YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 3 9002 05423 1353 Ch TH J±£l YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY SPEECH. OF HON. ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS, OF GEORGIA, ON THE BILL TO ADMIT KANSAS AS A STATE UNDER THE TOPEKA CONSTITUTION. DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, JUNE 28, 1856. WASHINGTON: PRINTED AT THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE OFFICE. 1856. ADMISSION OF KANSAS The House having under consideration the bill reported from the Committee on Territories, providing for the admis sion of Kansas into the Union as a State, with the consti tution prepared at'Topekaby the free-State party. Mr. STEPHENS said : I propose, Mr. Speaker, before I proceed to what I have arisen mainly to say on this occasion, to ask the consent of the House to allow me now to offer the amendment which I stated yesterday I wished to propose to the bill now before us. Mr. WASHBURN, of Maine. If the gentle man asks that consent now,'! shall object to it, as I shall at all times. Mr. STEPHENS. On the motion to commit the bill to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, the amendment isnotinbrder, unless by unanimous consent. Mr." WASHBURN. I understand that to be a side measure, intended to destroy the bill, and I Bhall object to it now, and at all times. Mr. STEPHENS. I state to the gentleman that I have no side Mows for this bill, nor is my amendment intended as any side measure. I wish my proposition to come distinctly before the House as a substitute for the pending bill. I am opposed out and out to this bill as it now stands. I Want no misunderstanding on that point. ¦ I will, however, vote for the substitute; andwhatlwant is, a direct vote between the bill now pending, and the substitute offered as an amendment. But as the gentleman from Maine will not allow me to offer my proposition as "in amendment, I now move to amend the motion to commit this bill to the Committee of the. Whole on the state of the Union, by adding to it, "With instructions to report this amendment in lieu of the original bill;" in other words, with instructions to strike out all jn the original bill; and to insert my amendment in lieu thereof. That is the motion which I sub mit to the House, and upon it I shall proceed with what I have to say. » It is immaterial to me, Mr. Speaker, if I can get n vote in the House-on the proposition submitted by me, whether it goes to the Committee of the. 'Whole on the state of the Union; or not I am myself prepared to vote on it to-day, either |n ths itouse or in the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union. But I am inclined to think that it had better gd to the committee. We can then take up this amendment^and consider it in detail. It maybe some gentlemen would .suggest modifi cations, which I would accept. We can ^the'n discuss the merits of the original bill. Its-friends can amend that, if they wish. My amendment can be put in such form as a majority of the com mittee may desire, if a majority be favorable to its 'objects. I therefore shall vote for the reference. But the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr: Camfbell] the other day said, that the motion to refer or commit, made by the gentlemari from Indiana, [Mr; Donn,] and which is now pending, was equivalent, if successful, to a defeat of the bill. The gentleman from Maine [Mr. WashbcriH also followed in the same line. " Now, I toM these gentlemen, day before yesterday, and'T state it again to the House, that I do not consider the motion to commit the bill to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, if carried, as equivalent to a defeat of the measure at all. By no means, sir. What is the argument of those who say a reference of the bill is tantamount to its defeat? Nothing better than this, as argued by the gentleman from Maine, to wit: that all the friends of the Kansas bill, two years ago, when that bill was referred to "the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, considered it as equivalent to its defeat. That is his argument, and the authority adduced by hirfi to sustain it. Sir, it is immaterial to me what certain friends of the Kansas bill may have thought would be the effect of its reference, when it was referred. If they cpnsidered that reference as equivalent to its de feat, the sequel showed that they were in error. That is all. It was'r'eferred. It was considered two weeks in committee, and it was then passed. Mr. WASHBURN. Will the gentleman allow me to say that that was simply because they broke down the rules of the House in two instances. If they had not they never could have got that bill out of committee. Mr. STEPHENS. Will the gentleman state, what two instances? Mr. WASHBURN. In thefirstplace, by decid ing that under the 119th rule you mightstrike out the enacting" clause of the bill. In the second place, by rising and reporting the bill to the House When there was no quorum voting, as every body • knows. Mr. RICHARDSON. The gentleman from Maine is totally mistaken when he says there was no quorum. Mr. STEPHENS. I hope the gentleman from Illinois will let me proceed. Thegentleman from Maine is mistaken in both his instances. The record shows that the tellers, Mr. Clingman and Air. Sa-pp, reported 103 in favor of the motion, and 22 against it. That is more than a quorum — one hundred and eighteen was a quorum — one hundred and twenty-five voted. Though a great many present refused to vote, more than a quo rum, however, did vote on the motion to strike out. It does not require a quorum to vote on a motion to rise, as every one knows. And as far as the violation of the 119th rule is concerned, I have this to say to the gentleman — as I said the day before yesterday — that nothing can be clearer than that everything done in the committee on the .passage of the Kansas bill under the 119th. rule, was legitimate and proper; and that no rule of this House was violated or overrode on that oc casion. This I intend to show beyond cavil or doubt. The charge that there was no quorum voting is answered by the record, as I have stated ; then as to the two other charges — for besides the charge relating to the 119th rule now mjtde, the gentleman from Maine, [Mr. Washburn,] or some other, ;gentleman, said, two days ago, tiiat there . was another rule violated. What one I do npt Jcnow — for no one was mentioned— but the state ment was, that the committee had violated, the rules of the House by setting aside other bills having priority in the order of business on the Calendar to the Kansas-Nebraska bill. That was one* statement; and I think it was also said that upwards of a hundred bills were thus setaside to reach this one. Now, Mr. Speaker, I have the rules of the House before me, and ask the atten tion of the House to the 135th rule: " lii Committee «f the Whole on the slate of the Union the billy slioil be taken up ami disposed of in their ordor on , til/' O.ik'nJiiU'; bin utienobjectionis made to the consideration of a bill a mMJorilij oj the coni.initt.es shall decide, without de bate. wlirthiT it shall be taken up and disposed of, or laid usnle , piuvicled, that general appropriation bills, and, in time of war, bills for raising men or money, and bills con cerning a ir.Mly of peace, shall be preferred io all other bills at Ike diwelion'by the committee; and when demanded by any member the question shall first be put in regard totkevu" Even trig times of war, appropriation bills, and bills relating to treaties of peace, have no other preference, except that the question of taking them up first shall be first put. A majority may lay even them aside. Sir, could a rule be written more plainly?, Can language be more clear or more distinct than this — thui when theliousegoes into the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and when the first bill in order is read by the Clerk, and a gentleman objects to taking it up, it is then sub mitted to the committee whether it will be taken up or not; and a majority of the committee have the expressly-granted power to determine, without debate^ whether they will then act on it, or lay it aside for other business; and so on to the second, and so to the third, and to the fourth, and to the one hundred and fiftieth, if you please ? Was it not perfectly competent for a majority of the Commit tee of the Whole on the state of the Union, when the Kansas bill was in committee, to pass over other bills, and take up that bill when they wished to do so? This they did. Each bill was laid aside ar it was reached. They had a right to do it. They violated no rule in doing it. The number of bills laid aside to reach it was only eighteen, I think. But if the number had been legion — if there had been one hundred, or five hundred, or a thousand, it would have made no difference. Sir, the rule in this case is as clear as it could be made; and the action of the committee on that occasion was strictly in order. This I maintain, and defy an answer or reply to it. Now, then, sir, as to the 119th rule. When the committee on that occasion had laid aside the first bill, and the second bill, and the third bill, and so on, until they had come to the Kansas bill, the eighteenth in order — which they had a right to do — they took it up for considera tion ; and after it had been discussed for two weeks in committee, Which was as long as was thought proper by the House, the 119th rule was resorted to, to stop debate in committee and bring the sub ject before the House for a vote. That rule is as follows: "A motion to strike out the enacting words of a bin shall have precedence of a motion to amend; and, if carried, shall be equivalent to its rejection." Under this rule, a motion was made, by myself in committee to strike out the enacting Words of the Kansas bill — a motion which look precedence of all motions to amend, as the rule says. The motion was properly put; and it was carried by a vote of one hundred and three for it, to but twenty-two against it, as 1 have said. Where, then, was there any violation of the rules in this.? But the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. Campbell,] who says he wishes to reply to what I say, in sisted the day before yesterday that this 119th rule never was intended to apply in committee. The rule, in its language, was too clear, too overwhelming, too unanswerable; buttoavoidita conclusiveness against him, he said it was made to apply to the Housed arid not to the Committee of the Whole, S(c. Well, sir, let us see how this sub terfuge will avail the gentleman. The history of this rule, as given in our Manual, is as follows; " In 1814, a Committee of the Whole struck out tile lust and only section of a bill, and so reported to the House. Mr. Speaker Cheves refused to receive the report, on the ground that ifr was tantamount to a -rejection of the bilL which the committee had not power to do." Just as the gentleman now says. "After this, thattlie merit of questions might be tested in Committee of t(ie Whole, rule 119 mu adopted.", This history clearly shows that it was expressly adopted for the Committee of the Whole, Sfc I. have produced this additional authority to show that there was no violation of the rule on the occasion alluded to — that the Committee of the Whole on the Kansas bill did just exactly what the rule intended that they might do, and fully empowered them to do. But gentlemen say, if this rule was intended to be applied to the Committee of the Whole, why has it never been put in prac tice before ? That was the argument of the gen- Oeman from Maine. Well, Mr.. Speaker, my reply to him isj that it has been put in practice before. It was adopted in 1823. Ten days after its adoption, on the 2d of March, 1822; first session of the Seventeeth Congress, I find the Journal of the House record thus: i • "The House took up and proceeded to consider the bill for the relief of Benjamin Freetand and John Ml Jenkins ; and the amount reported thereto from the Committee of the Whole House, on the 14th instant, being read as fol- •lows : 'striking out the enacting flame of said hill,1 "The question was puton concurring with the Committee of the Whole House in the said amendment, "And passed in theaffirmative." Here the committee did the very same thing, ten days after the rule was adopted, that was done on the Kansas bill. What did the House ,do? Did they say that thei Committee of the Whole had acted improperly? No, sir. The Journal - says: " the question was taken upon concurring with the Committee of the Whole on said amend ment, and it passed in the affirmative." I find in the first session of thje Eighteenth Con gress, on the 22d of May, this record : "The question was then taken to concur with the Com mittee of the Whole House on striking oiit the enacting words of the bill from the Senate, entitled * An act relative to the Patent Office and to the salary of the superintendent thereof,' ".And passed in the affirmative." Again, sir, in the first session of the Twenty- First Congress, I find on the Journal this record: " The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole House on the bill (No. 127) for the relief of Walter Livingston, deceased , and after some time spent therein, the Speaker resumed the chair, and Mr. Storrs, of New York, reported the same, with the enacting clause stricken out." " The question was then put, that the Huuse do concur with the Committee of the Whole House in striking out the enacting words rtf said bill, "^And passed in the affirmative — yeas, 84, nays 59." 1 find in the same Congress, in the action of the House on the bill for the relief of John Rob inson, that . ' -i . , " The question was then put toconqur with the Commit tee- of, the Whole House in striking out the enacting words of the bill (No. 175) for the relief of John Robinson, " And passed in the affirmative. "So thefand bill was rejected." Sir, I shall not go on with this record. It is sufficient for me to state to those gentlemen who complain of my motion under this rule, that their not knowing that such a motion had ever been made before does not seem to me to be an argu ment of much merit or force. , I show you, Mr. Speaker, the House, and the country, the rulel No man can question that. I show you, also, its history; and from that, that it was made for just such a purpose as the one I applied it to. No man now can gainsay that. I go further, and show you the practice of the House under it.- No man can any longer question that. - Then, sir, how can gentlemen rise up here, and say that the passage of the Kansas and Nebraska bill was accomplished by overriding" the rules of the House? Gentlemen may have'been surprised and astonished at the parliamentary tactics practiced under the' rule; they may never have dreamed of how the friends of a measure, in committee, could vote to strike out the enacting words — thus apparently defeating it— and then, when it was so reported to the House, reverse their position, disagree to the report of the Committee striking out the enacting words, and then pass 'it. They may not have understood the process by which a bill might be temporarily apparently killed by its friends iri Committee of the Whole, for the pur pose- of getting it out, and then revived again in the- House, by disagreeing to the report of the committee;but this is the whole 'of it. This is the . ground of all this clamor about the violation of the rules of the House, in the passage of the Kansas bill— for.it is nothing but clamor. The charge of a violation of rules has not the ¦ semblance of -a fact to rest upon. And let no man herfeafter say that sending a bill to the Com mittee of the Whole is equivalent to its defeat. Our rules requiring this committee, and directing - how business shall be disposed of in it, are wise and proper. And the rules, when properly ad ministered, work harmoniously for the perfection! and dispatch of legislation. It is only those who do not understand them who see confusion and mystery in them. Where, then, was-the wrong or the fraud perpetrated on the rules in the passage of the Kansas bill ? It exists only iu, the fancy of gentlemen who declaim so violently on the subject.; I said, sir, I intended to vindi cate the action both of the committee and the ' House on that occasion, and put the matter be yond all future cavil or doubt. This,. I think, I have done. Now, .sir, J. intend also, with the , same confidence, to vindicate the principles of that bill against: the equally unfounded assaults which have been made upon them. What, sir, are those assaults ? The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Campbell] said the other day, and again says, that the passage of the Nebraska bill was the origin of all the troubles in the country. Sir, what troubles does he allude to? What troubles have we upon us ? Standing in my place in the Hall of the Representatives of the United States, I ask to-day, what troubles is the country laboring under ? Were any people of the world ever more prosperous than the people of the United States now are ? We are at peace with all other nations; we hear of no Complaint about Fed- > era] taxes or high tariffs; we hear of no disarrange ment of the currency or of the finances of the country; we hear of no clamor againstbanks; our tables-are' not loaded down with petitions or re monstrances against grievances of an jssort; thrift and plenty seem to be smiling over the land front one extent to the other. Our commerce was never more flourishing; agriculture never yielded a more bountiful supply 'frfim the bosom of the earkh to the tillers of her soil than it now does, nor was the average value of products ever higher. In dustry, in every department of business, whether upon the ocean or the land, never had more induce ments to ply its energies, not only for competency 6 and comforts, but for the accumulation of riches and: wealth, Never did labor, in all its branches, receive more readily than it now does fair ahdjustly compensating wages. Our' internal and foreign trade was never in a more flourishing condition. What are'the troubles, then, of which the gentle man speaks ? Why, sir, if one could cast his eye over this wide Republic at this.time, and see-.the thrift and prosperity in every department of indus try, arising from ourbenigninstitutions,he would almost be compelled to exclaim, that all the.'trou- bies of which wfeheargrow outof nothingfeutthat exuberance of liberty and multitude of blessings which seem to be driving us on to licentiousness. "This we see in ,the mobs at Cincinnati, Louisr ville, New Orleans, in this city, and in San Francisco. The laws have been set aside; .force has been resorted to; arms have been'useds and men have been slain.. But the absorbing theme now is the " civil war, "as it called, in Kansas. This is die announcement made in a neighboring city, the commercial metropolis of this Union, the other night, according to1 a .'report of their J>roceedings which I. find in a newspaper, to a arge crowd- of people there assembled. I see it was proclaimed that civil war was raging, in Kansas; and that that assembly, gave shouts of applause at the announcement! These are the troubles I suppose of which the gentleman speaks — troubles produced not by this Kansas bill, but by, the mischievous, designs and. reck less purposes of those who, in their efforts to defeat the quiet and peaceful operation of the sound purposes of. that, bill, have for some time been engaged in their unholy work of attempting to get up civil 'war in the country, and can now shout in applause at even the most distant prbs- pect of success. This, sir, is the work of that class, of rpstless malcontents, who have for years been endeavor ing (to produce a sectional conflict in thiscountry; who have no regard for the constitutional equality of the States of this Union;, who repudiate, the most sacred obligations of that compact which binds us together, and. who have proclaimed that the Constitution itself is a league with death and a. covenant with hell! , How far they shall be permitted to go on, with their work until checked by a sound reactive public. sentiment— how far they shall get sympathy and cooperation from those whom they are now atternpting to mislead ¦ — how far they may be successful in their long cherished wish for civil strife, I cannot, say. That is-a problem for tha future to settle; that depends upon the virtue, intelligence, and integrity of the people. But that theyiought not to suceeod — that they ought not only to, be discouraged1, but rebuked aiyl. condemned in every part of this country, and by every man who has a spark of patriotism in Ins bosom, as well in the North as m the South, I this day maintain. But the gentleman, from Ohio says all this comes from the Kansas bill. How? - in what way ?,: What is there wrong in that Kansas measure? It has been said that it, is a fraud, It has been said that it is thcigreatestof iniquities. It has been said it i I is a crime against God. It 1 thatthat it is a crime against nature. has been said Well, sir, what is this fraud; this, iniquity, this crime against nature and- against God? It is the simple decla ration of the [principle that the people of the Ter ritories of Kansas and Nebraska — the pioneer, freemen there — our own brothers in flesh and blood — going there from every State of the Union, for the purpose of settling that distant frontier — there to build up new homes for themselves and tlteir posterity — should have the right,, without limitation or restriction, from any quarter, save the Constitution of the United States, to formt and mold just such institutions for their own government as they pleased— a right which lies at the foundation of all our. State governments, and upon which the whole Republican its several parts, is built and established. This is the fraud, this is' the iniquity, this is the' great crime of crimes, the security to the people of the Terri tories of the right of self-government under the" Constitution. The amount of the crime is, thai freemen shall be permitted to make such consti tutions, republican in form, for their own govern ment, without dictation or control from any other power, as they please. Tell it wherever you go,- thatthis was the monstrous' outrage committe'd by an American Congress in 1850, the middleof thenineteenth century, on the Territories of Utah and New Mexico, and repeated by the same body in 1854, on the Territories of Nebraska and | " bleeding Kansas !" This is the whole of it — nothing more and nothing less. These troubles we now hear of — these efforts to get up civil war— these shouts at the announcement that civil war has already commenced — are but part and parcel, of that spirit which animated a portion, and only a portion, of the opposition to the Kansas bill, dufing the pendency of that measure in this House. That same spirit at the North that had so bitterLy opposed the establishment of this great principle of territorial policy in 1850 eon Id not bear the' idea of its being carried out in the future. I recollect very well, sir, that while the Kansas bill was progressing here, a newspaper in the city' of New York, edited by a man of great ability, untiring energy and industry, and who is riow the head and front— the animating spirit of the present opposition, and civil war champion's, undertook to Ipeture this House as to our duty in regard to that bill. We were told- then by hint what an enormous wrong 'it would be; anil when the measure was about to pass an editorial in that paper reached here, from which I wish to present some extracts, to show that it is the same spirit now at wOrk: " We urge, therefore, unbending determination on the 'part of the 'northern members hostile to this iritol'-rablB ouu-age; and demand of them, in behalf of peace — in behalf of freedom— in behalf of justice and humanity — resistance, to the lu,-t, Uctler that confusion should ensue— better that . discord should reign' in the national councils — better that" Congress should break u% in wild disorder — nay, belter that the Oavitol itselj should'hlaze by tlie torchofthe incendiann or fall and bury all us inmates beneath its erunlblmg ruins than that tins perfidy and wrong should, be finally accom plished." This, is the language of the New York Tribune in reference to the Kansas bill a few days before itpajssed. Yes, sir, even then that editor declared that it was better that this Capitol should be burnt hlyithe terch of am incendiacy^s.be*ter-that theJ Government should go into dissolution , than that the people colonizing. and settling Kansas and Nebraska' should be just as, free as the .people of New"York, or, as heicstates it, than that this act of -perfidy atid wrong sliould 'he filially aecpm.- • plished. - What wrongdid theacticontain ? Wrong toJwhom? to whom was' there anything in it either wrong orunjust ? Was it wrong to the people of the'South, one: large seotion'of the' Union, to'.per- mk them to enjoy an'equal and fair participation. of- the public domain purchased by the" common blood and common treasure of ail ? < Wa&it wrong or unjust to permit.the people of New1 York, Mas sachusetts,, and other States of .the North] going iatol a new Territory, to be as free there as .they were- in their native homes ? - Was it Wrong or unjust to allow' all from all the States, who might be disposed to quit the, old States, and' i seek to better-their fortunes by cutting-down the forests of the West, turning up its virgin soil , and'rnaking t&e wilderness to blossom as the rose, io enjoy the same rights which their, fathers did tin the early formation of, all our present State constitu-' tions and governments? Whom, I say, did'the bill.wrong? , To whontdid it deal any injustice? Was it.the.slave, theAfriean, whomhis-southern master might take there? How could it be unjust eiten tohiln? Is not his condition-as much bet tered .by'new. lands and.vkgin soils! as that of'his, master? , Is not expansion of Jihat portion of. southern population quite as necessary for their comfort and well-being as it1 is for the whites ? Would you keep them hemmed,., in. .in their present limits, .until subsistence, shall ¦ fail, and. starvation' shall effectthe objects of a~~*iisguided humanity ? Without stopping here to say a word iip^ 1 the subjecUlf southern soeiety, and thte relation which the; negro- there sustains to the white man; either aS-tO th* necessity of that relation, or its1 wisdom or propriety ,' does it work any wrong or injury" to 'thi&' slave to take him fronvold land's to' new lands? Is nothis condition bettered by the change? And have we noti new lands enough for all ? '¦ Your Topefet convention, which/formed the pretended free-State constitution now' btforeus, proposed to exolude'the -negro and mulatto ' forever from that country. Upon the score of humanity, then, even' to»tirardii< the ''poor negro" about whom so much sympathy is attempted to-be excited, I ask, which dbeshim the greater wrong, the Kansas- bill, Or tfce'project of your'freeiState constitution ."Who, tdrhim, is the Good Samaritan in this case? The Freei-Soil Levite, who1 would leaive him to starve w-ittootHVland to work? or has humane southern master, who is willing to' provide both ;larid and shelter, food and 'raiment?- Where, then', 'is the wrong of this billi? It consists in nothing but permitting the freemen of our own race to settle' this question of the status of the African amongst' themselves, astheyin their wredomand patriotism^ may think best for the happiness of both races,! jiist as the freemen of our owij race did in each' of the old thirteen States of theUmon.'. .. m ¦¦'•¦a '-But, sir, theHousedid not heed this lecture of the«ditorV' Theibill passed this body; it passed the Senate ; it received the constitutional approval ¦ y le -j'l 'j .'Ml nil V'Ty-T'TTT-tin.1' ',.ln,-'<. Nnl of the Executive, and. became ttoe law of the fend-ji The rev.olutionary.spirit,howe:reiVwhich invoked;1 the burning of theiCapitol, did nbbst'op with defeat- in i all three of the -departments! of legislation'.1' Members' of Congress with-' others, beaten in here-r*.that' suggestion did' not take. But bodies' of-men were organized — not allowing the legiti mate laws, of nature, of climate, and of soil 'to de-" terminei threi chalraoter >of >the Whatfor? Did'thesel colonists go toKansas'aft our forefathers sought homes'at Plymouth, Sti-. Mary's, Jamestown; 'and Savannah ?¦ Or flidtheyi noti-rather. go as -the. train-bands of Gortes and,' Pizzaro went forth thirsting for the conquest. of' theMonterfumasieird! the Incas ? .Was not their sole object to effect, by force 'and violence what" theythad failed to do by.legislation? What other" meaning .can bcpiit upon tnefollowirig manifesto i which was, published' in the ." Herald. of Free- ' dom/' their organ at Lawrence, the head-quarters of these emigrants inthe. Territory:', -iuIj " borue'ortc, come aii,'slaveocrats and nullifiers ; w!^ have"1 rifles cfioiagh, and bullet-enough, to send you'Sll'toi-yettf ' (and Jitdas's).' awn. pi ace.' :'< If you're coming;. why don't you gome along?'" ,. ,,, ,.. ,., :, ,, ,, , „„"; , , ,„it •Was not this'a' direct invitation to arms? And' whatever troubles or distBrbattees exist in Kan-»'- sas, let "them not be, 'charged? to the 'Kansas bill, but to those who have sworn in their wrath that"' that bill'never shallwork out i'tS' natural andlegiti-i mate-results, .if 'they can prevent it. -mAs' well " might th'e 'wars about poiWts'Of doctrine and re-. „ ligious. creeds which hav-e disgraced Christendom, ,u be charged upbn the 'heavenly principles of. thai] i gospel. -Christ'himself said tliat.it was.impossir n, ble but thatofferisesin this world of wickedness [would come. • ' When bad) men/are^af ,work;ithiey A i cannot be preventedi' Theiprincijiles of ;that Ml \r, are in -no way responsible for any outrages or > trampling; Upon1 rights , by parties on .the other, / side of the 'controversy, got up and provoked in'.,; that Territory by designinglmen outside, formis- chievdusp'urposes. Andilihefriends.oflthatbill— , tliosewha stand> pledged td.its. principles— con demn, outrageslon either oil both' sides, alike. -But.aw.ord, sir,as to thehature and extemVof these, difficultieau Are they, not greatly exagge->i. rated ancL.magnifieii? ^Let us loofeiat the_&cts..i,, Some men, it is true, have been killed— some oa 8 both sides. And what else could have been ex pected?, What other result could have been looked for by.those instigating the movements I.have alluded to.J , The, first mah killed inthe Territory was Davis. , He fell by the hands of those calling themselves free-State men. Then Pow, a free-State mah, was killed by Coleman; but the quarrel .between them, arose about a land claim. It was a private and personal matter. Coleman immediately gave himself up to the- legal authorities, claiming to have acted in selHefense. Whether he did or not, I do not know, and will not pretend to say; but a friend of Dow, of the' name of Branson , .having made threats of aveng ing his death, was arrested under a peace war rant, and, while in- the, hands of "an officer, was rescued by a party, of. free -State men; War rants ^were -taken , out for these, and they took shelter in Lawrence, where they put themselves in,defianceof lhe,civilauthorities. ¦ Thepbssewas called out to aidi in the arrest, and this led first to the seige of Lawrence, and then to the capitu lation of December last. In this war, no lives were lost. Two or three other homicides had been committed in the Territory; but in all, from the organization of i the Territory, up to .the at tempted assassination of Sheriff Jones,. I think not exceeding half a dozen ! . ; In what part of the United States, sir, in, the same' length, of time, with the same population they -hare in Kansas, have there been fewer murders or deaths, by Viot- lence ? How many were killed in the riots last year in Cincinnati? How many in. Louisville, Kentucky? ,,;j . . ,1; I venture to say to-day, thatwith all.this clamor about civil war m Kansas, more lives have not been lost there, since the organization of the Ter ritory, than have been in severalof the large city. election's of the Unitod States within the last twelve months. It is not my wish to make light of these things, but to takE a calm and dispas sionate., vie w of them. A strong and ,general tendency to disregard ,law and order is one of the most lamentable evils of the day. It is not con fined to Kansas, but it is seen and felt every where. And our object, and that of all gi^od men, should be, to check it rather than excite it. Tiieny.sir, as, to the. election in Kansas and the laws passed by their Legislature. One word upon th-ispoint. The first election was held therefor a. Delegate to Congress in November, 1854. That ih'ere were illegal votes on both sides I have no do».ibt; but I believe it is admitted by every one that, notwithstanding the efforts of the emigrant aid companies to pi-event it, General, Whitfield had mack- the larger number of the legal \to|tes of the Territory, and was duly elected; In March afterwards greater efforts were made to carry the. .Legislature1.. The result was the commission or certificate ot ' election by Governor Reeder hlmseif to a large majority of both branchss of that body* They were therefore legally constituted as a le gislative body. I There may, have been illegal vot ing on both sid es, as there is doubtless in all ou-r' elections.' But supon the well-settled and .fixed' principles on which all our representative institu tions rest, and without a maintenance of which there can be neither "law nor drder," that is now a closed question. -The laws, therefore, of thatr Legislature must -be obseryedr-arid obeyed tmtil repealed or modified by legislative power, orjset aside by the courts as void. And upon the -char acter of these laws I wish to make but a passing remark. The gentleman from Indiana,[Mr.C.oi.r fax] pointed oufquite a number, of, them the other day, which he said were very bad ones. Well , sir ;,I am not going to discuss' their'respeefc ; ive merits. . Perhaps some of them are bad.j-.it.- would be an extraordinary code if it were other wise. Iiknow the advocates of the present gov- . ernment , in the Territory — the law-and-order party there^-rdo not themselves approye of all,af.j them. , I willread.what they say on the subject:. " The law for the protection of slave property has also beenmuch misunderstood. The right .to .pass such a law is. expressly stated by Governor ;Eeeder in his inaugural. message, in which he says: ' ATerritorial Legislature may undoubtedly act upon the' question to a'limited and partial , extent, and may temporarily prohibit, tolerate, or regulate-' slave/y in the .Territory, and in an absolute or modified' form, with all the force and effect of any other legislative act, binding "until repealed by tjie same power that enacted it.' There is nothing in the act itself, as has been charged* to prevent a free discussion of the subject of-slavery. Its bearing on society, its morality or expediency, or whether it would be politic or impolitic to make thi* a slave State, can be discussed hf re as freely as in any State in this Union, without infringing any of the provisions of the law. To denythe right of a .person -to hold slaves under the law in .this. Territory is made penal; but, beyond this, there is: no restriction to. the discussion of the slavery question in, any aspect in which it is capable of being considered. , .We do not wish to be understood as approving of all the ' "laws passed by the tegislaturer on the contrary, we would state that, there are some that we do not approve of, and which are. condemned by public opinion here, and which will no doubt be repealed or modified at the meeting of the next Legislature.' Bdt' this is nothing more than what frequently occurs, both in the legislation of Congress and ' of tr^e.vari.qus. Suite Legislatures.,, The remedy for such evils is to be found in public opinion, to which,,sooner.or later, in a Government like ours, all laws must conform, *» , Mr. COLFAX. What is the date of that ? Mr. STEPHENS. Last November. Now, sir,I ha,ye examined this whole codeof laws, and as a whole, some few exceptions out, I say that.. no State in the Union, has got better ones. There are some in it I do not approve — there are some in all the podes I have everseen that I do not ap prove. I will not go to the gentleman 's State.'or to any. other gentleman's State, to find laws that I do not approve. We have plenty of them in my . own State, And the gentleman: ought to feel, highly blessed if he has none in. Indiana that he disapproyas-i We havea greatmany in Georgia I do notapprove. There is one in particular which", I fought in the Legislature and opposed before the courts with all the power that I had. It was a law making it penal to bear concealed deadly weapons, I am individually opposed to bearing" such weapons. I never bear weapons of any sort; but I believed that it was the constitutional right of every American citizen to bear arms-jf he chooses, and just such arms, and in just such way, as he chooses., I thought that, it, was the, birthright of every Georgian to do it. I w'as do- > feated in our Legislature. I was defeated ibefora our courts. The question went up .to the highest, . judicial tribunal in our State, the Supreme Court',', which sustained: the law. • In that decision all had to> acquiesce. ,. Sir, the , people in all the. States, 9 have to obey the laws as pronounced and ex pounded by the courts. The difference between a republic and "a monarchy is, that the one is a government of laws, subject to be changed by the people; the other is a government dependent upon the caprice Or whim, and arbitrary will of one man. And when the people of a Republic array themselves against their laws, the first step is into anarchy, and then comes monarchy. The speech of the' gentleman from Indiana is suffi- _ ciently anWered by the address of his own party adopted at'Pittsburg, thoiigh'those who issued it seemed not to 'be conscious of the effect of the' admission That address, after specifying the same objectionable lawsin the Kansascode which he has, says: ' ' ' . , -.,,'¦•'. *- 0 ' . ^That these despotic acts, even if they had been passed by'a Legislature duly elected by the people of the Territory, would have been null and^vbid, inasmuch as they are' plainly in violation of the Federal Constitution, istoocfyar for argument. Congress itself is expressly forbidden by the Constitution of the Uiiinjcl States to make any laws abridg ing the freedom of speech and of the press ; and it is absurd to suppose that a Territorial Legislature, deriving all its power from. Congress, should not be subject to.the same restrictions." The latter is- a-very clear proposition, to my mind. Neither Congress nor a Territorial Legis lature can pass any law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press. This is, indeed, too clear for argument. 1 indorse that part of the Pitts burg platform. But not a single disturbance in the Territory has grown out of either of these laws complained of as despotic. But if tlfere had — if these laws be so clearly unconstitutional and so manifestly violative of. the freedom of speech and of the press, why should not any party aggrieved refer the question to the judicial tribu nals > If the case is so 'clear, why not go1 to the courts ? There are Federal courts in the Terri-i tory; and an appeal can 'be taken to the same highHribunal that all of us' in such matters have to- 'appeal to- in the last resort — the Supreme. Court of the United States. ¦ Mr. CAMPBELL, of Ohio, (interrupting.) I rise to -propound a question, if.it is entirely agree able to the gentleman from Georgia, and not otherwise. - ' - ¦ . . Mr. STEPHENS. Perfectly agreeable; but I hope the gentleman will not take much of my time. "'" Mr. CAMPBELL. - I-was similarly responded to on a forrnfir'occasion, and r shall take warn ing, and occupy but a momontof the gentleman s time.'' Why did not you, and those who sought to disturb the- time-honored compromise of our- fitthers of 1820, if they- regarded the1 eighth sec tion of the Missouri act as unconstitutional, re- eort.to the courts to test its constitutionality? Mr. STEPHENS. There is a case of that S0*t now before the Supreme Court. • - Mr. CAMPBELL. Why, instead of bringing all this trouble on. the country, did' he not then resort to the courts? - - ', : Mr. STEPHENS* Why, Mr. Speaker, it was first -my duty as a legislator, believing it to _be wrongs to vote to repeal it, and r-did so, [laugh ter;] and if the Congress of the United States hind not repealed it, and I had been personally affected by it in the Territory, then I might have resorted to the courts. Mr. CAMPBELL. Did not the gentleman vote to repeal it because of its unconstitutionality? Mr. STEPHENS. Standing as it did, I did, for that and' other reasons. % As lon'g as it stood as a regulation founded on the principle of a division of the Territory, I was willing to abide byit; but when it was abandoned and repudiated as such, it was, in my judgment, an' odious and unjust restriction. But I do not wish the getitle- man to divert me from the line of argument I was pursuing.; Mr. CAMPBELL. If the gentleman voted to repeal it in 1854 because it was unconstitutional, why did he vote to fasten it upon Texas in 1846, unless, in the meanwhile, there was a change in the Constitution? Mr. STEPHENS. For the very reason that I have just stated. In 1845, on the annexation of Texas", I voted for it, upon the principle of a division of the Territory. Congress has a right to pass all needful laws and regulations for the Territory, as property; so said Mr. Madison; this includes the 'power to divide, if necessary or needful for puplic peace and harmony. When V voted for it, it was upon that principle. And, sir, it was in 1850, after the gentleman's party had repeatedly— in 1846, 1847, 1848, 1849, and 1850 i — denied, repudiated, and scouted at what they now call the' time-honored compromise of our fathers of 1820, that I voted for the reestablish- meht of the-old principle in our territorial policy — of leavingthe public domain open for .the free and equal settlement and colonization of the people from all the States alike, without congres sional limitations or restrictions upon any. This principle was reestablished in 1850— after the one proposed in 1820 had been abandoned — and'this principle I voted to carry out in 1854, in the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska. Mr. CAMPBELL. Will the gentleman ex- ' plain to the House and to the country, how it is that a measure may be constitutional which ex cludes slavery on one side of a given line, in a Territory belonging to the people of the States in, common, anduhcoristitutional'on the other? , Mr.- STEPHENS. My 'explanation of the, point the gentleman makes is this: Upon the principle of a division of the Territory as public property between the two sections, it might be constitutional to set aside a portion to one by fixed lines and, boundaries, while the appropriation of the whole of it to that section would be manifestly wrong, unjust, and therefore unconstitutional. ' Just as in the case of the division of the surplus revenue — public property— among the States — the part'assigned to each, on division fairly and justly made, was constitutionally held; but if some States had taken, all to the exclusion of the rest, that would have been manifestly unjust, and therefore unconstitutional. But I have given my views at large upon this subject once before this session. Mr. CAMPBELL. Well then Mr. STEPHENS., I do, not wish the gentle man to divert me from my argument by a con tinuation of questions upon"other subjects. Mr. CAMPBELL. I, hope I may be fortunate ltf enough to.getthe floor at the expiration of the gentleman's hour, and therefore will not press my inquiries now on this interesting point. , , Mr. STEPHENS. Now, sir, just here I wish to; say a word more about " that time-honored compact of our fathers," which it is said has been violated. Mr. Speaker, I say that the fa thers who made ihjs Republic, from [the begin ning of it-rrfrom the dare of the Constitution arad up to 1820, .never in a single instance exercised-the power pf excluding, the migration of slaves, from any of the Slates of this Union to the common territory. The gentleman now claims to follow thefathi-i-sofi.hr' Republic.. Well,! suppose Gen eral Washington, Mr. Madison, and Mr. Jeffer son, are as eminently entitled as any others to occupy thai position. Mr. Jefferson, .especially iSjOften quoted by those holding; seats on this side of the House. Mr. Jefferson,, it is said, was agaipst. slavery . I grant that. But how? Mr. Jefferson was in favi u- of every State retaining.and i exercising jurisdiction oyer the subjectfor itself, Mr. Jefferson was, himselfiopposud, to the passage of .that restriction in ,1820, nowcajled a time-hon ored, compact. I. do not care as to what his ab stract opinions were. I'belieye he was, for pror vidjng for the gradual abolition of.sl&yery in Vir ginia. Ijut hisrplan was forthe people of Virginia to do it for themselves, without any -interference from abroad or influence from this .Government — I mean after the present Constitution was formed anil .adopted. . ' have Mr. Jefferson's sentiments herei before me 'on .this particular Missfturi re striction, when , it was passed. Itiis, immaterial, what. Ins opinions of slavery were— what did he think of thai measure ? The author of the, Dec laration of Independence is often appealed to as. authority by lite gentleman's; .party. Sir, if the, departed Jefferson could return fro,m the .realms above — if the seals of the tomb at Monticello could be broken, and that .spirit could.be: permitted to revisit the earth,, believe you that he would speukd a different sentiment to-day from that lie uttered then? . , Here is the letter which Mr. Jefferson wrote. It is too long to read the, whole; but in this letter to Mr- Holmes, of Maine, dated the 29th April, tSUO, alter strongly condemning thp, establish ment of a geographical line, and the attempt to restrain die " diffusion of slavery over a greater surface," he says: "An abstinence* too, from .this act of power would, re move Uie jealousy ..'.Ycili-d by the undertaking of Congress to regiil.u,/ Jiecuudilion of ihe different descriptions of men couipn-niji u Stah.. Tins, certainly, is the exclusive right ofeveiy Scire, ivhieh nothin^inthe Constitution lias taken from tin. in and eiveti :.o the Gfincral Government™ Could Congress, inr euunple, sitv llmt the now freemen of Con- neptieuulioijlil li. • tVeoiiien, and that they shall not emigrate . into any other State '" This is plain and explicit, anjl on the very question. I ¦ Again, in a letter to Mr. Madison on the same subject, he says: "I am indebted to you for your two letters of February? and 19- Tins .Viis.-niiri nuesiinn, ijy a geographical line of division, is the iiutsL jiuriiiiiiinia ope I have ever contem plated." * + ' |* " Is reuily to risk the Unioufor' any chance or resroriug'riis pahy lo power, and wriggling lumself to the head of it."- The allusion here is evidently to RuftisKing,,, who,.was the first mover of the restriction. Such, ,, sir, were thesentiments.ofhim.who was;nptonly the author of the Declaration, of Independence, but the._ author of the ordinance of- 1787, under ' the .old Confederation. This iswhat he said, of the restriction of 1820, under our present Consti- • ttttibn-.-. ',',,, . if Here , is also, Mr. Madison's emphatic opinion;;-, against the same measure. I cannon take up my, time in reading it. , I state the fact, and QhalJenge. contradiction. Jefferson was against the restric tion of 1820. Madispn was against it, and Jackr sqn .was against it. Noman.cande;iy these facts, . It was reluctantly accepted by the South, however,. as an alternative, and only as an alternative, for the sake; of peace a,pd' harmony. ,, And who ars_ those now. who call, jit a, sacred compact? Those very men, the gentleman arid his party, whode-. nounced every man from the .North a« " adough- /ace,",whp from 1846 to .1850, were, in favor of abiding by it, for the sake of union and harmony. . Not a man can be named from the-North who was. willing to abide by that line of division durineJ' the period I have stated who was not denounced by tbe.'geDtleman and his party/as ". a dough-rt' face." ;Who now are the " dough -faces ? " And if thejgentleman wishes to know what tree brought forth that better, fruit of which he spoke the other day, I will, tell him. It was not the Kansas tree, but that old political upas plantedby Rufus King, in 1820. ' It grew up; it flourished, and it sen tits poisonous .exhalations throughout this country till it came wellinigh extinguishing the life of the Republic, in 1650. . ,,i Mr. CAMPBELL. ..That tree was planted. when — [Cries of "Order!," " Order!"]1— when slavery was firstbrought to the shores of America. [Cries of "Order!" "Order!"] Mr. STEPHENS. Well, then, Mr. Speaker,, it is much older than the. Kansas .bill. It;was. planted before the Government.was formed. The Constitutiqn itself was.grafte'd upon its .stock. The condition or slavery of the African race, as it. exists amongst us, is a "fixed- fact", intthte... Constitution. From this a tree has indeed spruago — tbearjng, however, no.trbubles or bitter fruits. Itis the tree of national liberty, which,.by the culture of statesmen and patriots, has grown wp^ and flourished, and is now sending its branches famand wide, ladened. with no frujtjbut national, happiness, prosperity, glory, and renown.!.,,,, ,, Mr. CAMPBELL. . Will the,gentleman from . Georgia read the preamble to the, Constitution ? • Mr. STEPHENS. Yes; and. I believe I can.. repeat it to him. Itis "in order to form a moreu perfect union, estabUsh justice, insure domestic: tranquiUiti!.". ¦, ,": Mr. CAMPBELL. " And secure the .blessing* of liberty to Ourselves and our pbsterity." , Mr.' STEPHENS. . Yes,, sir, to' themselves and their posterity — not to theinegroes.and.Afri-.-i cans— and what sort of liberty?-;. Constitutional liberty; thatliberty which recognized the inferior i condition ,qf the African race amongst them; ftb.a liberty which we now enjoy; the liberty which,: all, the.Stateseiijoyed.attliat.tinie, save one, (for. . all were then slaveholding, except Massachu- 11 setts,) That is the sort of liberty. None of your Socialism liberty. None of your.Fourierism lib erty, Constitutional liberty— " lay/ and order" abiding liberty. That is the liberty which they meant to perpetuate. ',,' . , , ,, Now, Mr. Speaker, to return from this digres sion — I was on the subject of the Kansas laws — I had a good deal to say on thai point Imustnow omit; for I have a good deal 1 wish also tosay on the measure immediately before us, and the amendment which 1 have submitted, and my time is rapidly passing away. ' I shall proceed, then, to the bill and the amendment. The bill under consideration proposes to admit Kansas as a State at once under the T.opeka con stitution. I am opposed to it; because that con stitution, was formed without any authority of law, either from the' territorial authorities or from Congress. It was formed in open opposition to law; it was formed by men, jn open rebellion, with arms in their hands, against the only legally- constituted government in the Territory.' The leaders most conspicuous in getting it up are now ander arrest for treason. Whether they are guilty or not, 1 will not even express an opinion. That ia a question for the courts-^tlie Federal courts — : not the courts created by the Territorial Legisla ture, but the United States courts, with an appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States — to determine.' I do pot wish in any way to interfere i with that judicial question. Let these gentlemen j stand or fall according to their guilt or innocence, as it may be made to appear before the proper tribunals, at the proper time. Let us not, in the mean time, prejudge the case either for or against them. The man who claims to be Governor under this Topeka constitution is now in custody awaiting-his trial for the highest offrnse known to the laws and Constitution of the United States. 1 am opposed to this bill, because we have no evidence that a majority, or anything like a ma jority, of the people of Kansas are in favor of this pretended Topeka constitution. It is an exparte proceeding from beginning to end . It was ^ftupbya party lt'was' contrived by Governor, leeder; and though he and his associates now place the whole grounds of their justification upon the plea that the Territorial Legislature was composed of usurpers— that the election was car rie.d by an invasion of nonresidents, who passed laws that they cannot submit to, yet.it must be recollected by all' fair-minded men that this Legis lature, however elected, was organized under the auspices of Governor Reeder himself. . He was the judge of the election returns of its members in the first' instance,and he duly commissioned, a large majority of both branches of it, and gaye his own official certificate that they were duly elected^ If what is now asserted by him and others be true, why djd' he not at the proper time' arrest it? Why now lay a complaint at the door of the President for not preventing «n invasion of Kansas, or setting aside the legislative election, while he, as Governor, made no complaint to the President > He was the sentinel placed upon the | wjtch-tower in, Karisas. The only cry heard from . him by the President or the country, during this j now-preieuded invasion, and for several long ' R, months', afterwards, was, " All 's well ' " He reo* ognized. this. Legislature after.it was organized, , and after he knew full well how it was elected. 1 must therefore , receive with many^rains ofal- lowance what he now asserts, all tondin« towards . nothing more strongly, than the iinpt-achrni-nt. of hisownofficialilitegrity., His posiniui, is not such, as to warrant me, as afair man, now to back him.:, in his present revolutionary moyenieni I see no, sufficient grievance even alleged to justify me, in doing it. Grant that some of thejlaws passed by the Le-; gislature that Reeder certified to as having been, duly elected werebad laws; — 1101,8 single case of oppression, growing out of any one of t hese laws, has arisen. 1 wason this point when interrupted by the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr Cumi-bull-] Howdoes ii appear but that the courts would pro-, nounee these, laws unconstitutional, »s some oh this floor maintain that tjiey are.? Why resort to. revolution until the courts fail' .. Nay. more if. a 'majority of, the people of Kansas' are opposed to these'laws, as is so boldly asserted on this floor, why can they not have, them repealed by rile next,, Legislature, soon to be elected, even if ihe r-ourts should sustain them? The.pext legislature is to be chosen in October. Why not settle ihai ques tion at tins batlot-box? Is not.that a. fair undjust,, way of settling such' questions : Is it not. the,, way we have to do in all our Stnt.es- Are those who press. this est; parte qonsXitinmn upon usafraifl , of the ballot-boar.? Whatever else may lv said of the acts, of the Kansas Legislature, they cer tainly, secured the purity, of the fountain of por. liticaj power7 Here is a part of their election law: "Sec. 24. If any person, by menaces, threats, .mrl force, or by any other uiihiwud means, eitpcr directly or indi rectly, attempt to influence any qualifier: enter in L'iving. his vote, or to deter him from, giving the . Every person who' shall, at me same election,.. vote more than .once, euherat the same or a diffcrem place, - shall, on, conviction, be adjudged guilly of a iiiisU.''.ui.'anjor, 'add be punished by fine not exceeding fifty dollars, or by imprisonment'i n the county jail not exceeding three montlls, »Seg; 26. 'Bvery-pcrson not being a qualified voter ac- cordiiig to the organic law and the; laws 01 fins, Territory, who shall yote at any election yvulun this Territory. know-: ing'that he is not entitletl to. vote, sii.di be adjudged guilty ofd "misdemeanor, and punished ov one not exceeding fifty dollars. > ¦ .. ,-.-¦ ... " Seo. 27. -Anypensoh who designedly gives a printed ox. written^icket tp any qualified voter of fins Territory, con. , taining the. writlenor printed mimes of persniH for whom suid voter does not design to voi'ej foi the purpose ofoaiia-1 ingsucb voter to poll his vote contrary 10 In- own wishes, shall, on conviction, be adjudged, g-.hlty of a misdemeanor, and punched by hne not exceeding rive hundre.l dollars, or . by imprisonment in Jhe county jail not exceeding thtee months, or by both such fine and'inlimsnnminl « Sec d8. Any person who shall cause to be printed and circulated, or who shall circulate, anv latsr no>l Ir.nnlulent' tickets, winch ,upqn their face appear to he designed as a., fraud upon voters, shall^iipon cnnyicium, be punished by,,, hue hot exceeding rive hundred dollar-, or iiy 'ini|.nsoiitnen|. in the county jail, not exceeding three months. .0 by both .such fine and imprisonment . , , , . ,; '.'Tbis'aei.io lake eflectiapd be m force from andnfterUs '' passage." — Chap. 52,ji."2Bl. 12 Does any free man want a better security for his sovereign right of Suffrage than is here given ? Does this look like the work of "border ruf fians" who were looking to carry elections by fraud or violence ? But it is said that in the same law it is provided that no man shall be entitled to vote who has been guilty of aviolation of the fu gitive slave law passed by Congress! Well, sir, is this an onerous restriction? Ought men who set themselves up in open violation of the laws of our country to complain of being deprived of tile right of having a voice in making laws ? Are not certain offenses in all our States grounds of denying suffrage? Biitthe great question is, can not this provision of the election Iaw'be repealed by the next Legislature if a majority of the honest people there are against it? The case then pre sented by the Governor and his associates in the Topeka movement is not such as to jilstify, in my judgment, this revolution which they have set on foot, and no wask Congress to approve.and sanction. .Besides this, Mr. Speaker, the evi dence is very strong to my mind, if 'not conclu sive, that this Topeka constitution does not meet the approval of a majority of thepeople of Kan sas. When it was submitted to popular vote, only about seventeen hundred in the whble'Terri- tory approved it. Now, sir, I am for no such judgment either way— I am forfair dealing in this matter on both sides. • I wish for nothing but a fair expression of the will of the bona fide residents of Kansas urion this subject. When I voted for the Kansas hill, I did so, not for the purpose of making it a slave State, unless a majority of the white freemen there desired' it; ana if they did desire it, I was for permitting them to exercise the same power 'over the subject tljat the freemen Of the other States of the Union exerpise 'over the same sub jects within their respective limits. I' never re garded the success of that measure as a triumph of the South over the North, further than it was a triumph, of this great constijutipnal'principle of equality over that sectionalism of a party at the North, which denied it. Whether Kansas or Nebraska would be slave States or free States, I did not know. I left that to time, climate, soil, and the people, to settle. And now, sir, though upon general principles I am opposed to the ad mission of any State into the Union without population sufficient to entitle them to a member on this floor, according to the ratio of representa tion, yet, in the present case, if gentlemen are so anxious to press the admission of Kansas,. I am willing to forego the" usual inquiry into the exact amount of population there. I will 'waive that.point. I do not know the number of people there. Gentlemen on the other, side vary in their estimates from sixty thousand to ninety thousand. I think it would be best first to ascertain the facts. Still I will,! say, waive that point; and if gen tlemen are, so anxious for the admission 'of the people of that Territory, whatever may be their j numbers, as a State, 1 meet them, and offer the I substitute to this bill which I have submitted. ' Mine is an alternative proposition. If Kansas is to be admitted, let it be done in a fair, just, and proper way, and not at the instance of an irregular, illegal, and revolutionary convention of only a portion, and a very small portion at ' that, of the people of the Territory. The plan I submit is the same offered by my colleague [Mr. ; Toombs] in the Senate. I suppose gentlemen" have read it. I cannot now read it. Its main features are to provide for the admission of Kan sas, under such constitution as her people may form, at as early a day as is practicable. It provides, first, for the taking of a census. This is to be ddne by five commissioners, to be appointed by the President, and ratified by the Senate1. It provides, secondly, for an election to be held* in the' Territory on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November next, (the day of the Presidential election in the States,) for delegates to a convention to form a State constitution. Representation in this convention is to be ac cording to the number of voters in the several counties and districts, as shall appear from the census, which is, amongst other things, to exhibit the names of all the actual residents of the Terri tory at the date of the passage of the bill. These commissioners are to appoint the officers to conduct the. election. Returns are to be made to them, and they are to judge and determine ail questions relating to the election, and to give cer tificates of the same. Three months' residence in the county is re-, quired to entitle any one to vote. And to guard the purity and sanctity of the ballot-box, so that the Untrammeled voice of the people may be heard, let it be as it may, these stringent provisions are inserted: Sec. 10. Andbe it further enacted, That every white male citizen of the United States, (including Indians oflike de scription qualified by exisung laws to vote,) over twenty- one years old, who may be a bona fide inhabitant of said Territory at the pasage of this act, and who shall have re- jsided three months next before said election in the county in which he offers to vote, and no other persons whatever, shall be entitled to vote at said election ; and all persons qualified as voters may be elected delegates to said conven tion, and no others. Skc. 11. Jini be it-further enacted, That, if any person, by menaces, threats, or force, or by any other unlawful means, shall directly or indirectly attempt to influence any qualified voter in giving his vote, or deter him from giving the same, or disturb or hinder him in the free exer cise of his right of suffrage, at the election provided for by this act, the person so offending shall be adjudged guilty of a misdemeanor, and be punished by fine not exceeding five hundred dollars, or bv imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both,. at the discretion of [lie court. Sec. lsi. Jiml be.il further enacted, That anv person not being a qualified voter, according to the provisions of this act, w-ivo shall vote at the election herein provided for, knowing that he is not entitled to vole, and any person who shall, at the snjne election, vote more than once, whether at the same or at different places, shall be adjudged guilty of a misdemeanor, and punished by fine not exceeding two hundred and fifty dollars, or by imprisonment not exceed ing six months, or both, at the discretion of the court.' - Sec. 13. -And be it further enacted, That any person whatsoever who may be charged will) the holding of the election herein authorized to be held, who shall willfully arid knowingly commit any fraud or irregularity whatever with the intent to binder or prevent, or defeat a fair ex pressinn of the popular will in said election, shall be oiiiltv of a misdemeanor, and punished by fine not exceeding oni thousand dollars, and imprisonment not exceeding twa years, or both, at the discretion of. the court. But, sir, my time will not allowVme to go more into details. The object of the bill, from the 13 beginning to the end, is to provide for as fair an expression of the popular will of the Territory as human ingenuity can devise. By the expres sion of that will, when thus made, 1 shall abide, let it be which way it may. For your bill as it stands, I can, never vote. Against the substitute I offer, who can raise any objection that is in favor of disposing of this question upon principles of fairness, of justice, of law, of order, and of the Consti tution ? 1 present the distinct issue between these two measures to the Houseand the country. I am constrained, Mr. Speaker, to believe that all this clamor we hear about " free Kansas," and "down-trodden Kansas," and "bleeding Kansas," arises much more from .a desire and hope of exciting by it sectional hate and the alien ation of one portion of the Union from the other, " than from any wish to have even " free Kansas" admitted into the Union, or from any, conviction that a majority of the people there are in favor of this Topeka constitution. The object, I am con strained to believe, is not so much to get another State added to theT/nion, as it is to use the ques tion to produce a severance of those States now united. Why these violent, denunciations against one whole section of the Confederacy ? Why is such unbridled vituperation indulged in towards southern men and sovithern institutions? Why these shouts of joy in New York on the announcement that " civil war" was raging in Kansas? What other construction can be put upon the movement of a late sectional convention held in Philadelphia to nominate party candidates for President and Vice President? What is the meaning of all these appeals to the passjons and prejudices of the people- of, the northern, States, exciting them to rise up against their southern Brethren ? Is it not part and parcel of, that same sp'irit which proclaimed that it were better that the Capitol shoukl'blaze by the torch of an incen diary, and wild disorder ensue, than that the, free people bfKansas and Nebraska should regulate their own domestic institutions in their. own way? . That is all that the advocates of the Kansas bill asked; that is all it was designed to effect; and that is all I this day ask this House to join me' in carrying but in good faith to the letter and spirit. To show the House and the country some of the grounds for my belief touching the ulterior objects^ of some of" those who are joining in this "Kansas cry" at, the North, I ask attention to an editorial of the New York Courier and En quirer of the 26th instant. In .this, that editor .says: " We are in the midst of a revolution, the origin of which is sectional, and its avowed object to, gratify the grasping am bition of the slave power; and a civil war waged in behalf offreedom and in resistance of slavery, extension is a fitting accompaniment of an attempt on the -part of the South and their co-laborers of the North, to trample on the principles and guarantees of the , Constitution, by the extension of , slavery into free territory through the direct legislation of the General Government." Here it is announced that we are in the f\ midst of a revolution, the origin of which, is sectional." Eutmost strange to say, the cause of it is charged' upon the South; and stranger still, that cause is asserted to be an attempt on the patt of the South to " trample on the principles and guarantees of the Constitution, by, the: extension of slavery into free territory through the direct legislation, of the General Government." Was ever accusation more groundless and utterly unfounded, than, this against the South ? The South never asked Con gress, by legislation, to extend, slavery; nor has' it ever been done by any such legislation. All that the South ever asked, or now asks, is, to leave the question to be settled by those who are to be affected by it. General James Watson Webb, the editor of this paper, (the Courier and Enquirer,) was a delegate to, the late Philadelphia convention, the object of which was to embody this sectional movement o£ the North against- the South. In that convention he made a speech. From that speech, as reported in the New York Times,, we are not left to inference as, to what is the design' and intention of the leading spirits controlling it. In speaking of the people the convention repre sented, he says: " They ask us to give them a nomination which, when. put fairly before the people, will unite public sentiment, and, through -the ballot-box, will restrain and ,repel this pro-slavery extension, and this aggression of the slave- ocracy. What elseare they doing? They tell yon that they are willing to abide by the ballot-box-, and willing tomake that the last appeal. If we fail there, what, then? We will drive' it hack, sword in hand, and so help mc. G?d .' believing that to he right, I am' with them. [Loud cheers, and cries of 'Good!']" This was in no common town or city meeting. But it was in that great. northern sectional con vention lately assembled at Philadelphia, that these sentiments received such bursts of applause. There is, I say, no mistaking the object of the leaders of this' movement. They" evidently intend to use this Kansas question to make as much political capital out of it as they can- to aid them in carrying the election, by .which means they hope' to get power to "crush out" the South, as they suppose; but, if they -fail in the election, then tbey are, sword in hand, to join the revolu tionists in Kansas. In the first editorial I read from, in this mam moth sheet, (the Courier and Enquirer,) issued the 26th insfct, and written, doubtless, by General Webb hiniself, who seems to be the" Magnus Apollo of the Black Republican hbsts, are these significant, as well as studied, words: " The remedy is, to go to the polls, and through the baV- lot-box repudiate the inftunotis platform put forth at Cin cinnati, and over which the black fla" ot'sluccrij waves with characteristic impudence; and failing in this, do as our fathersdid before us— stand, by, bur inalienable rights, and drive back with arms those who, dare to trample upon our inheritance. There is no boasting and no lineal in this. It is the calm language of honest, conscientious, and determ ined. freemen, wafted to ns by every breeze from the West; and they are already aeting in .strict conformity with their avowed determination." Now, sir; I care .as little for these belligerent manifestoes of this redoubtable, general of the Courier and Enquirer, asl did two years ago for the " blazing" and " incentlianj" bulletins of his cotemporary of the Tribune, t refer to them only to show the purposes at work; and I put the question; directly to this House;, Are you going to allow this, .subject to be used for any such purposes? If you want Kansas admitted as a H State, do I not offer you a fair, liberal, and just "proposition for accomplishing that' object? Do you wish to go before the country with the ques tion,' to inflame the public mind at the North, to move' their- passions, to stir Up their blood, and prepare their'hearts for a war of extermination agflihst their southern brethren ? — " to drive them 'back, sivord in hand, in case ydu fail in the election?" If so, then be it so. But be'itknown to you, that you will have to take 'the' question with the issue this day joined. Betweenyou and me — between these two propositions, I am willing that the people North, as well. as the South, mayjudge. Nothing would afford me more pleasure than' to argue the question with you before any intelligent constituency in the Republic. ' Patriotism, t»s I have heretofore found it, is the same everywhere. Nor has it in days past been Confined to any locality in this broad land. Itis, I believe, indigenous' wherever the national flag floats. In the forests arid shipyards, and market towns of Maine it is to- be found; in the factories, workshops, and commercial houses of the old Bay State it is to be found. ' In State street and |Faneuil Hall its voicehas often! been heard. So_ on the White Mountains of New Hampshire and' the Green Mountains of Vermont; on the hills and' valleys of Connecticut, Rhode Island, New- York, Pennsylvania, arid New Jersey.' It is a plant that heretofore has grown with as much vigor on the most sterile soil of the East as it has upon the fairest plains of the South or the richest prairies of the /West. I cannot believe that a change of» political climate has rendered it an exotic in any part. of this country yet. Upon nothing, however, should I rely in presenting this issue everywhere, but upon the reason, justice, intelligence, virtue, integrity, and patriotism of the people; upon these all our republican institu tions must rest; when they fail, all that we hold dearmust go with' them. And if the North shall decide to follow. General Webb, let the responsi bility rest upon him' and them. 'I cannot believe that the great body of honest business people, of the North are prepared to join a set of reckless leaders in this crusade against the South, or will lend their infinencQxitl aid in kindling a civil war in Kansas which may extend until it involves the whole country. Thi3 I can not believe, and will not believe, for the present at least. It. is for them to determine whether they will ' or not. That question they wiil have ,to meet, not only on this issue, if the majority of this House so determine, but upon that other, atid at this time more absorbing", issue of the Cin cinnati platform. Tliat platform bears no black flag, as. this "sword-in-hand" general asserts. Black flags belong to those who think more Of black men than they do of the white" man, and who exhibit more sympathy for the well-provided African race than they do for the- suffering and oppressed' poor of their own.' The flag Of the CincinnEvlMplatform on this Subject bears no prin ciples ascribed upon its broad folds but those of the Constitution. The friendsof the Unionunder the' Constitution must and Will approve them 'ev erywhere; while none but the enemies 'of one .or the other of these, or both, can denounce them. Upon this great sectional questjon all national men, I care not of what party — all true hearted patriots, who look froth the bright history ofthe •past with hopes' to a' brighter future' before us, must "and will give those principles, announced at Cincinnati, their sanction and approval, The issue on this subject presented at Cincinnafiia 'nationalism against sectionalism-1 the issue pre sented at Philadelphia is sectionalism against na tionalism. ' ' ' Are we, Mr. Speaker, to remain aunited people? Are we to go on in that'higli career of achieve ment in science, in art, and in civilization, which wfe have so conspicuously entered upon?' Or are we to be arrested iri our upward course long before reaching' the half-way point towards ultimate 'culmination? Are our deeds of glory all nrfm- bered? Are the memories- of the past to be for gotten, and the benefits and blessings of the present to be derided and rejected? Is the radiant orb of day brightening the morning of our existence to be darkened and obscured, and with it the light of the .world extinguished forever? And all this because Congress, in its wisdom, has thought proper to -permit the free white'men of Kansas to determine for themselves whether the negro in that Territory shall be the same nondescript out cast, neither citizen nor slave, amongst them, that he is in sixteen States Of the Union, or whether he shall occupy the same condition there in rela tion to them which a Christian philanthropy has assigned him in the other fifteen States. I say Christian philanthropy, notwithstanding the re marks of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Dunn] and the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. Giddings,] the other day, denouncing slavery as a violation of the laws of nature and of God! To those remarks, though my time is short, I wish vety briefly to reply before I close. .Even, however, if slavery be sinful, as (hey affirm, or their language implies, permit'me here ko ask, is not the'sin the same whether the slave be held in Georgia, Carolina, or in Kansas ? Is it any more sinful in one place than another? But are these gentlemen correct? Is African slavery, "as it exists in the South, either a violation of the laws of nature, the laws of nations, or the laws of God?1 V maintain that it is not. It has been recognized by the laws of nations from time im memorial. The highest court in this country, the Supreme Court of the United States, has so de cided the laws of nations to be. And where do we.get the laws of nature but in nature's works about us ? Those general rules' and principles hf which all things in nature, accbrding to their kinds respectively, seem to be regulated, and to which they seem to conform; we call laws; and in the handiwork- of creation nothing is more striking to the philosophic observer ,' than that order is nature's first great law. Gradation, too, is stamped upon everything animate as well as inanimate — if, indeed, there be anything inanimate. A scale, from the lowest degree of inferiority to the highest degree of supe riority; runs through all animal life.' We see it in the insect tribes— we' see it in the fishes of the sea, the fowls of the' air, in the beasts of trie earth,'and we see it in the races of men. We see 15 The same priHcipteTpSrvadirig the heavenly bodies (Shoveriusi "One. star differs from another' stsin in (tsagnitiide and luSter-^some are.largery others r«re smaller — but the.greater and superior uni formly, inftuenoes . and' ¦ controls the lesserand .inferior within its sphere. Iff there is any fixed Tprineiple or law bfinature it is this, -tinithe races of men .we find .like differenqes in capacity and '< development. The negro is inferior tb -the white man; nature has made him so; observation and ,-iistory, from the '. remotest times, establish ithe fact; and all attempts to make -the inferior*! equal ;JfO tjje superior is but an effort to reverse. the decrees of .the Creator, who has made all things as we find' them, according to thecounsels of his own w^ll. The Ethiopian can no more change ¦ his nature or^is skin than the leopard his'spots. Do what you will, a. negro is a negro, and he will remain a riegrtj still., In the social and polit ical systjem of the South the negro, is assigned to that subordinate position for which he is fitted by the laws of nature. Our system of civilization is fountfedin strict conformity to these laws. Order and subordination^ according to the natural fitness „0f things, is the principle upon which the whole i&bric of our southern institutions rest. Then as to the law of God— that law we read not!only in his works about us, around 'us, and over us, but in "that inspired Book whereiijjie has .revealed his will toman. When we differ as to the voice of nature, or the language of God, as spoken in nature's works, we, go to. that- great Book, the Book of Bf^k's, which-is theaountain of alLtriith. To that Book I now appeal. God, in the days of old, made a covenant with the human family— for the redemption of fallen man: that covenant is the co'rner-st'one of the whole Chris tian system. A^rani, afterwards called Abraham, was the man jirithwhom that covenant was mattes- ..Hejwas the* great first head of an organized visi- ^ple. church here below.. He believed God,',and it was accounted to him for righteousness. jHe was ;:in deed and in truth the father of the faithful. 'Abraham, sir, was a slaveholder. Nay, more, e,hkwas required to have the sign of that covenant • administered to the slaves of his household. Mr. CAMPBELL.' . Page, bring me a Bible. Mr. STEPHENS. I have'pne here which the gentleman can cbnsultjf he wishes. , Here is the Csage, Genesis xvii., 13. God said/ to Abra- n: ,* ¦ - "13- lie that is, born in thy house and he that Is bought vith tihy'tnoney must heeds be circumcised ; and ray cove nant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant." .'. Yes, sir, Abraham' was "not only" a slaveholder, , but a slave dealer, it seems, for he bought men with his money, and yet it was with him the covenant was made by which the world was to be redeemed from the dominion of sin. And it was into his bosom ii> heaven that the poor man who died at the rich man's gate was borne- by angels, according to the parable of the Savior. In the 20th chapter of Exodus, the great moral law is found— that law that defines sin— the ten commandments, written by the finger of God himself upon tables of stone. In two of these commandments, the 4th and 10th, verses 10th and 17th, slavery is expressly recognized, and in~r\one of them is there anything against it — this is the moral law. 'In Leviticus we have the civil law on this subject, as given by God to Moses' for; the government of bis chosert ' people 'in their municipal .affairs.'. In chaptenxxv., versea 44; 45, and 46, 1 read' as follows: " 44. Both thy bondmen and thy bondmaids whieji thou sh'alt have shalt be of the heathen Unit are round about you; of .tpem.ye shall buy bondmen and bondmaids. • >'. M 45. Moreover, of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them ye shall buy, and of their families that are with you which they begat in ybur land: and they sbalf be your .possession. , f'46. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for yoor children after you, to inherit litem for a possession; they shall be your bondmen forever; but over your brethren, the children of- Israel, ye shall not rule one over another, With rigor." . This was the law given to thf Jews soon after they left'Egypt for their government wheh they should reach the land of promise.* They could havehad no slavesthen: ;lt authorized the intro duction1 of slavery ahiOngst them whenjhey should become established .in Canaan... Ann it is -to be noted that their "bondmen and bondmaids to be bought, and held for a possession and an inheritance for their children- after them, were to be of the heathen round about them. Over their brethren they were ndt to rule with rigor. Our southern system h in strict conformity with this injunc tion. Men of our own blood and our own race, ¦wherever born, or from whatever clime they come, are freeand equal. We have no-castes or classes amongst white men — no " upper tendom" or "lower tendom." All are equals. Our slaves were taken- from the heathen tribes — the bar barians of Africa. ' In our 'households they are brought within the pale of the covenant, under Christian teaching and influence; and more of ^ them are partakers of the benefits of the gospel than ever were rendered so' by missionary enter prise. ','. The wisdom of man -is foolishness — the ways of Providence are mysterious. Nor does the negro feel any sense -of degradation in, his condi tion — he is not degraded?- |ie occupies and fills the same grade or rank in society 'and the. State that he does in the scale r>f being; it is his natural place; and all things fit when nature's great first law of order is conformed to. < Again :' job was ce'rt'ainlyone of the best men of whom, we read in the Bible. He was a large shv>e- holder. So, top, were Isaac and Jacob, and all the patriarchs. But, it is said , this was under the Jew ish, dispensation. Granted, Has any change been made since ? Is anything to be found in the New Testament againstit? Nothing— not' a word'." Sla very existed \yhen. the Gospel was p'reached by Christ and his Apostles, and where they preached: it was all-round them. And though the Scribes and Pharisees were denounced by our Savior for their hypocrisy and robbing "widows' houses," yet not a word did He utter against slaveholding. On one occasion, He was sought for by a centu rion, who asked him to heal his slave, who was sick. Jesus said he would go; but the centurion objected, saying: "Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldst come under my roof; but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed. For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me; and I say to this man, go, and he 16 ftieth; and to another come, and he cometh; and to my sintic, do this, and he' doeth it." " Matthew viii.,9. TtiB word rendered here "servant" in our translation , means slave. It means justsuch a ser vant as all our slaves! at the South are. . I have' the original Greek. [Here the hammer fell. Mr. Stephens asked that he might be permitted to go bn as long as the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Campbell], had taken up his time. He had but a little more to say. Mr. Giddings, of Ohio, objected; and what follow's is the substance of what he intended, to say, if he had not been cut pff by the.hour rule.] The word in the original is doulos, and the meaning of this word, as given in Robinson's Greek and EngSsh Lexicon, is this — I read from the book: " tn the family the doulos, was one hound to sortie, a slave, and was the property of his master — 'a living possession,' as Aristotle calls him." And again: "The doulos, therefore, was nevefa hired servant, the latter being called misthios," &c. This is the meaning of the word, as given by Robinson, a learned doctor of divin ity, as well >as of laws. The centurion on that occasion said to Christ himself, " I say to mfslave, do this, and:lie doeth it, and do Thou but speak the word, and he shall be. healed." What was tJie Savior's reply? Did He tell him to go loose the bonds that fettered his fellow man ? Did He tell him he was .sinning against God for holding a slave ? No such thing. But we are told by the inspired penman that: " When Jesus heard it he marveled and said to them that followed : Verily, I say unto you, T have, not found so great faith, no, not in Israel. And 1 say unto you that many shall com..- from the east and west and shall sit down with Abralia'm,"ahH Isaac, and Jacob;in' the kingdom of Heaven. But the children of the kingdom shall he cast out into utter darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. And Jesiis said, unto the centurion, Go thy way, and as thou hast behaved so be it done unto thee. And his servant for slave} was healed in the selfsame hour." Was Christ a "doughface?" Did He quail before the slave power? And if he did not rebuke the lordly centurion for speaking as he did of his authority over his slave," but healed the sick man, and said that he had-not found so great faith in all Israel as he had in his master, who ?hall now presume, in His name, to rebuke others or exercising similar authority, or say that their faith may not be as strong as that of the cen turion's? ' , In no place in the New Testament, sir, is slavery held up as sinful. ' Several of the Apostjes alluded to it, but none of them— not one of them, men tions or condemns it as a relation sinful in itself, or violative of the laws of God, or even Chris tian: duty. They enjoin the relative duties of both master and slave. Paul sent'a runaway slave, Onesimus, back to Philemon, his master. He frequently alludes to- slavery' in his letter'^to the churches, but in no case speaks of iti^s sinful. To what he says in one of these epistles I ask special attention. It is 1st Timothy, chapter 6th, and beginning with the 1st verse: , . "1. Let as many servants [douioU slaves in the original, ¦ which [have belbre me] as are under, the yoke [that is, those whjo are the most abject of, slaves] count their own masters worthy.of all honor, that, the name of God and his doctrine be.noi blasphemed. "2. And they, that' have believing masters, [according to modern doctrine there can be no such thing as a slaveliold- ing believer; so did not think Paul.] let. them not despise [or neglect and not care for] theni, because they are brethren; but rather do litem service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach' and ¦exhort.. . . •• ' ... ;. "3. If any man teach otherwise and consent not to whole some words, eventhe words of our Lord Jesus Ckrut, and to tile doctrine which is according to godliness : "4. He is proud, [Dr self-conceited,] knovfing nothing but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, "5. .Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain' Is godlinessf/rom such withdraw thyself '." This language of St. Paulj the great Apostle of the Gentiles, is just as appropriate this day, in this House, as it. was whin he penned it eighteen hundred years ago. No man, could frame a more direct reply to the doctrines of the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. Giddings,] and the gentleman from Indiana, [Mr. Dunn,] thanisljerecontainedinthe sacred book.' What does all this strife, and envy, and railings, and "civil war" in Kansas cbme from, but the teachings of those in our day who teaph otherwise than Paul taught, and " do not consent to wholesome words^ even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ?" Let no man, then, say that African slavery as it exists in the South, incorporated in, and sanc tioned by, the Constitution of the United States, is in violation of either the laws of natidns, thi laws of nature, or the laws of God ! And if it " must needs be" that such an offense shall cbme from this source as shall sever the ties that now unite these States together in frate»- * nal bonds, and involve the land in civil war^tKen "wo be unto them from .whom the offense cometh !" F"