Crawfordsville Review, Crawfordsville, Montgomery County, 26 December 1857 — Page 1

,--J

m) "to

1

ti

•t

s,

or

6EHAT0B DOUGLAS, of Illinois,

ON THE

linS' PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE. S:'

Delivered in the Senate of the United States 'December 9 1857

On motion of Mr. DOUGLAS, the Senate resumed the consideration of the motion made by him yesterday, to print the President's message and accompanying documents, with fifteen thousand extra copits

Mr. DOUGLAS said: ""Mr. PRESIDENT: When yesterday the President's message was read at the Clerk's desk, I heard it but imperfectly, and I was of the impression that the President of the United States had approved and indorsed the action of the Lecompton convention in Kansas. Under that impression, I felt it my duty to state that, while I concurrcd in the general views of the message, yet, so far as it approved or indorsed the action of that convention, I entirely dissented from it, and would avail myself of an early opportunity to Htate my reasons for my dis«cnt. Upon a more oareful and critical examination of the message, I am rejoiced to find that the President of the United States has notrccoinmonded that Congress flhall pass a law to receive Kansas into the Union under the constitution formed at Lecompton. It is true that the tone of the message indicates a willingness on the part of the President to sign a bill, if we shall see proper to pass one, receiving Kansas into the Union under that constitution.— But, sir, it is a fact of great significance, nnd worthy of consideration^ that the Pres-

ident lias refrained from any indorsement of the convention, and from any reconnncndation as to the course Congress should pursue with regard to the constitution there formed.

The message of the President has made an argument—an unanswerable argument in my opinion—against that constitution, which shows clearly, whether intended to arrive at the result or not, that, consistcntly with his views and principles, he cannot accept that constitution. He has cxpresHed his deep mortification and disappointjucnt that the constitution itself has not boon submitted to the people of Kansas for their acceptance or rejection. JIc informs us that he has unqualifiedly expressed his opinions on that subject in his inntructions to Governor Walker, assuming, RS a matter of course, that the constitution 4 was to be submitted to the people before it •i could have any vitality or validity. He goes further, and tells UH that the exain-

Iy

de set by Congress in the Minnesota ease inserting a clause in the enabling act requiring the constitution to be submitted to the people, ought to become a uniform I rule, not to be departed from hereafter in •'if any rasa. On these various propositions ,i agree entirely with the President of the

a

United States, and I am prepared now to tuistuin that uniform rule which he asks u* to pursue, in all other eases, by taking the Minnesota provision as our example.

I rejoice, on a careful perusal of the mcs-:-.T sage, to find so much less to dissent from than 1 was under the impression there was, from the hasty reading and imperfect hearing of the message in the first instance.— "5 Iu effect, he refers that document to the

Congress of the United States—as the

Constitution of the United States refers it —for us to decide upon it under our renponsibility. is proper that he should have thus referred it to us as a matter for rongrossional action, and not as an Administration or Executive measure, for the reason that the Constitution of the United States says that "Congress way admit new States into the Union." Hence we find the Kansas question before us now, not as an Administration measure, not as an Exccutivo measure, but as a measure coming before un for our free action, without any recommendation or interference, directly or indirectly, by tho Administration now in possession of the Federal Government. Sir, 1 propose to examine this question calmly and fairly, to see whether or not we oan properly receive Kansas into the Union with the constitution formed at Lecompton. !'"The

~iU

NEW SERIES--VOL. IX, NO. 23.

S E E

President., after expressing his re­

gret and mortification and disappointment that the constitution had not been submitted to the pooplc in pursuance of his instructions to Governor Walker, and in pursuance of Governor Walker's assurance to the people, says, however, that by the Kan-eas-Nobraska aot the slavery question only was required to ba referred to the people, and the remainder of the constitution was not thus required to be submitted. He acknowledged that, as a general rule, on general principles, the whole constitution

Bho'd

bo submitted but according to his understanding of the orgauicactof Kansas, there was an imperative obligation to submit the slavery question for their approval or disapproval, but no obligation to submit the entire constitution. In other words, he .regards, the organic act, the Nebraska bill, ns having made an exception of the slavery .clause, aud provided for the disposition of that question in a mode different from that in which other domostic or local, as contradistinguished from Federal questions, sho'd be decided. Sir, permit me to say, with profound respect for the President of the United States, that I conceive that on this point he has oommitted a fundamental error, »n error which lies at the foundation of hit argument on this^ matter. I can well understand how that distinguished statesman came to fall into this error. He was not in the country at the time the Nebraska bill was passed he was not a p*rty to the controversy and the discussion that ^sSi!Wolf plaoe during its passage. Ho was thon representing the honor and the jigat

uity of the country with great wisdom and distinction at a foreign court. Thus deepfr^ngrossed, his wnolo energies were ab» -70MrDiid in conducting great diplomatic queaiuo tionfc ithat diverted his attention from the territorial questions and discussions then

Kipresentatives,Senate

ing-on in the and the House of and before the people at ^j^ home. Under these circumstances, he A* well have fallen into an error, radical

Mia fundamental as it is, in regard tothe ob-

ject of the Nebraska bill and 'lie principle asserted in it. Now, sir, what wtis the principle enunciated by the authors and supporters of /hat bill when it was brought forward Did we not come before the country and say that we repealed the Missouri restriction for the purpose of substituting and carrying out aa a general rule the great principle of self-government, which left the people of each State and each Territory free to form and regulate their domestio institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States? In support of that proposition, it was argued here and I have argued it wherever I have spoken in various States of the Union, at home and abroad, everywhere I have endeavored to prove that there was no reason why an exception should be made in regard to the slavery question. I have appealed to the people if we did not all agree, men of all parties, that all other local and domestic questions, should bo submitted to the people. I said to them, "We agree that the people shall decide for themselves what kind of a judiciary system they will have we agree that the people shall decide what kind of a school system they will establish we agree that the people shall determine for themselves what kind of a banking system they will have, or whether they will have any banks at all wc agree that the people may decide for themselves what shall be the elective franchise in their respective States they shall decide for themselves what shall be the rule of taxation and the principles upon which their finance shall be regulated we agree that they may decide for themselves the relations between husband and wife, parent and child, guardian and ward and why should we not then allow them to decide for themselves the relations between master and servant? Why make an exception of the slavery question by taking it out of that great rule of self-government which applies to all the other relations of life?" The very first proposition in the Nebraska bill was to show that the Missouri restriction, prohibiting the people from deciding the slavery question for themselves, constituted an exception to a general rule, in violation of the principle of self-government, and hence that that exception should be repealed, and the slavery question, like all other questions, submitted to the people to be decided for themselves.

Sir, that was the principle on which the Nebraska bill was defended by its friends. Instead of making the slavery question an exception, it removed an odious exception which before existed. Its wholo object was to abolish that odious exception, and make the rule general, universal, in its application to all matters which were local and domestic, and not national or Federal. For thin reason was the language employed which the President has quoted that the eighth section of the Missouri act, commonly called the Missouri compromise, was repealed because it was repugnant to the principle of non-intervention established by the compromise measures of 1850, "it being the true intent and meaning of this act not to legislate slavery into any Territory or State, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States." We repealed the Missouri restriction because that was confined to slavery. That was the ouly exception there was to the general principle of self-government. That exception was taken away for the avowed and express purpose of making the rule of self'guvernment general aud universal, so that the people should form and regulate all their domestic institutions in their own way

Sir, what would this boasted principle of popular sovercigutj' have been worth, if it applied only to the negro, and did not extend to the white man? Do you think wc could have aroused the sympathies and the patriotism of this broad Republic, aud have carried tho presidential election last year in tho face of a tremendous opposition on the principle fl»f extending the right of self-government to the negroquestiou, but denying it as to all the relations affecting white men? No sir. We aroused the patriotism of the country and carried the election in defence of that great principle, which allowed all white men to form and regulate their domestic institutions to suit themselves-institutions applicable to white men as well as to black men—institutions applicable to freemen as well as to slaves —institutions concerning all the relations of life, and not the mere paltry exception of the slavery question. Sir, 1 have spent too much strength and breath, and health, too, to establish this great principle in the popular heart, now to sec it fritted away by bringing it down to an exception that applies to the negro, and docs not extend to the ^benefit of the white man. As I said before, I can well imagine how the distinguished and eminent patriot and statesman now at the head of the Government fell into the error—for error it is, radical, fundamental—and, if persevered in, subversive of that platform upon which he was elevated to the Presidency of the United States.

Then, if the President be right iu saying that, by the Nebraska bill, the slavery question must be submitted to the people, it follows inevitably that every other clause of the constitution must also be submitted to the people. The Nebraska bill said that the people should be left "perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way"—not the slavery question, not the Maine liquor-law question, not the banking question, not the school question, not the railroad question, but "their domestic institutions," meaning each and all the questions which are local, not national, not State, not Federal, I arrive at the conclusion that the principles enunciated so boldly, and enforced with so much ability by the President of the United States, require us, out of respect to him and the platform on which he was elected, to send this whole question back to the people of Kansas, and enable them to say whether or not tho constitution which has been framed, each and every clause of it, meets their approbation.

The President, in his message, has made an unanswerable argument in favor of the

Ee

riaeiple which requires this question to sent back. It is stated in the message,

with more clearness and force than any language which I can command but I can draw your attention to it and refer you to the argument in the message, hoping that you will take it as apart of my speech—as expressing my idea more forcibly than I am able to express it. The President says that a question of great interest, like the slavery question, cannot be fairly decided by a convention of delegates, for the reason that the delegates arc elected in districts, and in some districts a delegate is elected by a small majority in others by an overwhelming majority, so that it often happens that a majority of the delegates are one way, while a majority of the people are the other way and therefore it would be unfair and inconsistent with the great principle of popular sovereignty, to allow a body of delegates, not representing the popular voice, to establish domestic institutions for the mass of the people. This is the President's argument to show that you cannot have a fair and honest decision without submitting it the popular vote.— The same argument is conclusive with regard to every other question as well as with regard to slavery.

But 5lr. President, it is intimated in the message that although it was an unfortunate circumstance, much to be regretted, that the Lecompton convention did not submit the constitution to the people, yet perhaps it may be treated as regular, because the convention was called by a Territorial legislature which had been repeatedly recognized by the Congress of the U. S. as a legal body. I beg Senators not to fall into an error as to the President's meaning on this point. He does not say, he docs not mean, that this convention had ever been rccognized by the Congress of the United States as legal or valid. On the contrary, he knows, as wc here know, that during the last Congress I reported a bill from the Committee on Territories to authorize the people of Kansas to assemble and form a constitution for themselves.— Subsequently, the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Toombs) brought forward a substitute for my bill, which, after having been modified by him and myself in consultation, was passed by the Senate. It is known in the country as "the Toombs bill." It authorized the people of Kansas Territory to assemble in convention and form a constitution preparatory to their admission into the Union as a State. That bill, it is well kuown, was defeated in the House of Representatives. It matters not, for the purpose of this argument, what was the reason of its defeat. Whether the reason was a political one whether it had reference to the then existing contest for the Presidency. whether it was to keep open the slavery question whether it was a conviction that the bill would not be fairly carried out whether it was because there were not people enough in Kansas to justify the formation of a State—no matter what the reason was, the House of Representatives refused to pass that bill, and thus denied to the people of Kansas the right to form a constitution and State government at this time. So far from the Congress of the United States having sanctioned or legalized the convention which assembled at Lecompton, it expressly withheld its assent. The assent has not been given, either in express terms or by implication and being withheld, this Kansas constitution has just such validity and just such authority as the Territorial legislature of Kansas could impart to it without- the assent, and in opposition to the kuown will of Congrcsp.

Now, sir, let me ask what is the extent of the authority of a Territorial legislature as to calling a constitutional convention without the assent of Congress Fortunately this is not a new question it does not now arise for the first time. When the Topeka constitution was presented to the Senate nearly two years ago, it was referred to the Committee on Territories, with a variety of measures relating to Kansas. The committee made a full report upon the whole subject. The report reviewed all the irregular cases which had occurred in our history in. the admission of new States. The committee acted on the supposition that whenever Congress had passed an enabling act authorizing the people of a Territory to form a State constitution, the convention was regular, aud possessed all the authority which Congress had delegated to it but whenevc-r Congress had failed or refused to pass an enabling act, the proceeding was irregular and void, unless vitality was imparted to it by a subsequent act of Congress adopting and confirming it. The friends of the Topeka constitution insisted that although their proceedings were irregular, they were not so irregular but that Congress could cure the error by admitting Kansas with that constitution.— They cited a variety of cases, amongst others the Arkansas case. In my report, sanctioned by every member of the Committee on Territories, except the Senator from Vermont, (Mr. Collamer,) I reviewed the Arkansas case as well as the others, and affirmed the doctrine established by General Jackson's administration and enunciated in the opinion of Mr. Attorney General Butler, a part of which opinion was copied into the report and published to the country at the time.

Now, sir, in order to ascertain what we understood on the 12th of March, 1856— little more than a year and a half ago—to be the true doctrine on this point let me call your attention to the opinion of Mr. Butler in the Arkansas case. The Governor of the Territory of Arkansas sent a printed address to President Jackson, in which he stated that he had been urged to call together the Legislature of the Territory of Arkansas, for the purpose of allowing them to call a convention to form a constitution, preparatory to their admission into the Union ss a State. The Gov. stated that, in his opinion, the Legislature had no power to call such a convention without the assent of Congress had first been obtained but he asked instructions on that point. The President referred the case to the Secretary of State, and he asked for the advice of the Attorney General whose opinion was given, and adopted, as the plan of action, and communicated to the Governor of Arkansas for his instruction. I will read some extracts from that opinion: "Consequently, it is not in the power of

VA

the General Assembly of Arkansas to pass any law for the purpose of electing members to form a constitution and State government, or to do any other act, directly or indirectly, to create such Hew government. Every such law, even though it were approved by the Government of the Territory, would be null and void. If passed by them, notwithstanding his veto, by a vote of two-thirds of each branch, it wo'd still be equally void. "If I am right in the foregoing opinion, it will then follow that the course of the Governor, in declining to call together the Territorial Legislature for the purpose in question, was such as his legal duties required and that the views he had expressed in his public address, and also in his official communication to yourself, so far as they indicate an intention not to sanction or concur in any legislative or other proceedings towards the formation of a State governmentuntil Congress shall have authorized it, are also correct."

That is what I have understood to be the settled doctrine as to the authority of a Territorial Legislature to call a convention without the consent of Congress first had and obtained. The reasoning is very clear and palpable. A Territorial Legist lature possesses whatever power its organic act gives it, and no more. The organic act of Arkansas provided that the legislative power should be vested in the Territorial Legislature, the same as the organic act of Kansas, provides that the legislative power and authority shall be vested in the Legislature. But what is the extent of that legislative power? It is to legislate for that Territory under the organic act, and in obedience to it. Itdoes not include any power to subvert the organic act under which it wasjbrought into existence. It has the power to protect it, the power to execute it, the power to carry it into effect, but it has no power to subvert, none to destroy and hence that power can only be obtained by applying to Conyress, the same authority which created the territory itself. But while the Attorney General decided, with the approbation of the administration of General Jackson, that the Territorial Legislature had no power to call a convention, and tint its action was void if it did, he went still further: "No law has yet been passed by Congress which either expressly or impliedly gives to the people of Arkansas the authority to form a State government."

Nor has there been any in regard to Kansas. The two cases arc alike thus far. They are alike in all particulars so far as the question involving the legality and the validity of the Lecompton convention is concerned. The opinion goes on to say: "For the reasons above stated, I am, therefore, of the opinion that the inhabitants of that Territory have not at present, and that they cannot acquire otherwise than by an act of Congress, the right to form such a government."

General Jackson's administration took the ground that the people of Arkansas, by the authority of the Territorial Legislature, had not the power to hold a convention to form a constitution, and could not acquire it from any source whatever except from Congress. While, therefore, the legislative act of Arkansas was held to be void, so far as it assumed authority to authorize the calling of a convention to form a constitution, yet they did not hold, in those days, that the people could not assemble and frame a constitution in the form of a petition. I will read the rest of the opinion, in order that the Senate may understand precisely what was the doctrine on this subject at that day, aud what the Committee on Territories understood to be the doctrine on this subject in March, IS56, when we put forth the Kansas report as embodying what we Nebraska men understood to be our doctrine at that time.— Here it is. This was copied into that report: "But I am not prepared to say that all proceedings on this subject, on the part of the citizens of Arkansas, will be illegal.— They undoubtedly possess the ordinary privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States. Among these is the ricrlit to assemble and to petition the Government for the redress of grievances.— In the exercise of this right, the inhabitants of Arkansas may peaceably meet together in primary assemblies, or in conventions chosen by such assemblies, for the purpose of petitioning Congress to abrogate the territorial government, and to admit them into the Union as an independent State. The particular form which they may give in their petition cannot be material' so long as they confine themselves to the mere right of petitioning, and conduct all their proceedings in a peaceable manner. And as the power of Congress over the whole subject is plenary and unlimited. THEY MAY ACCEPT ANY CONSTITUTION, IIOWEYER FRAMED, WHICH IN THEIR JUDGMENT MEETS THE SENSE OF THE PEOPLE TO BE AFFECTED BY IT. If, therefore, the citizens of^ Arkansas think proper to accompany their petition with a written constitution, framed and agreed on by their primary assemblies, or by a convention of delegates chosen by such assemblies, I perceive no legal objection to their power to do so, nor any measures which may be taken to collect the sense of the people in respect to it provided, always, that such measures be commenced and prosecuted in a peaceable manner, in strict subordination to the existing territorial government, AND IN ENTIRE SUBSERVIENCY TO THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO ADOPT, REJECT, OR DISREGARD THEM, AT THEIR PLEASURE."

While the Legislature of Arkansas had no power to create a convention to frame a constitution, as a legal constitutional body, yet if the people chose to assemble under such an act of the Legislature for the purpose of petitioning for redress of grievances, the assemblage was not illegal it was not an unlawful assemblage it was not such an assemblage ae the military power could be used to disperse, for they had a right under the Constitution thus to assemble and petition. But if they assumed to themselves the right or the power to make a government, that assumption was an act

CRAWFORDSVILLE, MONTGOMERY. COUNTY, INDIANA, DEC. WHOLE NUMBER 803.

of rebellion which General Jackson said it was his duty to put down with the military force of the country.

If you apply these principles io the Kansas convention, you find that it had no pow er to do any act as a convention forming a government you find that the act calling it was null and void from the beginning you find that the Legislature could confer no power whatever on the convention.— That convention was simply an assemblage of peaceable citizens, under tho Constitution of the United States, petitioning for the redress of grievances, and, thus assembled, had the right to put their petition in the form of a constitution if they choose but still it was only a petition—having the force of a petition—which Congress could accept or reject, or dispose of as it saw proper. That is what I understand to be just the extent of the power and authority of this convention assembled at

Lecompton.

It was not an unlawful assemblage like that held at Topeka for the Topeka constitution wa3 made in opposition to the territorial law, aud, as I thought, intended to subvert the government without the consent of Congress, but, as contended by their friends, not so intended. If their object was to subvert it without the consent of Congress, it was an act of rebellion, which ought to have been put down by forced If it was a pcaceable assemblage simply to petition and abide the decision of Congress on the petition, it was not an unlawful assemblage. I hold, however, that it was an unlawful assemblage. I hold that this Lecompton convention was not an unlawful assemblage but, on the other hand, I hold that they had no legal power and authority to establish a government. They had a right to petition for a redress of grievances. They had a right in that petition to ask for the change of government from territorial to a folate government. They had a right to ask Congress to adopt the instrument which they sent to us as their constitution and Congress, if it thought that paper embodied the will of the peo pie of the Territory, fairly expressed, might in its discretion, accept it as their constitution, and admit them into the Union as a State or if Congress thought it did not embody tho will of the people of Kansas, it might reject it or if Congress thought it doubtful whether it did embody the will of the people or not, then it should send itback and submit it to the people to have that doubt removed, in order thai tho popular voice, whatever it might be, should prevail in the constitution under which that people were to live.

So far as the act of the Territorial Legislature of Kansas calling this convention was concerned, I have always been un ler the impression that it was fair and just in its provisions. I have always thought the people should have gono^Bkther en masse and voted for delegates,^^uat the voice expressed by the convention should have been the unquestioned and united voice of the poople of Kansas. I have always thought that those who staid away from thot election stood in their own light, nnd should have gone and voted, and should have furnished their names to be put on the registered list, so as to be voters. I have always held that it was their own fault that they did not thus go and vote but yet, if they choose, they had a right to stay away. They had a right to say thatthai convention, although not an unlawful assemblage, is not a legal convention to make a government, and hence we ire under no obligation to go and express any opinion about it. They had a right to say, if they chose, "We will stay away until we see the constitution they shall frame, the petition they shall send to Congress and when they submit it to us for ratification we will vote for it, if wc like it, or vote it down if we do not like it." I say they had a right to do either, though I thought, and think yet, as goal citizens, they ought to have gone and voted but that was their business aud not mine.

Having thus shown that the Convention at Lecompton had no power, no authority, to form and establish a government, but had power to draft a petition, and that petition, if it embodied the will of the people of Kansas, ought to be taken as such au exposition of their will, yet, if it did not!

were elected I understand, from the history of the transaction, that the peopie who

jection, and that he would use all tho power at his command to defeat its acceptance by Congress, if it were not thus submitted to tho vote of tho people-

Mr. President, I am not going to stop and inquire how far the Nebraska bill, which said that the people should be loft perfectly free to form their constitution for themselves, authorized the President or the Cabinet, or Governor Walker, or any other territorial officer, to interfere and tell the Convention of Kansas whether they should or should not submit the question to the people. I am not going to stop to inquire how far they were authorized to do that, it being my opinion that the spirit of the Nebraska bill required it to be done. It is sufficient for ray purpose that the Administration of tho Federal Government unanimously, that the administration of the territorial government, in all its parts, unanimously understood the territorial law under which the Convention was assembled to moan that the constitution to be formed by that Convention should be submitted to the people for ratification or rejection and if not confirmed by a majority of the people, should be null and void, without coming to Congress for approval.

Not only did the National Government and the territorial government so understand the law at the time, but, as I have already stated, tho people of the Territory so understood it. As a further evidence on that point, a large number, if not a majority, of the delegates were instructed in the nominating conventions to submit the constitution to the people for ratification.

I knew that the delegates from Douglas county, eight in number, Mr. Calhoun, president of the Convention, being among them, were not only instructed thus to submit the question, but they signed and published, while candidates, a written pledge that they would submit it to the people for ratification. I know that men, high in thority, and in the confideucc of the territorial aud National Government, canvassed every part of Kansas during the election of delegates, and each one of them pledged himself to the people that no snap judgment was to be taken that the constitution was to be submitted to the people for acceptance or rejection that it would be void unless that that was done that the Administration would spurn and scorn it as a violation of the principles on which it came into power, aud that a Democratic Congress would hurl it from their presence as an insult to Democrats who stood pledged to see the people loft free to form their domestic institutions for themselves.

Not only that, sir but up to the time when the Convention assembled, on the 1st of September, so far as I can learn, it was understood everywhere that the constitution was to be submitted for ratification or rejection. They met, however, on the 1st of September, aud adjourned until after the October election. I think it w.'.3 wise and prudent that they should have thus adjourned. They did not wish to bring any question into that election"twhich would divide the Democratic party, and weaken our chances of success in the election.—• 1 was rejoiced when saw that they did adjourn, so as not to show their hand on any question that would divide and distract the party until after tho election. Daring that recess, while the Convention was adjourned, Governor, Ransom, the Denn* cratie candidate for Congress, running against the present delegate from that territory, was canvassing every part of Kansas' in favor of the doctrine of submitting the constitution to the people, declaring that the Democratic party were in favor of such submission, and that it was a slander of the Black Republicans to intimate the charge that the Democratic party did not intend to carry out that pledge in good faith. Thus, up to the time of the meeting of the Convention, in October last, the pretence was kept up, the profession was opculy made, and believed by me, aud 1 thought believed by them, that the convention intended to submit a constitution to the people, aud not to attempt to put government in operation without such submission. The election being over, the Democratic party being defeated by an overwhelming vote, the Opposition having mid got possession of both branches of tiie Legislature, and having elected their territorial Dologate, the Convention assembled, and then proceeded to

1 tnU5U»

embody their will, ought to he rejected— having shown these facts, let me prooocd and inquire what waa the understanding of the people of Kansas, when the delegates oomp.eto ieir wor

opinions, in Governor Walker, assuming that the constilion to bt submitted to the rojccfon. for ratification. When we look into Governor Walker's letter of acceptance of the office of Governor, we find that he stated expressly that he accepted it with the understanding that the President and his whole Cabinet concurred with him, that the constitution, when formed, was to be submitted to the people for ratification. Then look into the instructions given by the President of the United States, through General Cass, the Secretary of State, to

Uovernor Walker, and you there find that,

the Governor is instructed to use the military power to protect the polls when the constitution shall be submitted to the people of Kansas for their free acceptance or rejection. Trace the history a little further, and you will find that Governor Walker went to Kansas and proclaimed, in his inaugural, and in his speeches at Topeka and elsewhere, that it was the distinct understanding, not only of himself, but of those higher in power than himself—meaning the President and his Cabinet—that the constitution was to be submitted to the pooplc for their free acceptancc or rc-

Now let us stop to inquire how they redeemed tho pledire to submit the constitund

voted for delegates tothe Lecompton Con-!^'-,a ^o the peopie. h^oy first goon^ vention, and those who refused to vote—j m"«ii»' a constitution, llicn they liiaiio a both parties—understood the territorial act I scfte/iule, in whicn they provide thai, the to mean that they were to be elected only constitution, on the 2lst ot December to frame a constitution, and submit it to the present montu r.hall be submitted to the people for their ratification or rejection.'

all

I say that both parties in that Territory, attory ou that day, for their free acceptance the time of the election of delegates, so un- °r rejection, in the following manner, to wit. derstood the object of the Convention.— 'thus acknowledging that they were bound Those who voted for delegates did so with to submit it to the will of the people, conthe understanding that they had no power ceding that they had no right to put it into to make a government, but only to frame I operation without submitting it to the peoone for submission and those who scaid pfo» providing in the instrument that it away did so with the same understanding, should take effect from and after the date

Now for the evidence. The Pre3identof the United States tell us, in his Message,

that he a unajunoca pres\.e the couvcution, bixt from that vote of the the form of instructions to

the lyttia-jidc inhabitants ol the lerri-

of its ratification, and not before showing that the constitution derives its vitality, in their estimation, not from the authority of

4

..

4

or

,.

I people to winch it was to be submitted tor How is itto be submitted It shall be submitted in this form "Constitution with slavery or constitution with no slavery." All men

must vote for the constitution, whether they like it or not, in order to be permitted to vote for

against slavery, 'lhus a

constitution made b^ a convention that had authority to assemble and petition for aredress of grievances, but not to establish a government—a constitution made under a pledge of honor that it should be submitted to the people before it took effect a con-

id on it icc thut

it shall have no validity except what it derives from such submission—is submitted to the people at an election where all men are at liberty to come forward freely without hinderance aud vote for it, but no man is permitted to rooord a vote against it.

That would be as fair an election as some of the enemies of Napoleon attributed to him when he was elected Frat Consul. He is said to have called out his troops, and had them reviewed by his officers with a pathetic speech, patriotic and fair in its

ISA

professions, in which he said to thorn:— "Now, my soldiers, you are to go to tho election and vote freely just a3 you please. If you voto for Napoleon, all is well vote against him., and you aro iustantly to be shot." That w.n a fair election. (Laughter.) This election to bo equally fair,-— All men in favot-of the constitution may vote for it—all men against it shall iut Vote at all. Why not lot them vote again3t it? I prcjume you have asked a very large number of gentlemen who framed the constitution, quite a number of delegates, and a still larger number of persons who arc their friends, and I have received the same answer from every one of theui. I never received any other answer. What is that They say if they allowed a negative vote the constitution would have been voted down by an overwhelming majority, and hence the fellows shall not bo-allowed to vote at all. (Laughter.)

Mr. President, that may be true. It is no part of my purpose to deny the proposition that that constitution would have been voted down by a majority of four to one, I am informed by men well posted there—Democrats—that it would be voted down by ten to one some say by twenty to one.

But is it a good reason why you should declare it iu force, without being submittod to the people, merely becausc it would havo been voted down by five to one if you had submitted it? What doe3 that fact prove Does it not show undeniably that au overwhelming majority of the people of Kansas arc unalterably opposed to that constitution Will you force it on them against their will simply becausc they would have voted it down if )*ou had consulted them If you will, arc you going to force it upon them under the plea of leaving them perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions iu their own way Is that the mode in which I am called upon to carry out tho principle of self-government and popular sovereignty iu the Territory—-to force a constitution on the people against their will, iu opposition to their protest, with a knowledge of the fact, aud then to assign, as a reason for my tyranny, that they would be so obstinate and so pcrvorso as to voto down the constitution if I had given them aa opportunity to be consulted about it

Sir, I deny your right or mine to inquiro of these people what their objections to that constitution are. They have a right to judge for themselves whether they liko or dislike it. It is no answer to tell me that the constitution is a good one and unobjectionable. It is not satisfactory to mo to have the President say in his messago that that constitution is an admirable one, like all the constitutions of the new States that have been recently formed. Whether good or bad, whether obnoxiouf or not, is none of my business and none of yours. It is their business and not ours. I caro not what they have in their constitution, so that it suits them and docs not violate tho Constitution of the United States and the fundamental principles of liberty upon which our institutions rest. I am not going to argue the question whether the banking system established in that constitution is wise or unwise. It says there shall bo no monopolies, but there shall be one bank of issue in the State, with two branches. All I have to say on that point is, if they want a banking system let them have it if they do not want it let them prohibit it. If they want a bank with two branches, be it so if they want twenty it is none of in}'business, and it matters not to mo whether one of them shall be on the north side and the other on the south side of tho Kaw river, or where they shall be.

While I have no right to cxpect to b1) consulted on that point, I do hold that tin people of Kansas have the right to be consulted and to decide it, and you have no rightful authority to deprive them of that privilege. Itis no jurisdiction, in my mind, to say that the provisions for the eligibility for the office of Governor aud Lieutenant Governor require? twentyyears citizenship in the United States.- If men think that no person should vote or hold office until he has been here twenty years they havo aright to think so and if a majority of the people of Kansas think that no mau of foreign birth should voto or hold office unless he has lived there twenty years, it is their right to say so, and I have no right to interfere with them it is theirbusincss, not mine but if 1 lived there 1 should not be willing to have that provision in the constitution without being heard upon tho subject, and allowed to record my protest against it.

I have nothing to say about their system of taxation, in which they have gone back -,, and resorted to the old exploded fiy,t,,m that we tried in Illinois, but abandoned because we dil not like it. If they wish to try it, and get tired of it, nnd abandon it, be it so but if I were a citizen of Kansas I would profit by the experience of Illinois on that subject, and deieat it if I could. Yet I have no objection to their having it if they want it it is their business, not mine.

So it is in regard to the free negroes.—

They

provide that no free negro shall bo permitted to live in Kansas. I supposo they have a right to say so if they choose but if I. lived there I should want to vote on that question. We, in Illinois, provide that no more shall come there. Wo say to the other States, "take care of your own free negroes and wc will take care of ours." But we do not say that the negroes now. there shall not be permitted to live in Illinois and I think that the people of Kansas ought to have the right to say whether they will allow them to live there, aud if they are not going to do so, how they aro to dispose of them

So you may go on with all the different clauses of the constitution. They may bo all right they may be all wrong. That is a question on which my opinion is worth nothing. The opinion of tho wiso and patriotic Chief Magistrate of the United States is not worth anything as against that of the people of Kansas, for they havo a ri-rht to judge for themselves and neither Presidents, nor Senates, nor Houses of Representatives, nor any other power outside of Kansas, has a right to judge for them. Hence it is no justification, in my mind, for the violation of a great principle of self-government, to say that the consti-