TERMS OF TIM GLOBE. Per annum in advance Six months Three months A failure to notify a discontinuance at the expiration of the term subscribed for will bo considered a new engage ment. TERRIS OF ADVERTISING. 1 insertion. 2 do. 3 do. Your lines or leas, $25 $ 37% 450 One square, (12 lines,) 50 75 1 00 Two squares, 1 00 1 50 2 00 Three squares 1 50 . ...... 2 25 3 00 Over three week and less than three months, 25 cents per square for each insertion. 8 months. 13 months. 12 months. ~...$1 50 $3 00 $5 00 .3 00 5 00 7 00 . 5 00 8 00 10 00 . 7 00 10 00 15 00 . 9 00 13 00 20 00 .12 00 16 00 2.4 00 20 00 30 00 50 00 Six lines or 1e55,.... One square, Two squares, Three squares, Four squares, nail a column, One column, Professional and _Business Cards not exceeding four lines, one year, $3_... oS ..... Administrators' and Executors' Notices,l 75 Advertisements not marked with the number of inser tions desired, will be continued till forbid and charged ac cording to these terms. SPEECH SENATOR DOUGLAS, OF ILLINOIS, On the President's Message. DELIVERED IN VIE SENATE OP THE UNITED STATES, DECEMBER 9, 1857. Mr. DOUGLAS said : Mr. PRESIDENT: When yesterday the Pres ident's message was read at the Clerk's desk, I heard it but imperfectly, and I was of the impression that the President of the United States had approved and indorsed the action of the Lecompton convention in Kansas. Un der that impression, I felt it my duty to state that, while I concurred in the general views of the message, yet, so far as it approved or indorsed the action of that convention, I en tirely dissented from it; and would avail my self of an early opportunity to state my rea sons for my dissent. Upon a more careful and critical examination of the message, I am rejoiced to find that the President of the United States has not recommended that Con gress shall pass a law to receive Kansas into the Union under the constitution formed at Lecompton. It is true that the tone of the message indicates a willingness on the part of the President to sign a bill, if we shall see proper to pass one, receiving Kansas into the Union under that constitution. But, sir, it is a fact of great significance, and worthy of consideration, that the President has refrain ed from any indorsement of the convention, and from any recommendation as to the course Congress should pursue with regard to the constitution there formed. The message of the President has made an argument—an unanswerable argument in my opinion•—against that constitution, which shows clearly, whether intended to arrive at the result or not, that, consistently with his views and his principles, he cannot accept that constitution. He has expressed deep mortification and. disappointment that the constitution itself has not been submitted to the people of Kansas for their acceptance or rejection. He informs us that he has unqual ifiedly expressed. his opinions on that subject in his instructions to Governor Walker, assu rning, as a matter of course, that the consti tution was to be submitted to the people be fore it could have any vitality or validity. lie goes further, and tells us that the example set by Congress in the Minnesota case, by in serting a clause in the enabling act requiring the constitution to be submitted to the people, ought to become a uniform rule, not to be de parted from hereafter in any case. On these various propositions I agree entirely with the President of the United States, and I am pre pared now to sustain that uniform rule ho asks us to pareae, in ail other cases, by taking the Minnesota provision as our exam ample. I. rejoice, on a careful perusal of, the mes sage, to find so much less to dissent from than I was under the impression there was, from the hasty reading and imperfect hearing of the message in the first instance. In effect, he refers that document to the Congress of the United States—as the Constitution of the United States refers it—for us to decide upon it under our responsibility. It is proper that he should have thus referred it to us as a matter for congressional action, and. not as an Administration or Executive measure, for the roason that the Constitution of the United States says that " Congress may admit new States into the Union." Hence we find the Kansas question before us now, not as an Ad ministration measure, not as an Executive measure, but as a measure coming before us for our free action, without any recommenda tion or interference, directly or indirectly, by the Administration now in possession of the Federal Government. Sir, I propose to ex amine this question calmly and fairly, to see whether or not we can properly receive Kan sas into the Union with the constitution form ed at Lecorapton. The President, after expressing his regret and mortification and disappointment, that the constitution had. not been submitted to the people in pursuance of his instructions to Gov. Walker, and in pursuance of Gov. Walk er's assurances to the people, says, however, that by the Kansas-Nebraska act the slavery question only was required to be referred to the people, and the remainder of the consti tution was not thus required to be submitted. He acknowledges that, as a general rule, on general principles, the whole constitution should be submitted ; but according to his understanding of the organic act of Kansas, there was an imperative obligation to submit the slavery question for their approval or dis approval, but no obligation to submit the en tire constitution. In other words, he regards the organic act, the Nebraska bill, as having made an exception of the slavery clause, and provided for the disposition of that question in a mode different from that in which other domestic or local, as contradistinguished from Federal questions, should be decided. Sir, permit me to say, with profound respect for the President of the United States, that I conceive that on this point he has committed. a fundamental error, an error which lies at the foundation of his whole argument on this matter. I can well understand how that dis tinguished. statesman came to fall• into this error. He was not in the country the time the Nebraska bill was passed; he was not a party to the controversy and the discussion that took place during its passage. He was then representing the honor and dignity of the country with great wisdom and distinc tion at a foreign court. Thus deeply engross ed, his whole energies were absorbed in con ducting . great diplomatic questions that di verted his attention from the mere territorial questions and discussions then going on in the Senate and the House of Representatives, and before the people at home. Under these circumstances, he may well have fallen into an error, radical and fundamental as it is, in regard to the object of the Nebraska bill and the principle asserted in it. Now, sir, what was the principle enuncia ted by the authors and supporters of that bill when it was brought forward? Did we not come before the country and say that we re pealed the Missouri restriction for the purpose $1 50 75 WILLIAM LEWIS, VOL. XIII. of substituting and carrying out as a general rule the great principle of self-government, which left the people of each State and each Territory free to form and regulate their do mestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States? In support of that proposition, it was argued here, and I have argued it wherever I have spoken in various States . of the Union, at home and abroad, every -where I have en deavored to prove that there was no reason why an exception should be made in regard to the slavery question. I have appealed to the people if we did not all agree, men of all parties, that all other local and domestic ques tions, should be submitted to the people. I said to them, "We agree that the people shall decide for themselves what kind of a Ju diciary system they will have; we agree that the people shall decide what kind of a school system they will establish ; we agree that the people shall determine for themselves what kind of a banking system they will have, or whether they will have any banks at all; we agree that the people may decide for them selves what shall be the elective franchise in their respective States ; they shall decide for themselves what shall be the rule of taxation and the principles upon which their finance shall be regulated ; we agree that they may decide for themselves the relations between husband and wife, parent and child, guardian and ward ; and why should we not then allow them to decide for themselves the relations between master and servant ? Why make an exception.of the slavery question by takin: it out of that great rule of self-governMent which applies to all the other relation , o life ?" The very first propositien in the Ne braska bill was to show that the Missouri re striction, prohibiting the people from deci ding the slavery question for themselves, con stituted an exception to a general rule, in vi olation of the principle of self-government, and hence that that exception should be re pealed, and the slavery question, like all other questions, submitted to the people to be decided for themselves. Sir, that was the principle on which the Nebraska bill was defended by its friends.— Instead of making the slavery question an exception, it removed an odious exception which before existed. Its whole object was to abolish that odious exception, and make the rule general, universal, in its application to all matters which were local and domestic, and not national or Federal. For this reason was the language employed which the Presi dent has quoted ; that the eighth section of the Missouri act, commonly called the Mis souri compromise, was repealed because it was repugnant to the principle of non-inter vention established by the compromise rneas uirov of 1860, "it being the true intent and meaning of this act not to legislate slavery into any Territory or State, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their do mestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States." We repealed the Missouri ; restriction because that was confined to slavery. That was the only exception there was to the general prin ciple of self-government. That exception was taken away for the avowed and express purpose of making the rule of self-govern ment general and universal, so that the peo ple should form and regulate all their domes tic institutions in their own way. Sir, what would this boasted principle of popular sovereignty have been worth, if it applied only to the negro, and did-not extend to the white man? Do you think we could have aroused the sympathies and the patriot ism of this broad Republic, and have carried the presidential election last year in the face of a tremendous opposition, on the principle of extending the right of self-government to the negro question,,,but denying it as to all the relations affecting white men ? No, sir. We aroused the patriotism of the country and carried the election in defence of that great principle, which allowed all white men to form and regulate their domestic institutions to suit themselves—institutions applicable to white men as well as to black men—institu tions applicable to freemen as well as to slaves —institutions concerning all the relations of life, and not the mere paltry exception of the slavery question. Sir, I have spent too much strength and breath, and health, too, to es tablish this great v principle in the popular heart, now to see it fretted away by bringing it down to an exception that applies to the negro, and does not extend to the benefit of the white man. As I said before, I can well imagine how the distinguished and eminent patriot and statesman now at the head of the Government fell into the error—for error it is, radical, fundamental—and, if persevered in, subversive of that platform upon which he was elevated to the Presidency of the Uni ted States. Then, if the President be right in saying that, by the Nebraska bill, the slavery ques tion must be submitted to the people, it fol lows inevitably that every other clause of the constitution must also be submitted to the people. The Nebraska bill said that the peo ple should be left " perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way"—not the slavery question, not the Maine liquor-law question, not the banking question, not the school question, not the railroad question, but " their domestic insti tutions," meaning each and all the questions which are local, not national, State, not Fed eral. I arrive at the conclusion that the principles enunciated so boldly, and enforced With so much ability by the President of the United States, requires us, out of respect to him and the platform on which he was elect ed, to send this whole question back to the people of Kansas, and enable them to say whether or not the constitution which has been framed, each and every clause of it, meets their approbation. The President, in his message, has made an unanswerable argument in favor of the principle which requires this question to be sent back. It is stated in the message, with more clearness and force than any language which I can command ; but I can draw your attention to it and refer you to the argument in the message, hoping that you will take it as a part of my speech— as expressing my . „. tf;: r) , "•••• idea more forcibly than I am able to express it. The President says that a question of great interest, like the slavery question, can not be fairly decided by a convention of dele gates, for the reason that the delegates are elected in districts, and in some districts a delegate is elected by a small majority ; in others by an overwhelming . majority, so that it often happens that a majority . of the dele gates are one way, while a majority of the people are the other way ; and therefore it would be unfair and inconsistent with the great 'principle of popular sovereignty, to allow a body of delegates, not representing the popular voice, to establish domestic insti tutions for the mass of the people. This is the President's argument to show that you cannot have a fair and honest decission with out submitting it to the popular vote. The same argument is conclusive with regard to every other question as well as with regard to slavery. But Mr. President, it is intimated in the message that although it was an unfortunate circumstance, much to be regretted, that the Lecompton convention did not submit the constitution to the people, yet perhaps it may be treated as regular, because the convention was called by a Territorial legislature which had been repeatedly recognized by the Con gress of the United States as legal or valid. On the contrary, he knows, as we here know, that during the last Congress I reported a bill from the Committee on Territories to au thorize the people of Kansas to assemble and form a constitution for themselves. Subse quently, the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Tooxus) brought forward a substitute for my bill, which, after having been modified by him and myself in consultation, was passed by the Senate. It is known in the country as " the Toombs bill." It authorized the peo ple of Kansas Territory to assemble in con vention and form a constitution preparatory to their admission into the Union as a State. That bill, it is well known, was defeated in the House of Representatives. It matters not, for the purpose of this argument, what was the reason of its defeat. Whether the reason was a political one; whether it had reference to the then existing contest for the Presidency ; whether it was to keep open the slavery question ; whether it was a conviction that the bill would not be fairly carried out; whether it was because there were not people enough in Kansas to justify the formation of a State—no matter what the reason was, the House of Representatives refused to pass that bill, and thus denied to the people of Kansas the right to form a constitution and State government at this time. So far from the Congress of the United States having sanctioned or legalized the convention which assembled at Lecompton, it expressly with held its assent. The assent has not been given, either in express terms or by implica tion ; and being withheld, this Kansas con stitution has just such validity and just such authority as the Territorial legislature of Kansas could impart to it without the assent, and in opposition to the known will of Con gress. Now, sir, let me ask what is the extent of the authority of a Territorial legislature as to callinc , a constitutional convention without the assent of Congress? Fortunately this is not a new question ; it does not now arise for the first time. When the Topeka constitu tion was presented to the Senate nearly two years ago, it was referred to the Committee on Territories, with a variety of measures re lating to Kansas. The committee made a full report upon the whole subject. That re port reviewed all the irregular cases which had occurred in our history in the admission of new States. The committee acted on the supposition that whenever Congress has pas sed an enabling act authorizing the people of a Territory to form a State constitution, the convention was regular, and possessed all the authority which Congress had delegated to it ; but whenever Congress had failed or re fused to pass an enabling act, the proceeding was irregular and void, unless vitality was imparted to it by a subsequent act of Cort i gress adopting and confirming it. The friends of the Topeka constitution insisted that al though their proceedings were irregular, they were not so irregular but that Congress could cure the error by admitting Kansas with that constitution. They cited a variety of cases, amongst others the Arkansas case. In my report, sanctioned by every member of the Committee on Territories, except the Senator from Vermont, (Mr. CoLLAMER,) I reviewed the Arkansas case as well as the others, and affirmed the doctrine established by General Jackson's administration and enunciated in the opinion of Mr. Attorney General Butler, a part of which opinion was copied into the "reporcand published to the country at the _1! Vevvy sir, in order to ascertain what we understood on the 12th of March, 1856—little more than a year and a half ago—to be the true doctrine on this point, let me call your attention to the opinion of Mr. Butler in the Arkansas case. The Governor of the Terri tory of Arkansas sent a printed address to President Jackson, in which ho stated that he had been urged to call together the Legis lature of the Territory of Arkansas, for the purpose of allowing them to call a conven tion to form a constitution, preparatory to their admission into the Union as a State.— The Governor stated that, in, his opinion, the Legislature had no power to call such a con vention without the assent of Congress first had and obtained; but he asked instructions on that point. The President referred the case to the Secretary of State, and he asked for the advice of the Attorney General, whose opinion was given, and adopted, as the plan of action, and communicated to the Governor of Arkansas for his instruction. I will read some extracts from that opinion: -'Consequently, it is not in the power of the General Assembly of Arkansas to pass any law for the purpose of electing members to form• a constitution and State Govern ment, or to do any other act, directly or indirectly, to cre ate such new government. Every such law, even though it were approved by the government of the Territory, would be null and void. If passed by them, notwithstand ing his veto, by a vote of two-thirds of each branch, it 13 would still s; equally void. "If I am right in the foregoing opinion, it will then follow that the course of the Governor, in declining to call together the Territorial Legislature fur the purpose in question, was such as his legal duties required; and that the views be has expressed in his public address, and also HUNTINGDON, PA. -PERSEVERE. - DECEMBER 23, 1857, in his official communication to yourself, so far as they indicate an intention not to sanction or concur in any leg islative or other proceedings towards the formation of a State government until Congress shall have authorized it„ aro also correct." That is what I have understood to be the settled doctrine as to the authority of a Ter ritorial Legislature to call a convention with out the consent of Congress first had and ob tained. The reasoning is very clear and pal pable. - A Territorial Legislature pcssesses whatever power its organic act gives it, and no more. The organic act of Arkansas pro vided that the legislative power should be vested in the Territorial Legislature, the same 'as the organic act of Kansas, provides that the legislative power and authority shall be vested in the Legislature. But what is the extent of that legislative powea ? It is to legislate for that Territory under the or ganic act, and in obedience to it. It does not include any power to subvert the organic act under which it was brought into exist ence. It has the power to protect it, the pow er to execute it, the power to carry it into ef fect; but it has no power to subvert, none to destroy; and hence that power can only be obtained by applying to Congress, the same authority which created the territory itself. But while the Attorney General decided, with the approbation of the administration of Gen. Jackson, that the Territorial Legislature had no power to call a convention, and that its action was void if it did, he went further: "No law ho-s yet been passed by Congress which either expressly or impliedly gives to the people of Arkansas the authority to form a State government." Nor has there been any in regard to Kan sas. The two cases are alike thus far. They are alike in all particulars so far as the ques tion involving the legality and the validity of the Lecompton convention is concerned. The opinion goes on to say : "For the reasons above stated, I am, therefore, of opin ion that the inhabitants of that Territory have not at present, and that they cannot acquire otherwise than by au act of Congress, the right to form such a govern ment." General Jackson's administration took the ground that the people of Arkansas, by the authority of the Territorial Legislature, had not the power to hold a convention to form a constitution, and could not acquire it from any source whatever except from Congress. While, therefore, the legislative act of Ar kansas was held to be void, so far as it as sumed authority to authorize the calling of a convention to form a constitution, yet they did not bold, in those days, that the people could not assemble and frame a constitution in the form of a petition. I will read the rest of the opinion, in order that the Senate may understand precisely what was the doe trinf;._.an this subject at that day, and what the' Committee on Territories understood to be the doctrine on this subject in March, 1856, when we put forth the Kansas report as embodying what we Nebraska men under stood to be our doctrine at that time. Here it is. This was copied into that report : "But lam not prepared to say that all proceedings on this subject. on the part of the citizens of Arkansas, will be illegal. They undoubtedly possess the ordinary privi leges and immunities of citizens of the United States.— Among these is the right to assemble and to petition the Government for the redress of grievances. In the exercise of this right, the inhabitants of Arkansas may peaceably meet together in primary assemblies, or in. conventions chosen by such assemblies, for the purpose of petitioning Congress to abrogate the territorial government, and to admit them into the Union as au independent State. The particular form which they may give in their petition cannot be material, so long as they confine themselves to the mere right of petitioning, and conduct all their pro ceedings in a peaceable manner. And as the power of Congress over the whole subject is plenary and unlimited, THEY MAY ACCEPT ANY CONSTITUTION, HOWEVER FRAMED, WHICH IN THEIR JUDGMENT MEETS THE SENSE OF THE PEOPLE TO BE AFFECTED BY IT. If, therefore, the citizens of Arkansas think proper to accom pany their petition with a written constitution, framed and agreed on by their primary assemblies, or by a con vention of delegates chosen by such assemblies, I perceive no legal objection to their power to do so, nor any meas ures which may be. taken to collect the sense of the people in respect to it; provided, always, that such measures be commenced and prosecuted in a peaceable manner, in strict subordination to the existing territorial government, AND IN ENTIRE SUBSERVIENCY TO THE POWER OF CON GRESS TO ADOPT, REJECT, OR DISREGARD THEM, AT THEIR PLEASURE. While the Legislature of Arkansas had no power to create a convention to frame a con stitution, as a legal constitutional body, yet if the people chose to assemble under such an act of the Legislature for the purpose of petitioning for redress of grievances, the as semblage was not illegal ; it was not an un lawful assemblage; it was not such an as semblage as the military power could be used to disperse, for they had a right under the Constitution thus to assemble and petition.— But if they assumed to themselves the right or the power to make a government, that as sumption was an act of rebellion which Gen. Jackson said it was his duty to put down with the military force of the country. If you apply these principles to the Kan sas convention, you find that it had no power to do any act as a convention forming a gov ernment; you find that the act calling it was null and void from the beginning; you find that the Legislature could confer no power whatever on the convention. That conven tion was simply an assemblage of peaceable citizens, under the Constitution of the United States, petitioning for the redress of grievan ces, and, thus assembled, had the right to put their petition in the form of a constitu tion if they chose; but still it was only a pe tition--having the force of a petition—which Congress could accept or reject, or dispose of as it proper. That is what I understand to be just the extent of the power and au thority of this convention assembled at Le compton. It was not an unlawful assemblage like that held at Topeka; for the Topeka con stitution was made in opposition to the - terri torial law, and, as I thought, intended to subvert the government without the consent of Congress, but, as contended by their friends, not so intended. If their object was to subvert it without the consent of Congress, it was an act of rebellion, which ought to have been put down by force. If it was a peaceable assemblage simply to petition and abide the decision of Congress on the peti tion, it was not an unlawful assemblage. I hold, however, that it was an unlawful as semblage. I hold that this Lecompton con l i - vention was not an unlawful assemblage; but, on the other hand, I hold that they had no legal power and authority . to establish a government. They had a right to petition for a redress of grievances. They had a right in that petition to ask for the change of government from a territorial to a State government. They had a right to ask Con gress to adopt the instrument which they sent to us as their constitution; and Congress, if it thought that paper embodied the will of the people of the Territory, fairly expressed, might, in its discretion, accept it as a consti tution, and admit them into the Union as a State; or if Congress thought it did not em body the will of the people of Kansat might reject it ; or if Congress thought it was doubtful whether it did embody the will of the people or not, then it should send it back and submit it to the people to have that doubt removed, in order that the popular voice, whatever it might be, should prevail in the constitution under which that people were to live. So far as the act of the Territorial Legisla ture of Kansas calling this convention was concerned, I have always been under the im pression that it was fair and just in its provi sions. I have always thought the people should have gone together en masse and vo ted for delegates, so that the voice expressed by the convention should have been the un questioned and united voice of the people of Kansas. I .have always thought that those who staid away from that election stood in their own light, and should have gone and voted, and should have furnished their names to be put on the registered list, so - as to be voters. I have always held that it was their own fault that they did not thus go and vote; but yet, if they chose, they had a right to stay away. They had a right to say that that convention, although not an unlawful assem blage, is not a legal convention to make a government, and hence we are under no obli gation to go and express any opinion about it. They had a right to say, if they chose, " We will stay away until we see the consti tution they shall frame, the petition they shall send to Congress; and when they sub mit it to us for ratification we will vote for it, if we like it, or vote it down if we do not like it." I say they had a right to do either, though I thought, and think yet, as good citizens, they ought to have gone and voted ; but that was their business and not mine. Having thus shown that the Convention at Lecompton had no power, no authority, to form and establish a government, but had power to draft a petition, and that petition, if it embodied the will of the people of Kan sas, ought to be taken as such an exposition of their will, yet, if it did not embody their will, ought to be rejected—having shown these facts, let me -proceed and inquire what was the understanding of the people of Kan sas, when the delegates were elected ? I un derstand, from the history of the transaction, that the people who voted for delegates to the Lecompton Convention, and those who refused to vote—both parties—understood the territorial act to mean that they were to be elected only to frame a constitution, and sub , mit it to the people for their ratification or rejection. I say that both parties in that Ter ritory, at the time of the election of dele gates, so understood the object of the Con vention. Those who voted for delegates did so with the understanding that they had no power to make a government, but only to frame one for submission; and those who staid away did so with the same understand ing. Now for the evidence. The President of the United States tells us, in his Message, that he had unequivocally expressed his opin ions, in the form of instructions to Governor Walker, assuming that, the constitution was to be submitted to the people for ratification. When we look into Governor Walker's letter of acceptance of the office of Governor, we find that he stated expressly that he accepted it with the understanding that the President and his whole Cabinet concurred with him, that the constitution, - when formed, was to be submitted to the people for ratification.— Then look into the instructions given by the President of the United States, through Gen. Cass, the Secretary of State,• to Gov. Walker,- and you there find that the Governor is in structed to use the military power to protect the polls when the constitution shall be sub mitted to the people - of Kansas for their free acceptance or rejection. Trace the history a little further, and you will find that Governor Walker went to Kansas and proclaimed, in his inaugural, and in his speeches at Topeka and elsewhere, that it was the distinct under standing, not only of himself, but of those higher in power than himself—meaning the President and his Cabinet—that the constitu tion - was to be submitted to the people for their free acceptance or rejection,. and that he would use all the power at his command to defeat its acceptance by Congress, if it - were not thus submitted to the vote of the people... • Mr. President, I am not going to stop and inquire how far the Nebraska bill, which said the people should be left perfectly free to form their constitution for themselves, au thorized the President, or the Cabinet, or Gov. Walker, or any other territorial officer, to interfere and tell the Convention of Kan sas whether they should or should not sub mit the question to the people. I am not go ing to stop to inquire how tar they were au thorised to do that, it being my opinion that the spirit of the Nebraska bill required it to be done. It is sufficient for my purpose that the Administration of the Federal Govern ment unanimously, that the administration of the territorial government, in all its parts, unanimously understood the territorial law under which the Convention was assembled to mean that the constitution to be formed by that Convention should be submitted to the people for ratification or rejection ; and, if not confirmed by a majority of the people, should be null and void, without coming to Congress for approval. Not only did the National Government and the territorial government so understand the law at the time, but, as I have already stated, the people of the Territory so under stood it. As a further evidence on -that point, a large number, if not a majority, of the delegates were instructed in the nominating conventions to submit the constitution to the people for ratification I know that the dele gates from Douglas county, eight in number, Mr. Calhoun, president of the Convention, being among them, were not only instructed Editor and Proprietor. NO. 27. thus to submit the question, but they signed and published, while candidates, a written pledge that they would submit it to the peo ple for ratification. I know that men, high in authority, and in the confidence of the ter ritorial and National Government, canvassed every part of Kansas during the election of delegates, and each one of them pledged himself to the people that no snap judgment was to be taken; that the constitution was to be submitted to the people for acceptance or rejection; that it would be void unless that was done ; that the Administration would spurn and scorn it as a violation of the prin• ciples on which it came into power, and that a Democratic Congress would hurl it from their presence as an insult to Democrats who stood pledged to see the people left free to form their domestic institutions for them selves. _ Not only that, sir, but up to the time when the Convention assembled, on the Ist of ;Sep tember, so far as I can learn, it was under stood everywhere that the constitution was to be submitted for ratification or rejection. They met, however, on the Ist of September, and adjourned until after the October elec tion. I think it was wise and prudent that they should thus have adjourned. They did not wish to bring any question into that elec tion which would divide the Democratic par ty, and weaken our chances of success in the election. I was rejoiced when I saw that they did adjourn, so as not to show their hand on any question that would divide and distract the party until after the election.— During that recess, while the Convention was adjourned, Gov. Ransom, the Democratic can didate for Congress, running against the present Delegate from that Territory, was canvassing every part of Kansas in favor of the doctrine of submitting the constitution to the people, declaring that the Democratic party were in favor of such submission, and that it was a slander of the. Black Republi cans to intimate the charge that the Demo cratic party did not intend to carry out that pledge in good faith. Thus, up to the time of the meeting of the Convention, in October last, the pretence was kept up, the profession was openly made, and believed by me, and I thought believed by them, that the convention intended to submit a constitution to the peo ple, and not to attempt to put government in operation without such submission. The elec tion being over, the Democratic party being defeated by an overwhelming vote, the Oppo sition having triumphed, and got possession of both branches of the Leeislatnre, and having elected their territorial Delegate, the Convention assembled, and then proceeded to complete their work.- Now let us stop to inquire how they re deemed the pledge to submit the constitution to the people. They first go on and make a constitution. Then they make a schedule ; in which they provide that the constitution, on the 21st of December—the present month —shall. be submitted to all the bona fide in habitants of the Territory on that day, for their free acceptance or rejection, in the fol lowing manner, to wit: thus acknowledging that they were bound to submit it to the will of the people, conceding that they had no right to put it into operation-without submit ting it to the people; providing in the instru ment that it should take effect from and after the date of its ratification; and not before ; showing that the: constitution derives its vi tality, in their estimation ; not from the au thority of the convention, but from that vote of the people to which it was to be submit ted for their acceptance or rejection. How is it to be submitted ? It shall be submitted in this form : "'Constitution with slavery or constitution with no slavery."' All men must vote for the constitution, whether they like it or not, in order to be permitted to vote for or against slavery. Thus a constitution made by a convention that had authority to assem ble and petition for a redress of grievances, but not to establish• a government—a consti tution made under a pledge of honor that it should be submitted to• the people before it took effect; a constitution which provides, on its face, that it shall have no validity ex cept what it derives from such submission— is submitted to the people at an election where all men are at liberty to come forward freely without hinderance and vote for it, but no man is permitted to record a vote against That would be as fair an election as some of the enemies of Napoleon attributed to him when he was elected First Consul. He is said to have called out his troops, and had them reviewed by his officers with a speech, patriotic and fair in its professions, in which he said to them: "Now, my soldiers, you are to go to the election and vote freely just as you please. If you vote for Napoleon, all is well ; vote against him, and you are instantly shot." That was a fair election. (Laughter.) This election is to be equally fair. All men in favor of the constitution may vote for it —all men against it shall not vote at all.— Why not let them vote' against it? I pre sume you have asked many a man this ques tion. I have asked a very large number of the gentlemen who framed the constitution, quite a number of delegates, and a still lar ger number of persons who are their friends, and I have received the same answer from every one of them. I never received any other answer, and I presume we never shall get any other answer. What is that? They say if they allowed a negative vote the con stitution would have been voted down by an overwhelming majority, and hence the fel lows shall not be allowed to vote at all (Laugh ter.) Mr. President, that may be true. It is no part of my purpose to deny the proposition that that constitution would have been voted down if submitted to the people. I believe it would have been voted down by a majority of four to one. lam informed by men well posted there—Democrats--that it would be voted down by ten to one ; some say by twen ty to one. But is it a good reason why you should de clare it in force, - without being submitted to the people, merely because it would have been voted down by five to one if yowl:lad submitted it ? What does that fact prove ? Does it not show undeniably that an over whelming majority of people of Kansas are unalterably opposed to that constitution?— Will you force it on them against their will simply because they would have voted it down if you had consulted them ? If you will, are you, going to force it upon them under the plea of leaving them perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way? Is that the mode in which I am called upon to carry out the principle of self-government and popular sovereignty in the Territories—to force a constitution on tha people against their will, in opposition to their protest, with a knowledge of the fact, and then to assign, as a reason for my tyranny, that they would be so obstinate and so per verse as to vote down the constitution if I had given them an opportunity to be consul ted about it? Sir, I deny your right or mine to inquire of these people what their objections to that [.EE FOURTH' rAGE.I
Significant historical Pennsylvania newspapers