] 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.