AMERICAN VOLUNTEER. rUDUSUEI) ETERI inOBSDAT mobsiko ix Joliri B. Bratton. •h T EbM S •^imaoniPTioif. —Ono Dollar and Fifty Cents, nafd fn advance i TwoDoilarsil paid within tlio rear- Two Dollars and Fifty Cents, if not paid ’within tbo year. These terms win bo rig idly adhered to in- every, instance. No sub ■scriptioii discontinued until all arrearages are paid unless at the option of the Editor. * Advertisements —Accompaniedby the casu, and not exceeding dno square, will bo inserted tlirao times for One Dollar, and twenty-five cents ior each additional insertion. Those of a groat fer length in proportion, Jon-PniNTiNa —Such as IXand-bilis, Posting bills, Pamphlets, Blanks, Labels, &c.,&0., exe cuted with accuracy and at the shortest notice. ■ ,' , ■ SPEECH "... op • MON. m BIGLEB, OP PENNSYLVANIA, ON KANSAS AFFAIRS. delivered in tee senate, deo. 21, 1857. On motion of Mr. Bigler, the Senate proceed ed to the consideration of the motion of Mr. Douglas,'to refer so much of the Presidents message as. relates to territorial affairs to the 'Committee on Territories. . Mr. ■ Biglkr. Mr. President: No one has regretted more than. myself that the discussion on the KateSs policy of the administration has Been precipitated upon the Senate and the coun try. I preferred to avoid discussion until the the election on the slavery clause had Irhftspired, and until Kansas should present liersjif for admission as a State; but the Sen ator ffom Illinois [Mr. Douglas] deemed a dif ferent policy necessary aii(l proper, ond no al ternative was left to the friends of the adminis tration out to respond. I think I am dtily sensible of the important ftttu. delicate character of the subject to be dis and I ain sure 1 never was more anx ious to db my duty; never more willing to sacrifice pride of opinion, or to restrain passion and prejudice,, iii order, to sec clearly the pub lic good. That other senators are actuated by 'motives equally proper. I have no doubt.. The senator from Illinois has delivered what may be termed a great speech against the Kan sas policy of the administration. No man who knows him will doubt his ability to make the most but.of any siate of facts and circumstaij ccs'beforc him. ■ Few men can equal him’in this particular. For myself, I inake no such pretension; but, as to our riglits, privileges, and responsibilities, on this floor we are equals. Fortunately, in,our present difference, I think my cause the stronger of the two, and on it I can rely with safety. Now, sir, it would bo idle to attempt to an swer the senator’s arguments, and controvert his conclusions, were I to concede the correct ness of all he premises. This I cahnot do, and I shall show why I cannot at different points as I proceed. This great speech of the senator, with all due respect, was, in my humble esti mation, after all, only a huge structure resting On a very unsound and insufficient foundation. He has applied the facts and circumstances with great skill in maintaining his case ; but he will pardon me for the expression of the opinion that, in tone 4tld teuiper, in enlarged iind sound theory, in practical and useful sug gestion, in generous tolerance of differences with others, it will riot, in my judgment, com ffiatm so much of public favor as anyone of the many former efforts of that, gifted senator. It •ji/as his right—and nS dno will call in question his niotivesr—but I do not believe it was wise in the senator to precipitate ihe slavery agita tion in this body and in .the country ; nor can I understand why he should have shown so much willingness to weaken public confidence iu the policy of the men of his own party, whom he assisted to place in power, and who, at this critical moment wield the only functions of government capable of maintaining the pub lic peace in Kansas ; nor why he should in dulged in sarcastic ridicule when dealing with the viewsof tho Presirfent. 'The allegation that that able and accomplished statesman bad fal len into “fundamental error,” as to the mean ing of the Kansas-Nebraska law, and the pur - poses of its authors, because he was not in the country at the time of its passage, can bo esti mated ip no other light, and can subserve no useful purpose for the senator or the country. True, it answered to excite momentary gratifi cation on the other side of the chamber, and Chagrin on this; but on neither side, per in the Country, will the sentiment meet even a re spectful response, when the impulses of the hour shall have yielded ip sober reflection. The honorable senator from Illinois was not in, the country when the Declaration of Independence Vas enunciated, nor when the Constitution was made ; and yet he claims to understand both these instruments, and the purposes in view by their authors. Is this Nansas law more diffi cult of comprehension ? Perhaps it is. At all fevents, it has certainly required more explana tion at the bands of its author ; and it might seem that, so long as he finds it necessary to explain what he meant every month in the year, he could afford to pardon the President for the fcommission of even ‘.‘fundamental error,” -But brirfugn im this point. When the senator shall have persuaded the people of the United States that the President docs not understand the subject;'! shall recur to it again. Bii,t what will the honorable senator say as to the views of the late President, who was not but of the country when the law passed, but participated in every stop of the struggle that gave it existence. He certainly understands the question ; and I have sufficient authority for saying that he agrees with his successor bn his Kansas policy, and consequently differs with the senator from Illinois, Thfc most harmless part of the senator’s speech is that iri which, whilst,making a broad issue with the administration, he has attempt ed ,to show that the President’s views sustain those expressed by himself. Ho is certainly entitled to all he can make for his cause in this Way; but if there was no great difference be tween the President dhll himself, there was then me less reason for making the issue. The President’s character for candor and fairness forbade that he should withhold or give' the slightest coloring to any fact in the case, with a view even of sustaining the conclusions at which he felt required to arrive. Nor could he approach the subject In a partizan spirit. He has not cared to deal with the. follies, wrongs,'' and bitter feelings which have been manifested on either side of the question, in or outmf Kan sas ; but ho has preferred to consider the pre sent and the future, and to determine what is best for the country. Ido not claim for him infallibility of judgment, for that does not be long to humanity ; but I do claim for him the highest degree of patriotism and disinterested ness in all he has said and'doue on this danger ous question. The idea that ho wonld seek to oppress any class of the people of Kansas, or desire to impose upon them an odious govern ment, should not be, and I trust is not, enter tained in any quarter; thiCMifi will not trifle with this, or any other great qhestfon ; and that, having recognized the validity of the laws tn Kansas, and the right of a convention to make a constitution and State government one day, ho does not discard that view the next, is but consistent with his character for integrity of purpose, and clearness of perception. But what does the senator mean by assum ing that the Kansas policy of tho message is not an administration measure ? ■ Docs he mean that the cabinet do not agree with the Presi dent ? I understand differently. Or -does ho mean that the administration, having laid down its policy, will hold that those who assail and denounce that policy do not oppose tho admin istration ? There is surely no room for misun derstanding on this point, and it is certainly, not difficult to ..discover from the mes sage of the President what that policy is.— The administration recognizes tho legality of the proceedings, in, Kansas, so far as they have progressed, in the matter of making a constitu- in, • . .' . , " ~. . • . BY JOHN B. BRATTON, VOL. 44. tion and Stale government preparatory to ad mission into the Union as a Stale. They hold, that the legislature of the Territory had the right to call a convention of delegates to be elected by the people to form a State constitu tion ; that the convention, when so formed, had the legal right to form a constitution and sub. rait their doings to the test of a popular vote, or send them to Congress and ask admission for the Slate under them : that the organip act having special reference to a oontroversey about_ slavery, which involved the whole country, the convention was morally bound to ascertain the sense of the people on this feature of their do mestic policy, otherwise the spirit of the com promise on this angry feud failed of its true purpose so far as Kansas is concerned. They hold, further, that when the State shall ask admission, the constitution being ropubli can in form, it wdl not be a sufficient reason to deny her admission, and thereby perpetuate the contest about slavery, that the ordinary forms of State government, about which there is seldom much conlroverscy, arid which can be chanced at any time, had not first received the sanction of trie pjpnlar vote : that {hi* process is safest as a general principle, but that, under the clear terms of the organic law, it is a Ques tion for the people and their representatives in convention, with which the federal government has now no right to deal; that, if the delegates have acted in bad faith, they are accountable to the people who elected them, and riot to Con gress or to the administration. So Pouch-for' the yiews of the administration. Now I understand the senator from .'lllinois not only to deny nearly all these positions of the administration, anfi especially the right of, the legislature to call a convention—for ho has said the law for that purpose was “null and void frpjp the,beginning,” but he goes further, and that,,to admit the soundness of ah the, positions of the administration, the State must not be admitted until the question of courls, corporations, banks arid railroads shall be settled by a vote of the people, and herein.is the issue.. As to the power-of the leg islature to call a convention, it will be seen that the senator comes, in direct conflict with the views of Governor Walker, who, in hi* inaugu ral address, held that the legislature was “the power ordained for that,” But the most start- ling involved in this position of the honorable senator is the assumption that it is the right and duty of the federal government to interpose between the people of a Territory . and their own and local representatives. This never 'could have been a sound or safe practice as to, any State or Territory ; but is utterly out of the question under the organic act for Kansas,, which has committed all domestic and internal, allairs to the pedple to be regulated “in their own'way.'” , s It is no matter of pleasure to me to recur to the unpleasant.difference Between tile honora ble senator and my self, the .other day, touch ing the consultation of senators at His residence,- in July, 1856, on the policy of tlio Toombs bill; but however disagreeable the task; justice to myself requires that I should do so, especial ly since the character of that conference has been misunderstood in certain quarters; Noth ing was further from my mind than to, allude to any social or confidential interview. The meeting was not of that character. Indeed, it was semi-official, and c-allod tp public good. My recollection was clcar tiiiit I f left the conference under the impression that it had been deemed best to adopt measures to admit Kansas as a State through thp agency of one popular election; and that for delegates to the conventjon., This impression was the stronger, because I thought -he spirit of the bill infringed-upon tho doctrine of non-inter vention, to which I had great aversion: but with the hope of accomplishing it great good, and ns no movement had been made in that di rection in tile Territory, ! waived this objec tion, and concluded to support the measure. I have a, few items of testimony as to the correct ness of these impressions, and with their sub mission I shall be content. . T have before mo the bill reported by the senator from Illinoies, on tho 7th. of March, 1850, providing for the admission of Kansas as a State, the third section of which reads as fol lows : “That the following propositions be, and the same are hereby, offered to the said convention of the people of Kansas, when formed; for their free acceptance or rejection ; which, if accepted by tho convention, and ratified by the people at tho election for the adoption of trie constitu tion, shall bo obligatory upon the United States and the said Slate of Kansas,” Tho bill read in place by the senator from Georgia on tho 25th of June, and referred to the Committee on Territories, contained tho same see’tion, word for word. Both these hills were under consideration at the conference re ferred to ; but, sir, when the senator from Illi nois reported the Toombs bill to the Senate, with amendments, the next morning it did not contain that portion of the third section which indicated to the convention that the constitu- tion should be approved -by the people. The words “and ratified by the people at theeelection jar the adoption,of the Constitution," had been stricken out. Who struck these words out, or for what purpose they were, omitted, is not ■for trie; to answer. But, sir, I cannot bp per suaded that it was intended thereby to secure to the people of Kansas the right to vote on the constitution.. I know the senator assumed tho other day, that wherever the law is silent on the subject, the inference is in favor of submis sion ; but, sir, a full examination of 'the prece dents bearing on that point has shown me that the converse of tile proposition has the weight of authority, and that which he has laid.down as the rule of precedent, has seldom, if ever, hap pened. Indeed, I failed to discover a single in stance in which the people have voted on tho preparatory constitution where the act of Con gress was silent on the subject. But, yielding this point, how is the senator to reconcile this position with the understanding of tho subject he has so clearly indicated no.other occasions ? For instance, if it bo an allowable conclusion, that where the law is silent on the subject,'the constitution must be submitted to a vote of the people, why did the senator insert the clause which I have already quoted in his bill of the 7th of March : and why did he insert a similar provision in the law for the admission of Minn esota ? Then, again, if by striking these words out of the bill of the senator from Geor gia, its import was in nowise affected, why whore they stricken out ? Suchi sir, were tho facts and ciicumstanoea which led me to believe that the Toombs bill was to bring Kansas into tho Union without a vote on the constitution. Possibly my impres sions nro not warranted: but bo that is it may, I cannot bo persuaded that tho senator intend ed to secure to.the poqplo tho right to vqte on flib constitution, by striking Irora tho bill tho words making that policy necessary, or that the convention would have been bound to extend that opportunity to the people, simply because the net of Congress said no such thing. But enough on this point. How let mo proceed to a more important branch of ,my remarks.. ' In order to a proper understanding of the subject under discussion, it is necessary to start with a clear view of the relations existing be tween the Territory of Kansas and the* federal government.- The organic law declares that “tholegislitiro authority of the Territory shall extend to all rightful subjects of legislation and also that the people shall be left “perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institu tions in their own way, subject only to the Con stitution ot the United States.”'' I hold that tho extension to tiro people of the opportunity of so forming ( and regulating their institutions, by designating the times and pla ces where they may meet and elect delegates, and where the delegates shall assemble when elected, and how they should proceed, is a rightful subject of legislation; and that the ■ legislature of Kansas was bound, as a,matter of duty, to respond to the almost clamorous de mand of the people for a .change from, their ter ritorial to a State government, as manifested for two years past, a portion of whom had attempt ed to, erect the Territory into a State in the in.tho most irregu’ar and even unlawful man ner ; as they had also a right to take notice of the manifestations of willingness on the part of Congress, expressed in 185 G, to receive the Territory into the Union with her then meager population. . 1 hold also that there are but two sources of governmental authority for the people of a Ter ritory—the ono is Congress, the other is the people themselves j and that when Congress, as in ilio C? aG of Kansas, has conferred upon the people all tho Legislative authority with which they wore invested, the people are entirely un restrained in the matter of institutions 'of: gov ernment, except by the Constitution of the Uni ted States. It needs no argument, then, to show that tho people of Kansas have a right, under the organic law, to adopt any measures they may deem proper to change their form of government j that in, doing this they have a right to delegate their sovereign authority to repre sentatives to any extent they please—to the ex tent only of preparing forms of government for their supervision, acceptance, and - ratification, or to the extent of making arid adopting a con stitution and State government for admission into tho Union i that where there is no, limita tion in tho original grant of authority, the latter measure of power may ho exercised; that the sovereignty of the people is inalienable, and must revert to them after having performed tho functions for which it is delegated, arid that therefore tho people are at all times clothed with authority to alter arid amend their forms of government'; hilt to hold that the people cannot delegate their sovereign authority, to make laws for their own use and enjoyment, is to discard.our whole representative system,and the practice under it since the government be gan. -And to say that laws, so made, unless tho popular sense is taken upon them, are oppress ive or wanting in authority, is to lay down a rule which would require tho submission of all tho statutes to {he popular vote. Indeed, on this principle, the Declaration pflndependence, tho Bill of Rights, the Constitution of the Uni ted Slates, might bo called acts of oppression, for neither received,the sanction of a popular vote. I maintain' that the people of Kansas have the right to make a Constitution and a State gov ernment! that Congress cannot participate in that work, either as to its substance or form; that whilst Congress might attomptto prescribe how the people should do this, it would bo op tional with .them whether they, adopted-that way or 4; nrslied some form of their own. r Congress may invito the people to make their government in a proscribed mode, but cannot require com pliance, except that Congress could refuse the Territory.admlssion as » State i but this pro iceeding of the people must'be in accordance ) of Mia Jou'V Territory i; it mustpo the oflbpring.of law, and mot of a spirit of rebellion, as in the case of the Topeka convention*- ’ Ido not (Inderstand the honorable senator from Illinois to hold an enabling apt to bo in dispcnsihle ih.pll cases. Ho cannot hold this in the face of the uumorouS-ptocodentsto.tho con trary ; but ho certainly does maintain that in the case of Kansas, all that the people havqdono shall bo disregarded, not because they have not done it according to law, but for the reason that in his opinion/ they have hot done it in the right way.; Waiving for the present the question as to whether their way was right or' not, the llrst question that suggests itself to the mind is,what has become of the great Kahsas-Nebraska law; that now charter of rights to, the, people of the Territories, which declares that it is “not in- 1 tended to legislate slavery into any Territory/ Or exclude it therefrom, but to leave the)people perfectly free to make their domestic institu tions in their own way.”. It is to be abandon ed, and,thus summarily pronounced a failure ? Bo that as it may, be cannot convince mo that tjio people have not the right to make their do mestic institutions in their own way, until ho repeals so jnucli of the organic act as says they shall do this precise thing. It has conferred upon the people not only all the powers of-Congress possessed under the Constitution as to the kind of institutions which should be made, but aisle, and just as expressly, as to tho mode, manner, and way of making them. The senator proposes to reject what the people hayo done, and confer upon’them new grants of power; and yet,-if there is any one thing clear in all this Kansas question it is that a's to the kind of institutions the'people shall have, and tho Way in which they shall bo made, they already have complete authority. It is true that Congress still has the power to say that Kansas shall not como into the Union; but I cannot seo how that body can. confer any addi tional authority as to the way in which she shall bo prepared to come in. I will not be contra dicted when I say that the question between tho friends and enemies of the Kansas bill was, whether tho people of the whole Union, acting through their representatives in Congress, should legislate on slavery in the Territory—no one ever claiming the right to legislate on any other domestic institution—or whether the question should be dealt with by the people of tho Terri tory in their own way, through local represon. tatives of their own selection. This question was settled as no other question had ever been settled before—by the concurrence of all the departments of government, by Congress, by tho executive, by tho judiciary, and by the people ut the polls. And, Mr. President, l! must con fess to great amazement when I heard tho hon orable senator assume, the other day, that the people of Kansas, acting under his boasted grant of “ perfect freedom,” could not, in the matter of making a government lor themselves, rise above the dignity of supplicants to Con gress to ratify their irregular and unauthorized proceedings; not on tho ground, even, that what they had done was itself entirely inadmissible, but because it bad not heed done in the fight way. The organic act says they shall do this thing «in tbojr own way.” Will tho senator say the way they have embraced was not the way of tho. people ? Will he contend in the face of his Springfield speech, to which I shall allude more particularly hereafter, that tho peo plo hayo not had a fair, opportunity to reflect fheirwill through the ballot-box; or, if aportion ol them refuse to do this when invited, because they are determined to disregard their own io- 1 cal laws, that tho responsibility is not their own? : Certainly not. Wherein, then, is the caso*of the convention defective 7 I deny in toto the senator’s right to go behind the legal and authorized aspect of the case. Congress is not hereafter, to deal with the question of poking institutions in Kansas, either as to their character or inode of forma tion. The . rights of the people as to this mat tor are circumscribed by the Constitution onlyi and when an issue between their action and that instrument shall arise, it must be a question for the judiciary, and not for Congress; and so the senator from Illinois,, has often held, especially on the question of squatter sovereignty. Whop therefore, the people apply to‘Congress for ad mission as a State, through the agency of a “OUR GOUNTRr —MAY IT ALWAYS BB BT<ipT~BCT BIGHT OR WRONG, OUB COUNTRY. ”. CARLISLE, PA., TfllftSDAY, JANUARY §1, 1858. convention of delegates sqsptcd "by themselves in a legal aiid orderly mariner, under the broad terms ot the organic act, jjhd, in these days of non-intervention, having [decided the slavery question by jiopular voteffhe only proper in- 1 qniry tor Congress will bor'.'ls the constitution republican?- Mr. Madisonjs discussion of the obligations of the federal-government to guar anty to every State in tlipjUnion a republican form of government, to be'round in the “Fede ralist,’ 5 but which is too icons for use on the present occasion, is, itp,-my mind, clear on this point. ■ The honorable senator hdaresorted to musty authorities to sustain his n® position; blit I am not disposed to rcsortdo means of that kind to controvert them! Indeed would bo hardly fair in those days of. non-intervention. I had supposed that, after the oraJof his now doctrine, old relics would be fergottofe'-and that wo were to have a simple, plain systppi for the Territo. rios, to wit: that the pooplif-Irom all the Slates should go into the Territories rvith all their pro pertj', including slaves, ana;iogisla(e for thera selves up to the. full measuS?, allowable by the Constitution of the United - tjtrites, without revi sion or interference by Contjrcss; and that, in their own time and iri.thoir own way, they should bo allowed to prepare for aetd ask admission as States. .Besides, it is extremely difficult to tell exactly what the precedents of Congress, States, and statesmen, would teach pn this subject. I. have taxed my brain to thhUttmost to mako.a lair deduction from this complicated contest, and And it exceedingly .difficult to show decisive authority for any of the pdirita'involvod. I dis cover that the States of Maine, Michigan, Ver mont, Arkansas, TcnnesseojlTexas, lowa, Flo-’ rida, arid California, wore, 'gdmitted into the Union without what is called enabling acts; Ohio, Indiana, Mississippi, Louisiana, Illinois, Alaba ma. Missouri, and Arlcansas.icamo in under acts of Congress; and that Vermont, Ohio, Kentucky', Tennessee, Alabama, Missbi|ri£jArkansas, and Wisconsin, according to thobgst authority lean find, came into the Union .ujfder, constitutions which had not been submitted to the popular, vote. Certain "States, under ,enabling acts, may have submitted their constitutions to a vote of the people, and others have, apt. There seems to have been no uniformity'of action on the part of the new States or. of- Congress. The precedents established by statesmen are still more dubious. Even tlio honorable sonatorfrom Illinois does not seem to have held the views at all times on the questions under.consideration. At present, he doubts the policy .qf admitting Kan sas, because her entire constitiition was not sub mitted to,a vote of the peoplcj yet ho voted for an enabling act for Kansas, which did not re quire that any par,t of the constitution should bo submitted. Ho denies iho anthofity of a con vention of the people of the Territory of Kansas tq make a State government, even under the eh larged powers conferred by hm own favorite law of 1854; and yet he voted to admit California ns a State, she hayipg .raadc ateonslilution and State government without even' the color of au thority from Congress, the incipient steps of which had their origin in of a mili tary commander. I ntake no ahargo of incon .sistenoy against the honoraMo and surely none as to the purify dn’his motives., I state these things to show thojdifllculty.of the subject; but 1 do say that wmen the'senator •picked np the charge of inconsistency, made against the President the oth'etfeaay, by bis .'col - league, on the, Michigan andiA-rkailsns cases, pi,cO/(r‘rtmrtuprTirni-ci7o' r,n yT'ani tiot oner ■ of those who boast, f fiat J f bey, hayrf never cluing, ed their opinion,” “I do.not kfidtv that a month has over passed oyer my hcad'fh which 1 have not modified some Opinion to some degree,” he ought to have extended the same charitable rule to the President. But he holds that when thdffcople of Kansas move in the matter of establishing their gov ernment,that movement; though jt may not he illegal, is irregular,, and does not rise above the importance of a petition for redress of grievan ces. How will this sentiment be relished by the proud men who have gong to Kansas from all parts of the Union,- belioviiig.that they had been vested with the ‘‘.great .principle of self government ?” They will scarcely realize their new attitude. » , But it is said they can petition Congress for redress of grievances. When was'it pretended that individuals or communities could not peti tion Congress for redress or grievances? In God’s name, who ever denied that right? Is that all the people have gained by non-inter vention ? ; Is that the full fruits of perfect free? dom in Kansas ? Is that what we have gained in this long struggle ? If it be, then t must confess I have never understood the .question ; nor do I believe the people have, understood it,, If the right to make institutions in such a way »s Congress prescribes, and send'them 'lo Con gress in the shape of a petition for redress qf grievances, is all the people have gained by non intervention, with the moral and; legal right in Congress to send that petition biiok for altera tion. though the constitution bo republican in form, then the senator’s law of 1854 is a bald imposture, a delusion, end a deception—"the word of promise to the car (o'be broken to the hope”—“the-thorh beneath the rose.” But let us pass to a more 1 practical view of the subject. My own reflections on the dan gerous controversy in Kansas, considering the sbiirces and the character of the strife, satisfied my mind, even before I became a. member of this body, that Hie surest,, if not the only, way of ending this bitter sectional struggle, and quieting.the country, was to admit Kansas as a state at the earliest period practicable, there by circumscribing all concertf about her affairs withiji her own limits, where the differences, whatever they might bo, pquld not fail of prompt and legitimateadjustment. Entertain ing these impressions and views, [ was rejoiced to perceivs that the people of Kansas had de termined to call a convention to form a const!- tution and State government preparatory to ad mission into the. Union as a State. The pro priety and validity of this movement for a con vention, under direction of tfiiTterritorial laws, had been promptly recognizedby the President in his instructions to Gov. Walker, and. then again in his Connecticut letter. Gov. Walker did 1 the same thing in his first address, and urged the people to the performance of their duty under the law, in the following erap'hatio terms: . - >, “ The people of Kansas,' then, tire invited hy the highest authority known to the Constitution td participate freely and fairly in the election of delegates to frame a constitution and State government. The law has performed its entire appropriate function when it extends to the peo ple the right of suffrage, bnt.it cannot compel the performance of thatduty. Throughout our whole Union, however, and wherever free gov ernment prevails, those who abstain from the free exercise of the right of suffrage, authorize those who do vote to act for them in that con- tingency, and the absentees are as much bound under the law and Constitution, where there is no fraud'or violence, by ,th° opt the majority of those who do vote, as although all had par ticipated in the election. Otherwise, as voting must bo voluntary, self-gor?rnment. would bo impracticable, and monarchy or despotism would remain as the only alternative. “ You should not console'j’ourselves, my fel low-citizens, with the reflection that you may, 'by a subsequent vote, defeattho ratification of the constitution. Although most anxious'to' secure td‘ you'the exercise of that great cbnsli-' tutional right, and believing, that the conven : iMmitfcr. I tion is the servant and not the; master of the people, yet I have no power to dictate the pro ceedings of that body. cannot doubt, how ever, the course they will adopt on this subject. But why incur the, hazard, of the preliminary formation of a constitution by o minority, as alleged by you, when a majority, by their own votes, could control the forming of that instru ment? ■ . . “ But it is said that the convention is not le gally called, and that the election will not be freely and fairly conducted. The terrijprial le- gislatufe is the power ordained for this purposp by the Ongress of the United States: and in opposing, it you resist the authority of the fed eral government. That legislature was called into being by the Congress of 1854, and is re cognized in the very latest congressional legis lation. It is recognized by the present Chief Magistrate of the Union, just chosen by the American people, and many of its acts are now in operation here by- universal assent. As the Governor of the Territory of-Kansas, I must support the laws and the constitution ; and I have no other alternative under my oath but-tb see that, all constitutional laws are fully and fairly executed.” Mr. Secretary Stanton, under the instruc tions of the President and governor, addressed the people ns follows: “ The government especially recognizes the territorial act which provides for assembling a convention to form a constitution, with a view of making application to Congress for admission as a State into the Union. That act is regar.d ed aS presenting the' only test of the oualifica tion of voters for delegates to the convention, And all preceding repugnant restrictions are thereby repealed.: In this-light, the act must be allowed to have provided for a full and fair expressioh of the will of. the people thrpugh'the delegates who may be chosen to represent them in the.constitutional convention, I do not doubt, however, that, in order to avoid all pre text for resistance to the peaceful operation of this law, the - convention itself will, in some form, provide"for submitting the great distract ing question regarding their social institutions; which has so long agitated the people of Kan sas, to a fair voteof all the actual bona fide re sidents of the Territory, with every possible se curity against fraud and violence. . If the con stitution be thus framed, and the question of difference thus submitted. to the decision of the people, 1 believe that Kansas will, he admitted by,Congress without' delay as one of the sove- reign. States of .the American Union, and the territorial authorities will be immediately with drawn.” These quotations are full of striking ideas, which invite special attention at this time.— The first is the full recognition, by both the governor and secretary, of the validity of the law calling the Convention ; another is, that the convention, frhen formed; would have aright to make a constitution and- submit it. to a vote or not ; drid this is one of the reasons of the governor for, urging the people to attend the polls anil vole.'. “ Those who abstain from the right of.sufir.age,” says the izes those who do vote tb a'Ct for .them.” He .says “the copvention is legally .‘‘be 'cause the territorial legislature ts the power or dained for :this purp . what i^’nibst Stanton indicated, at tnat early day, , that the submission of “the great distracting question ”- (slavery) was all that would :be necessary to give Kansas peace and the dignity of n.,State. He even then-indicated, most pointedly! thb policy afterwards adopted by the convention. The senator from Illinois, in, a speech deliver ed at Springfield, in his Slate, on the 12ih of Juno last, said: . “ Kansas is about to speak for herself thro’ her delegates assembled in convention to form a constitution preparatory to her admission in to the Union.” “ The laws under which her delegates are ahuut to be elected is believed to be just and lair in.nil its objects and provi sions. ” ’ • With all this mass of authority to sustain ■ thorn, the people of the Territory, or those of them who were willing to sustain the laws ■ which the. President, Governor Walker, and the senator from Illinois held to bo proper and bin ding, proceeded to makea constitution and Slate government. By those who said the laws should not lie obeyed refused to participate in this work, and from this spirit of in-suborditia tion, in ray judgment, all the subsequent mis chief has arisen. They would not attend at the polls, and vote for delegates to carry out their prill in the convention ; not because they did not,wish to have a ,j?tate government—for the satrte then had attempted to erect Kansas into a State in the most irregular aqd unauthor ized mode—but,for the reason that they had commenced rebellion against the lews, and Were determined to persist in it! .nd it is, in the main, these very theft, who a.i this mo ment Sre clamoring most about oppression and usurpation, arid about sacred rights, which they indignantly refuse to exercise. Governor Walker labored zealously to. bring these men to the performance of their duty, as'is shown in the extract I have given from his address.— But they. were.joined to their idol—the Topeka farce. The consequence was, that there was virtually no contest for delegates, and only about twenty-two hundred votes , were polled. But still the convention, on the theory of Gov ernor Walker, had been invested with the,au thority of nearly the whole population to make a constitution and Slate government. This largo class of the people who neglected to vote for delegates became clamorous against the convention, and even assembled at Topeka for the avowed purpose of putting their own bogus government into operation, I was in the Territory for some lime prior to and after the election, arid speak from personal observa tion as to the spirit of insubordination manifes ted by some, expending itself in bitter denun ciations of the President and Governor Walker for attempting to administer what, hf the chaste phtase of the malcontents, were the “bogus laws of a bogus legislature, "averring that they would have no form of government from the convention gotten up under these laws, no mat ter how perfect it might b'o; that though that “bogus convention” should submit for their approval their own Topeka constitution, they ; would spurn it with contempt. This spirit was persisted in to the end. Governor Wal ker, as must be obvious to all, was , not. and could not be vested with any authority over the subject of making a State government.— His functions were to administer the laws, and perform the executive duties generally, which he did discharge with great ability. But be- yond this, he could not go, He had no connec tion with, agency in, or responsibility for, the work of making a constitution.' In the exer cise of his discretion, and with the intention of doing what was best, ho had at first advised the people to vote, but all would not do so.— He also urged the delegates composing the con: vention to submit their work to the approval of the people, holding this to" be right its a gen eral principle, and especially necessary in view of the small vote cast for delegates. But the convention submitted only the article relating to slavery. That it ought to have submitted the constitution in some form to give the peo ple the right to judge of its several parts, I agree; and, ns a citizen of Kansas, I should ■V - v ~ »*■ AT $2,00 PER ANNUj: hpye insisted on this policy, but I should cer tainly have desired .a vote op the question of slavery as proposed by the late convention, dis connected from all other subjects, in preference to a vole oh the constitution as a whole. For its action the convention has been most rpundly abused; and Ido not intend to come jo its defense, for from many of the defails of its proceedings I dissent-. Bui it would not be candid to. contend that there,was nothing in the bearing of the enemies of the .conversation to impel it to fully exhaust, if. not to, abuse, the authority with whioji jt had been clqthed.— The incessant mcpaces of the violent leaders,of the republican porty, who, in my judgment, never desired.to have the controversey settled, was calculated, to, do. ithis- The declaration that they would not judge pf the-merits of any form of government it might make, but would reject it, if possible, at the polls, for reasons mischievous and rebellious, was also calculated to produce such action. Nor is it candid, to contend that this class of politicians inlho(Ter ritory, and others.out of it, when they dwelt on the importance of. submitting the constitu lion to the test of, popular favor, had reference | to disputes about railroads, banks, corpofa.- tions, , courts, or legislative functions. The question—the- all absorbing question—was, shall Kansas be a free or slave State ? I be lieve Gov. Walker went much further: and yet the very man who threatened to, rebel on his bands at Topeka, and who put him through the shorter catechism of Kansas politics; never would have met him there, nor mentioned the name of’ constitution; had it not been for the questionof slavery. They said ‘‘constitution,!’ it is true, .for the idea of a-separate submission had not then been raised;, but even they had no other question on their minds than that of whether Kansas should be a free or a slave State. ■ Throughout this broad, land this has been, treated os the question, and the only one. That question the people of Kansas had an opportunity to settle in jano.last, by electing delegates to carry out their will. They are to have another to-day, by voting on so much of the constitution as relates to that subject. Af ter all that has been said about fraud and trick ery touching this issue, the great overshadow ing fact cannot be denied, that the people of Kansas have had-two opportunities to make her a free State. . I am aware, sir, that the reg istry of voters at the election in Juno was very detective; but that was no reason why‘those who were, registered should not vote. That complaint, however, cannot bo made as : to the vote on the slavery article, for no registry is required, and every white citizen above twenty one years of age can vote. I regard the regis try os very imperfect; but 1 cannot understand the picture presented by Governor Walker in a recent letter addressed to the President. He undertakes to show that less than one-half o the voters were registered when the delegates were elected, and yet the records show that over nine thousand names, were registered in June, and that the whole vote for the congress, ional delegate in October last, after an exciting contest, and a large increase of population, was only a little over twelve thousand. How this mystery is'to be solved I cannot tell, but the statements are singularly contradictory.. What myaction may be op the question of admission, shouldthonewl constitution be pre notyot tully developed. Noman caiitell wimt a day may bring fortir in Kansas.' Those who are to conduct, the. election' upon the slavery art(ble have been vested with largo and danger bus powers, the use of which they , may, if they abuse to such an extent as to forbid the recognition of the result, whatever it may 1 bo. But if that election bo lairly conducted, I j shall feel required to vote for the admission of 1 the State either with or without slavery. 1 should do this under the firm belief that it, is the best mode possible of putting an end to the 1 existing strife j for,"after all, when wo loot at 1 this question practically, it does not involve half so much as some would make us behove. When the State shall have been admitted, not only slavery, but all other institutions, will bo subject to be changed and remedied by the people. They can, if they please, do this with in six months after Kansas becomes a State, and enjoy the same opportunity, whenever they desire it, forever thereafter. Why tlien cpn-. test the question as though the institutions un der which the State may be admitted were to bo, like the laws of theUodes and Persians, tin-, changeable? I know it is alleged that the con- stitution cannot bo changed prior to 1864; bui that view cannot be maintained. .Without dis cussing the terms of the schedule, which simply prescribes the mode in which the constitution shall be amended after 1804, tho bill of rights is conclusive on this point. It declares that— “ All political power is inherent in the people [of Kansas,] and all free govcrnmontsare found ed on their authority, and instituted for their benefit, and therefore they have at all times an inalienable arid indefeasible right to alter, re form, or .abolish [heir form of government in such a manner ,oa, they, may think proper.” The mode ol voting (las also been a subject of criticism. Tire honorable senator maintains that the elector must giro Ins . sanotjop to all the other provisions of tho constitution, before lie,can enjoy the opportunity, of voting for or against slavery. This is clearly a mistake. The ballot, “constitution with slavery,” or “constitution without slavery,” involves only tho slavery clause. It is simply the question of whether Kansas shall bo a free or a slave State, under the general forms agreed upon by tho constitution. That this was intended by the constitution is made clear by its proceed ings, if they have been given to mo accurately by a gentleman from Lecompton. His informa tion is, that, before tho adoption of the form of voting, the sense of tho convention was taken on the proposition to submit the whole consti tution to a vote of tbo people, which was decid ed in the negative,' and never - Reconsidered. Subsequently; a motion to submit the slavery article was agreed to py a nityority of t\vo votes. This view is’ clearly sustained by the proclama- tion of the President of the Convention, in which ho says the vote shall bo for or against the introduction of slavery into the State of. Kansas. The voting shall beballot, and those voting for Kansas as a slave Srate shall vote a ballot with the words ‘constitution with slaver j,’and those vot ing for Kansas to be a free State shall vote aballot with tho words “constitution with no.slavery.”; It must bo evident that if it-had been intended, .'to take the sanction of tho elector on the whole constitution', the ballot would have been .“/or” the constitution. The honorable senator, and. others who take this view, will b.o the first to deny, when the constitution is presented to Congress, that it has the sanction of the people. But the honorable senator has labored to maintain his position by confounding the slav ery question with the ordinary institutions of a civilized community. Notico the extraordina ry character of tho following extract from his late speech: “Sir, what would this boasted principle of populr sovereignty have been worth, if it applied only to tho negro, and did not extend to the white manJ.D.o you think we could have arons • od tho sympathies and the patriotism of this broad republic, and have carried.the Presiden tial election last year in tho face of a (romend-. ous opposition, on the principle of extending the right of self-government to tho negro ques tion, but denying it as to all fho relations sfloct have'sjlont’too much strength and breath, and money, too, to establish this great principle in the popular heart, now to See it flittered away 1 by bringing it down fo’an exception that appliei to the negro grid docs not extend to the benefit of the white mam” , Now, .Mr. President, can it bo possible that the senator from Illinois expected to make the Senate and thu country believe that,the people of Kansas arc indebted to tho , famous organic act lor their right to the enjoyment of lile,lib orty, and property, and tbo ordinary institu tions of a civilized community 7 He scouts the idea that the great principle ot popular sover eignty should be.“fritted aiVay by bringing it down loan exception that applies to the negro, and not to tho white man.” .Whatever be may mean, bis language, is. calculated to make an impression that the Kalisas-Nebraska bill set tled some disp'uteaboutthoordinary institutions ot government in tho Territories. T cannot agree, sir, that that view is either candid or al lowable! Who ever denied' the right of tho people to funlco their ordinary institutions 7 When was that a question which divided par ties, or shook tho Union to its foundation 7 Tho simple truth is, that tlio question of slavery, and that only, was involved and considered in pass ing tho Kaiisas-Nobrnsha bilj. It was to settle that dangerous,sectional fend that the doctrine of non-intervention was adopted'. Thb repeal of tho Missouri line 1 has in no way atl'ectcd the right of the people to have all, tlieiy domestic institutions citijoi; north dr south of that lino; ; and when the seh'ator asks what the boasted principles of popular sovereignty would have been worth if applied only to tjic negro, and • “not to tlie white man,? 5 Jic utlcys a .sentiment , \vliicfi is unworthy of tbp, subject,,. .What pari are negroesjtp have-in the government of Kan- > sas, or who is proposing to restrict any of,tbo, . pjghts of the white man, unless it be himself, when he denies them the right to make a gov ernment withoiit.tho consent o£ Congress? I 1 I know bow presumptuous it is in ,i)\o to differ . witli that Senator; hut I cannot for,bear to de ny that the question of railroads, courts, banksl [ legislative functions, &c., were in. any ,way inf •, volved in tho .repeal qf tjio. Missouri .Jiae, and the inaugurationi,of the, doctri.no ,of non-inter- ■ ventionqi -and, "yut, s*r, tlio senator, has con- . founded tho quest.ioa.of slavery, and,that of the natural, inalienable, and undisputed , rights of ; the people, iu such .n i\ay as to niake (beim- , pressiop, if possible, that all. these had been , granted, guarantied, and protected, by a.,ppp . bill of rights, adopted in 1851, in the shape of the, Kansas-ifTebraska law. ....... , . Then, again, .as to. the veto on tho slavety clause, ho says, , . . . , , fto. m. « Let mo ask, sir, is the slavery clause fojrly submitted, so that. the people can votodar or against it 7 Suppose, X were a citizen of Kan*:, sas, and should go up to the polls and say,' rt desire to, vote to make Kansas a slave .State,; - hero is my,ballot.7 They reply to mo, ‘Mr,; Douglas, just vote for that, constitution first, jf, you please.’ .‘Oh, no!’ I answer, ‘I cannot; conscientiously.”’ This, Mr, President, is hardly plausible; fori, have already shown the fallacy, of the senator’s assumption, that the elector is to bo required to approve the-constitution entire, before hp can vote for or against slavery. I how propose, lo Show that tho senator’s plan would be liable to nearly the same objections. Ho insists, that tho constitution, mpa whole, . should be submitted. , Now, suppoße„thia had been done with the slavery article ,in it, and he • had made his appearance at tho polls as a pro slavcry man. Looking at the., constitution, he finds that ho cannot approve of the other provl. aions. Ho says, “ I wish to vote -for slavery, but it is not possible that I, can swallow the bank and railroad scheme, and the plan for courts and, corporations in thiaoonatitution. X cannot cop. • scientiousiy dp. this.; and I must.be deprived of the fight to establish, slavery.in tho Territory:’’ Then suppose ho appeared again ns a free State man; the constitution in the main is very ao ceptablo to him, and ho is exceedingly anxious to approve it, hut it .contains tho provisions re-’ Cognizing slavery, which ho cannot .approve; and again he is driver, from, the polls.- . It will, thus bo seen how easy it is to complain; but how will the senator guard against the repetition > of similar hardships, under any law. Congress may pass? Certainly., he will nqt propose tci. proscribe ail tiie action oi tho people in cony en-, tion- This has never been done, and never. cat}., bo done. The truth is, that the senator,, in Jii» -. ardor to maintain what he conceives to ho, a just position,.has l)eeh driven into tho use of, ah. struse technicalities, and, in mole instances than bnd in this disctission. has,dwelt; upon. Alleged: Wrongs. Ihtips .proceedings of the Lecphipton coarpaifoin hgalnst.tlro ropcytion'of-which htf '■ can In no wajtprotgpt.fjie people^ In another part or hii speech' the, hononthUt I senator remarks But I apt, beseechedto lyait.until Zhest from the,clectipn on the. 21st of December.,.’!: am told that pojrhaps„tliat ; .wi!l put ft all rtglit;. aijd willsaye.thcivhpie,difficulty. IJowcdp it?: Perhaps there may te a large ybtb. There nlajr he a large vote returned.’’ [Laughter.] Here, again, it is difficult to determine what he means Jo allege. He Says “there tnayjbe jl-' large vote returned.” His language would seem to imply nn imputation upon.spmebody or power connected with, the whom is it, to fall? Not upon his frigiid,'John Calhoun, whom Hjj lias endorsed, to.otie of the departments in this city as a worthy .and petent man for surveyprjjencral. -JFrqin whence, then, is the fraud ,to come ? No department of the government hero will have an oppoituili ty to, dth tbis, and nbne would .elhbrado it.— Then, where is ,!t Ip he practiced*? By thosl who conduct the election in the Territory ?—; llow they may act, I cannot say; but if then# are no hpriest njen.in Kansas to, ,hold thp elep-; tion, then the senator cirinift have a fair elec* tipn, undei; hip .proposed remedy.;, unless, in deed, be nSs Oohcluded that the republicans oal; I there have more honesty than his pwp [party friends. lie will bo slpw to say, however, that' men who [mve . resisted the laws from the be* ginping, and so often incurred Iris just indig nation for their folly, are more reliable than tlife. democratic party., I can .only fay,-that, if ho thinks. thifj„lie has changed his estimate of tho oHaraotor Of both parties \vithin a brief period. But, be this as it may, the senator has lament-; ed an evil which he cannot remedy. Then, again, he says; :i .\, ( - , I caro:,n6t how.[hat, vote may Stdnd. I take it for granted, that it will bo voted put, I think I have. Seen enough in the last three dayd to make it certain that it will, be returned put, no matter how tho Vote may stSnd,” [Laugh* ter/ ere is si Second edition Of anticipated frau cl, heard with pain and. regret these words as hoy Jell from the senator’s lip-V How docs ho now that the slavery article, will be “returned out,” no matter how the vote may stand ?—IT What had the senator seen within three dayb to force this conclusion upon his mind 1 If hii has knowledge of a scheme of base fraud to cheat the people, or to impose on Congress, I know, he is the.man,to develop it: and when sb developed, no man will go furl.hci; than .myself to punish the offenders. -If"'hp cannot do this, then why.allude-to it at all? Why, in thiji unhqppy ip'anncr and offensive spirit, cast inn putation upon those who have been, and nrb still, his friends 1 1 cap, readily perceive—ant| it is that which I most regret—how such 4 sentiment, from so high a source is calculated to produce discontents and 'clamor about real or imaginary wrongs when the result shall have been ascertained. It, is,virtually an invitation to malcontents .to continue the strife. _ Thb honorable senator, in his dilligcnt, ef forts to render the doings of tho Lcpompton con-, vention odious, has. even dwelt on that clause ■ of tho proposed'constitution interdicting the migration of free negroes to, Kansas- He wda candid enough to admit that the constitution, of his own State contained the same inhibition ;, and wo all know tjiat the Topeka party, by popular vote, have instructed the legislature to pass a law, to tho same effect. But the senator should have done “the Lccompton concern, SS ho is pleased to term it, tho justice to say, that on this point, at least, it had conformed to the popular will; for both parties havo.«ppketf against tho admission of free negroes. _ Nor baa he oven told us that his native Slate, Vermont, practised that great measure of wrong upon thft people, if wrong it be, of asking admission for the Slate before ,tl)o , people had .Rioted on tha constitution ; nor that his adopted Stale.. came into tho Union without an enabling act half so good as the Kausas-Nebraska law,; and that, this same State, no longer since than 1848, set. the example for the late action of Kansas by IcOHOlitlDtlt) ON SECOND PAGE,]
Significant historical Pennsylvania newspapers