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