December, I say, then, Mr. President, upon the record evi- dence, upon all the evidence, this is not the con- stitution of the people of Kansas. It is not the constitution under which they desire that you shall admit them into the Union. Now, will you, against their will, force them into the Union under a constitution which they disapprove? That is the question. You know the fact that ten thou- sand agaii!st six thousand are opposed to the con- stitution. You know that by the act of their Ter- ritorial Legislature they entreat you not to admit them with this constitutioi:. They tell you, more- over, as one of their reasons, not only that they disapprove of the whole constitution, but that it is particularly hateful to them because the votes given for it, or apparently given for it, were, to a great extent, fraudulent and fictitious. The Legislature tells you that nuie-tenths of the people there are opposed to it. Now, would it not be strange, that under these circumstances, we should, without any motive for it that I know of, as the common arbiters of all Territories and States to the extent of our const!-, tutional power, force her into the Union? What motive can we have, what right motive, with the knowledge of these facts, to force her into the Union, and to enforce upon her this constitution ? I cannot feel myself authorized to do such a thing. Of course I do not impugn the motives and the views of others, who, taking a different view, act from impressions different from mine. They act upon one view, and I upon another ; but, viewing the subject as I do, it seems to me that to do thia is a plain, unmistakable violation of the right of the people to govern themselves. I have endeavored to show you, sir, that this is not the constitution of the people of Kansas, according to the recorded evidence of their will. It seems to me, furthermore, that this constitution is a fraud. It is not only not their constitution, according to their will, but it is got up and made in fraud, to deprive them of their lights. I believe that, and I think it can be shown. The President of the United States has furnished us an argument on this subject, and it has been oftentimes repeated heie in the debate — of course a plausible and ingenious argument, as all must admit, even those who deny the solidity of the reasoning. What is the argument? The Presi- dent says that the sense of the people was taken, and proved to be in favor of calling a convention. The convention was called; delegates were elected; those delegates made a constitution ; that consti- tution was submitted to the people in part, and approved by a vote of six thousand, taken accord- ing to law. Well, all these, you will observe, con- stitute a tissue, a long series of little legalities, reg- ularities, and technicalities ; and the reasoning of the President is founded on technical points on each of these ficts. You must admit all the facts. Yes, sir, the fiicts are all true; and if they alone constituted the case, the conclusion would be fair and right that this constitution has been regularly made; that this constitution has been sanctioned by the people as well as by the convention. But is there no more in the case than this ? There is a great deal more in the case than this. When frauds have been alleged and charged against this government of Kansas, gentlemen say, "Ah, but these frauds w^re in other elections; these frauds do not particularly and specifically touch this constitution, or the proceedings which led to this constitution." But suppose theie were frauds in relation to it : is it not something if I show you that, in regard to that part of the constitution which was submitted to the people to be ratified by them, and which was nothing until the people had ratified it even accoidi-ng to the constitution itself, there was fraud in that election, and abun- dance of fraud ? So glaring, go impudent, and so fearless had frauds in elections become there, that upon that very poll list, in one of the precincts, (I forget whether it was in Oxford, or Shawnee, or that other precinct that emulates these in its char- acter for fraud, Kickapoo.) you find that the Pres- ident of the Ignited States, Colonel Benton, and the gentleman from New York, [Mr. Seward,] were there, it seems, or fictitious votes were put in for them by somebody, and a long list of persons of that sort of figure on the poll-book at these mis- erable precincts as actual voters. That was the vote on the constitution on December 21; that was on the part submitted to the people. They were the constitution making power there, and there I show you the fraud. What further frauds there were I know not; but this much is apparent — and later develop- ments show greater frauds still — that in one single precinct, where there were only thirty or forty votes to be tulsen legitimately, there were over twelve hundred; and under the investigation lately made by conimissioners in Kansas, tha*, upon sworn testimony is stated to be the fact. In one precinct there were twelve hundred fraudulent a'ld fictitious votes cut of twelve hundred and >ixty ; seven hundred in anotlier, and over six hundred in anothei' ; making in the aggregate twenty-six hundred votes in three precincts, entirely fraud- ulent and fictitious, written out by hundreds vn the poll-book after the election was over, put on without scruple upon the poll-book, upon the election return, put down without scruple during the election, of those who weie quiiifieiJ, and those who were not qualified ; and that is the way this coustintion in pait has received its sanction. But, sir, I think that we should take a very partial view of this subject, one very unsatisfac- tory to our judgment, if we were to isolate these facts which have direct relation only to the form- ation of tliis constitution, and leave out all the surrounding circnmstanccs. It seems to me that the proper and the just mode of regarding this constitution is to consider it as one of a series of acts, and see if we can find that tlie whole action and operation of all those acts were to lead to one general purpose — that of maintaining by fraud and by falsehood the power and the government of the minority, and their offices to them against the will of the great majority of the voters. I say it is an act connected witli all the other acts. The whole case is to be taken, and every part of it judged of in this connection. Now, what was the first act? That is histor- ical. We may all speak of it now, though we disputed it at the time. The first Legislature that was elected in Kansas under the organic act, was not elected by the people of Kansas. It was elect- ed by persons who were intruders from abroad — who intrud'-d themselves with arms in their hands, seiz".d upon the ballot-boxes, put in their own b;ill(»ts, driving away the legitimate voters, and elected the members to tho TiPgislature. That is the way the government of Kansas was inau- gurated. Those who had been driven from the polls, those who were opposed to the party tiiat was installed in power by these ni' ans, conceived such indignation and such disgust that they pro- claimed aloud, whether wisely or unwisely, that they renounced all obedience to this spurious govern- ment, as they called it. It is not mateiial to me whether their complaints are well f ninded and true, or not. I am endeivoiing to depict the course of things, to show their motives and tlic mntives of the persona who were thus installed into the territorial government. They came to their power by violence; they came to their power by fraud. That was the complaint of the oppos- ing party in Kansas. They renounced their rule, they renounced their laws, refused to commit themselves in any way to their support, refused to go to any election afterwards. They said, "Wliat \s the use? This corrupt minority who have got into power, who have in their hands the means of controlling the election, who arc not too good to do it, and who will do it, who have done it, will practice the same mrans; we shall be agaia driven from the polls, or, if not, they, having the control of the elections, and of all the officers who conduct and manage them, will liave what returns made they please. We will suliject ourselves no more to the humiliation of attemtiiing to execute a right which we know wilj be fi nitrated and defeated by fraud, or by force." Under these im- pressions, and with these feelings, which it is not my part heie either to JMsily or rebuke, but simply to state the fict, th<.-y withdrew from the elections lest, by voting according to the laws pHSSed by this coiinpt Legislature, as they con- sidered it, they should seem to acknowledge its authority and theii' alUgi mce to it. Now, what would be the condition of the men who had been installed into power in this way? They would be pleased that llieir opponents had thus withdrawn themselves from th,- polls. In all the electious to be held afterwards, this power of the miuority, however small, would be continued ; as their emonies would not come up to vole, they would be re-elected and would retain and perpetu- ate their power. So they went on — the field aban- doned by the majority — and the minority ruling everything in this way. Look at the evidences that are before you from those higli officers lately return- ed from Kansas — Stanton and Walker. They tell you of frauds regularly perpetrated there ; and, although they had thought before that the people were acting fictiously, that they were acting sedi- tiously, that they wert> acting rebelliously in at- tempting to withdraw themselves fioin tliis gov- ernment altogether and to act for themselves, and that their complaints of fraud and imposition upon them in elections were rather all'ected f>r thj pur- pose of giving color to their conduct than other- wise, yet when they went among the people and heard them, and learned all about the dealings that had been practiced, they could not doubt their truth and their sincerity in the resentment which they felt and in the conduct which they pursued. However unwise, it was sincere on their part. — They had been defrauded ; thititution, when you see the sume men who made tho constitution rulers in the lutid during the whole time, do you not see that the frauds have been everywhere, that the imposition upon the people has been i very where ? And how can you exempt horn the contagion (if there was nothing more than this geuenil a.-'soeialion from which to infer it) this constitution and those who made it? Judging from the positive internal evi- dence that exists in it, and the ficts that surround it, I cannot. I believe that to impose it upon them, violates the right of the people to govern them- selves. I believe this constitution is the work ot fraud — fraud upon the rights of the people. I do not undertake to defend the free-soilers for their conduct. It is nof my part nor my province. I should agree, perhaps, with the Prt sident, that much of their conduct has been of a disreputable, disorderly, and seditious character. It may be that it deserves the epithet of " rebellion," which the President applies to it. I have nothing to do with that. 1 am not their advocate. I have dis- approved of their conduct in many instances. There* were many bad meu among them, as 1 believe, but for them the law assigns its proper punishment. The majority of the people liave their political rights, that remain, notwithstanding their legal ottenses. It is in that point of view, it is in their political character as the people of a Territory, that we are now to regard them. Whether they be more or less guilty on one side or the other, is not the question. I (ear that neither party could take the chair of impartiality and justice, and be shameless enough to attempt to administer re- buke to the othtr. One great oVijection to their admission at all, is that they have not shown, by their conduct on any side, that they are altogether tit for association with the States of this Union. A little more ap- prenticeship, a little more practice of honest and fair dealing, a little more spirit of submission and subordination to liw and authority, would be well learned by thom, and (it and qualify them much better for citizens of the United States. That is my opinion. I have, however, spoken of their political rights as men, and it is not for me to sit in judgment to condenm and deprive them of the right of suffrage on one side or the other, be- cause of (rands committed by one, or violence practiced by another. This is a political question. It is said, however, that the series of legalities and technicalities, to which I have alluded, of a regular election, of a regular convention, of a sub- mission to the people, and of votes of the people upon all these questions, have been regular ; and ■what then? It is further said, on the other side, that all the people had a right to vote and those who did not vote forfeited their right to complain ; and we are not to in((uire whether there were any people who did not vote, or whether those who did vote voted fairly, and were entitled to vote or not. It is sai 1 we are precluded by the forms in which tMs tranaction is enveloped; tiiat the foimal election, the fomal certificate of elec- tion, the form:d constitution certified — these form- "I'ties are enough for us, and that we arc not per- mitted to look further ; that v, e ought not to look further. Sir, I do not think so. "We a^e applied to now to admit a new State into the Union. The instrum >nt which she presents as her constitution is .opposed by the people from the same Territory. They say, " this is not our constitution; it is against our will ; it is not only agiinst our will, but it has been imposed upon us by devices and fraud. It is void for fraud. If it is not void for fraud, for that is rather a legal than a political term, we present these frauds and this opposition as a reason why you should not admit our Ter- ritory into the Union under this constitution." That is the state of the question before you. The complainants admit all the regularities just as the President states them. Perhaps they admit the effect thescf forms would ordinarily have, but they urge other facts in opposition to the apparent evidence of the constitution itself, as I have be- fore adverted to. A miijority of the people have protested against it. Tlie present Legislature, by its inquiries, have developed the vast frauds which weie practiced in connection with, and in rela- tion to, this constitution. They say, "do not ac- cept it ; do not admit us under it ; send it ba ck ; let it be submitted to a fair vote of the people." Sir, upon such a complaint as this, aie we not bound, in justice to tliat peoph', to examine the whole case? Can any Senator turn aw^y and refuse to look at the testimony that is offered ? Can he be justified in so doing by naked legal pre- sumptions against positive truth? Do not suppose that I would discard all formali- ties, or the fair presumptions resulting from tliem. In many cases, and to many of the transaciious of society, especially to your courts of justice, they are necessary, and they subserve the pur- poses of justice. They were not made to sacri- fice justice, but to uphold it and maintain it aud protect it as an armor. That is the proper business of forms — not to crush d^own justice, but to piomote it. We are not now sitting here governed by any technicalities. This is a grand national political tiibunal, to judge according to our sense of policy and our sense of justice. That is our high province — not to be controlled by pre- feumptions of law when we can have the naked truth. It, is the truth that ought to guide; and for that we ought to look wherever we can find it ; and where you find the truth on one side, and the fiction on the other, which is to be followed, the truth or the fiction? I take the fact; I take the truth ; let the fiction return to those tribunals which are by law made subject to it. This is a question above that sort of argument. It is in- quirable into. Else how can we judge that it is their constitution? It is the fiist time, I believe, that such a question has ever come up in the Sen- ate of the United States. In all former applica- tions for admission, there has been oiu' thing about which there has been no question ; and that was, the willingness to be admitted, and the constitu- tion under which they desired to be admitted. There has been no question about the authenticity of a constitution, or about its expressing the true will of the people heretofore, that I know of. I am satisfied there has been none ; but now that there is, we must inquire into the authenticity of the nstruinent offered to us; we must inipare whether it is better, on full consideration, to admit this 10 instrument and the State with it or not; and, in the exercise of that judgment, we are bound to looli abroad for the truth wherever we can find it. I think, therefore, these matters are all fairly sub- ject to our consideration. Mr. President, convinced as I am from these imhprfect views of the evidence in the case, that this instrument is not really the constitution of the people of Kansas, or desired by them to be accepted by you in their admission into the Union ; believ- ing that it is not their constitution ; and believing moreover, as I verily do, that it is made in fraud and for a fiaud; believing that these matters are inquirable into by us, and that the inquiry has led us to abundant light on this subject, I cannot, I will not vote for it. Viewing it (is I do, with the opinions I entertain, I could not consent to her ad- mission without violating my sense of right and jus- tice; and I would submit to any consequence before I would do that. Now, sir, what considerations are there, apart from- these which I have stated, which could lead me to give, or could compensate me for giving, a vote against my sense of what was right and just? What advantage to our whole country, or to any portion of it, is to result from taking Kansas into the Union now with this constitution? Is anything to be gained? Is the South or the North to gain anything by it? I see nothing to be gained by it. I think there is not a gentleman here who believes that Kansas will be a slave State. Before this ter- ritorial government was made, many of the leading men of the South here argued that Kansas and Nebraska never could be slave States. By the law of climate and geography, it was said, they could not. So said my friend from Georgia, [ Mr. Toombs,] and so said Mr. Stephens. Mr. TOOMBS. Never. Mr. HALE. Mr. Badger said so. Mr. CRITTENDEN. Mr. Keitt and Mr. Brooks, of South Carolina, said so. The opinion was expressed by numerous southern gentlemen that Kansas could never be a slave State. It was for the principle that they contended; and the priu - ciple, the abstract principle, was a just one; namely, the right of the people of the Territories) when forming a State government, for admission into the Union, to frame for themselves such a le- publican constitution as they pleased, either ex- cluding or admitting slavery. Mr. HAMMOND. With the permission of the Senator, I will ask him, "Did I understand him to say that Mr. Keitt had declared Kansas never would be a slave State ?" Mr. CRITTENDEN. Yea, sir; so it is report- ed. Mr. Hunter, of Virginia, said : " Does any man believe that you will have a slave- holding State in Kansas or Nebraska ?" Governor Bkown, of Mississippi, said: " That slavery would never find a resting place in those Territories." Mr. Douglas said: " I do not believe there is a man in Congress who thinks it could be permanently a slaveholaiug coun- try." Mr. Badger, of North Carolina, said : " I have no more idea of seeing a slave population in either of them, than I have of seeing it in Massa- chusetts." Mr. MiLLSON, of Virginia, said : " No one expects it. No one dreams that slavery will be established there." Mr. Frederick P. Stanton, of Tennessee, said: " The fears of northern gentlemen are wholly un- founded. Slavery will not be established in Kansas and JSebraska." The late Mr. Brooks, of South Carolina said, in his speech of the 15th of March, 1854: " If the natural laws of climate and of soil exclude us from a territorj' of which we are the joint owners, we shall not and we will not complain. Mr. Butler, of South Carolina said, on the 2d of March, 1854: " If two States should ever come into the Union from them, [the Territories,] it is very certain that not more than one of them could, in any possible event, be a slave-holding State ; and I have not the least idea that even one would be." Mr. Keitt, of South Carolina, in his speech of the 30th March, 1854, quoted Mr. Pinckney, of his own State, that — " Practically, he thpught slavery would not go I above the line of thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes by the laws of phj'sical geography, and "therefore, that the South lost no territory tit for slavery." This is all the authority I have. Mr. GREEX. I wish to inquire what book the Senator reads from. What is the title of it ? Mr. CRITTENDEN. It seems to be a book written with the most downright Democratic pro- pensities and purposes. [Laughter.] It is " Aa Appeal to 'the Democracy of the South, by a south- ern State-Rights Democrat." [Laughter.] Mr. MASON. I suppose the pamphlet is anony- mous. No name is given. Mr. CRITTENDEN. Yes, sir. Mr. MASON. The name of the writer of the pamphlet is not given. VI r. CRITTENDEN. Will the gentleman take it? It contains a great deal of good Democratic reading. [Laughter.] The writer of it thought he was doing great service to the Democratic party. Mr. HAMMOND. I wish to say that Mr. Keitt quoted that passage from Mr. Pinokney's speech on the Missouri question, which had been quoted on the opposite side of the case previously. His object in quoting it was to show that Mr. Pinckney did not support the Missouri compromise upon principle, but he did not indorse the sentiments expressed by Mr. Pickney in that extract. Mr. CRITTENDEN. I accept the explanation. Certainly I had no intention to misrepresent any gentleman by reading the statements expressed in this pamphlet. I say it was not anticipated from the first that Kansas would be a slave-holding State. What is the South to gain now by having it admit- ted? It may gain a triumph in the admission of this constitution — admitted against the will of the majo- rity of the people. It is a triumph, but is it not a baren one? Is it a triumph worthy of the South? It will produce nothing but increased bitterness and exasperation, perhaps, on the part of those against whose will it is forced, not only in the Territory, but elsewhere. It may give new exasper- ation to the slavery question ; new agitation, which God forbid. It would be a victory without results, 11 without profit, barren, sterile: — as to all the ordi- nary and beneficial fruits, there is none. I do not know how anything is to be gained to the South, supposing, lis I verily believe, and as every gen- tleman here believes, that it cannot be a slave State; tl at there is a majority there oppo^^ed to it, and who will put it down. Pass this, and we may have a lew years longer of exasperated struggle and exasperated agitation in the country. Tliat is all the consequence of the barren victory which would be obtained by admitting Kansas with this constitution. That is not a fruit, I think, wiiich any one would wish to gather. Now, if youattenipt Joinforce it, we are told by Mr. Walker — 1 know nothing about it, but from all that he and Mr. Stanton tell us, and they are Democratic witnesses — there is danger of resistance and danger of rebel- lion. Where is the necessity, then, for our doing it now ? Can we not resort to some other me.ms by which we may avoid all these consequences of exasperation, of danger, of resistance, of tumult, or of agitation, upon this subject ; and end this contest in a short time by authorizing the people of Kansas, under the high mandate of this (tov- ernment, to form for themselves a constitution, if ttiey want to come into thi.s Union — a constitu- tion fairly to be made, and fairly to express the will of the people It defers the subject but a little while. Is it not better to do that; is it not better to suffer the evils we have, than to fly to others we know not of? I think every prudential consideration is in favor of our forbearing to en- force this constitution on the people of Kansas, and of our affording them an oppoitunity of making their views fully and perfectly understood. This will be in accordance with the generous principles and policy that the South has pursued heretofore. The Kansas-Nebraska bill was recommended to the South, chiefly, by the repeal of the Mis- souri compromise, and the recognition of the right of the people of a Territory, when framing a constitution of State government for them- selves, to be " perfectly free" to frame it as they pleased — admitting or excluding slavery, and reg- ulating their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the constitution of the United States. Every citizen has an equal interest and right in Territories belonging to the people of the United States; and the result of this equal right sec ns to me, to be, that, where there is no positive law to the contrary, any citizen ii ay lawfully carry his slaves into those Territories, and may lawfully hold them. They were his slaves in the State from which he emigrated, and must remain his, till di- Testcd of his right, by law — ^just as an apprentice, under the same circumstances, remains bound to his master. My opinion is, that the repeal of the Missouri compromise was u blunder; but I concur in (he principle that the people of our Territories, wh( n they come to form a constitution for themselves, have a right to form it as they please. I am now acting upon that great principle of jjopular rights. I feel myself bound to give tlie benefit of it to the people of Kansas. Let the majority make such a constitution as they please. That is the great Ame- rican principle, that rises above all others. Let them govern themselvef", and as the majority de- cide, so let the constitution and so let the laws be. I think we are infracting that great priiu-iple — the principle of the South itself, on this very identical subject, by forcing this constitution, at least of doubtful authenticity, upon the people. If there is a majority in favor of it, it is not much trouble for them to ratify it. If there is a majority opposed to it, they are entitled to have their will and their wav. They are entitled to that upon principle; thJy are entitled to it by the express pledges of the Kansas-Nebraska law. Sir, I feel that I have already occupied a great deal of your time — more than I was entitled or expected to do; and yet there are some general topics upon which I wish to say something, though not so immediately connected with the direct question before us. Mr. President, I am, according to the denomi- nations now usually employed Vjy parties in this countrv, a southern man. I have lived all my life in a southern State. I have been accustomed from my childhood to that frame of society of which slaverv forms a part. I am, so far as regards the necessary defense of the rights of the South, as prompt and as ready to defend them as any man the wide South contains; but in the same resolute and determined spirit in which I would defend any invasion of its rights, and for which I would put my foot as far as he who went furthest, I will concede to others their rights, and I will maintain and assert them. He who know.s how to value his own rights will respect the rights of others. When the Missouri compromise was abolished, great fears were excited in the North, and some vague hopes entertained in the South, that slavery might be established in Kansas, and extended in that direction. I did not believe it. I beHeved that the Missouri compromise line fixed in 18'20, was about that territorial line, north of which slavery, if it could exist, would not be profitably employed ; and our experience since has shown that the wise men who made that compromise judged rightly. I believed that the idea of making Kansas a sLave State was a delusion to the South ; that her hopes would never be realized, if she entertained such a hope as that. I thought, therefore, it would have been better, without examining scrupulously into its constitutionality, to let the Missouri compro- mise stand. I regretted its repeal. I did not be- lieve the South would gain anything by it, or that the North would gain by it. That compromise was a bond and assurance of peace. I would not have disturbed it. It was hallowed in my estimition by the memory of the men who had made it. It was hallowed by the beneficial consequences that resulted from it. It was hailed, at the time it was made, by the South. It produced good, and nothing but good, from that time. Often have you, sir, [addressing Mr. TooMHS,] and I, and all of the old Whig par- ty, triumphed in that act as one of the great achievements of our leader, Henry Clay. It was from that, among other things, that he derived the proudest of all his titles — that of the pacificator and peacemaker of his coui-try. We ascribed to him a great instrumentality in the passage of that law, and over and over again have I claimed credit and honor for him for this act. This, for thirty 12 years, had been my steadfast opinion. I have been growing, perhaps, during that time, a little older, and am a little less susceptible of new im- pressions and novel opi.iions. I cannot lay aside the idea that the law which made that line of di- vision was a constitutional one. I believed so then. The people since have generally believed it. I must be permitted to retain that opinion still; to go on, at any rate, to my end with the hope that I have not been praising, and have not been claiming credit for others lor violating the Constitution of their country. Sir, the men who passed that measure were great men; they were far-seeing men. Without argument now, I am content to rest my faiUi upon the authority of those great men — Clay, Pinckney, Lowndes, President Monroe, 'he last of the patri- archs of the Revolution, with his learned and able Cabinet — and then, what is more than all, thirty-five years of acquiescence in it, and peace under it, in these States. Whatever quarrels you may have had about it in Congress, there was al- ways enough to uphold and sustain that law ; and never, until 1854, was it repealed, or its constitu- tionahty questioned, that I know of. I regretted its repeal, because I feared that it would lead to new agitations and new dangers. Has it not? What has been our experience? The authors of the measure which repealed that compromise — lionorable and patriotic I know them to be, many of them my personal friends — prom- ised themselves from it greater peace and greater repose by localizing the slavery question, as it was eaid. This act was to localize the question of slavery, and all agitation was to be at an end. It was to give peace to the country. The Presi- dent in his message at the coniinencement of this session, or in his special message — I do not know which — imagines the country to have been in great agitation on the subject of slavery, when the Kansas-Nebraska act came and put a stop to it until, some time afterwards, it was revived. Why, sir, exactly the contrary seems to me to be the true history of the transaction. We were becoming tranquilized under the compromises of 1850 in addition to the Missouri compromise; all was subsiding into submission and acqui- escence, when, to obtain a greater degree of peace and secure us for the future against all agitation, this bill of 1854 repealing the Missouri compromise was passed. What has it produced ? Has it localized the question of slavery ? Has it given us peace ? All can answer that question. It has given us rnything but a cessation of agita- tion. It has given us trouble, nothing but trouble. That has been the consequence of it so far. I am as anxious now us any man here to close up this scene. I would vote for the admission of Kansas upon almost any terms that would give peace and (luiet. If I thought this bill would do 60, 1 should vote for it. I would suppress all scru- ples for the sake of that peace. If I was sure such would be its result, I would vote for it, tiiink- ing myself justified by the price that was to be paid — the peace of my country and the restora- tion of good will among my fellow-citizens. I do not hope for it. I fear further trouble. We are again told that this will have the effect of localizing the question of slavery, and that we shall be uo more tmnbled with it; that the mis- chief and clamor, and agitation will all be confined to the limits of Kansas. This is the same hope that was disappointed when the Kansas-Nebraska bill was passed. The same hope was indulged ia then, and since then there has been nothing here but agitation on the subject increasing with every day. Again, we have the idea of localizing it pre- sented. Now, sir, if it is to be debated anywhere, it will be debated here ; and, perhaps, if it is to be debated anywhere, it is best that it should be debated here; because we might hope, Mr. Presi^ dent, that in this body it would be debated with i spirit of moderation and conciliation that would deprive it of many mischievous consequences if it were agitated and debated among men without our years, without our responsibilities, and without the restraints which our condition and our know- ledge impose upon us. Even here we do not de- bate it in the right way. We allow ourselves to become too much excited about it. To this great country, what is Kansas and this Kansas question, and the two or three hundred slaves who are there, that you and I and all the American Senate should be here day and night, and using such language of vituperation and invective on this subject as we often do ? Look at our great country, and the great subjects which claim our attention as her legislators ; look at them all in their majesty and their magnitude, and then say, how little, pitiful, in comparison, is the question about which we are making so much strife and contention. On this subject, and on many others, it seems to me that it becomes us, of all the citizens of this great Republic, to set to our fellow-citizens ex- amples of moderation and conciliation. What good does the mutual charge of aggression, often fiercely repeated? What good do these invec- tives? Especially let me say to my friends of the North, why indulge in invectives of the most reproachful character, upon those who, in four- teen or fifteen States of tiiis great country, are slaveholders? Does that give you any cause to traduce them? Can you not live content with the institutions which please you better, and leave these fellow-citizens, who have just the same right to adopt slavery that you have your institutions, to enjoy their liberty in peace also? Is there any- thinsr in the difference of our institutions which ought to make us inimical to one another? How was it with our fathers ? Did not they live to- gether in peace and harmony? Did not they fight together? Did not they legislate together? Did they ever abuse and reproach each other about the question of slavery? Never, that I have read of. Why is it that we wannot do as they did? Havi we degenerated from those fathers, or have we grown so much Detter and purer than they were? I doubt whether we are any better; and I do no! believe, notwithstanding all that is said aboul progress, that we are at all more sensible tha; those fathers who made the Constitution of the United States, and laid the foundation of this great Government. Tliey gave us an example o: brotherhood; and when we look at all that con^ nects us, all that unites and makes us one people, how much more powerful would its influence seem to be to connect us together, than the question ol 13 slavery and anti-slavery to divide us? We are united by circumstances of which we cannot (iivofst ourstlves. We are united in language, ia blood, in countiy, in all the nieaioties ot t))e past, in ail the iiopos of the futuri". This i- our connection, leading and pointing to the briglitest des-tiny lliat ever awaited any people. Ail the unnumbered biep.eiiig:^ of tlic future are in full prospect; but there i^' this little, this comparatively small matter of contention, that we seem disposed to juirse up into continuid occasion for philippics and for rc- proaclies. This is not the riglit temper witli which to regard the subject. Ciiminatiou and recrimi- nation is not the way to strengthen our Union — that Union of brotherhood, of good will, of co- operation for all great nutiooal purposes, which our fathers formed. I was gialified to hear comparisons made of the mighty resoTirces of the different sections of this country. It was a prouJ exiiibition. The honor- able Senator from South ( aiolina [Mr. Hammo.ni>] gave us, in a very interesting and t.'loquentniiinner, the mighty resources of the South. They are be- yond estimate — beyond calculation. This is re- plied 10 by a gentleman from, the North, whogive.« us tlie mighty resources and the mightv power of New England and tlie nou-sIavehoUling States. Well, sir, if the csid< ration both these facts. Furthermore, I adverted to the evidence going to show that from the six thousand in favor ot the constitution there were many spu- rious and fraudulent votes to be deducted. Mr. President, I acknowledge that Ibrms (.T^ not only useful, but, in many cuse.-', necessary. I agree that if at an election twothird.H of the people stay away from mere apathy or negligence, the votes of those who do act, and do vote, must be eflectual, and must control. I agree, also, that the return is a necessary form, and that the revision of that return is subject only to the i)articular authority appointed lor it, and when that is done, there is an end of the case — because there is no further tri- bunal to which an appeal can be taken ; but I sup- posed and argued that when this constitution waa presented belbre us, the supreme power, called upon now to recognize the validity of these acts — called upon to recognize what was the will of the people, in re-pect to them, we have a right to look to all the evidence, as well to that which is fur- nished ia form as to that which impeauhes it for fraud. I have spoken on these conclusions, and I shall act on them in voting Ilgaill^t the acceptance of this Lecomj)toa constitution. My friend, [Mr. Xoo.Mits] I have no doubt, in perfect sincerity, regrets that my conclusions have forced me to this course ; but 1 have followed my convictions, and I mean to do my duty a.s I understand it. I coufe.'^s it is painful to me to diU'er witli such a friend on any occasion so important as the |)resent. Mr. President, I am not wanting, I think, iu those feelings of our nature which connect us witk our neighbors. Although we have a common coun- 16 try to look to, and ought to have a common patriot- ism which would embiace the whole, our natural af- fections and our natural feelings bind us more close- ly to those with whom we are more immediately as- sociated, to whom we are moie nearly assimilated in manners —customs, and institutions — aye, peculiar instituti ns. I am not wanting in those sympathies ; but what is my duty as one belonging to a particu- lar section, by his nativity, and by his residence — what is my duty when a great question of this sort comes up? What ia my duty to those neighbors, to whom by natural sympathies and affections I atn most bound ? Is it not my duty in this house of our common councils to give the best counsel and ad- vice I can, or am I to inquire whether this is to be regarded as a sectional question, and follow what- ever course is indicated by a majority of its sec- tional members? Is it not rather my duty to my friends to give them the best counsel I can ? I want to see the South always right. How am I to ac- complish that? By advising always what my best judgment thinks is right, and endeavoring to pre- vail upon her to take that course. Is not that my duty? Is not that my duty to my common coun- try, and more especially is it not my duty to th )se with whom circumstances more nearly connect me? I have done that. I should have been gratified if the South had taken the same view of this subject that I have. I am sure she would have lost noth- ing by it. Tie question of slavery is not in the case. I think there is not one gentleman here who entertains the hope that Kansas can ever be really a slave State. If it be made so, it will continue only for a moment, a little feverish moment, filled up with strife and angiy controversy. No gentle- man here believes it will really and permanently be a slave State. There is nothing then to be gained by the South, as I regai d the subject. The element of slavery is only thrown in for the purpose of arousing feelling on the one side or tho other. It is no real element in the question before us, be- cause no man has any hope that Kansas will be a slave Stale. We learn that from every souice. The hope of it was disclaimed before the Kansas- Nebraska bill was passed ; that view is now turned into conviction by all that has occurred since, and there is ncbody who deceives himself so much, or would deceive the South so much as to tell her that Kansas will be made a slave State by the adoption of this constitution, except it may be for that miserable and feverish period to which. I have alluded, and which would be filled up in a struggle that could serve only to exasperate parties and make the contest there more fierce than it has been. If the South could have taken the view of the case which I have taken, it seems to me it would have been better for her. Then she would say, " the South scorns to take advantage of the little circumstances that might enable her to press her claims upon a reluctant and unwilling people — press the claim to impose slavery against their will ; we snatch at no such accidental advantages, we see that the question is determined partly by climate, and more certainly and decisively by the majority of the people ; the determination has been against slavery; we stand up in our justice and in our honor always untarnished, and constitut- ing our great strength as Commonwealths and States ; and we say we will !nakc no strife about it. " If this element of slavery could be discharged out of the case, put out of our minds, put out of our debates, and we could look at this question as it is presented to us, I think there is no one here who would be willing to give his sanction to an instrument which is so stained with fraud, and so manifestly in violation of the rights of the people of Kansas. Why need we of the South be impatient and anxious to hasten the admission of Kansas into the Union ? Whatever constitution you put upon them now will not last ; but you will have two Sen- ators immediately from there. Should the South be in a hurry to have two more such Senators here as you would now get from there ? But these are small matters. If the South could view this sub- ject as I do, if they could have looked at this con- stitution and the circumstances from which it had its origin, and those which attend it, as I do, they would have acted the very part which I have in- dicated ; they would take no ignoble advantage ; they would occupy no ignoble position of standing upon little points and nice estoppels. No, sir, the South would say — it is in her character, in her spirit to say so — we go upon great principles, and we go for the truth. Occupying that position, she would have stood proudly erect, with justice and honor seated upon her brow. That is her natural and accustomed attitude, and in that attitude I love to contemplate her. Sir, gentlemen of the South from whom it is my misfortune to differ on this occasion, will do me great injustice to suppose that it was my purpose, in anything I have said, to question or impugn the purity of their motives. Tney but folh'w their honest convictions, as I follow mine. I have en- deavored to perform my duty as a Senator belong- ing to the same section ; my opinion and advice have been given frankly and independently; but, I hope without any presumption. I devoutly hope that whatever measure be adopted, though contrary to my opinion, may turn out to be that which is most beneficial to our country. I choose to be in the wrong, rather than that my country should suffer fioni my error. I am neither of the Democratic nor of the Repub- lican party. I wear no party shackles. I am here as the Senator of " Old Kentucky" — brave and noble old commonwealth. My ambition is to act in her spirit and by her inspiration. Idid"not come here to act in the character of a partisan. Long service and experience in public affairs have diverted me of much of the misconception, the prejudice and passion that belong to the parti an ; and upon lately taking my seat here, probably in the last term of ray public service, it was my intention and my hope to act rather the part of a patriot than that of a party man. I am a true son of the South; may prosperity fill all her borders, and sunshine forever rest upon her head. But for all this, I do not love the Union the less. I am a true citizen of the United States; I claim the whole of it as my great coun- try; and for the preservation of that Union which makes it so, I will always be ready to say and to do whatever in me lies. It is in this spirit, sir, that I have endeavored humbly to do my duty — my duty to the South, and my duty to the M-hole country.