ADMISSION OF KANSAS. -
F
SPEECII
OF
HON1, MARCUS J. PARROTT,
OF KANSAS.
0
Delivered in the House of Representatives, April 10,1860.
0o
WASHINGTON, D.C.
BUELL & BLANCHARD, PRINTERS.
1860.
I
I
-11'i,Ha
zH,  E - 
1    41           v    ipo
I,
,,;,.   I" 
I
II 
~ Q
Speech of Mr. Parrots
it was intended to keep the State of Kansas
out of the Union.  For, sir, we all know that
the people of the Territory had rejected the
Lecompton Constitution.  They sent a  Delegate to this House to protest against its acceptance, which protest   I e ntered early and
often during that controversy. It was known
they had rejected it., when, on a specific issue
made, they polled a vote of five thousand majority against it, in January of 1858; and it
was, moreover, known' that that Lecompton
Constitution, which was pretended to be ratified in December of 1857, was the culminating
point of a long series of frauds and aggressions
on the rights of the people of the Territory.
Sir, I was amazed, the other day, to hear the
distinguished member from Alabama, [Mr.
CURRY,] who has a reputation for ingenuousness, paying posthumous honors to the  Le
Compton,, Constitution. I ask that gentleman
to look'at the votes polled in Certain precincts
in the December election of 1857, in the pretended'submission of the Lecompton Constitution. Let- him look at Oxford, and Kickapoo,
and Delaware Crossing, and compare the vote
then reported with the returns from those  pre.
cincts at every general election since, up to
this time, and iaote'the disparity. The mustered clans and hosts of December, 1857, at Oxford and Kickapoo, whither have they gone?
Ask the political conjurers who summoned
these mythical myriads to appear upon the
stage for the accomplishment of sinister designs.
At no election since that pretended affair,
have all these precincts combined polled more
than -three or four hundred votes; and yet, sir,
The House having under consideration the
bill (H. R. No. 23) for the admission of Kansas 
into the Union                                    t 
Mr. PARROTT said:
Mr. SPEAKER: I do not propose, under all
the circumstances, to inflict on the House an
elaborate speech in regard to the merely political questions connected with Kansas Territory; y
but I should do injustice, both to myself and
to my constituents, if I did not come forward
and meet the objections brought by the gentleman who has made the minority report. I shall
do so in a spirit of frankness and candor, submitting myself fairly, and cheerfully even, to
interrogatories from all sides of the House.  I
will say more: if any reasonable man shall believe that I have not fairly met every objection
that has been made, I will give up this controversy, go out of the House, and ask my constituents to send somebody here who does understand their case.  The cause itself is unanswerable.  I shall meet, then, every objection,
and meet it fairly and squarely.
When the Lecompton Constitution was adjudged to be a fraud, two years ago, in this
House, and when, with a singular stultification,
as it seems to me, men could be found in this
House ready to pronounce it a fraud, and at
the same time to tender it to the people of
Kansas as their organic law;  when, I say, that
Constitution was stricken down, there sprung
out of it that mean and false contrivance known
as the English bill.
The title of that bill was a false title; its
provisions were deceitful and double.  It is
entitled "An act to admit the State of Kansas
into the Union," when everybody knows that
I
I
I I
6, -- -, 3 3 
4
if you subtract the thousands which  were
polled there in December,  1857, you would
have the Lecompton Constitution left naked stripped of the factitious vote through which it
was sought to be juggled off upon the credulity
of Congress and the country.
Sir, I do not know that I should myself be
politically displeased to find that those who
differ with me honestly and conscientiously,
regarding the policy of our country in respect 
to slavery, are so far pressed to the wall as to
stand and plant themselves upon the ground of
the Lecompton Constitution.  It is, sir, a con fession of weakness;.and I am not at all ap prehensive that the judgment of history will
be disturbed or misled in regard to the merits
of that measure.  That judgment has been al ready pronounced in every section of the coun try  for, has not a distinguished Senator [Mr.
HAMMOND] of South Carolina'said, in a,nguae
it not very elegant, at leaas  di o'"tic, that it
ought to have been "kicked out of Congress"
the moment it was presented there?
But, sir, this English bill was a proposition
odious and offensive to the people of the Terri.       
tory.  It was hardly less revolting, I hope, to 
the country at large, on account of its intense
discrimination against the institutions of the
free States.  It prescribes one- rule for the admission. of a slave, State. and another, with
superadded and onerous conditiona,,for a free
State.  It is thus partial, invidious, and unfair.
What have the people'of Kansas said; in reply?
In effect," We desire admission into. the Union,
'but not such admission; we desire, if w~e
'come into the Uaion, to come with our honor
'untarnished and unsullied-on an equal foot'ing with the original States~not only as. a
' confederate, but as a coequWtal in the.'faiily of
' States."
I shall say nowhere, in.thee course of. my re:marks, that the people of Kansas have suec-,
cumbed to the provisions of the English bill.
I should despise myself and dishonor them if
I believed: they ever had it in contemplation to
give way to its provisions,  What next, sir?
They have seen fit, to form alother Constitution,
and- the. President  of the United States has
come forward, and, in-lauguage inearlvyidentical
with that. of the minority report, addressed to
the Thirt'y.fifth Congress, has anticipated the
formation of the Constitution, and., declared it
o b'e a,, revolutionary act. 
Mr. BAR)KSDALF  I.understood the gentleman to, say juw   now       that.    the people  of KanW have not succuabed to:e,!n,glish bill.
Mr. P4ARROTT. Yea sir.
Me:. BARKSDALE... I desire to ask him if
they, did. not vote udder itsqprovisions?  
Mr. PAR-ROTT. I will a.:wer..that they did
vote,> but. they. were not parties to that law..
They repudiated its restrictive clause as inoperative,- for reasons-which I shall presently
Btate.  I ask you-I put it X  the gentleman
from  Mississippi-whather. it. could be fairT
said that, having rejected  the Lecompton Con stitution, they wereb bound by all the pro vi s ions
of that bill?
Mr.. BARKSDALE. Wh y,  sir, I hold tha      t
they were b     ound by  the provisions of that bill.
Tha t  is the  po  int                   which I have made. Whether
they voted or not, it was their duty to do it;
and I hold it  was th eir  dut y to  obey all the
provisions  of that    bill.  Hen ce  I am o pposed
to  the  admission  of Kansas  upon that  very
ground: that she  would be  admitted   in palpa ble violation o f t he  law  passed by Congress.
Mr.  PARROTT. I must     pa ss on, Mr. Speak er.  The people of Kansas have presented an ot her Constitution here,  and I wish, before  I
advance to     the consideration of specific objec tions
Mr.  COX. Before the gen tleman   l eaves that
point, I beg that  he will allow me  to ask'him
Ma question. 
Tc..'PARROTT. I, yield i to the gentleman
for  tha t p ur pose.         o,
Mr. COX. He says that the people of Kan sas never, in any way, recognised that bill of
the.. conference -committee. Is that his state ment?
Mr. PARROTT. I said they had never suc cumbed to the restrictive provisions of that bill.
:Mr.  COX. Oh, no;  you did not use the
words " restrictive provisions.."
Mr. PARROTT. Well, I say that now, And
I said that before..       ad
Mr. COX. Well, I ask  my friend, iwajiusti-ce
to the men  who voted for that. bill, to answers
this question
Mr. PARROTT.  I do not want to be drawn
from the line of my  argument.
Mr.. COX. Ah, but the gentleman must state
the truth as it occurred there, and,: it is  this:
that, in pursuance, of the provisions of that bill,
clearly fbllowed in every particular by the
commisaionsers, there- was: an eiection in xan sas; and by -that election, the  sense of the
people:was taken, and,  Lecoepton, as the
chairman of the ComRInittee on, Territories saidthis mprning, was  throttled and killed by it;
and.it was, inte.n,ded, by many of the aen who
voted for that bill, to gise that very o~pportnity
to the people to break, down that. Constitutionwhich they spurned
Mr. PARROTT.  The gentleman is vindicating his own action, and not asking me, a: question. I  cannot yield for s ch a:.purpose.
Mr. COX. The gentleman knows, that.Gov,
ernor Denver himself, by.official proclamation,
following up the provisions, of that conference
bill, proclaimed the number of votes cast, and
at the end of his proclamation, in pursuance of
that very. conference kill, declared that. the
Leeompton Constitution was not. the. choice of
the people of Kansas..-:
:]r.'PARR-OTT..,I eannotiyieid'Ally~ longer
to the,gentlemani. "'l-S. does mnat inter~rogat
me..  Mr, M1ONTGO5IER~. Xd rl,the: ~eatlema~.
i 
5
from Kansas allow me to answer the gentleman from Ohio?
Mr. PARROTT. No; I must decline to yield
further.  I shall come to that point presently.
Mr. MONTGOMERY. I- will do it in one
minute.
Mr. PARROTT. I an coming to that directly.  I was about to say, when I was interrupted, that this case is to be discriminated from
preceding applications made by this Territory
for admission into the Union.   Kansas has
once been admitted by the House of Representatives as a State; upon another occasion, it has
been admitted by the Senate; and upon a third
occasion, when both houses conjoined to invite
her into the Union, the proposals were declined.
But, sir, these were contests of factions; they
rested upon peculiar and political grounds, and
not upon arguments of the intrinsic fitness of
the Territory to become a State, by reason of
the numbers, the homogenousness, the aggregate or distributive wealth.of its people, or any
argument of economy. It is due to candor that
thus much should be stated..
, These preceding applications were urged on
the ground of political necessity, arising out of
the'confusion and disorder prevalent in the
Territory.  For example: the Topeka Constitution was passed by those friendly to the establishment of free institutions, because  the
Territorial Government had been wrested from
the hands of the settlers, and there was no legal
relief, except in the adoption of that Constitution. The Lecompton Constitution was passed
for exactly opposite reasons, because the usurpers and invaders would be driven out of the
Territory, and all their years of struggle, and
the unripe fruits of invasion, would be thrown
away, unless that Constitution could be ratified
by Congress. But this is a different case; it
stands upon the intrinsic fitness of the country
to become a State. The Territorial Legislature
initiated the measure by- passing a law for the
regulation of the subject.  Admonished by the
haste and imperfection of previous attempts in
this behalf, they now pr epared to  moveforward
by slow and gradual steps, consulting the people at every stage, so that if, at any time, from
first to last, the popular voice fiiled'to buoy up
the movement, it must drop and be lostrthe
whole scheme failed. In the first place, the
specific question was submitted, whether the
change was desirable; and it was passed upon
as a separate and distinct question, unmixed
with-anything else, at an election appointed for
that purpose only. It occasioned but little surprise to me that this question failed to elicit a
vote proportioned to its great importance, and
a much less universal expression than could be
desired i-n a business of this magnitude. 
-In the first place, abstract ques~tions of this:
kind rarely engage, ardently and deeply, the
popular attention; but in the present case, I
attribute the light vote chiefly to the~ fact that
the public mind, long kept onl a tension strain
ing after the public safety, naturally underwent
a reaction, and inclined to repose when the
sense of immediate danger no longer threaten ed.  The summing  up of- the vote -showed a
majority of five to one in favor of the State
movement. In the next place, the Convention
having been called, came an election for dole gates to represent the people therein. This
question excited a   univers al  interest   and a
warm conte st  in every  district of  the Terr itory.
The  delegate s  were  cho sen; the  Convent ion
met; a Constitution was framed.  It was submitted for ratification  some two months after
its  adoption    by t he Co nv ention and its publication and circulation among the people.   Th  e
election was ag ain a  special one, for this  purpose,  and  for this  a lone. The Constitution wa s
ratified  by two-thirds of the  votes cast; and I
think I may reasonably assume,  that  but f o r
false arguments  employed  to m    islead the public
mind   in respect to some material  clauses of the
instrument  - particularly the  article  on  suffrage-the  vote against it would  have bee   n
wholly insignificant. tIn point  o f fact, therefore,  the Consti tution   ma y    be-take n as  acceptable to ne arly t he entire body of  the people of
the Territory.   Nor does this approval stand
alone. The sober second tc,ought of the people
is not waning; for it was put in issue again in
the election of a Delegate, among whose prominent duties  would be that  which I am now atp
temptingto perform,  to  wit:i srin  o   the preing  of th
Constitution upon Congress; and in this the
former  emphatic  expression  was  renewed.
Finally, a third time, this judgment was read,
firmed in electing: State officers and a State
Legislature from the ranks of the party friendly
to the Constitution.   Thus it appears now, be"
yond doubt or cavils that the public interest and
approval, not strong in the first part, rose at
last to a height of zeal corresponding to the
magnitude  of the movement, and bore up by
heavy and repeated verdicts, through many
trials, the friends of a State Gov     ernment under
this Constitution.
This much is clear, and can form no part of
any controversy arising out of the consideration
of this subject: that the people of the Territory
did, deliberately and dispassionately, demand
a Convention to frame a Constitution and State
Government; that they constituted a Convention of delegates, freely and fairly chosen from
among themselves, to make such Constitution;
and, finally, that they did thrice declare their
entire and unqualified approval and acceptance
of the instrument framed and submitted to them
by the Convention. No part of this ground is
debatable.
The first inquiry which presents itself is, were
the people in the exercise of a legitimate power
in doing what they hiave done? The practice
of the:Government has not been uniform in respect to the preliminary steps towards a Sta-te
Government, In somne instances, perhaps in
most, Congress has authorized the peopl%s by 
6
what is called an enabling act, to frame a Con stitution preparatory to application for admis sion into the Union; in other, and not a few
instances, the people have proceeded on their
own motion, as in this case.  I am not aware
that their right to do so has ever been seriously
called in question; at any rate, it is safe to say that the exercise of this power by the people
has never been deprecated or condemned by
Congress as illegal or revolutionary.
This right is now put in issue.  It is said by
the President of the United States, and said by
the distinguished gentleman from  Missouri,
[Mr. CLARK,] whose signature is appended to
this minority report, that the people of Kansas
had no right to make  a Constitution.  Mr.
Speaker, there are few political heresies known
to the world that this Administration has not
fallen into, and one of the worst and most injurious to our progressive society is the dogma
in which he announces that one Congress cannot repeal a law made by another Congress;
that our laws, like those of the Medes and Persians, are irreversible.  I now pass to consider
whether the people of a Territory can be restricted ofa constitutional privilege, and whether
this act is such a privilege.                            
Mr. CL ARK, of, Missouri.  Will the gentleman from Kansas allow me to say
-Mr. PARROTT.  I cannot yield now.  I am
at this moment speaking of the President. I will
come to you in a moment.   [Laughter.]  The
President says, in his message to the Thirtyfifth Congress, second session, he does not presume the people of Kansas will have the hardi.
hood to frame another Constitution without the
consent of Congress.  And now, sir, what is
the application of the people of Kansas upon
which we are now to act, but an application,
upon their part to Congress to repeal the restrictive clause of the English bill?  Is it lawless for the people of Kansas to petition Congress for a redress of their grievances?  That,'
sir, is no new question; but it presents the
very point in issue.  In the year 1836, in the
case of Arkansas, this whole question was presented, discussed, and decided-that the presentation of a Constitution, framed by a Constitutional Convention, was nothing but an exercise
of the great constitutional prerogative of the
people to petition Congress for a redress of their
grievances.  And this is the mode; this is the
particular degree of relief for which they have
prayed. 
Attorney General Butler, speaking of this
Arkansas case, said, in relation to the right of
the people of a Territory in this respect:
"They undoubtedly possess the ordinary priv'ileges and immunities of citizens of the United
'States.  Among these is the right of the peo'ple peaceably to assemble  and petition the
'Government fbr the redress of grievances. In
' the exercise -oh-this right, the inhabitants
?':0 * *  mayr meet together in primary
4 assemblies or in Convention * * * for
the purpose of petitioning Congress to abro-a
gat e  the   T  erritorial Government,and to  admit
the m int o th e Uni on as  an i ndepe ndent State.
'The particular form- which they may give to
' their petition  cannot be material,  so long as
they  confine thems e lves to   the  mere right of
petitioning, and  conduct all their proceedings
in a peaceable manner.  If, therefore, they see
'proper to accompany their petition by  a wr it'ten Con s t itution, frame d and agreed on  by
vthem, * * * I perceive no legal ob' jection to'their right to do so."
So:I say  now, to the   gentleman   from Missouri.
Whe n  he  a ssumes t hat    the people      of Kansas
are guilty of lawlessness, because they have
assembled in Convention, I tell him that his
English bill is inoperative and void, because it
is in contravention of the right guarantied by
the Constitution to the people, peaceably to as.
semble and petition Congress for a redress of
their grievances.
But, sirs: right here let me observe to that
gentleman, that there is another point to which
I wish to call his 4ttention. He has been very
free in bringing in a bill of indictment against
the people whom  I represent; and I must be
allowed to observe, with all due respect to him,
that it comes with peculiar infelicity from a citizen of Missouri in his place here to charge the
people of Kansas with lawlessness and disor,
der.   All now see clearly the true aspect of this
feature of the case, notwithstanding the most
industrious efforts have been made to conceal
it from the public-eye.  It is now known, as
well as anything ever can or will be known,
that it was the repeated raids of ruffians and
cut-throats of Missouri, With a view to overwhelm the infant settlements of the Territory,
that first set burning in Kansas Territory the
fire that afterwards spread all over the land'
and recently broke out with such fatal fierceness at Harper's Ferry, in Virginia.
Mr. CLARK, of Missouri.  I ask the gentleman to allow me to say that he is  in gigeat error, both in his remarks and in the spirit in
which he delivers them, against the people of
Missouri.
Mr. PARROTT. I was not speaking of the
people of Missouri.
Mr. CLARK, of Missouri.  The gentleman
was in error, as the history of the times will
show.
Mr. PARROTT.  The gentleman must not
take up my time by going into a prolonged discussion of that matter; we can do that, if necessary, another time.
Mr. CLAR K, of Missouri.   I just want to
say that the history of the times will show that
it was, if men went into Kansas from M~issouri
for unlawful purposes,'they were instigated to
go there by the persons who were selected and
sent out by the emigrant aid societies of New
England. [Laughter Son the Republican side.d
Mr. THAYEI~. The gentleman from Kansas yields to;me to reply to the remark of the 
gentleman from; Missouri [Mr. CLARK] in relation to the New  England Emigrant A.id Company.   On  several occasions I have sought
the floor, when charges have been made here
against that company, for the purpose of showing what it was, and how it acted.  I have, in
one speech made in this hall, defined its operations; I have shown it to be simply a business
organization, conducted on business principles,
for the purpose of making investments in the
Territory of Kansas.  They  never paid any
one's expenses to that Territory; they never expended one dollar in the purchase of arms for
any of the people who went to that Territory; 
they never made any contributions of moniey in
the shape of gifts at any time; they had in
view simply and always legitimate business purposes; and if they failed to conduct their operations upon legitimate business principles, they
were amenable to the courts of justice whenever they violated the rules that govern business corporations; but that has never been
charged; no suit has ever been brought against
them.
Mr. REAGAN.  Will the gentleman from
Massachusetts permit me to ask him whether
the project of this emigrant  aid project did
not originate amongst politicians in Washington city, for the accomplishment  of political
purposes? 
Mr. THAYER. No, sir. On the contrary,
I originated the plan myself.  J framed the
charter of that Emigrant Aid Company.   I
laid every timber in the plan of its organiza- 
tion, and am  alone responsible for it.  I was 
a member of the Massachusetts Legislature at
the time; and if the Kansas and Nebraska bill
had not passed, I would have applied the energies of the company to some other purpose; but
that bill having passed, I thought it opened a
very good field for operation.                         
Mr. REAGAN.  Will                the gentleman allow
m      e   t       o propound another question?
Mr. PARROTT.                                                    of must  object to my  time
being consumed by this interlocutory discussion.
Mr. REAGAN.  I only  wished to ask the
gentlema n whether   the pla     n had not pr evi ously 
been set on foot here, -in Washington, by Senators and Representatives in Congress, to accomplish a political purpose?.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. - The Chair
must arrest this irregular discussion, unless the
gentleman from Kansas yields.
Mr. PARROTT.  I can.t yield, unless the
House will extend my time.;
Mr. THAYER.  If the gentleman from Kansas is willing to give  ne the opport unity,  I
should be glad to answer the gentleman from
Texas; and I ask him to repeat his question.;
Mr. REAGAN. What I asked was, whether
the movement of which he speaks in Massachusetts, was not subsequent to the setting on1
foot of a scheme for an emigrant aid society
i n   this city, by politic ians, for political   purposes, during the winter of 1854.
Mr. THAYER. On the contrary, that weas
subsequent  to th e origin of this  Emigrant
Aid Comp any in Massachusetts   As  eanlw  y haFebruary,'1854, the plan of this  Company W a s
formed  and publis he d in Mhassachusettsh. Ui Te
Kansas and Nebraska bill was not passed until
soSMaye, in  that year, and  some  moement was
made  by politicians here  in Washington relat ive     t o         some ki nd of a sciety to settle Kansas,
I think in June or'July of'that year.  But this
Washingto n  sc    heme n    ever  was put in opera
tion., If there  was anything that took precedence of this emigrant  aid organization iit was
thee    blue  lodges of M   issouri, laughter,] which
were, I believe, formed prior to that time; and
which had resolved  that the  Yanke's a should
never go in to Kansa s, if bayonets an d re volvers
could keep them out. The Emigrant Aid: Society, however, never se nt  a ny men -there eHx.
cept pe ace able men, who went t o   Kai nsas for
peaceable and friendly purposes.  The  company never so much as inquired what were
their politics. Among its original corporators
were Whigs, Democrats, and Free-Soilere. 1 If
its labors and investments and encouragement
of emigration have resulted in making Kansas
a free State, as gentlemen claim, I have only
to say it was done according to law.
Mr. CLARK, of Missouri.   Will the gentle.
man permit me to sayt   Mr. PARROTT.   I cannot yield further. I
0 cannot stop now to discuss emigrant aid societies or blue lodges. I know all about those
companies. I received no aid in going to'.Kansas myself, and I believe a- vast majority of the
people who went to Kansas went, there without
the aid of the New England Emigrant  gAid-Society, though the efforts of that association
were doubtless well meant. I am discussing
the charge brought forward against my con stituency; and I wish. to say, now and her,
that it is false and slanderous to charge that
they: have ever resisted the laws of the United
States, or that they are disloyal or revoluion ary, either in any part of their history or:in
their present attitude.
Mr. CLARK, of Missouri. I ask the gentle man if history will prove that the  people of
Kansas have not resisted indictments? -
Mr. PARROTT.   I am going to tell you
about that in a few moments.
Mr. SMITH, of Virginia.  I object to the
interruptions.,
Mr. CLARK, of Missouri.  Anrd I- swish to
ask the gentleman, at the same time, whether
he intended-to apply the language,!" falser and
slanderous," to me:?     -::7:
Mr. PARROTU. Not at all. I disclaim any
disrespect to the gentleman from Missouri.- I
am: answering the gentlemnan's argument.:.I
am answering a printed argument addressed to
this House;i and, if the judgment of th-is ~ouse
be that I am trespassing upon its rules of order,,
7 
I will not pursue this line of remark further.
[Cries of" Go'on I" "Go on! "l                                      h
-r. Speaker, the gentleman  from Missouri
[MLr. CLARK] wants me to tell him whether the
people of Kansas have notresisted indictments.
Xi   forbid that I should ever deny that the
people of Kansas did resist the execution of
the Territorial laws.  That, sir, in my judg ment, constitutes one of the chiefest glories of
that people in their memorable struggle for
tihe preservation of their personal and political
Mr CLARK, of Missouri. I                   hope the gentle m   will permit me to rake a suggestion.. Did
the people of Kansas confine their resistance
entirely to Territorial laws? 
Fir. P:ARROTT,. They did, but I an now
on the point of the Territorial laws.   Mr.
Speaker, I recognise nothing as law, except
the will ofthe p,ple legally expressed i and
the laws resisted by my constituency-or eva ded, is the better term, though I do not shrink
from anythingin this respect; I say they were 
spurious and;null-the laws they evaded, sir,
were not the will of the people legally express ed.  No, sir, they were the enactments of a
M-aso uri mob, clothed with the thin semblance
of law.  They were made in fraud.  They were
themselves fraud.  They were intended to pro mote and encourage fraud. By means of these
pretended enactments) the most refined cruelty
was practiced, through the connivance of the
District Court-a creation of the usurpation-,,
under whose process grand juries were packed
and indictments fabricated against innocent
men.  The Government never had the hardihood to bring these cases before a traverse
jury. And, sir, they were -only executed by the
aidof Federal appointees, sent to that Territory 
from abroad.  The largest bounties of Federal
patronage stimulated these competing scoan-drels to outdo each other in works of infamous
ras&lity.  [Sensation and laughter.]                       They
never found, and they never could find, citizens
of Kansas Territory who would stand up in favsor ofthese pretended laws.
Sir, when you come to speak of devotion to
law I challenge any man to show me a constituency which has sacrificed more in behalf
of the institutions'and laws of the country than
that -which I am proud to represent and defend
upon this floor. They have submitted evenl to
the color'of Federal  authority, in Mye judg-,
ment, not always wisely; but they have done
so.  They-have had their peaceable political
conventions broken up by United States soldiery.  They have had their homes desolated
and laid waste, and their:lives imperilled,:by
comm-issioned mobs, sailing through the country for the: purpose of hunting ou t and hounded
ing downi every man who r~esiste~ their cruel
exactions, The-whole land hag:been -filled:
with:the~ fury esnd passions of Pandemonium
hy:ie- exercise of pretended Federal authority
in that Territory.  They have always submitted
to these exacti0ns, however unjust.
I know that it is indeed difficult for men to
maintain such a position; and I am not at all
surprised, Mr. Speaker, th a t  pa rtisan  zeal
should phave heape d- u pon   my constituency the
c harge of revolutionary eonduct.    It is indeed
diffi sult  todraw the  lin      e between legitimaot
and illegitimateopposition. They ha ve chosen,
sir,                i an to submit, and  o  tak e the   consequences,
as a lesser evil t han the  odium  of insurrection.
There may  have been-t here has been-an oc  casional exceptional adventurer, who,    in  the
ufury of passion, raised  his   arm against the au  thorityof the  United States; but        that has been
a  bubble po  n th e surf ace-a pi mple on     the
skin-the  great popula r  hea rt has been sweet
and  sound to the core in loyalty  a nd devotion
to the  institutions of the coun try. So much for
that.:           -
I come now, Mr. gSpeaker, to c onsider further
the objections which are stated   in the minority
report.  It is said that there are not enough
people in the TerritOry; and that, sir, is said
by the gentleman  from Missouri, [Mr. CLARK,]
in the face of   the  fact, that, with   little more
than One -half the present   population  he -pr-of.fered a willing and long-con-tinued support to
the  Lecompton Constitution.   But these  ob jectors are of two classes: the first, who deny
that there is sufficient population in the Terri tory; and the second, who, if there be  suffi cient population, deny that that sufficiency has
been legally ascertained.  I reply to the first
class by saying. it is not true in point of fact
that there are not ninety-three thousand people
in the Territory of Kansas.  I have -four dis tinet sources fr. om which I derive my informa tion upon that subject. The first is, the actual
vote polled at the general elections of, 18519;
the second, registered voters of the Territory;
the third, a census taken by the people, and
the fourth, the taxable property assessed tby the
assessors of the Territory: They all agree in
making the aggregate population of the Ter:
ritory at least ninety-three thousand people.
I will say here, in answer to the interroga tory of the gentleman from  New Jersey, [Mr.
AD-RAIN,] put to me a while ago, that the popu lation of Kansa does not fall short of one hun dred thousand, in my judgment. We  haves
first, over twenty thousand people registered of
of six months' residence.  We have. in the sec ond place, two general elections-the election
on the ratification of the Constitution, and the
election for Delegates to Congress-at each of
which, 17,000 votes were cast.  I ask gentlemen
upon all sides, who  are familiar  with these
things, how meanfy voters they suppose, in a
scattered Territory like ours, from some' inability or another, were kept away from the
polls? It i-s not too much to say, and hardly,
I think, too muuch to ask from a candid opponhent~ the concession that there must be; at
l.east,: when seventeen thousand votes have
8 
been polled at three general elections, twenty
thousand voters in that Territory.
Mr. REAGAN.:  Let me put a question to
the gentleman.  I do so for the purpose of
eliciting information.  Is the number of popu  lation stated by the gentleman the number
that is included within the boundaries of the
proposed new State, as prescribed in tlhe pend  ing bill; or are the people outside of the wvest  ern boundary of the proposed new State in  cluded in his statement?  Does he embrace
the Pike's Peak settlers?
Mr. PARROTT. I am going to consider the
census, about which something has already
been said; and I may say, in reference to the
interrogatory of the gentleman from  Texas,
[Mr. REAGAN,] that the population disclosed
by these elections, and by the census which has
been taken, is, none of it, included in the re gion cutoff and now known as Pike's Peak.
Mr.' REAGAN. Let me understand the gen tleman.  Does he say that his aggregate em braces none of the people of what is known as
the Pike's Peak region.
Mr. PARROTT. I say that the people who
live in what is now known as Pike's Peak, and
outside of the western boundary of the pro-.
posed new State, are not included iil any of
these e sti                            mates&
Mr. BARKSDALE.  Has the gentleman in
his possession the returns taken under the celn sus? If he has, I would like to hive the exact
figures.
Mr. PARROTT. I am coming to that. I am
reluctant, Mr. Speaker, to put my  own testi mony in; but it will be remembered by gentle men, and it has been reproduced here this
morning, that the Delegate from Oregon, when
similarly situated to myself, offered his testi mony, and it was accepted,.and I believe acted
upon at least by a respectable portion of the
opposite side of the House.  It is for this reason that I have, in this connection, stated my
own conviction ofthe sufficiency of population.
I hold in my hand a report made by a committee-the Committee on Elections of the late
Territorial Legislature of Kansas.  I call the
attention of the  gentleman from Mississippi
.[r. BARKSDALE] to it.  It is a report on- an
imperfect and fragmentary census taken in
June, 1859, by order of the Legislature, for
purposes of taxation, having no reference to
the requirements of the English bill.  None of
the counties are fully reported, and many made
no return at all.  What I am  now going to
read, is a revision of this census by the last
Legislature.
Sir. BARKSDALE. I would inquire if that
census was taken under an act authorized by
the Legislature of Kansas.':
Mr. PARROTT. I so stated. Since that
time, the immigration into Kansas has been unprecedented.  I was saying, that the Committee on Elections in the Legislature of Kansas'
to which was referred the subject of the census,
reported as follows:
"The Committee on Elections, to whom was
' refer red the subject of  the  census, have had
' the subject under  consider ation, and ask leave
' to submit the following     report:y
"Your committee          have examined  the re  turns as  submitte d  with the  Governo r's moes.
sage,  and find fro  m     information  obtained from
'the clerks of the several counties returned,
and members who represent those counties in
' both  branche s of the Legis lature, t hat  the re' turns a re very imperfect; that   in many count -
' t ies on ly par tial returns have been received by
'       the Ex ecuti ve, as r equir ed by law.
"Your committee find that Doniphan coun'ty has returned, from four townships, eleven
' hundred and eleven registered votes, and a
popula       tion  of thirty-fi ve    hundred and nine
' and, from reliable information before the  com   mittee, the registers of that county now show
a registered vote of over eighteen hundred,
~ which would make an additional population
of about three thousand.
"Atchison returned nine hundred and sixty  three registered votes and a population of
' thirty seven hundred and twenty-three, and
now has on the register about two thousand
votes, which would make an additional popu' lation of forty-two hundred.
"Riley county is not returned, in which there
'are now about six hundred and fifty votes,
e with a population of about twenty-six hun  dred.
"Leavenworth county has returned a vote of
' three thousand four hundred and forty-five;
and a population of twelve thousand one hunkii
'dred and twenty-tw~o. The population at that
'time in the city of Leavenworth was nearly
' the amount returned from the whole county.
' From the most reliable information obtained
'from persons well acquainted  "and represent'ing that county here, the county contains a
' population of sixteen thousand, making an
'additional population of about four thousand.
"From information from the deputy clerk of
Lykens county, between three and four hun  dred registered voters do not appear in the re'
port, that were registered in that county, wieh
' would make an additional population of about
' sixteen hundred.
"'Morris,  Pottawatomie, and Washington
counties, only partial returns, and in some of
'the counties where there are six hundred
' voters, with a population of twenty-five hun dred, only fifty to two hundred registered
votes returned..
"In the five counties above mentioned, there
is returned a population of seventeen hundred
'and eighteen, and a vote of six hundred and
' sixty-four, in the aggregate being less than
' one-third of the actual vote or -population in
'said counties, which, if added to the popula'tion now returned, would swell the population
'-to theF; number of about Dseven thousand.
I
'o 
10
' case at this time, and ask leave to submit the
'same with this report, and recommend its
' passage. "P. P. ELDI.R, Chairman.
<I  "F. M. CHRISTISON.:
"J. C. LAMBDIIV."
Mr. JOHN COCHRANE. What committee
reported that?
Mr. PARROTT.  The Committee on Elections of the Legislature of Kanaas, and it is
signed by Messrs. Elder, Laibdin, and Christi.
son; the last named is a Democrat.
For the purpose of testing the accuracy of
that calculation, allow me to call the attention
of those who are listening to this part of my
argument, to a comparison of what the committee reported, and some returns which I myself have taken the pains to procure.  For example, they say:
"Your committee find that Doniphan county
' has returned from fo'ur townships eleven hun' dred and eleven registered votes, and a.popu' lation of thirty-five hundred and nine; and,
from reliable information before the commitr
'   tee, the registers of that county now show a
'registered vote of over eighteen hundred, which
' would make an additiona.population of about
three thousand."
-   I hold in my hand the returns from the county
clerk of Doniphan county, sworn to and certified by a notary public, in which the aggregate
population of that county, as returned to him
officially, is put at seven thousand nine hundred
and sixty-thee, making, as you will see by comparing it with the statements of the committee,
a large excess in favor of the official and reli able statement procured from the clerk, under
oath.
The same thing is true in regard to Atchison
county.  There are at least one thousand more
people in that county than are reported by this
Committee on Elections. There are three thou sand more people  in  myr own  county-the
county of Leavenworth- -than are allowed in
that report.   Taking these statements all to gether, and this census as it is, completed in
this report-which is a Quasi-official census, be cause the supplementary returns are completed
by the Legislature, or under their sanction-we
find a population of over ninety-seven thousand
people.  I do not doubt, in reality, that it is one
hundred thousand.           ~'  
Mr. BARKSDALY;" The gentleman says this
census was ordered  by' the people.  I desire to
know if the gentleman means that the Terri torial Legislature ordered it?
Mr. PARROTT.  That is what I mean.  So
muchj then, for the census; so much  for the
registered vote, and so much for the  votes act ually polled in three general elections in the
Territory.  Now, when Oregon was before the
House  for ad mission,  Mr. St ephens, of Georgiat
then the leader of that side of the House, and
particularly upon that questions placed great
emphasis upon the fact that the taxable prop erty of Oregon -furnished sufficient data upon
c This calculation is based on the information
of persons living in those counties, who have
'examined the census  returns and register.
' The census returns, as exhibited in the report
'of the Governor, show great neglect on the
' part of the assessors in many of the town'ships, and in many of the most populous
counties.  Besides the five mentioned above,
c only three out of five, or five out of eight of
' the townships, have been returned to the Ex' ecutive, showing  conclusively that a very
'large population ex      ists  in those counties, of
' which you r commi tte e ha ve  not been: abl  e t o
collect any information as to the real number.
"Your  committee    also find no re turns from
the counties of Clay, Dickinson, McGee,
' Osageio, Wilson   and Dorn, and  the smallest
'estimate tha       t can be made is one hundred
' and fifty votes to each county, making a total
vote             of nine hundred, with  a population       of at
'least thirty-four hundred.  This calculation
lis not  base    d                   on the rapid increase  of popula tion     which has been continuallyepouring into
these fertile counties for the last eight months.
- " The returns, as reported by the Governor,
show a partial and incorrect census, as taken
in the month of June, 1859, since which time
' the emigration into Kansas has been unpre  cedented.  The whole amount of population,
'as reported by the Governor at the regular
session, was seventy-one thousand seven hun~dred and seventy; to which, if we add the
'calculation  as  estimated in the foregoing.
'counties partially returned, and from which
we have no return, the population, up to the
1st day of July, 1859, would amount to about
q ninety-seven thousand five hundred and
seventy, in which is nA included a large
number of the most populous counties, from
~ which there have been only a part of the
. townships returned to' the.Executive. Your
' committee are of the opinion that it will be
.very difficult to obtain any correct census of
'many of those counties upon the frontier of
' the Territory, where the officers do not either
' qualify at all, and enter upon the! discharge
' of their duties, or manifest such' gross indif  ference and stupidity as not to make a return
in any way to comply with the law, either in
taking or returning the census.  Many of the
counties have not been organized, an-d there'fore have no officers, notwithstanding they
have a large population, of which your com  mittee have not been able to collect any cor erect data.
"Your committee are of the opinion that the
~ rapid increase of wealth and population in
' this Territory, and the manifest desire of all
' classes of: our prosperous and energetic citi' zens, demand that some legislation be had~
~ relative to the taking of the future census,
'and other valuable statistics of this Territory.
" Your committee have, with somnecare and
c labor, prepared a bill and tabular fform, which
s they believe will meet the demands zof the 
11
are the facts?  The facts are, that the Chero kee nation always repudiated the possession
of this strip  of neutral  land.   I spoke the
other day with the chief of that semi civil ized nation, and he said that the treaty of
1835 was known  among  his people as "the
squaw treaty; " that it was brought about  by
the imbecility or intoxication of the head men
of the nation; that this strip of land was im.
posed upon them in lieu of $500,000, which the
Government had stipulated and agreed to pay.
Now they are here, and for what purpose? To
complain that we have extended our bound aries over the neutral land, and to complain of
a violation of treaty stipulation?  Not at all.
They are here to complain that the Govern ment will insist upon their having that piece of
land, which they did not want and never did
own.  They are soliciting the President to open
negotiations, looking to a retrocession of this
tract.  I have no doubt that this will, ere long,
be brought about.
Mr. HIND:M&N. As the gentleman  has referred to the a tti tude  held by the Cherokee
delegat io n he re, I can speak, from personal
knowledge, as, to the position they occupy in
regard to that neutral land. They do protest
against including that territory within the limits
of any organized State or Territory.
Mr.  STEVENS, of Pennsylvania.  Allow me
one question. Did the Indians take possession,
and are they now inhabiting this land?
'Mr. PARROTT.  I was going to observe fur.ther, Mr. Speaker, in respect to the facts of this
case, that, instead of the Indians having asserted any ownership or inhabitancy in that tract
known as the "neutral land," there are to-day:
at least seven hundred white families living on
that reservation.
Mr. HINDMAN. Will the gentleman allow
me to state, further, that these parties are there;
in violation of the rights of the Cherokee  nation; and that they have been notified  by the
Commissioner of Indian Affairs that they must
remove from the land which they are occupying
unlawfully?
Mr. PARROTT.  That is another question.
The gentleman from Arkansas.has not heard
of their. going off-  and he will not,  in my
opinion.
Mr. MAYNARD.  I ask whether this boundary does not include other Indian lands besides
these neutral lands?
Mr. PARROTT.  No, sir.
Mr. MAYNARD. I am informed very differ.
ently.
Mr. PARROTT.  It does  not. And, moreover, the setting off this tract of land  to the
Cherokees was itself a violation of this treaty,
(I hope the gentleman from Missouri will pay
attention t~o what I am saying,) which provided that the territory to be given to the
Cherokees should be a compact territory; whereas there is another piece of territory ex2tending:
between the Cherokee neutral lands and the
w       h ich to   compute the population of that Terri tory.            And I say now that the $15,000,0o00
property  list   ed b      y                   the assessors, and  reported
to              the Legislature by       the auditor of the Terri tory, would give that    Ter ritory  over       one hun-c
dred and fifty                            thousand  population, if compu ted upon  the basis.               of the       State off Ohio, for
example.
I do not claim infallibility f or any such test,
because   I remember    that Mr. Stephe ns got
about tw     o  h undr ed and fifty thous and p eopl e  in
Oregon by that calculation, while nobody believes     that fifty thousand were   th e re.  But as
that has been made  one of                             the bases of calcu lation in ascertaining the population of a Territor y,              it is no more than just and  fair   that it
should be             submitt ed  to the Hous e  upon this
occas        ion.  Now, one word   t o    the other class of
objectors,      to wit: t  hose who s tick for a  leg a        al
census by th     e  Federal authorities.   Why did
you not      tak e       the cen sus  according  to  the law?
No    t       o nly have you failed to   do so; but more,
you expressly declined to   do    so, by  defeating
an appropriation last year in                 the Senate  which
y          ou had the power to carry.  It seems to b    semn  me
you stultify yourselves; "no one can take advanltag e        of hi s own wrong."               This is a waiver
of  the             point.  Otherwise you might make our
exclusion perpetual, or at least dependent on
your will, by refusing to take a census from
timet  to time.   We sh ow the population; to
count them was your busin ess, no    t ours.         Moreover, I desire      to o bserv e  in  this p lace, as con-:
elusive o f the    " animus" of   theAdministration
or Lecompton party, that the United States
marsha       l  of Kansas  appli ed last summer to the
Secretary of the Interior   for permission to take
the            c          ensus, proposing to wait for his pay till
Congres s  s    hould make an                  a ppropriation for that
purpo         se. The    offer w as declined; much, I
think, to the advantage      of t h  e m arshal.
Now, Mr.  Speaker, allow me        to say a word
ila reg ar    d        to            another ground  of objection,, and
that is in respect to                    the Indians, which so
trouble the gentleman  from Missouri, [Mr.
CLARK.] It:seems to me to be a sufficient and
complete answer to all that has been said in
-respect to these Indian reservations, that if the
rights of the Indians do rest upon a treaty
stipulation, then the State Constitution, as to
that treaty, is inoperative and void. A treaty
stipulation is well known to be a higher law
than a State Constitution, and hence, pro tanto,
to the extent that they conflict, the treaty stipulation will bear down the State Constitution,
and this reserve will stand. It appears to be
the object of the gentleman from Missouri and
his party, having failed to crush out the white
man in Kansas by thrusting;the black bondm~an upon him, now to strike another blow by
putting the red man in the path of his future
pvrogress. This new-born sympathy comes from
suspicious quarter, and at a suspicious time,
~nd I must be allowed to say that I believe it
o0 be manufactured for the occasion. What 
12
great body of their possession-I mean the
Qua-pan reservation.
Mr. PHZELPS. The tract of eight hundred
thousand acrs of land, to which the gentleman
from Kansas refers, is known on the border as
the neutral land.  It was set apart, and specifically designated as a tract of land containing
eight hundred thousand acres.  It is, to a certain extent, detached; and yet it is connected
on the west with the Cherokee lands.
Mr. PARROTT. Well, I do not care to be
further interrupted on this point.  I will give
theqaw and the facts bearing on the point at
issue.
Mr. PHELPS. That country is  embraced
within the treaty of 1835; and there is an express stipulation that, of the lands thus assigned
to the Cherokee nation, none shall be embraced
within the limits of any State, or any organized
Territory. 
Mr. PARROTT. Well, you did not think of
that, I suppose, when you voted for Lecompton,  If any gentleman wants to answer the
observation which I make on this subject, and
which I think complete, I will yield the floor
to him to do so; i that is, that if there is a treaty
stipulation which preserves this land from being 
surrounded by State or Territorial lands, the
State Constitution is, to that extent, inoperative
upon it; and with that suggestion, which I
think exhaustive, I leave the matter. 
Mr. HINDMAN.  Is inot the gentleman from
Kansas aware of the fact, that many years ago
the Cherokee country in Georgia was included
within the limits of that State; and that a
question arose between the State authorities
and the Cherokees, and that, in the end, the
Cherokees were compelled to emigrate west of
the Mississippi river?  Just precisely such
another controversy will arise in Kansas, if she
be admitted under the Wyandotte Constitution.
Mr. PARROTT. Who expects, ir. Speaker,
to stop the progress of white people, or to stop
the admission of any State, by the obstacle of
an Indian reservation?  Our "manifest destiny" is to cover the continent now lying waste
with free States.  The black race and the red
race are fated to fade and he scattered before
the advancing whites, " like leaves before the
autumn blast."  I leave this part of the subject,
again repeating, however, that this objection
does not lie in the mouths of those who supported the Lecompton Constitution with a similar provision.
I: have answered, Mr. Speaker, as I think
fairly and candidly, the objections raised by
my friend from Missouri.  I have shown, I believe, that there is a sufficient population in the
Territory. I have shown that the people have
adopted; a Constitution which no one here will
question is the embodimnent of their will. It
is a fact on which I congratulate myself and
the country, that, after all the turbulent: and
revolutionary proceedings that have taken place
in this House and elsewhere in regard to Con
stitutions, we come here at: last with a  Consti tion on which there is no imputation of fraud,
and no question that it is the choice of the
pe ople.  They   have)  o n        three,  four, orfive distiMr  t occasions- each time, as it  s eems to me,
risin g to  a higher  pitch   of en thusiasm and excitement, declared in favor of the  Wyandotte
Cons titution a s their organic law. Nows u   I ask,
is it fair, is it just and manly on the par t  o f
our Democratic adversaries, to continue to annoy   and vex those against  whom they have  expended all the artillery of legitimate warfare,
by atte mpting t o p   rol o    ong th e  ontroversy, by
pleading in our ears these hollow-sounding,
tinkling technicalities? Would it not be more
decorous for them to submit to the inevitable
chances of the  war which    the y themselves invoked? It will not be pretended that on the
fields of Kansas they have not had a fair opportunity to try  ttrth e  virtues of Southern courage
and  Southern emigration.   If we of  the North
have surpassed them in our mobility, and maintained the field against their arms, let them
yield to the consequences. But I do insist on
its that it does not seem to me to be manly " to
stick in the bark," and plead technicalities,
against those who have, in honorable warfare,
overcome them.  I would suggest to these gentlemen, that to defeat may be sometimes added
dishonor, and to weakness contempt.
There is another consideration connected
with the admission of this State, which I ought,
in all justice, to submit to the House; and that
arises out of the inability of the Territorial
Government to afford protection to the property and persons and the political privileges
of the people. These Territorial Governments
Hr. Speaker,: are, in their best estate, only
tolerable, because they are supposed  to be
unavoidable. I do not mean now to enter that
field of dialectics and speculation, whither so
many have been lured by cross-purposes, in
quest of facts to sustain preconceived opinions.
Among the throng of amateurs and experts
who hasten to theorize and declaim on mooted
points of Territorial government, it may not be
unwise to listen for a moment to one who
speaks not of theories, but actualities; not of
fancies, but of facts; " all of which he saw, and
part of which he was."
Now I say, in respect to this Government,
following the popular nomenclature of the day,
that it is neither *Congressional sovereignty"
nor  "popular sovereignty."  It is a kind of
hybrid, and I should style it a Presidential or
Executtive sovereignty. In other words, I assert
that the Executive influence of the country has
pervaded and colored the politics of the Territory under this organic act. I know that mauch
is to be attributed to the grossest vices of mnaladministration in the Territory; but, after all,
taking the plain, legal provisions of the law}
which gives the whole judiciary, the whole exSecutive, and two-thirds of the legislative power.
into the hands of Federal appointees, who go 
13
ad. empty stomach,, ta abdicate and return to the
to  grateful obscurity from which he had emerged.
oer  We would as gladly give up the empty pageant
at, of power for a substantial and just Government,
er  either exerted by Congress-or given: to the peo e  ple themselves.  For myself, I am satisfied and
It  convinced that the people of the: Territory axe
id  the just depositary of political power; that they
at ought to exercise it; and that a Government.
ar  thus established and power thus exercised will.
{e  comport with every beneficial end for which[
st  Governments  are instituted.   We  have, now
lo demonstrated the superior mobility of tlie North:
Io  ern people, and their superior energy; and, L
he  expect, in avowing my fidelity to this policy,
py that  nothing but free States will be made'aU
over the unsettled area of the West.
f    There is another consideration, r.. Speaker
-  to which I desire to allude very briefly. There
eare new Territories arising and pressing upon
a  thhe borders of Kansas and it-is time that Kan
-. sas should be taken out of the way of these. new
-  Territories   Four or five Delegates are now
it  waiting at your door to obtain recognition; and
t- it is not too much to say that the next half
it century  will show  a numerical  majority, of
States west of the Misississippi river, a large part
d  of which now lie within the unsettled area
-  stretching from the falls of the Missouri to the
t mouth of the Gila-a region we now know of
n  unsurpassed richness in every element of physis  cal strength.  There is the Pike's Peak coun-  try-the young Ophir of the West-Jefferson,
already grown too large for the swaddling-bands
r  and leading-strings of Territorial government.
1  It needs nothing to hasten its incubation.  It
will be here thundering at your door as a State
next year, and Kansas must  be removed  to
r make way for this and other coming States.
f    There is another consideration, Mr. Speaker,
- which I must not omit to mention.  The  com  merce of the plains is now beginning, deserved, ly, to attract the attention of commercial  men
in   every part of the world.   That commerce,
a    although yet in its infancy, rivals the commerce
of the sea and the commerce of our Western
I  rivers.  It needs protection against the bands
of nomadic savages which sweep over and in fest those Western plains, securing  a scanty
and precarious subsistence by plunder and the
chase.  How will you protect it?  You must
do it by building up an interoceanic railway;
and you must do it, further, by pushing forward
the breast-work of States,  by  fortifying the
country with stable Governments, and opening
its wastes to the careful and productive hands
of industry.  The commerce which will soon
be passing over that country will more than
justify the legislation which I ask.  You have
'your gold, and silver, and quicksilver, from
Pike's Peak; your wool and hides from  New
dMexico; your precious ores from Nevada.  You
will soon have spices, and silks, and teas, from
the East, pouring along that great railway;
and to prepare the way, to lay the foundation,
out l     ik  e  prptors in the provinces  to rob aW
squeeze the people whom  they are  sent
foster and protec't —en who are responsibl
not'to the people,  but to their  masters.,
Washington-LI say that, giving this pow
into their handy you will  lot find that.  t
popular element can resist its aggressions. ]
is idle to tell those whose necks are galled an
raw- chafing with the yoke of despotism, the
they are living in the enjoyment of populs
sovereignty  It is idle to tell those who -has
been robbed of two Legislatures, who have lo:
three  years representation on this floor  wh
have leen wasted by unprovoked wars, wh
have been stripped of millions Worth of privat
property, that they are in the exercise of an
great and desirable species of sovereignt~
Wherever the purpose of the Government c
:.he United States and the popular will ofRan
has have come in collision, the people hat
uniformly been borne down.  Have  they not,
Thousand times, and in a thousand'w Amp, de
:lared that they were unfriendly to the:titu
ion of slavery? And has not the Governmen
Reasserted and persisted in declaring that sla
:cry exists there? And does it not keep i
here now, to-day, an empty husk?
If, then, the majority have been controllee
-y the minority; or, in other words, if the peo
,le have been borne down by the Govertnmen
-arty; if the policy of the Territory has rut
ounter to public opinion-that is to say, ha
,een imposed by foreign aid-is it not a palpa
:le and ridiculous misnomer, a plain perversion
;f terms, to call such a scheme  a populaI
Government? To characterize the Territorial
Government of which I am speaking, in plain
erms, by the lights of experience, I should cal
' a system of Federal police, expanding or
ontracting its powers to suit the emergency or
h,e time, and enforcingf its arbitrary regula
.ons by just so much and such kind of' coercion
, the occasion may demand.   It has been
eighed in the balance, and found wanting in
,ierything which tends to preserve the peace
nd order of society.
I will say, therefbre, of this middle species of
sovereignty, so-called popular, that because it
; infected with the virus of Executive influence
rid dictation, because it is the imposing shib:leth of party demagogues, and not the choice
"the well-wishers of the people, it ought to be
!rodemned and forever discarded. Let us have
le thing or the other. Let us have the gov,;ment of Congzress, or a government of the
.ople  and by that, I mean the people electg all their officers in the Territory; and let
ose officers be the servants and not the mast"s of the people, and respond directly for their
,nduct to the people. We have tried the
esent plan, and we give our testimony against
Our experience reminds men Mr. Speaker~
nothing so mulch as of the barren honor
,ich Sancho Panza enjoyed in the govern.nt of his island, which he was glad, with an 
14
to do your part towards the realization of this  tion. Sponge out this obsolete and inoperaive
vast enterprise, I ask you to begin, as an im- enactment.  May I not venture to remind you
portant step, in my judgment, with the admis- that those who now plead for justice at your
sion of Kansas into the Union.                   hands are brothers of your blood-revering
Mr. Speaker, I have submitted in this desul- the same Constitution, obeying the same  laws,,
tory way the, considerations which occurred to  speaking the same  language, cherishing the
my mind in regard to this controversy, and I same traditions of the past, elevated and inhave replied as well as I may to the arguments  spired by the same hopes of future greatness
which have been adduced against the admission  for our country?  They have trod the " wineof Kansas.  I do not propose to indulge in any  press " of persecution with unflagging firmness,
discussion of the merely political aspect of this and come forth with a spirit worn, it may be,
question.  I may do so at another time.  But  but unbroken; jubilant, and even defiant;
I will say this: if gentlemen cannot answer  ready to do battle in behalf of truth, justice,
these facts and arguments, may I not reason- humanity, and all things else which contribute
ably anticipate that they will not deny and re- to dignify and ennoble a people in the judgfuse the conclusions to which they lead?          ment of an enlightened world.  With the con  I indulge, then, the pleasing anticipation summation of this measure we shall, I trust,
that the State will be admitted, and the contro- see an era of better feeling initiated.  The disversy so far closed.  Though the Lecompton tempers generated by this long and fierce conConstitution is dead, its offspring, the English troversy will be like volcanoes  burnt out-on
bill, still languishes on the statute book-a  the ashes,. lava, and squalid scoria of which
monument of the folly, the incapacity, and the shall spring  the peacefnl olive and the cheerpernicious politics, of the present Administra- - ing vine."
I
I I 
PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN OF 1860.
CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE.
HON. JOHN COVODE, PENN. Treasurer.
II   "  E. G. SPAULDING, N. Y. -
I "1: J. B. ALLEY, MASS.
DAVID KILGORE, INDIANA.
"  J. L. N. STRATTON, N.J.
On the part of the Jfouse of Reps.
REPUBLICAN EXECUTIVE
BON. PRESTON KING, N. Y., Chairmant.
"   J. W. GRIMES, IOWA.
" L. F. S. FOSTER, CONN.
On the part of the Senate.
The Committee are prepared to furnish the following Speeches and Documents:
EIGHIT  PAGES.                    Hon. H. Wilson, Mass.: Territorial Slave Code.
Hon. W. H. Seward: State of the Country.            "  John P. Hale, N. H.
W. H. Seward:  "Irrepressie  onlict"    "  J. J. Perry, Me.: "Posting the Books be       Speech.
Speech.                                           tween the North and the South."
G. A. Grow, Penn.: Free Homes for Free    "  J. R. Doolittle, Wis.: The Calhoun Revo       Men.                                              lution-Its Basis and its Progress.
James Harlan, Iowa: Shall the Territories      "  C. B. Sedgwick, N. Y.:  The Republican
be Africanized?                                  Party the Result of Southern Aggression.
John Hickman, Penn.: Who have Violated          "  M.J. Parrott, Kansas: Admissionof Kansas.
Compromises.                              Federalism  Unmasked: Or the Rights of the
"  B. F. Wade, Ohio:  Invasion of Harper's            States, the Congress, the Executive, and
Ferry.                                            the People, Vindicated against the En  "  G. W. Scranton and J. H. Campbell, Penn.:            croachments of the Judiciary, prompted
The Speakership.                                  by  the  Modern Apostate  Democracy.
"  F. P. Blair, Mo., Address at Cincinnati:           Being a Compilation from the Writings
Colonization and Commerce.              -         and S$peeches'of the Leaders of the Old
Coloizaion andery Commrc. 
"~Orris S. Ferry, Conn.                Jeffersonian Republican Party. By Dan  "  Abraham Lincoln, Ill.: The Demands of               iel R. Goodloe.
the South-The Republican Party Vin-                  TWENTY-FOUR  PAGES.
dicated.                                  Hon. Jacob Collamer, Vermont.
" William Windom, Minn.: The Homestead
Bill-Its Friends and its Foes.                        THIRTY-TWO  PAGES.
"  Owen Lovejoy, of Illinois: The Barbarism  Hon. Thomas Corwin, of Ohio.
of Slavery.
"  Henry L. Dawes, Mass.: The New Dogma                          GERMAN.
of the South-" Slavery a Blessing."                       EIGHT  PAGES.
"  R. H. Duell, N.Y.: The Position of Parties.  Hon. G. A. Grow, Penn.: Free Homes for Free
"  M. S. Wilkinson, Minn.: The Homestead                Men.
Bill.                                       "  James Harlan, Iowa: Shall the Territories
"  D. W. Gooch, Mas..: Polygamy in Utah.               be Africanized?
Carl Schurz, Wis.: Douglas and Popular Sover'-    "  John Hickman, Penn.: Who HaveViolated
eignty.                                           Compromises.
Lands for the Landless-A Tract.                     "  William Windom, Minn.: The Homestead
The Poor Whites of the South  The Injury done             Bill-Its Friends and its Foes.
them by Slavery-A Tract.                    "  H. Winter Davis, Md.: Election Of Speaker.
Carl Schur,z, Wis.: Douglas and Popular Sover             SIXTEEN PAGES.                             eiguty.
Hon. Lyman Trumbull, Ill.: Seizure of the Ar-                   SIXTEEN PAGES.
senals at Harper's Ferry, Va. and Liberty,  Hon. Lyman Trumbull, Ill.: Seizure of the Arse       Mo., and in Vindication of the Republi-           nals at Harper's Ferry, Va., and Liberty,
can Party.                                        Mo., and in Vindication of the Republi  "  B. F. Wade, Ohio: Property in the Terri-             can Party.
tories.                                     "  W. H. Seward, N. Y.: The State of the
. H. Van Wyck, N.Y.: True Democracy-               Country.
History Vindicated.                       Lands for the  andless-A Tract.
Hon. ~~~~~~~~~LyandTubl,Il:sezr ofo the_Lnls  Ar SITEEraGES.
And all the leading Republi can Speeches as delivered.
During the Presidential Campaign, Speeches and Documents will be supplied at the following
reduced prices: per 100-8 pages 50 cents, 16 pages $1, and larger documents in proportion.
Address either of the above Committee.
GEORGE HARRINGTON, Secretary.
It E. B. WASHBURNE, ILLINOIS.