Crawfordsville Weekly Journal, Crawfordsville, Montgomery County, 29 April 1858 — Page 1

Page PDF (15.04 MB) Locked

Back to issue view

fA/lY

:r? -iA-ms

•_f

'EDITOR A*]* PUBLISHER.

Crpfartscillf Journal

E 3 a E

THE "JOURX AL" is published every Thursday, at $1,50', in advance} £2 within the year And $2,50 after the expiration of the year. No subscription discontinued until nil arrearages are paid, unless at the option of the publishers.

The Law of Newspapers.

"1. Subscribers who do not give express notice to the contrary, are considered wishing to continue their subscription. 2. If subscribers order the discontinuance of Iheir papers, the Publisher may continue to send them until all arrearages are paid. 3. If subscribers neglect or refuse to take their "papers from th'c office to which thev are sent they are held responsible till they have settled their bills and ordered the paper discontinued. 4. If subscribers move to other places without informing the Publisher, and the paper is sent to the former direction they arc held responsible. 5. The Courts have decided that refusing to take a newspaper or periodical from the oflice, or "removing and leaving it uncalled for, is prima acia evidence of fraud.

Speech of Hon Jas. Wilson,

IN THE HOUSE of IIJCRNESEXTATIVES, OX THE ADMISSION OF KANSAS, MARCH 29, 1 8 5 8

The House being :n the Committee of the "Whole on the state of the Union— Mr. WILSON said:

Mr. CnAJRMAv: This debate is about to close.v I therefore wish to present the reasons which have determined me, under all circumstances, to oppose the admission of .Kansas into tho Union under the Lecompton constitution. 1 also wish to present1 what I conceive to be the true cause of all the difficulties in that Territory, from its organization to the present period. Fori ^do not conccive that it is contained in the •mere refusal to submit to the people this constitution to bo approved, or disapproved, by a direct vote. That was a great wrong, but still not the true cause neither •do I concede that tho charge of rebellion made by the President in his special message is tho true cause. That charge is simply untrue. But, sir, the true cause lies -far back of the Lecompton constitution— far back of the charges of rebellion. It ia contained in the hill organizing the Territory—the organic act which gave it its existence. Hero it is and I ask that it may Le read. "That the Constitution and all the laws of the United States which are not locally inapplicable, shall have the same force and effect within the said Territory of Kansas ,*as elsewhere vrifhin the United States, except the eighth section of the act preparatory to the admission of Missomi into 'he

Union, approved March G, 1820, which

being inconsistent with the principle ol non-intervention by Congress with slavery ,* in the States and Territories, as recognized 1 by the legislation of 1850, commonly called the compromise measures, is hereby declared inoperative and void, it being the true intent and meaning of this act not to ''legislate slavery into any State or TerritojTy, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people perfectly free to form their "^domestic institutions in their own way, 6uhject onlv to the Constitution of the

United States." ,^VHere, sir, is the cause from whence has •"'sprung all our woes. Here, the error-— deep, radical, and fundamental. In what?

In the repeal of tho Missouri compromise in the deliberate declaration that the provisoes legislation of this Government in regard to its Territories was unjust, oppresfiive, and unconstitutional. I did not agree to that repeal then—do not now. I did not assent to that declaration then—do not now. I thought I saw arms bristling all around the bill—I have seen it realized.

The sovereignty of Congress over tho -.Territories—the only trno and legitimate sovereignty—was discarded, and for what?

For the Kansas Nebraska bill for the prin-

ciples of that bill which has organized .sectional parties, convulsed the Territory i',of Kansas, deceived her people, and is now

here embodied in the Lecompton constitulion. Sir, this principle of the KansasNebraska bill "sent before its time

Into this breathing world, scarce half made up." what is it?—I have a right to ask. For its distinguished author and the Administration which came into power upon its assumed principle differ widely as to its tneaning and force. I have a right to ask for to-day, in a distant Territory, forty '"*•1,1 thousand American citizens, our own 4)lood, and race, and lineage, are fearfully awaiting our decision of its meaning.-—.

Does it mean that thirty-one States. "Long •wondering, in wild mazed lost," liave groped their way into this Union, in utter ignorance of the great principles of

this Government—that as Territory after Territory has ben organized into States, their people had no conception of their du"4 ties and rights? Does it mean that lvanVf eas, by sp6cial favor, has had a light eonferred on her, and her people never before '^fexerciscd or enjoyed? Then I ask for the fit evidence. Is it contained in her history?

Is it. in the vote of McGeo? Is that self :government? Is it in the returns from Johnson? Is that non-intervention? Is vi ^it in the Oxford fraud? Is that popular

Boveteignty? Sir, I feel "perfectly free" Ho say that Kansas affords no interpretaion of its meaning. We must look else-

"VY.hat, then, is the principle contained tfn the Kansas-Nebraska bill? Sir, it is ••Jatms" faced. The advocates of the bill

4}'.kaVciit'

:and

two constructions: one for the

North, and one for the South both of i*which,:I shall show have been overthrown

discarded by the 'Democratic party and ^the Federal judiciary. sWhat is the first? i%It is territorial sovereignty. That is the .fright of the people of tho Territory, acthrough their Territorial Legislature, C'-Ttolestablish or reject slavery. This was

the position of Mr. DOUGT.AS. That there may be no mistake, I shall read from his speech on the 3d of March, 1854: "I will begin with the compromises of 1850. Any Senator who will take the trouble to examine our Journals will find that on tho 25th of March of that j*ear I reported, from the Committee on Territories, two bills, including the following measures: the admission of California a territorial government for Utah a territorial government for New Mexico and tho adjustment of tho Texas boundary. These bills proposed to leave the people of Utah and New Mexico free to decide tho slavery question for themselves, in the precise language of the Nebraska bill, now under discussion. A few weeks afterwards the committee of thirteen took these two bills, and put a wafer between them, and reported them back to the Senate as one bill, with somo slight amendments. One ol these amendments was that the TEHRITOHIAL LEGISLATURE SHOULD NOT I.F.GTSI.ATK ox THE SUBJECT OF SLAVERY. I objected to that provision, on the ground that it SUBVERTED TIIE GREAT PRINCIPLE OF SELF GOVERNMENT, upon which the bill had been originally framed by the Territorial Committee. On the first trial the Senate refused to strike it out but subsequently did so, after full debate, in order to establish that principle as tho rule of action in the territorial organization."

Such, sir, was the opinion of Mr. DOUGLAS in 1854, and may be now and not only his, but of the Senate of the United States. Not only was the right conseded upon full debate, on the Nebraska bill, to the Territorial Legislature to legislate upon tho subject of slavery, but oven tho attempt to deny the right, was declared subversive of tho principle of self-gov-ernment. Now, sir, am no advocate for territorial sovereignty. I never believed in the doctrine, and do not now. States are sovereign—not Territories.— But I insist that tho Democratic party shall not disown and repudiate its acknowledged principle and, more especially, when to do so subverts the principles of self-government. I W

But, sir what do we find? What, but the complete abandonment of the principle of territorial sovereignty, discarded, overthrown—and by whom? By the Supreme Court of the L'nited States, and its action indorsed by the Democratic party. So that here, as well as in Kansas, a blow was struck against the .principle of selfgovernment. Territorial sovereignty with that blow ceased to exist.? Let its body pass from our sight. •,

7 .r

But to the second—the real tangible principlo of the Kansas-Nebraska bill, universally recognized by the Democratic party as the only principle contained in the bill. Is this:

1. That Congress has power to legislate upon the subject of slavery in tho Territories. 2. That the people of the Territories, acting through their Territorial Legislatures, have no power to legislate upon the subject of slavery. 3. That the Constitution establishes and protects slavery in all the Territories of the United States and that the people can only decide upon the question of sluvery when they form their constitution, and even this last right has been rendered impossible by the Federal judiciary, and virtually denied, upon this floor, by the Democratic party.

What is the effect of this policy? It is simply this: that every foot of soil belonging to the United States-that all the Territories —Kansas, Utah, New Mexico, Washington, Dakotah, all, every inch, no matter where, North or South, is slave soil. That the Constitution, which you and I have been taught to believe was ordained to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promotes tho general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, has yet another object and end, and that is to build np States of slavery and empires of oppression. Such is tho doctrine of the day. I discard it I repediato it! Nor am I alone in the rejection and repudiation of the doctrine. The North, whose great heart has ever been true to the Union, repudiates the doctrine tho dead and the living testify against the doctrine. Daniel Webster, sir, Daniel Webster, the defender of the Constitution, has left his opinion on this subject on record, to bo read of all men., I have it here: 'i "Let me say, that in this general sense, there is no such thing as extending the Constitution. The Constitution extended over the United States, and nothing else. It cannot be extended over anything except the oll States and the new State that shall coma in hereafter, when they do come in. There is a want of accuracy of idea in this respect, that is quite remarkable among eminent gentlemen, and especially professional and judicial men. It seems to be taken for granted that the right of trial by jury, tho habeas corpus, and every principle designed to protect personal liberty, is extended by force of the Constitution itself, over every new Territory. That proposition cannot be maintained at all.— How do you arrive at it by any reasoning or deduction? It can only be arrived at by the forces of all possible constructions. It is said that this must be so, else the right of habeas corpus would he lost. Undoubtedly these rights must bo conferred by law before they can be enjoyed in a Territory.'

To the same effect, Mr. Cass, in 1854, said:, "Bnt you cannot pnt your finger on the power thereby ceded to carry slaves into our new Territories. Does the Constitution give power to interfere? No. The word slave i&not to be found ill that instrument'

Again, Mr. Beaton says:

YOL.X-NO, 33.1 CRAWFORDSVJLLE, INDIANA. APRIL 29,1858.

"We have had some slave Territories— Missouri, Arkansas, Florida—into which that property was carried. Was if done under tho Constitution? No bnt under the territorial law sanctioned, not by the Constitution, but by Congress, and governed after it got there by the territorial law sactioned, not by the Constitution, but by Congress, and governed after it got there by the territorial law. No one carried the State law with hira. Ila left that behind and took what he foundin the Terrttory."

And not only Mr. Webster, Mr. Cass, and Mr. Benton but I hold in my hand a similar declaration, made in the Senate of the United States by one who, living, I admired above all men—dead, I still preserve and cherish as a sacred heritage to his memory—I mean Henry Clay. I read from his speech on the compromise bill: .v. "I take it for granted that what I have said will satisfy the Senate of that first truth, that slavery does not exist there (Utah and New Mexico) by law, unless slavery was carried there the moment the treaty was ratified by the two parties to the treaty, under the operation of the Constitution of the United States. Now, really I must say, that the idea 'coinstanti' upon the consummation of tho treaty the Constitution of tho United States spread itself over the acquired territory, and carried along with it the institution of slavery, is so irreconcilable with every comprehension or any reason which I possess, that 1 hardly know how to meet it."

So spoke those distinguished statesman and 1 prefer to err, if error it be, in such company, than approve and endorse the opinion of the Federal court, which is alike repulsive to every principle, of humanity and subversive of all ideas of justice.

But, let us look more closely at this doctrine. Not only docs it establish slary in all the Territories, but it goes still further: it overthrows and subverts the last vestige of popular sovereignty. Has not this been illustrated in Kansas—the schedule and the Lecompton constitution? For, if slavery goes with the Constitution into the Territories, will it not gradually, but certainly, become a part and portion of the social and political system of the Territories? Is it not so with Kansas today? And if so, hom can tho people be free to adopt or reject slavery when they form their constitution? In no sense can the people bo "perfectly free," or free in any manner. They are called upon to decide as to an institution already established—established by the Constitution of the United States and when they decide, what does it amount to? That slavery shall no longer exist? No! simply that uo more slaves shall be introduced into the State so to be organized. Bat, what of the slavery already there—carried there, as is alleged, by the Constitution of the United States? How can the decision of the people affect them? Aro the slaves of the Territory still to remain slaves in the State? Is the slavery, alleged to be established by the Constitution of the United States, still to continue in the State?— "Certainly!" responded the President.— What say the slaveholders of the South, and those interested in its perpetuation? "Certainly! it is a vested right." If so, it is not only absurd, but emphatically untrue, to say that the people are free to form their constitution, at any time, upon the question of slavery.

But this policy now governs and controls the country. Will it continue and become the fixed policy? If so, then tho last I'REE STATE is now added to the Union.

I now come immediately to Kansas.— When that Territory was organized, her people, not only by tho Kansas-Nebraska bill, but overy principle of our Government and its whole system, were entitled, first, to suffrage second, the right of representation third, the right of legislation and fourth, the right to framo her constitution in her own way.

I now declare that each and every one of theso rights have been denied—wrested from the people of Kansas from the day of her organization to the presentation of the Lecompton constitution in this House, and up to the present hour.

Let me again state these rights suffrage, representation, legislation, and the light to form their own constitution. These were the rights of the people of Kansas. Now for the proof that these rights have been denied.

It is an admitted fact, that with us the people are the source of all political power. How is this power to be exercised and delegated? By suffrage! Then, beyond all doubt, the highest expression of the power of a free people is in tho elective franchise. It is the true, "popular sovereighty."

Sir, in Athens,' her citizens stoned to death the intruder upon the councils ol her people. Deny this right, no matter how, by lorce or fraud, and you enslave a people. Apply this, then, to Kansas, and what is the result?

I ask, when, where, how, and at what time, and in what manner, have her people ever exercised the right of suffrage?— Did they in tho election for Delegate? Did they in the first election for a Territorial Legislature? Did they, in the election for members of the constitutional convention? No, sir at neither.' %At the first election one thousand seven hundred and twentynine illegal votes were cast at the second, four thousand uine hundred and eight at the third, one half, nay, more than half of the Territory was disfranchised. So, then, the highest right of an American citizen has been denied to the people of Kansas the fight of suffrage, without which there cannot be a free government and this, too, in a manner and by means which have dishonored the American naine.

The second right, that of representation. I deny that the people of that Territory

E N I O N I N A N E E N

ever had prior to 1857, delegates of their own choice and selection, the result of their own free will. Look at the delegates of the Legislature of 1855. How came they there? By the voice of the people of Kansas? By no means. I am safe when I say that their election was the result of an almost- universal overthrow of the rights of actual citizens in the Territory. Sir, scarcely a member of that body held his seat except by certificates obtained by fraud. There were eighteen districts in which the people of Kansas were to elect their first Legislature. If ever there was a time when they should have been left "perfectly free to regulate their domestic institutions in fheir own way," it was then but were they? Far otherwise. Armed men!—why armed? what men?—entered the Territory, and usurped the rights of the actual citizens, and by their own votes elected the members of that Legislative Assembly Point to me, if you can, another such outrage. Look at all the other Territories, from the day of their organization to their admission into the Union, running back half a century, and there is no parallel.— Thus this right, dear to every American citizan. was violated, and the people of Kansas denied a representation.

And now I appeal to Virginia, true and loyal to liberty in the days of the Revolution true and loyal, I trust, to the Union

now—I

appeal to Virginia, if such an in

vader should stand in such a manner upon her soil to strike down her rights and dictate her laws, if every true son would not arise, perish, or repel from her borders her invaders?

I appeal to South Carolina, so quick and impatient of wrong, real or imagined, would she have quietly submitted to have her ancient privileges seized, and her sovereignty trampled undr foot? Would she have tamely borne such a wrong? No, never! while the memories of the Revolution still linger with her people. But Kansas was weak and defenseless her citizens few and wide apart the shadow of Executive interference fell but to wither and prostrate her power, and to day that power seeks to force upon her people a constitution to which a clear and undisputed majority is uncompromisingly opposed.

But the third right of an American citizen—the right of legislation, to enact, through their legally elected representatives, their own laws: have the people of Kansas had this right? No sir! How could they, when suffrage was denied?— How, when they had no choice as to the delegates? Let "us look to the record.— Laws, to be obeyed, must always reflect the wishes and feeling of to be governed by them. What was the character of the laws of this Territory, passed by the usurping Legislature? I do not speak of the great body, but particularly of those in regard to slavery: what were they, and what their character? Were they just and human? No, sir no! It was felony to write, felony to speak, felony to publish, felony to print, and felony to circulate, anything against the institution of slavery and not only that, but test oaths of the most repulsive character were imposed.— Would you ask obedience to such laws?— Would vou ask a majority to submit to such enactments? Would you ask submission from tho people of Kansas, when you well knew that a majority of her people were opposed to that institution? It so vou very much mistake them, for they did refuse obedience. They refused and I rejoice that they did. They resist still and vou may go and tell your President that they will continue to resist. Ay, sir, go tell him that he may place armed soldiers in tho door-ways of every dwelling in Kansas ho may trample down beneath the feet of his dragoons her unoffending citizens he may force through this House a constitution they abhor, and have rejected byten thousand majority he may do all this, but when he has accomplished his woik, hc.stijl has not conquered nor crushed her people, nor compelled their obedience to unjust laws and a fraudulent constitution. Something, sir, must be pardoned to the spirit of liberty.

Having thus, Representatives, shown that popular soverignty and territorial sovereignty have been completely subverted by the Federal judiciary, and having shown in Kansas that practically tho sarno principle of self-government and popular sovereignty has been overthrown—first, in the election of a Delegate not their own choice, second, in the election of members of the Legielatuie by armed men not citizens of the Territory third, in a code of laws repulsive and "not sanctioned by the pobular voicc, I ask your consideration of the last act of usurpation—the result of three years of maladministration and fraud—the Lecompton constitution. What is a constitution? It is a system of fundamental rules, principles, and ordinances for the government of a State. In the State, it is the supreme law. Whence dose it receive its vitality? From the source of all power—the people. Hence ,tho great question for us to deside is, is this the constitution of the peoplo of Kansas? Is this their embodied supreme law? If it is, admit Kansas if not, reject this constitution. How shall this be determined? How shall we arrive at correct conclusions? By restricting ourselves to the Lecompton convention, and its acts alone? By inquiring simply whether the assumed principles of the Kansas-Nebraska bill have been violated? By no means but by wider investigations, if need be, embracing the whole history of the Territory. Nothing should be overlooked which would throw light upon this question. I repeat, then, is this the constitution of the people of Kansas?

No! it is not of the people, nor from the people. If so, why the indignant protest of the 4th of January? Why the 6trange phenomenon of the people of a whole Territory rising np and uniting themselves in opposition to this measure? No sir, the constitution is a fraud. It is the work of a minority, and a fraudulent minority at

that, the offspring of force, violence, bloodshed, invasion, usurping Legislatures, ilegal acts of those Legislatures, and, above all, executive oppression. Is the proof demanded? Sir, it is strewn along the pathway of Kansas, "Thick as autumnal Leaves that strew the brooks of Vallambrosa."

It is a part of her puplic history. That history is not "hid in a corner." Its pages are open to all and he is willfully blind who will not see for himself. If, then, this is not the constitution which her people wish, shall it receive the indorsement of Congress? This is tho main question. Here it must be met, and here answered. This is the last tribunal. For myself, I answer, reject the constitution. Why? For the reason, first that the Lecompton convention was an unauthorized, illegal, and irresponsible body. What was its foundation? The act of the Legislature of 1856. Hero is the source. And what is it worth? What respect are tho acts of that Legislature entitled to? None whatever. It was an illegal Legislature ii began, as I have aire ady shown, in the overthrow of free suffrage, and ended in fraud. How, then, can validity be given to its acts? The recognition of Gov. Geary cannot nor yet can that of Governor Walker no recognetion can give validity to fraud. It vitiates everything it touches and therefore vitiates the Ligislature, of 1856. If the Legislature was illegal, then was also the convention. The one supports the other the constitution rests upon the Legislature, and tho Legislature upon fraud. A beautiful foundation, indeed wereon to build the glorious fabric of a State! Indorse this constitution, and what then? You indorse the legality of the Legislature, and declare that the people of Kansas have been perfectly free to govern themselves "in their own way./' I shall give no such idorsement—utter no such declaration. To me the one would be a disgrace, the other a falshood. I prefer to speak of it with truth and, so speaking, say that the Legislature of 1856 and the Legislature of 1855 both had their existence in the violated rights of tho people of Kansas that their laws have no validity, and are not entitled to the respecto this House nor the people of that Territory. But, if tho Legislature was even legal, what then? What authority had it to authorize and establish a government? Certainly not in the Kan-sas-Nebraska bill that simply was tho organic act of tho Territory and to assert that the authority is derived from the organic act is to assert that the Legislature can set aside, subvert, and over throw the very act from which it derives its existence. What nailed into existence the Legislature of Kansas? The organic act. What powers of Legislation are granted to the Legislature? Such as are conferred by the organic act, and none other and nowhere has it conferred the power to cieate a new government. All the government that Kansas had or could have was the Jvansas-Nebraska bill. This was the charter of her rights. No Legislature could go beyond it neither could the peoplo of Kansas, except by permission of Congress.

It is clear, then, that the law authorizing the constitutional convention was beyond the power of the Legislature of Kansas, and tho convention itself that assembled at Lecompton was unauthorized, and the con-stitution-amounts to nothing more than a petition—a petition for the redress of grievances. Sir, if the petitions of the people of Kansas had beeu respected years ago, we should not now be compeelled to redress this sorest of all grievances—the Lecompton constitution. But I deny that it even amounts to a petition. Who are the petitioners? Are they the people of Kansas? Are they even the agents of the people of Kansaq£ No, sir the people lepudiated both the Legislature and the convention. Representatives, will you do less? But, sir the people of Kansas did petition—petitioned through the Topeka constitution. Oppressed and proken down —dishartened and discouraged, crushed with unjust laws—within sight of their burning houses, and surrounded by a paid hireling soldiery, they met and petitioned they sent it hore, and it was rejected. 1 only ask the same fate for this Lecompton constitution, and I shall be content.

But 1 object to this constitution for another cause—that is, slavery. And what of slavery in the Lecompton constitution? Why sir, it comes to us in its most detestable form not bold and defiant, as if right, sheilding itself behind the forms of law, and skulking behind fraud and forgery for its protection. What further? At the very outset it announces a proposition, so untrue, and utteily at variance with justico and humanity, that had it not been preceded by the opinion of the Supreme Court, I should have come to the conclusion that all human fanaticism and refined indifference to the rights of man had found an appropriate reluge in the Lecompton convention. What is tho proposition? The inviolability of property in liuman beings and you and I, and all of us, have so to declare, or reject this constitution. And not only is property in a slave, and his increas forever, inviolable but before and higher than any constitutional sanction. Approve this proposition, and what follows? Universal slavery. State lines will be no prelection? State constitutions will be no sboild? State rights no guard! slaves as property will bo as secure in the sixteen free States as in the fifteen slave States, for it assumes that slave property is not, and cannot be made, an exception or governed by differ ent rules than any other property. I dis sent wholly.

Why, sir, if slavery and the right to hold slaves are before and higher than any constitutional saction, why not make the issue? Why evade it by claiming wherever it can be done, "constitutional sanctidn?" Come, we accept the challenge.— Erace from this Lecompton constitution

I'Pil'TYl« -I®1

•V

the "constitutional sanction" of slavery, and you will disarm, to a great extent, opposition to its reception. Erace from the constitution of Arkansas, South Carolina, and other slavoholding States, the "constitutional sanction" of slavery, and yon will offer a tribute to humanity. Erase from the constitution of tho United States, the "constitutional sanction" of the recapture of fugitives from service, and, sir, the concience and the duty of the North will no longer conflict. Ah! gentlemen of the Sonth, I advise you to cling to "constitutional sanctions," and not trust yourselvos and your property upon tho uncertain tenure of inviolability. Now, I hold this to be true: that slavery is merely a local institution, and the slaves are held and governed by the laws of the several Stales that recognize its existence. With them I and wo have nothing to do. It is conceded that slavery in the States is beyond the interference of the Federal Government, or the States, or tho people of the States which do not recognize its existence. It is conceded that they are property in those States—made so by legislation. But, sir, this State legislation cannot make them property everywhere. It is restricted it is limited. It cannot go beyond Stato lines. Beyon those limits, the slave is a man, and no longer property, Such I understand to be our laws, our judical decisions, and the rule of action in the free States, and of the civilized world and, sir, it is too late to attempt to promulgatejany other and a different doctrine. It cannot bo done. The inviolability of slave property is against the universal laws of right, humanity, and justice, and cannot prevail.— But slavery is in Kansas—established by this constitution and, as far as this constitution is concerned, as firmly established as in any slave State in this Union and now what is demanded? Why, sir, that Kansas, under this Lecompton constitution, shall be admited into this Union— admitted, too, against the will of her people, with slavery perpetuated in her limits, and the inviolability of slave property written in her constitution. Shall it bo done? Representatives of the American people will you tamely yeild to the executive demand? Justice forbids the people forbd: let their voice bo respected. 1 ask you sir, [addressing Mr. GILMER,of North Carolina,] southern man as yon are—honerable and highminded as I know you to be—shall it be done? Does southern honor demand it?— No! Do southern rights demand it? No!— Then why, for even a single hour, impose upon a people, an American people, a constitution they abhore?

But, sir, there is another objection to the Lecompton constitution—the refusal of the convention to submit that instrument to the popular judgement, and more especially when it is known that a large majority of the citizens of Kansas are inflexibly opposed to it. The rights of the peope to form their own constitution in their own way is no new thing, and, sir, it is a right that has never been untill now denied, and, what is remarkable, denied by the peculiar and exclusive friends of the KansasNebraska bill. Ifrow, sir, I, for one, do not claim the right under that bill I am no advocate of it I deplore its passage it destroyed the peace and harmony of the country. But I claim the right on the higher ground of the SOVEREIGNITY OF TIIE PEOPLE, a principal as old as the Constitution and the Union and sir its grand proportions cannot be dwarfed to the narrow compass of the Kansas-Nebraska bill. I repeat, I claim it on tho higher ground of tho sovereignity of the people—that principle which has built up this, the freest and happiest Government on earth until wo now, as was said upon a memoarble occasion, have realized tho description of tho edging of the buckler of Acbille.1:

Now the broad shield complete the artist crowned With his last hand, and poured the ocean round In living silver seemed the waves to roll, And beat the buckler's veryc, and bound the whole."

This right has never before been a debatable question. It always has been admited. 1 do not mean, sir, that in every instance it has been exercised—not at all for we have now States in tho Union, republican States, admitted without theii constitution having been submitted to the people. But in all these cases there was no conflict between the convention and the people. Their constitutions clearly embodied their will hcnce no wrong was done by waiving the right to vote thereon. But, 6ir, when the Kansas-Nebraska bill passed, and when tho policy of that bill became the policy of the country, nothing is more clear than the fact that by its whole intent every constitution thereafter framed should be submitted to the people for their ratification or rejection. It was the great element of the bill. And so far as Kansas is concerned, pledge after pledge has. been made to that effect. Tho President and the Cabinet pledged themselves to a full and fair submission. Governor Walker in his inaugural address did the same he went further and declared: "I repeat, then, as my clear conviction, that unless the convention submit the constitution to tho vote of all the actual resident settlers of Kansas, and the election bo fairly and justly conducted, the constitution will be, and ought to be, rejected by Con

So, also did Calhoun—John Calhoun, the dictator—to the people of Douglas county, when a candidate for delegate to the constitutional convontion. But when the Lecompton convention met, and framed the instrument now presented here, then for tho first time, it claimed to be sovereign and, as such, independent of the people, and noteesponsible to their action.— Let us look at this sovereignty claimed by the convention. Whence its origin? How was it derived? From a Territorial Legislature! Did that Legistature represent a sovereignty? If so, what? If not, then how cbuld tho convention claim in itself a power greater than tbe Legislature which

50 PER YEAR I?f

J. fx IIIPS 1 2 00 WITHIN THE YEAR,

ADVANCE.

I WHOLE NO. ,501

called it into existence? But again, of what was this convention composed. Delegates. Delegates to do what? To frame a constitution, not to ordain one not to set a new government into operation, but to distribute the different powers—the legislative, the judicial, and the executive, and then unite the wholo in one constitution, and refer their work to the peoplo to approve or reject. This I conceive to be the true character of a constitutional convention.

Bnt, sir, these' delegates—how came they at Lecompton? Did they represent the sovereignty of Kansas? Let us see.— I know that the President has said in his message that a large proportion of the cit7 izens of Kansas did not think proper to register their name?'. I know he said tljey neglected to vote at tho election for delegates. I know he said that an opportunity to do so was fairly afforded. I know he has said their refusal to avail themselr ves of this right could not effect the legality of the convention. This is extraordinary language but ia it true? No, sir.— Now for the evidence. There were thirtyfour counties from which to elect delegates to tho convention. Tho act of tho Legislature required that in each of theso conn-,.^ ties a census should bo taken and the votes registered. Was it done? In nineteen counties the census was never taken. In fifteen conntics there was no registry of voters. And why this failure? Was it from any act of the people? No, it was the act of partisans—partisan pro-slavery judges, partisan pro-rlavery sheriffs and therefore it was that tho voters in nineteen counties—a majority of all the voters in Kansas—were disfranchised, did not' cast one single vote for any delegate to the convention that framed the Lecompton constitution. Is it denied? I produce the evidence of Governor Walker: "In nineteen of these counties there was no census, and therefore there could be no such appointment there of delegates based upon euch census. And in fifteen of the£0 counties there was no registry of voters.— These fifteen connties, including many of the oldest organized counties of theTerritorjr, were entirely disfranchised, and did not give, and (by no fault of their own) could not give, a solitary vote for delegates to tbe convention. The result was superinduced by the fact that the Territorial Legislature appointed all the sheriffs and probate judges in all these counties, to whom was assigned the duty, by law, of making this census and registry. Theso officers were political partisians, dissenting from the views and opinions of the peoplo of these connties. as proved by the election in October last."

But it is contended that the constitution —the slavery clause—was submitted to the people. How submitted? How enctorS-r' ed? Sir, the submission itself was a conspiracy against the people of Kansas and the endorsement was worthy of tho confpirators. Look at it tho constitution with slavery, the constitution without slavery. Here is a duplicity that would havo delighted even Machiavelli. Voto for or vote against, and still it is the Lecompton constitution, and still it is slavery. And the voters—who were they? Oxford responded wilh twelve hundred and sixty-six Shawnee with seven hundred and twenty-, nine Kickapoo—loyal, devoted, and prolific Kickapoo—with one thousand and seventeen: all fraduluent.

Sir, is not this ahnmilitating record?— Yet upon this record and this sndmission, with the great fact full in his view, that, on tho 4th day of January, ten thousand two hundred and twenty-six votes, one after another, were cast against the Lecompton constitution, the President urges and demands the admission of Kansas in tho Union as a State.

In view of all these facts, I conceivo that it was the clear duty of tho convention to submit the constitution to the full and direct vote of the peoplo. True, it would have been rejected, overwhelmingly rejected but what of that—The people of Kansas had the right to reject it. This right is denied them 1 therefore ask its rejection here—in this house! Let Congress reassert again its sovereignty over the Territory. Pass an enabling act, juft, wise, and equitable, in all its piovisiofls Secure to each citizens the full and free exercise of the right of suffrage guard all from fraud, or ascertain in any other manner the c.laar wish of the people adopt, if you please, the bill of the distinguished Senator from Kentucky, and the day will not be far distant when Kansas will ask for admission into tho Union, not chained and manacled, but as a free, sovereign, & independent State, with a constitution bearing the impress of the will of her own people.

Representatives of theslaveholding States do you desire such a result? Do you wish to bring back peace and harmony, not only to Kansas, but to the whole Union? If so, no bettor occasion ever offered than now. If you force this constitution through the House, what advantage will you gain Will it be slavery in Kansas ft cannot exist there! Slavery cannot be perpetuated over an unwilling people. It will be overborne, scattered to the winds, by the first free expression of the popular will. Will it be greater security of Slav^fy in the States? Establish once this law of vi* olence disregard the earnest arid solemn appeal of Kansas and the day iriay cotno when the same law of violence may st/ikei yon down, disregard your rights, and even peril your homes. Will it localize this distracting qnestion? Fatal delusion.-— Three years ago, to localize it you divested Congress of its sovereignty. You asserted that the people tff the Territory should decide their domestic institutions for themselves. Will you now divoet the "peoplo of this right, and attempt to localise slavery in the State? Do so bnt you wilt not succeed. Slavery in lvausas cannot be localised, nor peace,sccurod, by any sucU subterfuge.

Concluded on 4th pegeK "fu-"