] 7 ered loLI HE t. NEW SERIES. SPEECH OF HON. 111. IWR. OF PEW!.. ON KANSAS AFFAIRS DELIVERED IN THE SENATE, DEC. 21, 1857. "On motion of Mr. Biglek, the Senate proceeded to the consideration of the motion ol Mr. Doer. las, to refer -o much of the Prf Biiletil" Message as- re lares lo territorial affair- to the Committee on I er ritories. Mr. IIIOLEU. Mr. President: No one has re uPon ° tted more than myself that the discussion on dream. Kansas policy of th- administration has been tion of orpifated upon the S-uate and tlm country, i preferred to avoid discussion until the result of the election on the shivery clause had tran spired, ami until Kansas should present herself fir admisdnfi as a State : but tile Senator Irorn Illinois j Mr. Diu'clasJ deemed a different policy necessary and proper, and no alterna tive was left to the friends of the administration but to respond. I think I am duly sensible of the important and delicate character of the subject to be dis cussed, arid 1 am sure 1 never was more anxious to do my duty : never more willing lo sacrifice pride of opinion, or to restrain passion and pre judice, in order to see clearly the public good. That other senators are actuated by motives equally proper, 1 liare no doubt. The senator fiofu Illinois- has delivered w hat may be termed a great speed) against the Kan sas jmlirv of the administration. No nan who knows him will doubt his ability to make the most out of any state of farts and circum stances before h:m. Few men can equal him in this paittcnlar. For myself, I make no such pretensi >n ; but, as to our rights, privileges, and responsibilities, on this floor we are equals. Fortunately, in our present difference, I think my cause the stronger of the two, qnd on it I can rely with safety. Now, sir, it would be idle to attempt to an swer the senator's arguments, and controvert his conclusions, were I to concede the correct ness of all his premises. This 1 cannot do, a tic! I shall.=hnw why 1 cannot at different points as I proceed. This great speech of the senator, with all due respect, was in my humble estima tion after all, only a huge structure resting on a very unsound and insufficient foundation. He has applied the facts and cireums'aoces with great skill in maintaining his case -. but he will pardon hie fur the expression <>( If** opinion that, in t one and fempei, in enlarged a. Os >uutr theory, in practical and useful suggestion, in generous toUiance of differences with o'heis, it will not, in (i>v judgment, command so much of public Inur a-an v one of the many farmer efforts of that gifted senator. It was Ins right and no one w ill call in question his motives hut I do not believe it was wise in the senator to precipitate the slavery agitation in this tody and in the country : nor ran 1 understand why he should have show n ,r> much willincnes : to weaken pwbi'i" confidence m the policy of the metf of his own party, whom he assisted to place in pow.-r, ami who, at this critical moment wieli the only functions of government capable of maintaining the public peace in Kansas : nor whv he should have indulged in sarcastic ridi cule when dealing with the views of the Presi dent. The allegation that that able and accom plished statesman had fallen info "fundamental error," a< lo the meaning t.l the Kansas-Nebras ka law, and the purposes of its authors, ie cause he was not 111 the country at the time of its passage, 1 in be estimated in no other light, and can subserve no useful purposes for the senator or the cuutttry. True, it at.sweied to excite momenta y gratification on the other side of the chamber, and chagrin on this : but on neither side, nor tu tire country,will the sentiment meet even a respectful response, when the impulse of the hour stial 1 have yielded to sober reflection. The honorable senator from Illinois was not in the country when the Declaration of indepen dence was enunciated, nor when the Constitu tion w as made : ami v >-t he claims to undeistaud both th.se instruments, and the purposes in view by theii authors. Is this Kansas law more difficult ot comprehension ? Pel haps it is. At all events, it lux certainly required more expla nation at the hands o< its author ; and it might seem that, n long ac he finds it necessary to explain w hat In-meant every month in the year lie cuiil i aliorti to pardon tlm President for the commission of even "fundamental error." But enough on t is punt. When the senator shall have persuaded the people n( the Inited States that tiie President do'-x not understand the subject, I s uili recur to it again. But what will (lie honorable senator say as jto th" vi-ws of die fat-- President, who was not MP of the count i v h ien the law passed, but in ete-v step of the struggle* that ga-v- it cxis'enco. H- certainly understands ihi* q., • s ion : ;'iid I have sufficient authority f u flUlli 'dial fie nees- Willi Ills successor on his Kansas p. fo V, .i d cmsequetitfy differs with the senator fiom Thlois. The ntost vrrmiess part of the senator's speech is that in who h, whilst making a broad issue with the adfr.n'i irion, he has attempted to show that the i> -.(dent's views sustain those expressed by fiiunx'lf. lie is certainly entitled to all he can n A.' for Ins cause in this way ; but if there v.as no great difference between the President and hi was then the less reason for making the issue. The President's character for candor xv.f,fornese forbade that he should withhold or give the slightest coloring to any fact in the case, with a view even of sustaining the conclusions at which lie felt re quired to arrive. Nor could he approach the -subject in a partisan spirit. He has not cared to deal with the follies, wrongs, and hitler feel ing* which have been manifested OR either side of the question, in or out of Kansas : but he lias preferred to consider (he present atidtbe future and lo determine what is be>,t for the country. I do not claim for him infallibility of judgment, for that does not belong to humanity ; bkrt I do claim for him the highest degree of patriotism and disinterestedness is all he tha? said aecfAxie lon this dangerous question. Thr would svek to oppress any class o''' "' Kansas, or desire to impose'upon '", oc 10ll> government, should not be, and I ',, " entertained in any quarter j tha Al " " 1 trifle with this, or any other gre; , l^ ri; ■ am that, having recognized lb* valid' lIU s in Kansas, and the right of the make a constitution and State g M! i day, he does not discard that vit . Iu xl ' |v ! but consistent with his cbaracte 1,1 b Mt . v 0 : purpose, and clearness of percej But v* hat does tlie senator rn< 1 ' r "'C that the Kansas policy of the ni !> ' administration measure? Does 1 ' an to.it the cabinet do not agree, with I understand'differently. Or e 1 " 1 ao tnat the a lir.imsiratioii, having lai I'j '' 1v ' u ill hold that those who assa n that jKilicv do not oppuse tiie "' 11 ' • There is surely no rooitri lor '"-anding on this point, and it is.certain 1 1 ' discover from ttie message _ •••si.,ent w hat that policy i. The idp'' IOM | nizesthe legality of the proc* Kansas. !so far as they have progressed* mn! t ' r "• i making a constitution' and govern menf preparatory to ad i.issbn into a State. They hold that the nm ' ,ht * Territory had the right to cal iw '"' !:,n °' i delegates to tie elected by tht"''" nn a State constitution : thit the ''ion, when so formed, had the legaj right" a constitu tion and submit their |roings' ,e 5,1,1 a : popular vote, or send tliern t-* ,t *' , " i a '"' admission for the State' undi 11 '' ! a' ''"* | organic act having special re'* lo a contro versy about slavery, which w 'ho!e . country, the convention wa''. v hound to > ascertain the sense of the pe-' 1 'his feature ; of their domestic policy, otl* 'he spirit of i , the compromise on this dngr WQU 'd have failed ol its true purpose so Kansas is con I cerned. They hold, firth 1 ' when the I Siate shall ask admission, fftitotion being j republican in form, it will n sufficient rea son to deny her admission, mreby perpet- ; j uale tlie contest about slave' the ordinary forms of State government which there is seldom much coin!rovers which can he clianged at anv time, had •' received the sanction of the popular this process; is safest as a general prioc u ' that, under | the clear terms of theorgßS ■' ls a ques tion for the people arid in ! onnvention. with aß'.jbjkfrgk aLgoveriirr.eiit j has now no rignt loiwi hTe tinreinrif. ; have acted in bad laitfi, tf" account a'ue to the people who elected tfrd not to Con gress or to the adtninistratSo much for the views of the adrninistf&tto Now I understand the ' from Illinois not only to deny nearly rse positions of t the administration, and cly the right of the legislature to call a cion—for he has said the law for that pu was "null and void from the heginniogae goe.* further, and maintains that to ad' soundess <>| all the positions of the adntion, the State I must not r>e admitted un juestiiin of court, j corporations, ha tilts and i> shall be settled lv a vote of the people,eip i,- the issue. As to the power of the lire to call a con vention, it uillbeseeh e senator corries !in dir.- ( t conflict with t-ws of Governor Walker, who, in his ral address, held that the legislature wasower ordained I ir | that purpose." But th startling doctrin j involved in this position honorable sena ' tor is the as< option tha he rirt'it nu<l rft/fi/ i of the federal gOtern?riinferpo>e bet wen thr people of a Terr lib their own locnl I renyetentntivf ■>. ' Thiscould have been a sounc' or safe practice fy State or Territo ry ; b>'t it is utterly Oie question under the organic a< t forKahich has comniit : ted all (I.iiripstic and ilaffairs to the peo ple lobe r.-gidated "ii own way." ft is no i tatter of pi to me to recur to (lie unpleasant di/Terewren the honora ; hie senator ai d mysehther day, touching the Cian.su It at c rt of se&t his residence, in ; Julv, ISoti. on the pc the Toombs bill , i but however task, justice to myself requires that I| do so, especially since the character ofconfereuce has beep misunderstood in CCquartets. Nothing was further frdfti my than to allude to any social or confi, interview. The meeting was not of tf ira( -t er. Indeed, it was semi-t lhuaf,and | u promote the pub lic good. My recol was clear that I | left I lie conference Uj e impression that it | had te en deened bes,p| uieasurey rt) ad ; rnit Kansas as a S(at u ,h the ngencj' <d [ lll e popular eleclf f or delegates "to the convention. Tii.. s <i,, n was the stron ger, because I though ~j, j( Q f me till in fringed tipun (he do.,| non-intervention, to which [ had grea,,,,,, ■ but with the hope of ijcciiuiplishii^ a | -ood, and as no movement had been , n ( | )n t direction of the Territory, I vvatj s objection, and con cluded to support (I.;iire. I have a few ■ items of (estiifmny ; e correctness of these | impressions, and wi r submission I shall be content. I have before rm,;n reported by the senator from Illinoi e 7th of March, 1856, providing for" the a, () of Kansas as a State, the thirj section of rea ds as follows : "That the rollowir,^j t j ons be, and the same i are hereby, offered t (|( | convention of the peo ple of Kansas 1 , when, f pr their free acceptance jor rejection; which, .pted by the convention, and ratified bjjLfbe p' t the election for the ; adoption of tiie; cons s |, a [| be obligatory upon the ("niteil States ar ".jj Slate of Kaii-as." The bill read in v,y the senator from Georgia on tte 25t a(l d referred to | the Committee pi-gorics, contained the same section, wor, orr p Both these bills were under CpnsgC. al ( he conference re ferred to; bw, sir, t he senator from Illi nois reported the q ;J bill to the Senate, with morning it did not contain that porti j, e third section which BEDFORD, PA., FRIDf MORNING, JANUARY 8, 1858. | indicated to thp convention that the constitutiof should be approved by the people. The wortfj "and ratified by Me profile "I ihe election for the adoption oj the constitution had been stricken out. Who struck these words out, or for what purpose they were omitted, is not for me to answer. Hut, sir, I cannot be persuaded that it was intended thereby to secure to the : people of Kansas the right to vote on the con stitution. i know the senator assumed the otheri day, that wherever the law is si!**nt on the subject, the inference is in favor of submission ; hnt, sir, a full examination of the precedents bearing on that point has shown me that the converse of the proposition has the weight of authority, and that which he has laid down as the rule nt precedent, lias seldom, if ever, hap pened. Indeed, I failed to discover a single instance in which the people have voted on the preparatory constitution where the act of Con gress was silent on the subject. But, yielding this point, how is the senator to reconcile this {position with the understanding of the subject jhe has so clearly indicated on other occasions? ; For instance, if it be an allowable conclusion, ; that where the law is silent on the subject, the ' constitution nmst he submitted to a vote of the j people, why did the senator insert the clause I which I have already quoted in his bill of the ; ith of March : and why did he insert a similar provision in the law f>r the admission of Miritie- I sota ? Then, again, if by striking these words out of the bill of the senator from Georgia, its import was in nowise affected, why were they | stricken out ? Such, sir, were the (acts and circumstances which led me to believe that the Toombs bill was to bring Kansas into the I nion without a vote on the constitution. Possibly my impres sions are not warranted, but be that as it may, f cannot be persuaded that the Senator intended to secure to the people the right to vote on the constitution, by striking from the bill the words making that policy necessary, or that the con vention would have been bound to extend that opportunity to the people, simply because the act of Congress said no such thing. But e nough on this \ oint. Now let ine proceed to a more important branch ol my remarks. In order fo a proper understanding of the subject under discussion, it is necessary to start with a clear view ol the domestic relations ex isting between the Territory ot Kansas and the federal government. The organic law declares that "legislative authority ol the Territory* shall exteprj lo ail right-**"'* , '"m* I lUll. flliu vac M. .79 pfUlli- Silclil Ut* It'll "peifectly fee to form arid regulate their do mestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United Slates." I hold that the extens on to the people of the ; opportunity of so forming and leguluting their j institutions, by designating the times and pia i ces where they mav meet and elect delegates, and where the delegates shall assemble when e i lected, and how t.h.y should proceed, is a right ' Jul subject of legislation; and that tiie legisla ture of Kansas was bound, as a matter ol duty, to respond to the almost clamorous demand of : the people tor a change from their territorial to i a State government, as manifested f >r two years | pad, n poiti .ii of whom haii attempted to erect j the Tenitory into a S'ate in the most irregular ; and even unlawful manner; as they had also a 1 r to take notice of the manifestations of wil lingness on the part of Congress, expressed in 1856, to receive the Territory into the Chion j even with her then meagre population. I hold also tha'. th-re are hut two sources of (governmental authority for the people of a Ter ritory— the one is Congress, and the other is the people themselves; and that when Congress, as is the case of Kansas, has confeired upon the 1 people all the legislative authority with which ! they were invested, the people are entirely un | restrained in the matter of institutions of gov. j eminent, except by the Constitution of the ('. j Slates. It needs no argument, then, to show | that the people of Kansas had a right, under 1 the organic law, to adopt any measures they 1 may deem proper to change their form of gov ! eminent: that in doing this they have a right to delegate their sovereign authority to represent i atives to any extent they please—to the extent | only of preparing forms of government for their supervision, acceptance, and ratification, or to ; the extent of making and adopting a const it u. 1 lion and State government for admission into 1 the Union; that where there is no limitation in {the original giant of authority, the latter mea sure of power may be exercised: that the sover eignty of the people is inalienable, and must 1 revert to them after having performed the func tions for which it was delegated, and that there !l ue the people are at all limes clothed with an -1 thoiity to alter and amend their forms of gov. ! eminent; but to hold that the people cannot 1 delegate their soverign authority to make laws fdrStajeir own ust* and enjoyment, is to discard | oqr whole representative system, and the prac tice under it since the government began.— And to say that laws so made, on Jess thepop j ular sense is taken upon them, are oppressive or : wanting in authority, is to lay down a rule I which woi'ld require the submission of ail the statutes to the popular vote. Indeed, on this | principle, the Declaration of Independence, the i Bill of Rights, the Constitution ol the United States, might be called acts of oppression, for neither received the sanction of a popular vote. I maintain that the people of Kansas have | the right to make a constitution and a State gov ernment; that Congress cannot participate in ! that work, either as to its substance or form; ithat whilst Congress inigiit attempt to prescribe ' how the people should do this, it would he op \ tional with them whether they adopted that way or pursued some lorrri of their own. Con gress mav invite the people to make their gov i eminent HI a prescribed mode, but cannot re quire compliance, except that Congress could I refuse the Territory admission as a Slate; hut this proceeding of the people must be in accord ance with and under the direction of the laws of the Territory; it must be the offspring of law, and not a spirit of rebellion, as in the case of the Froedom of honght and Opinion. Topeka convention. I do not understand the honorable senator from Illinois fo hold an enabling act to be indispen sable in all cases. He cannot hold this in the ■face of the numerous precedents to the contra •ry.but he certainly does maintain that in the case of Kansas, all that the people have done dial! be disregarded, not because they have done t according to law, but for the reason that, in qtlii opiuion, they have not done it in the right fvay. Waiving for thp present the question as o whether their way was right or not, the first juestion that suggests itself to the mind is, what las become of the great Kansas-Nebraska law; hat new charter of rights lo the people of the Territories, which declares that it is "not in ended to legislate slavery into any Territory, ir exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people 1 lerfectly free to make their domestic institu ions in their own way." Is it to be abandon ed and thus summarily pronounced a failure?— le that as it may, hp cannot convince me that he people have not the right to make their iorritsiic institutions in their own way, until ie repeals so much of the organic act as says hey shall do this precise thing. It has conferred upon the people not only all he powers of Congress possessed under the Constitution as to the kind of institutions which honld be made, but also, and just as expressly, is to the mode, manner, and way of making hem. The Senator proposes to reject what be people have done, and confer upon thein lew grants of power : and yet, if there is any me thing clear in all tlii> Kansas question it is that as to the kind of institutions the people .'hail have, ana the way in which they shall be riade, they already have complete authority.— 't is true (hat Cengress still has the power to iav that Kansas shall not come into the Union; Sut I cannot see hoc that body can confer any idditonal authority at to the way in which she shall he prepared to c une in. J will not be contradicted when I say that the question be tween the friends and enemies of the Kansas biil was, whether the people of the whole U niou, acting— through there representatives in Congress, should legislate on slavery in the Territory —no one ever claiming the right to legislate on any other domestic institution—or whether the question should tie dealt with t>v the people of the Territory in their own way, through local representatives of their own se lection. The question was settled as no other question had ever been settled before— b_V the diciary.and bv tfit- people at the polls. And, Mr. President, I must confess to great amaze ment when I heard the honorable Senator as sume, the other day, that the people of Kansas, acting under his boasted grant of "perfect free dom," could not. in the matter of making a government fir themselves, rise above the dig nity of supplicants to Congress to ratify their irregulai and unauthorized proceedings; not on the ground, even, that what they had done was itself entirely inadmissible, but because it had | not been done in th". right way. Ihe organic , act says that they shall do this thing "in their ) own wav." Will the Senator say the way they Have embraced was not the way of the people / W ill he contend, in the face of his Springfield speech, to which I shall allude more particu larly hereafter, that the people have not had a fair opportunity to reflect their will through the ballot-box; or, if a port ion of them refuse to do this when invited, because they are deter mined M disregard their own local laws, that the responsibility is not their own? Certainly not. Wherein, then, is the case of the convention defective? I deny "i ioln (he senator's right to go behind the legal and authorized aspect of the case. Congress is not hereafter to deal with the question of making institutions in Kan sas, either as to their character or mode of for mation. The rights of the people as to this mat ter are circumscribed by the Constitution only; and when an issue between their action and that instrument shall arise, it must be a question for the judiciary, and not for Congress: and so the senator from Illinois has often held, especially on the question of squatter sovereignty. \\ hen, therefore, the people apply to Congress for ad mission as a State, through the agency of a con vention of delegates selected by themselves in a legal and orderly manner, under the broad terms of the organic act, and, in these days of non-intervention, having decided the slavery question by popular vote, the only proper inqui ry for Congress will be: Is the constitution republican? Mr. Madison s discussion of the obligations of thp federal government, to be found in the "Federalist," but which is too vo luminous for use on the present occasion, is, to my mind, clear on this point. The honorable senator has resorted to musty authorities to sustain his new position; out I am not disposed to resort to means ol that kind to controvert lliem. Indeed it would be hardly lair in these days of non-intervention. I had supposed that, alter theeia ot his new doctrine, old relics would be forgotten, and that we were to have a simple, plain system for the Territo ries, to u it: that the people from all the States should go into the Territories with ail their pro perty, including slaves, and legislate tor them selves up to the full measure allowable by the Constitution of the U. States, without revision or interference hv Congress; and that, in their own time ami in their own way, they should tie allowed to prepare for and ask admission as States. Besides, it is extremely difficult to tell exactly what the precedents of Congress, States, and Statesmen, would teach on this subject. T have taxed my brain to the utmost to make a fair deduction "from this complicated contest, arid find it exceedingly difficult to show decisive authority lor any ot ttie points involved. I discover that the States of Maine, Michigan Vermont, Arkansas, Tennessee, Texas, lowa, Florida, and California, were admitted into the Union without what is called enabling acts; Ohio, Indiana, Mississippi Louisiana, Illinois, Alabama, Missouri, and Atkan?as, came in tin der acts of Congress; and that Vermont, Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Missouri, Ar kansas, and Wisconsin, according to the best authority lean find, came into the Union un der constitutions which had not been submitted to the popular vote. Certain States, under en abling acts, may have submitted their constitu tions to a vote of the people, and others have not. There seems to have been no uniformity of action on the part of the new States or of Congress. The precedents established by states men are still more dubious. Even the honorable senator from Illinois does not seem to have held the same views at all times on the questions under consideration. At present, he doubts the policy of admitting Kan sas, because her entire constitution was not sub mitted to a vote of the people, yet Ive voted for an enabling act for Kansas, which did not re quire that any part of the constitution should be submitted. He denies the authority of a con vention of the people of the Territory ot Kan sas to make a State government, even under the enlarged powers conferred by bis own fa vorite law of 1854 c and yet he voted to admit California as a State, she having made a cottsito tion and State government without even the color of authority from Congress, the incipient steps of which had their origin in the orders of a military commander. 1 make no charge of inconsistency against tlie honorable senator, and surelv none as to the purity of his motives. I state these things to show the difficulty of the subject: but I do sav that when the senator pick ed up the charge of inconsistency made against the President the other day, by his colleague,on the Michigan and Arkansas cases, and when afterwards, replying to a similar, allegation a gainst himself, he said: "I ain not one ot those who boast that they have never changed their opinion," "I do not know that a month has ever passed over my head in which I have not modified some opinion to some degree," lie ought to" have extended the same charilable rule to the President. But he holds that when the people of Kan sas move in the matter of establishing their gov ernment, that movement, though it may not be illegal, is irregular, and does not rise above the importance of a petition for redtessof grievan ces. How will this sentiment be relished by the proud men who have gone to Kansas from ail parts of the Union, believing they have been vested with the "great principle of self-govern | ment?" They will scarcely realize their new i attitude. . . ' ( , redress of grievances. When was it pretended ! that individuals or communities could not peti j tion Congress for redress of grievances? In God's name, who ever denied that right? Is that all the people have gained by non-inter vention' Is that the full fruits of perfect free. Join in Kansas? Is that what we have gained in this J ong struggle? If it be, then I must con fess I haw never understood the question: nor do I now b dieve the people have understood it. If the rieht to make institutions in such away as Congress proscribes, and send them to Con gress in the shape of a petition for redress of grievances, is a'l the people have gained by non-intervention, with the moral and legal right in Congress to send that petition back for alteration, though the constitution be republican in form, then the senator s law of 1554- is a bald imposture, a delusion, and a deception "the word of promise to the ear to be broken to the hope"—"the thorn beneatu the rose.' But let us pass to a more practical view of the subject. Mv own reflections on the dan gerous controversy on Kansas, consideiing the sources and the character of the strife, satisfied mv mind, even before I became a mewuier oi this body, that the surest, if not the only, way of ending this bitter sectional struggle, and qui eting the country, was to admit Kansas as a State at the eariiest period practicable, thereby circumscribing all concern about her aflaus within her own limits, where the differences, whatever they might be, could not IJII to prompt legitimate adjustment. Entertaining these impressions and views, 1 was rejoiced to perceive that the people ol Kansas trail deter mined to C3II a convention to form a constitu tion and Stat** government preparatory toau mission into the I nion as a Stale. Ihe propri ety and validity of tins movement for a conven tion, under direction of the territorial laws,had been prompt I v recogmzrd by the President m his instructions to Governor Walker, and then again in Ins Connecticut lettei. Gov. Walker d?d the same thing in fiis first address, and nr ced the people to the performance of their duty uuder the law, in the following emphatic terms "The people of Kansas, then, are invited by the highest authority known to the Constitution to par ticipate freely and fairly in the election of delegates to frame a constitution and State government. The law has performed its entire appropriate lonctioo when it extends to the people the right of suffrage, but it cannot compel the performance ol that duty, Throughout our whole Union, however, and wherev er free government prevails, those who abstain from the exercise of the right of suffrage, authorize chose who do vote to act tor them in that contingency, and the absentees are as much bound under the law and Constitution, where there is no fraud or violence, by the act of the majority of those who do vote, as although all ha.l participated in the election. Oth erwise, as voting must be voluntary, self-govern ment would be impracticable, and monarchy or des potism would remain as the only alternative. "You should not console yourselves fellow-citi zens, with the reflection that YOU may, by a subse quent vote, defeat the ratification of the constitution, i Although most anxious to secure to you the exercise of that great constitutional right, and believing that the convention is the servant and not the master of the people, yet 1 have no power to dictate the pro ceedings of that body. I cannot doubt, however, the course'they will adopt on this subject. But why in cur the hazard of the preliminary formation cf a I constitution by a majority, as alleged by yon, when a majoritv, by their own votes, could control the forming of that instrument? "But it is said that the convention is not legally 1 called, and that the election will not be freely and fairly conducted. The territorial legislature i the power ordained for the purpose by the Congress ot the United States; and in opposing it you reist the authority of the federal government. That legisla- I ture was called into being by the Congress of 1854, and is recogntrcd iu the very latest congressional WHOLE \ITIBER 977*. legislation. It is Tecognized by the present Chief Magistrate of the Union, just chosen by the Ameri can people, and many of its acts are now in operation here by universal assent. As the governor of the Ferritory ol Kansas, I must support the laws and constitution; and 1 have no other alternative under my oath but to see that at! constitutional laws are fully and fairly executed." Mr. Secretary Stanton, under the instructioni of the President and governor, addressed the people as follows : '•The government especially recognizes the terri torial act which provides for assembling a convention to form a constitution, with a view of making appli cation to Congress for admission as a State into the T'nion. That act is regarded as presenting Ihe only test of the qualification of voters for delegates to the convention, and all preceding repugnant restric tionsare thereby repealed. In this light, theact must be allowed to have piovided for a full and fair expres sion of the will of the people through the delegates who may be chosen to represent them in the consti tutional convention. Ido not doubt, however, that, in order to avoid all pretext for resistance to the peaceful operation of this law, the convention itself w ill, in some torm, provide for submitting the great di-tracting question regarding their special institu tions, which has so long agita'ed the people, of Kan sas. to a fair vote of a!! the actual hona Ude residents of the Territory, with every possible security against fraud and violence. If the constitution be thus fra med. and the question of difference thus submitted to the decision of the people, 1 believe that Kansas will be admitted by Congress without delay as one of the sovereign States of the American Union, and the territorial authorities will be immediately with drawn." These quotations are full of striking ideas which invite special altention at this time. The first is the full recognition, tv both the gover nor and secretary, of the validity of the Jaw cal ling the convention : anothher is, that the con vention, when formed, would have a right to make a constitution and submit it to a vote or not; aud this is one ol Um reasons of the gover nor for urging the people to attend the polls and vote. "Those who abstain from the right of suffrage," says the governor, "authorize those who do vote to act for them." He says "the convention is legally called," "because the territoiia! legislature is the power ordained for (his purpose." But what is most remarkable, and most to I tie point, is, that Mr. Stanton in dicated, at that every dav, that the submission of "the great distracting question" (slavery) was ail that would be necessary to give Kansas peace and the dignity of a State. He even then in dicated, most pointedly, the poticv afterwards adopted by the cen vent inn. The senator from Illinois, in a spepch deliver de at Springfield, in his Stale, on the 12th of June last, said : ' "3 e a tvf**a>■*.^hov.*- tution preparatory to heradmisston infotbe Union." '•The law under which her delegates are about to be ejected is believed to be just and fair in a!! its objects and provisions." With all this mass ofauthority to sustain them the people of the Territory, or those of them who were willing to sustain the laws which the the President, Governor the sena tor from Illino Wield to be propff and binding proceeded to make a constitution and State government. But those who said the laws should not be obeyed refused to participate in this work, and from this spirit of insubordina tion, in my judgment, all the subsequent mis chief has arisen. They would not attend at the polls, and vote for delegates to carry out their will in the convention ; not because they did not wish to have a State government—for the same men had attempted to erect Kansas into a State in the most irregular and unauthorized mode—but for the reason that they had commen ced rebellion against the laws, and were deter mined to persist in it! And it is, in the main, these veiv men who at this moment are clamor ing most about oppression and usurpation, and about sacred rights, which they indignantly refuse to exercise. Governor Walker labored zealously to bring these men to the performance of their duty, as is shown in the extract I have given from his address. But they were joined to their idol —the Topeka farce. The conse quence was, that there was virtually no con test for delegates, and only about twenty-two hundred votes were polled. But still the con veiitton, on the theory ol Governor Walker, had been invested with the authority of nearly the whole population to make a constitution and State government. This large class of the people who neglected to vote for delegates became clamorous against the convention,and even assembled at Topeka for the avowed purpose of putting their own bogus government into operation. I was in the Territory for some time prior to and after the -•lection, and speak from personal observation at to the spirit of insubordination manifested by some, expending itself in bitter denunciation of the President and Governor Walker for attempting to administer what, in the chaste phrase of ihe malcontents ,were the "bogus laws of'a bogus legislature," averring that they would have no form of government from the conven tion gotten up under these laws, no matter how perfect it might be : that though that "bogus convention" should submit for their approval their own Topeka constitution, they would spurn it with contempt. This spirit was per sisted in to the end. Governor Walker, as must he obvious to all, was not and could not be vested with any authority over the subject of making a State government. His functions were to administer the laws, and perform the executive duties generally, which he did dis charge with great ability. But beyond this, he could not go. He had no connexion with, agen cv in, or responsibility tor, the work ol making a constitution. In the exercise of his discre tion, and with the intention of doing what was best, he had at first advised the people to vote but all would not do so. He also urged the delegates composing the convention to submit their work to the approval of the people, holding this to he right as a general principle, and especially necessary in view of the small vote cast far delegates. But the convention sub mitted only the article relating to slavery. That it ought to have submitted theconstitutioti in some form to give the people the right lo judge of its several parts, T agree ; and, as a VOL 1, NO. 23.
Significant historical Pennsylvania newspapers