VOLUME 53. NEW SERIES. THE BEDFOBD GAZETTE TS PUBLISHED EVERY FRIDAY -MORNING BY MEYERS & BENFORD, At the following terms, to wit: $1.50 per annum, cash, in advance. $2.00 " " if paid within the year. $2.50 " " if not paid within the year. subscription taken tor less than six months. paper discontinued until all arrearages are paid, unless at the option of the publishers. It has fteen decided by the United States Courts, that the stoppage of a newspaper without the payment of ar rearages, is prima facie evidence ot fraud and is a criminal offence. ttsfThe cooits have decided that per-ons arc ac countable for the subscription price of newspapers, if they take them from the post office, whether they subscribe for tllem, or not. SPEECH OF BON. WILSON REJLLY, OF PENNSYLVANIA, IX FAYOtt or THE AtlmiKsson of Siansas UNDER THE LECOMPTON (ONSTITI TION. DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE Of REPRESENTATIVES, MARCH 20, 1858. The [louse beingjin Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union —.Mr. REILLY said: I\lr. CHAIRMAN: 1 have, up to this hour, re frained from a public expression of my views on the Kansas question, in the hope that some fait and honorable compromise would be t flee ted which would settle it in away satisfactory to all f arlies. I begin to fear that my hope will prove a false one; and as I will shortly be called upon to record my vote for or against the admission of Kansas, under the Lecornpton con stitution, it is but proper that I should make known to my constituents and my country the : reasons which induce mMo vote as T shall when tltp time arrives for nie to give that vote. I confess, sir. that this question has given me more anxiety titan all others to which I have had n.y attention tailed, or on which it has ; been my duly to vote since I took my seat as a i member of tins House. Indeed, I consider it a question of more moment, and fraught with ( more of good or evil to the country, than any j other ever presented for the consideration ol ! Congress since the formation of our Government, , It certainly demands an exercise of the best j judgment, and must appeal to ttie patriotism of j rverv Due American citizen. We may, per-; haps, in a few days decide the fate of this Re- j public. How careful, then, ought we to be of Gtir words, how sure that we do t.o act which will cause us regret in the future! This subject has not occupied the mtnds and engage J the attention ot t hose in autnonty alone; it has been and is yet being discussed at almost fverv fireside in our land. It has been, and i? now, a fruitful theme for all classes ol our citi zens. The statesman and the politician; the minister, the merchant ami the mechanic: the ; farmer, the laborer and the lawyer, Lave ali , felt, and slill feel, a deep solicitude iei its j rightlul solution and peaceful settlement. 1 hey j fear, and perhaps not without just cause, that, j if not settled now, it may for years to rotne, j continue and inct esse tlie jealousy and bitterness j which now exist between our brethren ot the , .North and South, and are, therefore, anxiously j directing their attention and hopes to Congress | for a speedy and amicable termination of the agitation and excitement which this vexed and dangerous question has ]roduced throughout our country, so that peace and harmony may once more prevail among our people, and the. Union stand, as it has in time past, a monument to perpetuate the fame of those whose wisdom planned it, as also tile pride and boast ot the nation. How shall we meet the expectations of our fellow-citizens ? How shall we drive from our political horizon the clouds which lower o'er j our house, and cause the sunshine of peace and ; happiness- to enter and keep possession ol every ! dwelling in our once thrice happy land ? \i r , cannot do it by engendering and encouraging j strife and contention between one portion and another of our people. We cannot do it by calling each other harsh names and using op probrious epithets; by stigmatizing as base, mean, and vile, all those who may hold a ceitain class of human beings in servitude. V\ e cannot do it bv condemning in harsh, unmeasured terms of abuse those who may honestly think that the institution of slavery is wrong. No, sir, this will not heat the wound inflicted upon our country by the indiscretion of some and the madness o( others. This will only tend to widen the breach, already too wide, between our fellow-citizens of the North and South. The circumstances in which we are placed demand calm, sensible action, and unyielding devotion to the interests and welfare of the great peopie whose representatives and servants we are. Mr. Chairman, in performing the duty which I undertook to discharge, I shall not detain the House iy an elaborate or lengthy argument to prove that Kansas ought to be admitted into the Union under the Lecomplon constitution. Nor is it my purpose to go into a history of the set tlement of Kansas, to show that a portion ofthe people now there went there with the'intention of making it a slave State, and another portion to make it a free State. In my judgment, the citizens of this ftee country have a perfect right to settle on any of the unappropriated territory of the United States; and, it the decision ot the highest judicial tribunal of the nation is to he taken as the law, they have a right to take their slaves with them, and, if thev can, even establish slavery as one of th- ir domestic insti tutions. jVor will f pretend to show that the citizens of the North or of the South have not the right to appropriate money for the purpose of sending persons into a Territory to make it either a free or a slave State, provided such persons, after they have arrived in the Territory, set about the accomplishment of their work in a peaceful and orderly manner, and in obedi ence to the Constitution of the United States.— This part of the present controversy J shall hand over to others to discuss, if they fee! in clined to do so, and shall proceed to state a few facts, as I understand them, and the con clusions 1 have arrived at upon those facts. In t lie year ISo 4 an act of Congress was pas sed organizing the Territory of Kansas. A Gov : ernor and other officers for the Territory were | appointed by the President then in power. In i 1857 a Legislature was elected, ami convened |at Lecornpton. Divers laws were passed bv J this Legislature, among them one calling a con i vention to framea constitution preparatory to the | admission of Kansas into the Union as a State, i This convention met at "Lecornpton, framed a | constitution, and submitted it to a vole of the people. There arp four questions arising out of this state of facts to which I will direct the atten tion of the committee for a short time. | First. Was the Legislature which passed the act calling a convention to frame a constitution a legally elected body ' Second. Was the convention which framed the Lecornpton constitution a legally elected body ? Third. Was that convention bound by law, precedent, or otherwise, to submit the constitu tion framed by it to a vote of the people for ratification or rejection ? Fourth. If Kansas shall be admitted into the Union, will the people of that State have a right to alter, amend, or abolish the Lecornpton constitution in any other manner or at any other time than that prescribed in that consti tutor] ? In answering the fust of these questions, it seem 3 to me that I need do very little more than read one or two extracts from the inaugural address of Governor Walker to the people of Kansas. I presume these will be considered good authority by those who rely with so much confidence upon his statements. The extracts from the inaugural are as fol lows : ''Under our practice, the preliminary act of fra ming a State constitution is uniformly performed through the in-trumenta!ity of a convention of dele- Kates chosen by the people themselves. That con vention is now about to be elected by you under the call of the Territorial 1 egislatnre, created and still recognised by the authority of Congress, and clothed by it, in the comprehensive language of the organic law, with full power fo make such an enactment. The Territorial Legislature,ithen, in assembling this convention, were fully sustained bv 'he act of Con gress, and the authority of the convention is distinct ly recognised in my instructions from the President of the United States. Those who oppose this conr-e cannot aver the alleged irregularity of the Territori al Legislature, whose laws in town and rity election*, in corporate franchises, and on ali other subjects but slavery, they acknowledge by their votes and ac quiescence. If that Legislature was invalid, then are we without law or order in Kansas—wilhout town, city or county, organizations ; all legal ami judicial transactions are void, all titles null, and anarchy reigns throughout our borders." Again : "Rut it is said that the convention is not 1-ga'ly called, and that the election wilt not be freelv fairly conducted. The Territorial Legislature is the power ordained for this purpo-e bv the Congress of the United States : and, in opposing it, you resist the authority of the Federal Government. That Legis lature was called into being by the Congress of 1851, and is recognised in the very latest congressional legislation. It is recognized 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 as-ent. As the Governor of the Territory of Kansas, I must support the laws and the Constitution ; and t have no other alternative under my oath but to see that all constitutional laws are fully and fairly executed." The position here taktn by Governor Walker cannot, in my opinion, be overthrown. Jhit, sir, both parties in Kansas, have, by (heir acts, admitted that Legislature to have been a legally constituted body, and the act passed by it, call ing a convention, to be a binding statute. The pro-slavery party have admitted it bv voting for the constitution framed at Lecomplon by the con vention called into being by virtue of that art: and the free-State party admitted it by voting airriinkt that constitution on the 4th of January last. For, if the legislature which called the convention had no legal existence, it had no legal authority to pass any law ; and it would follow, of course, that the act passed calling a convention was without force and void, and the convention which convened in pursuance of its provisions had no legal existence, and all its acts were simply and absolutely void. Will any gentleman on the other side say that the free- State party, with Governor Stanton at their head, would act so unwisely as to have an extra session of the Legislature called for the purpose alone of passing an act submitting the Lecomp lon constitution to a vote ot the people for ra tification or rejection, if that constitution was a void instrument, as it certainly would hp if the Legislature which passed the act calling the convention had no legal authority to pass such an act ? It will not, I presume, be denied that the extra session oftlie Legislature was called at the instance of those who opposed the Le complon constitution : and what was it called for. if the act which called the convention was an act passed by a body without legal existence or authority ? It seerr.s to me, therefore, Mr. Chairman, that the parties in Kansas are estopped by their own acts from denying: that the Legislature, which passed the act referred to, was a legally elected body? and if it was so, the laws passed by that legislature, not conflicting with the Constitu tion of the United Slates, were valid and binding. The second question, to an examination of which I will direct the attention of members, is, whether the Lecompton convention was a legally elected body, and it so, is tire constitution fra med by it a legal instrument ? It is said that the convention was not a legally constituted body, and the constitution framed by it a void instrument for two reasons: First, because a number of the counties of the Territo ry were not represented in the convention, and could not be represented for the reason that the qualified citizens of those counties weie not registered, and consequently could not vote for delegates to the convention ; and, secondly, be cause the delegates who did assemble in that convention were not legally elected. Let us inquire whether or not these two posi tions are correct ; and if they are correct, how the constitution framed at Lecornpton would be affected by them. By the nineteenth section of the territorial act organizing the counties therein, there were created thirty-seven counties. Three of these counties lie on the extreme western frontier, and are said to have no population to be either represented, or disfranchised. These three counties are Washington, Cia\ r , and Dickinson. It may be said that this assertion that these counties are without population is an assump tion without proof to sustain it. I would in quire, where is the evidence that there is a single citizen residing ineither of these counties qualified to vote? At a time when, of all others, they would have voted, there was not a single vote given. On the Ith day of January last, when the constitution was submitted to a vote of the people, in the form in which the free-State party desired it to be submitted, not a .single vote was cast in either or all these three counties. Where were the qualified citizensat so important an election as this ;an election at which, if there were any voters tiiere, they could have voted and shown their opposition to the Lecornpton constitution ? The fair and inference—at least, until it is proved to be otherwise—is, that these counties without population. This would leave thirty-four counties to be represented in the Lecornpton convention. These were arranged by law nto election districts for theTlectiou of delegates to the convention, as follows : Ist district, Doniphan county. 2d " Brown and Nemeha counties. 3d " Atcliison county, j 4th Leavenworth county. fob " ■rson county. 6th " Calhoun .. - 7t!i district, Marshall county. Stii " Riley and Pottawatomie counties. 9th " Johnson county. 10th " Douglas county. i 12tli " Lykirtgs county. 13th " Franklin county. 111ti " Weller, Breckinridge, Wise, and Madison counties. I loth " Butler and Coffee counties. 1 Kith " Lynn county, i 17th " Anderson county. K.l'a " Bourbon, McGee, Dorn, nn l Allen Co. 19ih u Woodson, l-Vilson, Godfrey, Green wood, and Hunter, counties. There were, as tlie returns made to the Gov ; ernor will show, nine thousand two hundred j and fifty-one voters registered in t wetity-one o! these thirty-four counties. The narws of th-so counties, and the number of voters register io m ! each, are as follows : j .Vo of A'o of legal J district. Names of counties. voters. '■ 1 Doniphan, 1,086 I 2 Brown, 206 Nemeha, 149 ; 3 Atchison, 800 4 Leavenworth, 1,537 I 5 Jeffersoii, 555 9 Calhoun, 291 7 Marshall, 206 8 Riley, 353 Pottawatomie, 205 9 Johnson, 496 10 Douglas, 1,318 jll Shawnee, Richardson, and Das is, 283 jl2 Ly kings, 413 13 Ftanklin, no return i 1 4 4 counties, no return jls 2 counties, no return j 16 Lynn, 413 j 17 1 (Anderson,) no return II S Bourbon, McGee, Allen, 5c Dorn, 645 19 5 counties, no return Total. 9,251 1 pon this registration being returned to Gov ernor Stanton, he made an apportionment of re presentation in accordance with law. That ap- I portionment is as follows: Ist district, Doniphan countv, 7 delegates. 2d " Brown and Nemeha, 2 " 3d " Atchison, 5 '< 4th " Leavenworth, 12 " sth " Jefferson, 4 6th " Calhoun, 2 " 7th *• Marshall, 1 " Bth " RiKy & T'ottowatomie, 4 9th " Johnson, 3 " 10th " Douglas, 3 lllh " Shawnee, Richardson, and Davis, 2 " 12th " Ly kings, 3 16th " Lynn, 3 18th i 4 Bourbon, McGee, and Allen, 4 It will be seen, by tins apportionment, that twenty-one ol the thirty-four counties were re presented in the Lpcompton convention, leav ing sixteen not represented by their own dele gates. I have shown, I think, that in three of these sixteen counties there was no population to be represented. The citizens of the remaining 13 counties were not registered and consequently could not vote for delegates to the convention. It is right that the citizens of other sections of the country should know why these persons were not registered, and I will therefore endeavor to give ttiat information. The act of the Legisla ture of Kansas provided that an the citizens, qualified to vote for delegates should be taken. The sheriffof each county was re quired to perform this duly, and was authorized to appoint deputies in each election precinct for that purpose. If there was no Sheriff in any county, the Probate Judge was required to per form the duty, and was authorized to appoint deputies. Jt in any county there was neither Sheriff nor Probate Judge, the (iovernor was to appoint persons to make the enumeration. The officers making the enumeration were required to return lists of the qualified voters into the office of the Probate Judge j and also to post Freedom of Thought and Opinion. BEDFORD, PA, FRIDAY MORNING, APRIL 16, 1858. I li sts at certain public places, for the inspection jof all qualified citizens. The Probate Judge was required to conlioue his court forone month, so that the lists returned into fits office might be corrected at the instance of any person who might request it. Is there any evidence that a single person in either of these cou n ties, re quired to be put on the list of voters and was refused ? If there is such evidence I have not seen it. In my own State each person who desires to vote at any State or county elec tion, is required to see for himself that his name is on the list of voters, ten days before the day of election. If his name is not on the list, and if he has not paid a State or county tax, within two years, immediately preceding the day of election, he is not entitled to vote. If he ob stinately refuses to attend to his duty, in having himself assessed, it is his own fault, and no sym pathy is felt for him by any one. The assessor is not bound to inform him whether his name is on tha list or not. He must see to this himself. I am of opinion that the people of my State are tn every respect as good as the people in Xanaas, and that, if the citizens of Kansas w ill not take the trouble to have their names put up on th? list of voters, as we are required to do in the Keystone State,they have very little cause o! complaint. They could have been registered il*they had pursued the proper course. Let us see, then, how many delegates the re maining thirteen of the so-called disfranchised counties would have been entitled to if the citi zens therein residing had been registered and entitled to vote for delegates. At the election on the 4-tit of January last, when the Lecornpton constitution was submit ted lor ratification or rejection to a vote of all the qualified citizens of Kansas, in the form desired by the free-State party, there were given m ,six of these thirteen counties one thousand two hundred and twenty-five votes, all told, and in the other seven not one vote was cast, j 1 would ask again, wltereiwere the qualified citi- | zen of these seven counties at this lime when j they could have voted,Jand,til opposed to the Le cornpton constitution, had an opportunity to j show that opposition? Were there qualified : voters in these seven counties entitled to be | represented in the convention ? If there were, tfieir conduct was not only singularly strange, ! but affords strong ground for a presumption ; fbet they were satisfied with what the convert-, tion Lad done, and approved the constitution. ; is a trite adage, and one generally true, \ i..Cj sfc7voe.ee gives consent. It is generally so j in elections. Governor Walker assumed this position in his inaugural address to the people of Kansas. t * i "The law has performed its entire appropriate function when it extends to the people the right of suffrage, but it cannot compel the performance of that duty. Throughout our whole Union, however, and wherever free government prevails, those who abstain from the exercise of the right of suffrage au thorize those who do vote to act for 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 if all had participated in the elec tion. Otherwise, as voting must be voluntary, self government would be impracticable, and monarchy or despotism would remain a* the only alternative." I have not read this portion of the Governor's inaugural to show that the citizens of Kansas had a right to annul, by their votes on the 4th j of January last, (he constitution which had been i adopted by a vote of the citizens on the 2lst of December, preceding. I only quote from this; authority to establish Ihe rule which I have I laid down, because whatever the Governor says ] now is taken by my friends on the other side of j the House as verity itself. If this inlebea! correct one, does not a fair jiresumplion arise, j from the conduct of the citizens of these seven j counties in not voting against the constitution on the 4t'n day of January, that they either ap- 1 proved it, or that they would not have voted for delegates if they could have done so ? To my mind it is clear that, if limy approved the con- ; stilution, or if they obstinately refused, to vote j when they had the opportunity, they would, have refused to vote for delegates if they had been permitted so to do, and in either case they ' are in law without remedy, and the Lecornpton ! constitution is to be taken as an expression of their u ill. Let us inquire nrxt to what number of dele gates Ihe remaining six of the disfranchised couii- . ties would have been entitled in the convention j it they could have elected delegates ? I'he con vention; by legislativeenactment, was to consist ; of sixty delegates. The number of voters re gistered in the counties presented in the con- ( vention was 9,251. Add to this number the u hole number of voles given in these six* coun ties on the 4th of January last, which was 1,- 225, and you have as the total, 10,476. This number di\ ide by 60, (the number of delegates of which the convention was to be composed,) and it will show how many voters it required to elect a delegate. It will be seen that it re quired 174. If we divide 1,225 (the number of votes polled in the six counties referred to) ■ by 174, it u ill show that the six comities were I entitled to just seven delegates. Now, sir, laking it as granted that all these counties would have elected Iree-Slate delegates there would have been just that num.ier ofiree- Sl ate delegates in the convention. But, sir, let us go fuither, and admit, for the sake of the argument, that the thirteen counties said to be disfranchised, (not taking in the account the three where Dobody lived,) had been entitled to all the delegates, except those who took their seats as members of the convention, they would j have been entitled to only sixteen delegates ; for it will be observed that forty-four delegates from the other districts signed the constitution. YV hat could have been done by these sixteen dele gates ? Could they have controlled the action of the convention? YVould not theconstitu tion have come from the convention precisely as it did ? It is but fair to presume that it would. The position assumed by some, that the dele gates who did assemble in convention at Le : compton and frame a constitution, were not | legally elected, is not in my judgment, sus tained by the facts, and is without support in law. I have never yet heard it asserted, here or elsewhere, that these delegates had not several- Jy received a majority of all the legal votes pall ed at the delegate election. If such is the fact, I have not seen the proof. It is said, however, and perhaps truly said, that these delegates re ceived a great many fraudulent votes. What effect would this have or. their right to seats in the convention { If they received a majority of all legal votes polled, were they not legally elected ? What is the inquiry before a com mittee appointed to ascertain the right of a i member of Congtess to his seat ? Certainly it is not whether he has received fraudulent votes, but whether he has received a majority of all the legal votes polled. If he has, he is declar ed elected. I know of no difference in an elec tion of a member of Congress and a delegate to a convention which would render the election of one void and not that of the other. II all the offices were to be vacated now in our Union by those filliog them, who have received illegal votes, there would be scarcely a corporal's guard of officers in all the land. I do not wish to be understood as approving (he frauds committed in Kansas. I hate frauds at elections, and hearti ly despise the man who can commit them. But we must not be led to the other extreme, and pronounce all elections void because some ille gal votes may be polled by bad men. This would destroy our Government itself, and leave us without law and all our rights insecure. It is further urged as an argument against the Lecornpton convention, that a large number ot the qualified citizens of Kansas refused to vote at the election of delegates, because they appre hended violence on the part of the pro-slavery men, and that they would be outvoted by fraud ulent votes; and that even if they did poll a majority oL votes, fraudulent returns would have been made to defeat them. Would this plea answer in a court of justice it the question of the election of an officer was being inquired into before it I Certainly cot. The mere ap prehension oi violence or fraud could not be al leged bef ore a judicial tribunal so as to render void an election. It is the same here. We can not inquire into the apprehension of'citizens of fraud or violence to invalidate an election. Governor Walker, when speaking of the act cilliug the convention, and entreating the citi- j z.ens of Kansas to vote at the election of dele- , gates, was right when he said : "1 see in this act calling the convention no impro per or unconstitutional restrictions upon the right of suffrage. 1 see in it no test-oath, or rather similar provisions objected to in relation to previous laws, but clearly repealed as repugnant to the provisions ot ., (•„, , tk. oWtnn of delegates to this conrention.flt is sa d that a lair and full vote writ not be taken. Who can safely predict such a result ? Nor is it just for a majority, as they allege, to throw the power into the hands of a minority from e. mere apprehension (I trust entirely unlounded) that they will not be permitted to exercise theright of suffrage. If, by fraud or violence, a majority should not be per mitted to vote, there is a remedy, it is hoped, in the wisdom and justice of the convention itself, acting under the obligations of an oath, and a proper re sponsibility to t tie tribunal of public opinion." These people who refuse t vote lor litis rea son were badly instructed, and should have disobeyed their leaders, gone to the polls, offer ed to vote, at least ; and if they had been turn ed awav by violence, or defeated by fraudulent votes or returns, the convention would not have dared to sanction the outrage. By staying away from the polls they gave the right to those who did vote to secure a majority of the delegates to the convention, and that, too, in accor dance with all the rules of law in such cases. 1 have already quoted what Governor Walk er said to the people of Kansas on this point, and agree with him that "those who abstain fiom the exercise of the right of suffrage author ize those who do vote to act fur them in that contingency." If this rule was not to be ob served, all free governments would soon be at an end. But, sir, it is doubted by some eminent states men, as well as lawyers, whether we have any right to inquire into the right of a member of the Lecompton convention to ins seat. They say, and I agree with them, that such a body is the sole judge of the qualifications of its own members; and that if fraud was committed in the election of one or more ofthe delegates, the convention alone could inquire into it. This is certainly the law with regard to members of Congress, and of all the legislative bodies in the Union. Is it not the same with regard to the , election of delegates to a territorial convention ? ' I think I have shown that the delegates to the Lecompton convention were legally elected ; and if they were, and once took their seats, it will not be denied that they had the right to frame a constitution for the people of Kansas. That the Lecompton constitution is a legal instrument cannot, in my judgment, be success fully denied. All parties in Kansas have, by their acts, admitted it to be legal. The pro slavery party admit it now, and ask for the ad mission ofthe State into the Union under it.— The free State parly has recognised it as a bind ing instrument, not only by voting on the 4th of January last to nullify it, but also by voting for the oflicers provided for in it. Ifthe constitution was ihen rendered void, the officers elected on that day are without authority, and if thpv attempt to exercise any authority, the people will be at liberty to disregard all they do. j If this be true, tr.e people ol Kansas are without a government. Is there any gentleman here bold enough to take this posit ion ? It is said, however, that if the constitu tion framed at Lecompton was even legally framed it was made void by the vote of the peo ple on the 4lh of January. Is this correct ? Will any gentleman argue that the same act , that called the government of Kansas into ex istence, made void the constitution under which that government was called into being ? How can a government exist if the instrument is made void by virtue of which the government "lives, moves, and has its being V' 'lf the Governor, and other State officers, and thFtnembers ofthe Legislature elected on the 4th of January are WHOLE VOIDER 2792. legally elected, then the constitution under wiiich they were elected is a legal instrument. The next question for discussion is, was the Lecompton convention hound by law, prece dent, or otherwise, to submit the constitution there framed to a vote of the people for adoption or rejection? I confess that I would have preferred a sub mission ofthat constitution altogether to a vote ol the qualified citizens. I have every reason to belirve that the President desired that sub mission ; and we all know that Governor Walker preferred it. But, let me ask, what has my preference to do with the question?'— What had the desire of the President or of Gov ernor Walker to do with it ? Just nothing at all. The convention was independent of all control, let it be assumed by high or low. Gov ernor Walker says to the people of Kansas : '•You should not console yourselves, my fellow citizens, with the reflection that you may, by a sub sequent vote, defeat the ratification of the constitu tion. Although most anxious to secure to you the exercise of that great constitutional right, and be lieving that the constitution is the servant and not the master of the people, yet I have no power to dic t ate the proceedings of that body." Governor Walker was right. He had not, nor had any other human being outside of the convention, the power to dictate what its pro ceedings should be. Was there any law requiring the convention to submit the constitution to a vote of the peo ple ? If there was, I have failed in my search for it. The territorial act, under the authority of which the convention assembled, is in the words following : "1 he delegates thus elected [to the conventionj shall nssernbie in convention at the capital of said Territory 011 the first Monday of September next, and shall proceed to form its constitution and State government, which shall be republican in its form, lor admission intothe Union, on an equal footing with the original States in all respects whatever, by the name ol the State of Kansas." It v\-j)I be observed that there is not one word, either in the organic law organizing the Terri tory, or in the territorial act calling the con vention, requiring a submission of the constitu tion to a vote of the people, before it should become binding on them as the fundamental law of the State. By what law, then, was its submission required ? By no law whatever. Indeed, it i 3 but fair to argue that the people of Kansas were opposed to the submission, for ; the reason that the act which was passed, calling 1 the convention, was vetoed by the Governor becausp it did not require the convention to sub mit the const itution to a vote of the people, and j it was afterwards passed, over the veto of the | Governor, by a vote of two thirds of the mem l-it-is oi the Legislature. If file members of the Legislature represented the views of their con stituents, and it is generally supposed that leg islators do so, the enactment of a law under such circumstances would be strong evidence to prove that the people were averse to a sub mission of the constitution, for adoption or re jection, to a vote of the citizens. Did precedent require a submission of that constitution to a vote of the people of Kansas? Not one of the original States of this Union had : submitted to a vote of the people its constitution before entering into the Union. Not one half of the remaining Stales which have entered the i Union since, had their constitution submitted before they were admitted. Two thirds, at least, of all our States entered the Union with j out a submission of their constitutions. Are all these constitutions in valid because they were not submitted to a vote of the citizens. Who will dare assert such an absurdity ? I wish not to be understood as opposing a submission of State constitutions to a vote. lam in favor of it. But I assert here that a constitution is valid ar.d binding without it; and when the law cal ling a convention to frame or alter a constitu tion does not require such submission, the con vention is not bound to submit it. The last subject to which I shall direct the attention of the House, is the quest ion so much controverted here and elsewhere ; that is, wheth er or not the people ot Kansas can alter, amend, change, or abolish the Lecompton constitution at any time they may see proper so to do ? I hold the doctrine, Mr. Chairman, that if Kansas is admitted into the Union under the Lecompton constitution, the qualified citizens of that State can alter, amend or abolish that constitution whenever they see proper. lam further of the opinion that the citizens of a State may change their constitutions in any other way than that prescribed in the constitution itself; and that if they do, it will be binding upon the people of the State until it is changed again. In this opinion I am at least sustained by pre cedent, and ] think bv common sense. The people of the State of Maryland are at this hour governed by a constitution framed and adopted at a different time, and in a different mode, from that prescribed in the constitution chang ed. The constitution cf that State provided as fol lows : "That this form of government, and the declara tion of rigbls, anil no part thereof, shall be altered, changed, or abolished, unless a bill so- as to alter, change, or aboli'h the same, shall pass the General Assembly and be published at least three months be fore a new election, and shall be confirmed by tha General Assembly after a new election of delegates in the first session after such new election.'' It will be observed that this provides that two conscecutive Legislatures shall approve the law * providing for the alteration of the constitution. The Legislature at a single session passed an act authorizing the people to decide by vote whether a convention should be called to amend the constitution. The people decided that a convention should be called; the convention assembled : amended the constitution ; the a meuded constitution was adopted by the people; and they are now living under, and observing as valid and binding, its provisions. Who dare say aught against it, or who deny them the right to live under that constitution, and to punish alt who violate rt ? Can any people out ol that State deny its validity ? And if the citizens in the State are satisfied with it, who has any right VOL 1, NO. 37.
Significant historical Pennsylvania newspapers