VOLUME XVI, from those outside relations which States have with each other. The domestic inetitutiens of a State have reference to the internal relations of the citizen, of Ruch State to such other, in the same wanner as the I,anestic institutions of a family have relate:um: to toe relations which the members of such ti.mily bear to each other. When we use the term " domestic institutions" In reference to a family, we confine and limit the meaning of the term to those relations which ex ist in a family. When, however, we use the Ma. CHAIRMAN :—I rise to defend the right of words iu reference to a State, the meaning is en the white man to govern himself. We have fro- lerged by the connection, and it embraces the quently, iu the past, discussed the question of relations which the citizens of such State bear the right to hold the negro in slavery, but never to each other. Used in this sense, a bank is as before has the right of the white man to eelf- much a domestic, institution as the relation of government boon disputed. Our forefathers, husband and wife, or parent and child. This is who framed the Constitution of the United States, the clear meaning of the terms used in the Kau made concessions to, and compromises with, the sus-Nebraska act. The term "domestic institia institution of negro slavery as it then existed, : tions," as used in that act, had reference to the and those concessions and compromises the De- domestic institutions, not of a family, but of a mocracy of the North are willing to abide by I State; and the domestic institutions of Kansas and carry out. The terms of partnership fir- ' are the provisions for its government found in ranged by the Federal compact must be faith- I its constitution. fully fulfilled by the eeveral copartners. But I If we were to admit that the term domestic in when any portion of our people demand of us I stitutlons referred only to the family relations, it to take teem the white man the right of self- would include rs great many things besides government, and to substitute the act of a con• slavery ; and if the provisions of the Kansas vention for the will of the people, we, as Demo• Nebraska act required the provisions of the orate, indignantly refuse obedience. No such constitution of Kansas relating to her domestic oonees-ion is in the bond of Union. institutions to be submitted to a vote of the Conceal it under the most specious pretexts ; people, then the Lecompton convention most disguise it by legal quirks and technical quib- clearly violated this part of the organic law, for bles ; yet you never can deceive the people into nothing but the slavery clause—and that only in the belief that you are not attempting to impose • part—was submitted. The President admits a government on the white men of Kansas that the term " domestic institutions " includes against which they have protested, and still " a few °thee relations " besides those of master protest, in every form in which they can legally and servant. We all know that it includes a speak. When we consult the Leoompton con- great many more, and those of the highest ine stitntion itself, we learn that it has never been portanoe. The relation of husband and wife, submitted to - the people for their approval or parent and child, guardian and ward, are nui disapproval. We turn trom the constitution to vernally admitted to be " domestic institutions," the legal authorities of the Territory ; we ask in the most confined sense in which the terms the Delegate on this floor if he approves this are ever used. Yet no submission of the legis instrument; and, in the name of his constitu- lative power in reference to any of these rela ency, he indignantly answers no. We turn to tions was made. These are the most delicate the legally elected Legislature, recently in sea- and important relations which we sustain. Why, Edon, and they point us to our Journal, on which the ~ were they not submitted? The President stands the most solemn protest against this high- I says the Kansas-Nebraska act required the pro handed usurpation. We turu to the people, and visions relating to the " domestic institutions "to learn that a majority of teu thousand have be submitted. It was not done; and, therefore, already spoken its condemnation with a voice so on his own showing, the constitution is clearly loud that it must be heard, and so decided that in violation of the organic act. But it may be it cannot be mistaken., argued that I have given a more enlarged sig The issue between us anti those who contend nification to the term " domestic institution" for the admission ut Kansas is radical and fun than the President did, and that therefore my darueutal. We contend that the constitution must conclusions are unjust to him. I intend no in be the work of the . people, express their will, justice, and will be guilty of none where I know and speak with their authority. On the other it, and more especially to our Chief Magistrate, side, it is contended, that a convention, no mat. whom I honor and respect. Bat Ido not intend ter how constituted, binds the people by its ac- to let this matter pass from me until I have Hon. We contend that the people shall rule the shown that even in relation to slavery, the oenve_tion ; our opponents, that the convention Leoompton convention has not complied with is above the people, and that the people must be the President's interpretation of the organic act. reeled by its edicts. We coutend that although The President contends that it was the duty the convention can frame a constitution, it can of the convention to submit the slavery question not put it iu operation against the consent of the to a vote of the people. Was this done ? If it people. The advocates for the admission of was not, then the sanction of the convention is Kansas contend that the power of the convention, in violation of the law of Congress, and is there like the power of le.rliament, is omnipotent, and fore void. Was the slavery clause submitted to that they can frame a constitution and put it in a vote of the people ? No one dare contend that operation, not only without the consent of the it was. The only question submitted to be voted people, but against the solemn protest of every upon was the importation of slaves from places man, woman and child in Hee Territory. This is without the Territory. Slavery, as it existed in the question for consideration ; this the issue the Territory, was not only not submitted, but, presented. For the first time in the history o f on the contrary, it was filed and established, so our country has the great principle of self-goer- that all who were slaves at that time, and all ernment been openly at tacked ; tor the first time their descendants, throughout all time to come, we are called upon to stand up in the Halls of were to be and remain slaves. And not only aas Congress to defend the right of white men to this true, but the voter was compelled to vote for frame their own institutions and regulate their this continuance of slavery before he woul I be Own government. allowed to even vote for prohibiting the impor- It is vain to seek to disguise the issue. It cation of slaves, for it is to be remembered that cannot and shall not be done. The question pre- the tickets were " For the Constitution," or seated for consideration is a plain one. It admits " For the Constitution without Slavery." The of no equivocation. eto ingenuity of argument, , ticket was all the time " For the Constitution" no combination of high sounding wcrds will con- —never against it. "For the Constitution," seal it. with all its slavery clauses, was the ticket. Now, The Lecompton convention either had the if the President's construction is correct, the power to frame and put in operation a Constitu- 1 question of slavery should have been submitted tion, without the connect, nay, even against the 1 to a vote of the people. Not a part of the ques wish of the whole people of Kansas, or it had 1 tion, bat the whole question of slavery. Not not. If that convention could impose a consti- simply whether any more slaves should be imi tation on an unwilling people, then Kansas ported, but whether slavery should continue to should be admitted. If, on the contrary, that exist. The law provides that the State is to be convention was not olo.hed with this almost om- admitted with or without slavery, as the people nipoteut power over the freedom of the people, should determine. Notwithstanding this proves then that constitution should be rejected. If the ion of the organic law, slavery was fastened up n convention had not the power to force the whole them by the Lecompton constitution without their constitution upon the people, they had no power consent, and no opportunity was afforded them to force a part of it upon them. If it is admitted to vote on that question. Is this, what you de that it was necessary to submit any part of the fine "leaving the people perfect'y free to form constitution to the approval of the people, it was and regulate their domestic institutions in their necessary to submit all par's of it. The parts own way ?" Is this your interpretation of the of a constitution are all equally important, anu meaning of that boasted lea extending popular if any part is invalid until it has been approved Sovereignty? Let us examine this question still by the people, it is clear that all parts are equally further. invalid until they have been approved in the Not only was the slavery question not submit name manner. It the power given by the Legis ted, but before the voter was permitted to deposit lature of Kansas authorized the convention to his ballot on the future importation of slaves, he frame a Constitution and put it in operation, it might be required to take an oath to support the authorized them to put it all in operation ; not to constitution if adopted. He was required to put a part in force and leave another part de- swear to support what he might desire to vote pendent on the will of the people. Either the against. The history of the Old World furnishes grant made by the Legislature to the convention instances where oaths of allegiance have been "to form a constitution,' included and c a rried required ftotn a conquered people, but never be with it the power to ratify and put it in force fore in our free land has an American citizen without the consent, or even against the consent been insulted, when he approached the polls to of the people, or it did not. The grant of power deposit his ballot, with a demand to swear alle was as ample in reference to the slavery clause giauoe to a constitution which was not adopted as it was in reference to any other subject. The If I had been a citizen of Kansas, I would have convention was clothed either with absolute or regarded such a demand an accusation against with qualified power. If absolute, it was abso- my patriotism, and an insult to my manhood. I lute in all respects. If qualified, it was qualified would not have taken it, and would therefore, in every respect. I am determined the friends have been disfranchised. But I will waive the of this Leoompton constitution shall not evade implied charge of treason, which lies in the de the issue ; that they shall be held to the respon- mend to take such an oath, end which was in sibility of the measure they advocate. The peo- tended to drive high-minded men away from the pie of this country shall understand that you polls, and I will take it for granted that the voter admit Kansas on the principle that the Lecomp was willing to secure hie rights by such degreda ton convention had power to force a constitution don. The next question is, was the oath one on the people of Kansas, even if every voter in which a man could safely take? Follow me, the Territory had opposed it. It will not do for whilst I examine this question. The first section gentlemen to contend that a part of the constitu- of the seventh article of the Leoompton consti [ion was submitted to a vote of the people. If tution reads as follows : the power to put the constitution in operation " The right of property is before and higher than belonged to the convention, then it gained no ad- any constitutional sanction, and the right of the ditiouad force by being submitted to a vote of the owner of a slave to such slave and its increase is people, and such submission was an idle oere- the same, and as inviolable as the right of the owner rnony. If, on the contrary, it was necessary t, of any property whatever." give validity to the constitution that any part of Is this the declaration of a legal and constitu it should be submitted for the approval of the tional truth ? Is it true that the right of property people, it is an indisputable sequence that it was in a slave rests on the same foundation as that of equally necessary to submit the whole constitu. a horse or a cow 1 We are told in that great Hun to the people The argument is, t h at t h e good Book, that when Gad had deluged the earth power to "form a constitution" carries with it and destroyed the antidiluvian race, except Noan the power to ratify and put such constitution in and his family, he made a solemn covenant with operation without the consent of the people. Noah, as the representative and father of the The power is not to put one clause, but every tribes and nations of men that were to live in the clause which the convention may think proper to countless ages of future time; a part of which ihoorporate, its operation ; so that the man who covenant is in this beautiful and impressive lan• _ predicates hie advocacy, of the Lecompton con- guage: " And the fear of you, and the dread of stitution ou the submission of a part of the you, shall be upon every beast of the earth and slavery clause to a vote of the people, is acting upon every fowl of the air; upon all that inconsistently with his own doctrine, for if it was moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes necessary to submit the slavery clause, it was in the sea; into,your hand are they delivered." necessary to submit the whole instrument ; for Upon this grand and glorious covenant with the the power over the slavery clause was as ample great Creator of the universe, we predicate our as it was over any other part of it, and no neces- title to property in animals—but man is not in city could exist in the one case which did not chided. The right to the "beasts of the field, exist in 'he other. If the vote of the people the birds of the air, and the fishes of the sea," gave validity to the slavery clause, the balance is derived from the covenant of the rainbow ; of the instrument was invalid, because it did not and wherever its triumphial arch spans the receive the approval of the people. heavens with its web of brilliant beams, the The President of the United States, in his very right of man to such property is acknowledged able itieesage, delivered at the beginning of this and respected. The right of property does not session, felt the full force of this argument, and indeed stand above human laws and constitutions attempted to show that there was a distinction —it comes from Deity ; and it will remain above made in the Kansas-Nebraska act which rendered human constitutions as long as the bright bow in it necessary that the slavery clause should be the clouds shall gild the heavens " when storms eubmitted to a vote of the people, whitst the Prepare to part." other provisions oould be put in force without Now, I will not dispute the right of our south such submission. The President says : ern brethern to their slaves, but that right comes "In the Kansas-Nebreeka act, however, this ree from the local enactment of fhe State ; it is not euirement, an applicable to the whole constitution, derived from the law of God, but is the creature had not b een a sser t e d, a nd the convention were not of human legislation. The right to hold a slave bound by its terms to submit any other portion of the is a matter of positive enactment, and, being but i an election, except that which relates a human law, can to repealed by the legislative to ti r m'd e o n ro t to estic institution' of slavery. Thisswill be 1 authority of day country where it exists. rendered clear by a simple reference to its language. It was 'not to legislate slavery into any Territoryor lam as willing to carry out the compromises of the Constitution on this enbjeot, in good faith, ' State, nor to exclude it therefrom, bat to leave the as any other man -- people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate I respect the right possessed their domestic institutions in their own way.' sou thern States over sla- Act ., by 'Virginia and all the cording to the plain construction of the sentence, th e very, within their limits, and I would not inter words 'domestic institutions' have a direct, as they , fere with it. The jurisdiction over the subject is have an appropriate reference to slavery. ' Domesti in their hands. But when lam asked to support institutions' are li+nit©d to the family. The relations c it as a fundamental truth, that the right to hold he wean master and slave and a few others are 'llo. ' a <I slave and its increase'? is a right above the moetic institutions,' and aro entirely distinct from 'roach of law and constitutions, I cannot do it. institutions o. a political character." I think there is not a man on this fl darn It is not so. There is no statesman who will enough to follow this interpretation. dare contend for tench a doctrine. If it he true, to .stio institutions" of a State—what are the ? then slavery never can be abolished ; and if we Tee domestic institutions of a house refer to t5:11 I admit Kansas into the Union on the Leoompton 1,,. , tel , tf ,,, , ., of :rich 1,0 , 1 „ ... 1 , h,,, dmne, it ernal ti, in constitution, , constitution, slavery must continue to exist there can ens of ,I. S , ;:t.! IH , ‘ti its whole in though all time to come. The Legislature Poi: not abolish it, for it stands above the law. Con ic', ,the home institutions, as ouutradietin ' guisttect• • etitunonal mu/endue cannot overthrow it, for SPEECH OF HON, W. MONTGOMERY, , OF PENNSYLVANIA, ON THE IDMISSioN OF,KANSAS In Defence of his Compromise Bill ►u Howse of Repreneutatlven, !{larch 19 t , _ I 7 ornrit. PUBLISHED DAILY BY JAMES P. BARR, AT THE " POST BUILDINGS," CORNER OF WOOD AND FIFTH STREETS ; AT FIVE DOLLARS PER ANNUM. PITTSBURGH, THURSDAY. MARCH 25. ISSB the voter in Kansas is required to swear to sup port it as " higher than any constitutional sane 'lOU." Think of it, my Democratic friends who vote for the admission of Ko.nsas on the Leoomp - ton constitution. You say that it was a fair sub mission of the slavery question to require a voter to swear to support it as a fundamental truth, that the right of a slaveholder to his "slave and its increase" stands on the same basis as the right of the the farmer to his ox. "Go home, if, you can ; go home, if you dare," and tell your con stituents that you supported a constitution which required the citizen to take an oath to support such doctrines before he was permitted to vote, and that you called that a fair submission of the constitution. Yes, go home and tell them that you have forced Kansas into the Union with a constitution which declares Ellavery above the reach of constitutional prohibition, and that, al though the people may change the constitution, they never can abolish slavery, for the right of the master to the " slave and its increase is higher than all constitutional sanctions." Tell the people who elected you that you have given up all the Territories to slavery ; that the slave- owner has tligright, according to the Dred Scott decision, tb - take It.is slave property into any of the Territories of the Uaion, and that you have elitablished it as a fliaciamental truth, that eau- titutioaal conventions and Legislatures have no greater power to abolish it than they have to abolish the title of an owner to his ox or his Yea, tell them that slavery is uuivereal, and that they must submit to it. My Democratic colleagues from Pennsylvania who vote to force the Lecompton constitution on Kansas, go home a ad tell our people that slavery yet exists in Pennsylvania—that the title to slave property has been declared by you to be above legislative enactments and constitutional provis- jOilk3 ; that the gradual emancipation bill passed by the patriotic and philanthropic fathers of the glorious old Keystone is void ; and that slavery yet exists in full vigor in the land of Penn. My nothern Democratic friends from the old original thirteen States, if this doctrine is true as enun- ciated in the Lecompton constitution—and you say by your votes that it is true—then slavery exists in the northern part of the old thirteen States as completely as it does in Alabama or South Carolina. If it is true that constitutions cannot prohibit, or Legislatures abolish, then slavery is universal, and exists everywhere. Nor was this all. Not only was the voter re quired to take an oath to support the clause 1 have quoted, but the whole constitution. Now, the fourteenth article of the schedule of the Le- compton constitution provides as follows: " After the year 1884, whenever the Legislature shall think it necessary to amend, alter, or change their constitution, they shall recommend to the oleo tors at the next general election, two thirds of the members of each House concurring, to vote for or against calling a convention, and if it shall appear that a majority of all citizens of the State have voted for a convention, the Legislature shall, at its next regular session, call a convention, to consist of as many members as there may be in the House of Rep resentativee at the time, to be chosen in the same manner, at the same places, and by the same elec tors that choose the Representatives. Said dale. gates, so elected, shall meet within three months after said election, for the purpose of revising, amending, or changing theconsutution; but no al teration ;ball be made to affec , the rights of property in the ownership of slaves." The Legislature may provide for any amend ment they may deem proper, except the right to amend the constitution so that slavery could be abolished and Kansas be made a free State. Sla- very is to be fastened upon them forever. Not only was the voter to take such an oath, but every officer of every class and kind who might be elected through all time to come, is required to swear to support this and every other clause of this extraordinary constitution Will my Democratic friends still contend that the slavery clause was fairly submitted ? Let me ask whether there is a northern man on this floor or elsewhere, who would swear to support a constitution which fastened slavery upon the people of Kansas for. ever, and which prohibits its abolition through nil time to come? t. But I have not dune with this branch of the case. We have been told that the Lecompton constitution is a legal instrument ; that it is made in conformity to law, and in obedience to the provisions of the Kansas-Nebraska act? What will my Democratic friends say, when I assure them that not only is this not so, but that the Lecompton constitution not only violates, but actually repeals, the Kansas Nebraska act ? I desire the attention of the committee to this mat ter; for, of all the infamous devices ever con trived by cunning and unprincipled men to de prive the people of their right of self-govern- meni, I consider this the most adroitly arranged and deeply laid. And, here, I must call the at tention of members to the dates of these trans actions. I will raise the curtain and give them a peep at the actors behind the scenes. Tae del egates to the Lecompton convention were elected in Jane—the Legislature had repealed the test oaths—and the intention of the free-State party to vote in October had been openly proclaimed, and was well understood throughout the Terri tory. The convention assembled in September, and although their labors could have been com pleted in a week, they appointed committees, and adjourned until the 19th of October. The object of this long adjournment is obvious to every mind—the convention desired to know the result of that election, as it would demon strate which party was in the majority in tbe Territory ; they could then see whether it would do to submit the constitution with its savory provisions to a fair vote of the people. They could also take proper precautions to deprive the Free State Legislature, if that party suc ceeded, at the election of all power. The Octo ber election was held, and the Free State men swept the State, and elected all the officers. Since the organization of the Territory they had been deprived of all political power ; they had been driven from the polls at the first election by armed bands; they were afterwards disfranchised by test oaths, so odious, and so clearly in viola tion of the Constitution of the United States, that every Democrat on the floor, and every Democrat in the Senate, voted for Toombs' bill, which declared them void. Now, that party had succeeded in electing their officers at a fair elec tion, and the power to repeal the unjust and oppressive laws of which they complained, was in their own hands. We, as Democrats, rather regretted the result . of this election, as it was looked upon as a Republican triumph; but the election was a fair one, and we were perfectly willing to submit. Not so the Lecompton con vention. Let me turn the attention of members to the second article of the schedule to the Le compton constitution. It provides as follows : All laws now in force in the Territory of Kansas, which are not repugnant to this constitution, shall continue and be of force until altered, amended, or repealed by a Legislature assembled under the pro visions of this constitution." The free State Legislature elected in_Ootober is thus blotted out of existence. It ni,ght assem ble and adjourn—bat it could not change the laws—its power of legislation was gone.- The only way the laws in force on the 7th of Novem ber, 1857, could be " altered or repealed," was by a Legislature elected under the provisions of the Lecompton constitution The October elec tion was treated as though it had never taken place ; and the existence of the officers then cho sen was completely ignored. Now, permit me to ask, what right did the Kansas-Nebraska-act se cure to the people? We must answer, the right of electing their mill law-makers, and making their own laws. And this right was guaranteed to them so long as they remained a Territory. Now, a legally and fairly elected Legislature has assembled since the 7th of November last; that Legislature has passed many important laws ; those laws have been signed,and approved by Governor Denver—are now on the statute-book. If you admit Kansas with thi i Lecompton con stitntion, those laws are thereby repealed. And the right of legislation secured by the Kansas' Nebraska act is negatived and nullified. This, gentleman, is the constitution which we have been so often and triumphantly told was a legal instrument, made in obedience to that "enabling act," the Kansas-Nebraska bill. This Drovisigit too, the voter was required to swear be would support. My Democratic friends, will yon dare to tell me this was a fair submission of the slavery clause, hedged around, as it was, by the most monstrous enunciation of startling plinth,. pies, which voters were required to swear they would support as an equivalent for the privilege of voting ? The slavery question has never been submitted to a, vote rf the people. The President says the organic law required such a seibmisidon - , and, therefore, the Lecompton constitution is not, on his own showing, a legal instrument. I have run this matter out in detail-for the benefit of that very respectable body of Demo- crate on this floor who, with the President, bare their support of this measure on the submission of the slavery questien. Gentlemen, you cannot stand on such a platform. It is too narrow. If you admit that the slavery question should have been submitted, it has not been done; and the failure to do what you say was required under the organic law, should compel you, on your own principles, to oppoko the admission of Kansas on the Lecompton constitution. You have two horns of a dilemma. You must either construe the law to mean that the convention had power to force the constitution on the people whether they were willing or unwilling, or you must, with the President, oontend, that the organic law, which he construes into an " enabling act," re- quired the submission of the slavery question to a vote of the people. If you take the former, then you give mere delegates despotic power. If the latter, the oonstitutiat is in violation of your " enabling act," and is most Clearly void. The choice is before you—take which horn you will. The extraordinary power Maimed for the Le cornpton convention is derived from the mere eleotion of the delegates. We are told by honor able gentlemen that, by the election of delegates the peoples ratify the constitution which the del egates may afterwards form I must beg to dis sent from this monstrous doctrines. At the time of such election no constitution,has been formed, and, consequently, none is before the people for consideration. How, then, can they be said to ratify that which is not in existence? The-elec tion of delegates determines only who , shall be delegated to draw up a constitution, and nothing more. It settles whether a Democrat or epub- Haan can be chosen; or, to apply the rule to, Kflo - or fr'ee;State men shall be delegates. It determines nothing else and nothing more The constitution which is not in existenoe is not in issue; its provisions, are not known, and cannot be passed upon. But it is contended that when we delegate the power to a convention to form a constitution," this includes not only the power to " form," or draw up, the instrument. but also to ratify and put it in force. I regard this as a monstrous doe trine; one that cannot be sustained on any fair and legitimate construction of the terms Tu •form a constitution" means to draw up and ar- range the provisions of such an instrument in methodical shape. The agents employed are mere clerks or attorneys, clothing the contract between the members of society in legal phrases - and set terms of art We may gain great light on this eubjeot by first determining upon aproper definition forthat tech nioal word constitution We hear the term in courts and Congress—in the pulpit and the press; but it is not any easy matter to find a true and exact definition. of its meaning. We have in our country a great many kinds of writing constitutions; but an exact idea of the import of the word is, perhaps, not very generally had. Some years since, in the Senate Chainber of the United States, two of the intellectual giants of the last generation struggled for the mastery They were endeavoring to give a definition to that word constitution Webster and Calhoun have passed away; but, thanks to the art of print ing, their thoughts. still live. Mr. Calhoun, in his in reply to Mr. Webster, on the 29th of Feb- ruary, 1838, defined the Constitution of the United States to be a "compact" between the several States. Mr. Webster admitted that the "Constitution was founded on a compact" between the wholi people of the United States, and not between the several States as States I refer to these defini tione, not to renew the controversy as to whether our Constitution is a confederation of the people or a compact between the States, but only to show whst these enlightened statesmen defined it to be. I have always concurred with Mr. Cal howl in his definition of the term. I think none other could be properly given. Mr. Singleton—l would like to know who it is that the people make the compact with I Who is the other contracting party ? Mr. Montgomery—l will tell you. According to the definition of Mr. Calhoun, the Constitution of the United States was a compact between the' States; according to Mr. Webster's definition, it was a compact between the people of the whole country. The gentleman ask whom the people of a State compacts with? Why, each man corn pacts with all the rest. A constitution may be defined to be tte compact or contract made by the citizens of a State, each one with all the rest, defining the principles on which the association is to be conducted. The citizens of a district of country agree to form themselves into a body politic; the individual members compact or agrer to give up certain portions of their individual rights, to take upon theme - elves certain burden, in consideration of the mutual advantages of se curity, protection, and power, which flow from the association. This is the highest and most important com pact that ever has or ever can be made by the race of man. None other is exactly like it or can compare with it in the importance of its ob jects or the greatness of its results. In every other compact, after the agreement is drawn up, it must be ratified and confirmed by the contract ing parties. It matters not how learned the at torney, agent, clerk, .or delegate employed to put the contract inform, nor how greatly he may be celebrated for his wisdom and integrity, after he has completed his part of the work the inbtru ment is of no validity, it remains a mere blank until is receives the approbation of the parties. It is possible that we will be told the agree ment, contract or compact of a sovereign State does not require as great solemnities as the most trival agreement betwecn man and man? No, the mere power to draw up a constitution com pact gives no greater validity to 'the instrument drawn than is given by contracting-parties to a mere clerk who embodies the terms -of their agree ment in legal form. They are thit agreements, unexeonted, until they have received the appro bation of the high contracting parties—the one at the ballot-box, the only way in which the peo ple signify their consent; and the other by the signature of the parties. Here permit me to embody the language of •'the god-like Webster." Speaking of the Constitution of the United States, he says: "It is to be remembered that the Constitution began to speak only after its adoption. Until then it sus but a proposal, a mere draft of an instrument. It was like a deed drawn up, but not executed. The convention had framed it, sent it to Congress, then sitting under the Con federation. Congress had it transmitted to the State Legislatures, and, by the latter it was laia before the conventions of the people of the several States. All this while it was inopera tive. It had received no stamp of authority; it spoke no language. But when ratified by the people, then it had a voice, mid epoke authenti cally. Every word in it had received the sanc tion of the popular will, and was to be received as the expression of that will ° It can matter nothing whether we agree witb Mr. Calhoun or Mr. Webster in their definition of the nature of our Federal Constitution; all I desire to show is, that, after it was drawn, it had to be ratified by the contracting parties. It matters not whether it is considered as a com pact between the several States, or as a compact between the people of the whole_ Union, still it was invalid until it had the sanction of the peo ple, whose compact or contract it was. Mr. Singletop—Then I wish to know if it be a compact, unless it be sanctioned and approved by all the people, is it binding on 'those 'who refuse to give it their sanction? Mr. Montgomery— It is a fundamental princi ple of society that the majority shall rule; and that majority is limited and restricted in every society that has existed since the foundation of the world. That is the fundamental principle on which society rests. The Constitution of the United States was a compact between the several States, and the States ratified it. A State constitution is a com pact between the people of the State, and the people , must ratify it. I trust the, honorable gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bocock] will notice how easy it is to answer his ingenious argument, , that the Constitution-of the United States was not ratified by the people. There are several kinds, of compacts, but I know of none which does not require the con sent of the high contraoting.parties after it is drawn. Leagues and treaties- an, both inter national compacts, yet_ after the, terms of the instrumentlave been agreed upon, and signed by the" commissioners or delegates of the con tracting powers, the league or treaty has no validity, until it is approved and sanctioned by the sovereign power of the several nations in terested. A constitutional compact is a branch of the same family, but higher in authority and greater iu importance. What satisfactory rea sons can be urged why delegates cannot bind the nations for whom they compact in leagues and treaties, that will not apply with greater force, and more convincing clearness, to a constitutional compact? I confidently say there is none. The right of the people to ratify their constitution is such an important power, so indispensable to good government, and such a safe-guard to national freedom, that I regard it as inaliona ble. But, it would not weaken my position if I were to admit that the people might delegate away this right; but in such a case, the terms of the grant should be made_ in the clearest lan guage, and the most unquestionable form. Such a power is never to be derived from mere infer ence. It could not arise from a grant of the power "to form a constitution." This is clearly shown in the case of the Constitution of the United States. The power was given to the convention "to form a constitution;" yet, the delegates, composed of the greatest men our country ever produced, decided that aft.r the instrument was drawn up, it should be sub alined to the people for ratification. I know it may be said that the Constitution of the United States was not submitted to a vote of the people; but it was, under the direction of Congress, submitted to a vote of delegates chosen by the people for that purpose; and the concurring action of the convention and of Congress shows incontestably that they esteemed the power to form, and the power to ratify, as entirely dis tinct and separate. Nor will it do to say, as the honorable gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Beitt] did, in his manly and eloquent speech, that State constitutions and the Consti tution of the United States are different in character. They are both constitutional com pacts, differing slightly in their provisions, but exactly identical in character. Mr Webster. in the great speech to which I have already re ferred, says: "We do not need to be informed In this country what a constitution is. Is it not an idea perfectly familiar, definite, and well settled ? Wo are at no loss to understand what is meant by the constitution of one of the States; and the Constitution of the United States speaks of itself as being an instrument of the same nature." This is the language of the greatest constitu tional lawyer our country ever produced, and I place his - opinion against that of the honorable gentleman from South Carolina. Constitutions may differ in their provisions, but still they are none the less constitutional compacts; and being the basis on which the law making power rests, are properly called funda mental laws. The power of the Legislature to pass laws must always be in subordination.to the warrant of attorney contained in the constitu tion. The law-making power most act in strict subordination to the limitations of the constitu Lion; and, like all other agents, when they es seed the powers granted, their acts are not ind tug on the people; hence it is called a fratidemen tal law. But, beyond this there is no resemblance bo tween a constitution and a law, and the argu ments founded on such a resemblauc have no solid foundation. The conse❑t of the people to the laws passed by their Legislature is expre—, and nut implied, and is found in the warrant i,t attorney contained in the constitution, which au thorizes the Legislature to pass laws. A law is from its very nature, an act of sovereignty A law is defined to be a rule of human conduoz " prescribed by the supreme power of a State." If the Legislature was not supreme their legisla tion would not be binding, and would want the essential requisite of a law If the Legislature were to pass a law which was made dependant on the approval of the people for its validity, such law, althought afterwards approved by the people, would be void, because the power of the legislation must rest with, and be exercised by the Legislature. Will any one contend, howev kir, that if a constitutional convention were to make the legal validity of the constitution de pend on the approval of the people, that ii would therefore be void ? No man will say so And therein ocalists the difference. Legislation is the act of a upreme power, their act is finality; but a constitutional convention has only the power to draw up the provisions of a com pact; but its ratification belongs to the contract ing parties—the people The distinction is clear and obvious, and no unprejudiced inquirer cal, be misled by reasoning founded on analogies drawn from the acts of a Legislature. I will conclude my remarks on this branch of ;he case with th- following quotation from thr Federalist, No. 43. Speaking of the old Arti cles of Confederation, the writer says: " Resting on no better foundation than the consent of the State Legislatures, it has been exposed to fre quent and intricate questions concerning the vali ity kA its powers; and has, in some instances, given birth to the enormous doctrine of a right of legisla tive repeal. Owing its ratification to a law of a State, it has been contended that the same authority might revel the law by which it wad ratified. How ever gross a heresy it may be to maintain that a party to a compact has a right to revoke that cum ract,the d&a.rine itself has had respectable advocates. The possibility of a question at this nature proves the necessity of laying the foundations of oar national Government deeper than in the mere sanction of dcl egated authority. The fabric of American einr ire ought to rest on the solid basis of the consent, of the people. The streams of national power ought to flow immediately from that pure, original fountain of °ille gitimate authority." I have thus shown, both by reason and au thority, that the constitution framed at Lecomp ton should have been submitted to a fair and full vote of the people of Kansas. It is, however, contended that there are pre - cedents where constitutions have been formed and put in operation without submission to the people. It might be a sufficient answer to say, that I have established the rule for which 1 con tend from principle, and precedents can never change principles Precedents are changed and moulded, by circumstances; but principles are eternal and unchangeable. But I will admit, that instances of this kind may be found, but they prove nothing. In those oases, the people waived their r.ghts, and are estopped by their iequiesoence ; but the people of Kansas have never waived theirs. The Lecompton constitu tion has never been ratified by the people, and they protest against it going into operation until it has been approved. Constitutions have been put in operation-in several States without a submission to a vote of the people, but those were cases where the constitution met with the approval of the large body of the people whose contract it was. But there defy the production of a precedent of a constitution being forced upon an unwilling people, who have repu it by every means in their power. When such a precedent can be f , und, then I look into it ; until then, I desire to hear no more of preoe dents. But even if we were to consider it as a question to be ruled by precedent, the force of authority is greatly in favo'r of submission 1 think there is not a single State now in this Union whose constitution, either as an original ^r amended instrument, had not been submitted to a vote of the peorle. I here give a table, showing the 'bites at which the constitutions of the several States have been voted upon I have seen it frequently published in the n-wspapers, and have never seen it contradicted ; and so far as I have any personal knowledge it is correct: California November 13, 1849 Connecticut. October 5, 1818 Georgia Ist Monday October, 1839 Illinois March 7, 1848 Indiana August 4, 1851 lowa. August 3, 1846 Kentucky 1850 Louisina.....—. ........ November 2, 1852 Maine 1820 Maryland. June 4, 1851 Massachusetts 1780 Alabama 1819 Arkansas January 4, 1838 Delaware December 2, 1831 Florida 1839 Mississippi ............October, 1832 Michigan... November 5, 1850 New Jersey August 13.1844 New York November 2, 1846 North Carolina November 9, 1835 Ohio June 17, 1852 Rhode Island. November 21, 22. 1841 Tennessee March. 1835 Texas - October 13 18✓5 Virginia October 23, 24, 25, 1851 Wisconsin Apri', 1848 Missouri July 19, 1820 New Hampshire September, 1792 Pennsylvania ......... ...... • 1838 South Carolina 1790 Verinamitim. S.W. SO 18150 I have shown that there is nothing in the mere :authority to form a constitution" whioh au• ti,orizes the convention to put such constitution in without the submission of the instrument t.. a vote of the people. Now the question recurs as to the intention of tur people of Kansas when they elected the del egates to the Lecompton constitution. It will be remembered that only ono party participated at that election. The pro-slavery party in the Ter ritory elected all the delegates. Now, what was their intention? Did they intend that the con- vention should "form" a oonatitution, and put it in force without submitting it to a vote of the people? That no such intention was entertain ed, is inoontestibly shown, by a variety of :air circumstances. Previous to the election of del egates, pledges were required, by the party from many of the candidates, that the constitution when formed Bb wild be eubmittrd for approval or rejection to a vote of the people. Amongst others, Calhoun gave a pledge, that "the con- stitution"—not a clause or section of it, but "the constitution"—ehould be submitted to a full and fair vote of the people. 1 do not refer to these pledges for the purpoac of arraigning these del egates for a violation of their plighted faith, as was claimed by my colleague, [Mr. Phillips ; that is a matter between them and the people whom they deluded and betrayed. I merely men tion it to show that no party in Kansas ever un derstood that the constitution should be, put in operation without a vote of the poople. But I may be permitted to say. in pausing, that the man who violated his solemn pledge given to his own party; who betrayed the constituency by whom he was elected, who, if we may rely on the testi mony recently taken in Kansas, is a party to the must disgraceful and outrageous frauds ever per petrated upon a tree people, is hardly a fit per son to carry the election returns of this distract ed Territory in his pocket, and when Kansas has been admitted, give certificates -of election to whom he pleases In July last, a pro-slavery convention of dele gates from all parts of the Territory assembled at Lecompton. A resolution was offered pledg ing the support of the party to the constitution which might be formed, whether it was submitted to a vote of the poeple or not. But a single del egate voted for that proposition in all that large convention, and every other delegate voted against it. Governor Walker, as is well known, was an open advocate of the submission of the whole constitution. That convention called upon him to address them, which he did in his usual clear and convincing style, and when he nad closed his remarks the convention indorsed his principles and pledged him their zealous sup poit•t There, now, is the declaration of that party, after the election of delegates, but before the convention assembled at Lecompton, in favor of submitting the con-titutton to a vote of the peo ple, and an unequivocal indorsement of the course of Governor Walker. liere,then, we learn, that neither party in Kansas ever intended that the constitution should be put iu force without it was fire! ippruvet.l by a lull and fair vote of the people. Let us now go outside of the Territory and see he opiniun entertained on this question by the Democratic party. The Kansas-Nebraska bill, passed by that party, declared as a legal and fundamental truth. "that the people"—not a con vention of delegates—but "the people ehon!d be ieti perfectly free to form and regulate their do mestic institutions in their own way." The Cin- einuati convention, representing all parte of our mighty Confederacy, declared in most emphatic terms, "that we recognize the right of the peo ple of all the Territories, including Kansas and Nebraska, acting through the legally and fairly expressed will of a majority of actual residents, en I whenever the number of inhabitants justi - ties It, to form a constitution, with or without d•iwestic slavery,and be admitted Into the Union upon terms ut perfect equality with the other thaws." This is a recognition, not of the rights of a convention, but of the people, to form a consti utton ; and, as if in prophetic anticipation of us events which have subsequently occurred, the resolution declares the manner in which tuis recognized right of the people shall be ex e eased. It was not only to be tee "legally," hut •• fairly, expressed will of a majority of ao cual resiiii•nts." If we were to believe the statements of gen tletnen on this floor, the question is not whether •on constitution retleots the will of the "majorily ,t the qctull residents," nor whether that will 11,8 Lot, only been 'legally" and "fairly" ox pi eseod in its favor, but simply whether the Le alptua COaStltatioll was the work of the con vention. The Cincinnati convention thought teat the will of the majority of actual residents -bould be consulted. I thinks() too. That oon veutaou thought that the election at which this will of the people was expressed should not only tie a legal but a fair election. I think so too ; and in the name of that convention, and by its autaority, I demand an investigation into the frauds attending the formation of the Lecomp ton constitution. Upon this platform, with this interpretation, we went into the great contest of 1856. The people relied on these solemn pledges and we triumphed. I gave a part of those pledgee to the people of my home amongst the hills, hun dreds of miles away ; that part shall never be forfeited nor violated. I told the companions of my childhood and the friends of my maturer years, that those were the principles of my party and they confided in me ; and although they can not hear me now, I confilently repeat the dec laration in the face of American Congress. I stand now, as I then stood, on the Cincinnati platform, and contend now, as I contended then, for the inalienable right of the people to govern themselves. The President of our choice was triumph autly elected on this platform : and deeply im pressed with these truths, he said in his inaug ural message : " It is the imperativo and indispensable duty of the Government of the United States to secure to every resident inhabitant [of Kansas) the free and independent expression of his opinion by his vote. This sacred right of each individual must be pre served I" This language is too clear to need comment. " It is the imperative duty of the Government to secure to every resident inhabitant "—not to a eouventien of delegates—" the free and inde pendent expression of his opinion by his vote " Not a right to speak through delegates, bat "by Bid vote,' directly, freely, and independently. But I must pass on. A Governor was to be %ppul ited to rule the Territory. A southete ge.ntt man, with a national reputation, eminently Lit.d...,uished for his ability as a statesman, hau breu selected for this place. Gr-neral Cass, com a: a n wilting wilt:ben J. Walker his appointment, by [a.) direction of the President, gave him the following instructions: " The regular Legislature of the Territory having authorized the assembling of a convention to form a ounsritution, to be accepted or rejected by Congress under the provisions of the Federal Constitution, the people of lianms haie the right to be protected in the peacotut election of delegates for such a purpose, under such authority ; and.the convention itself bee a right to similar, protection in: the opportunity for tranquil and undisturbed deliberation. When such a constitution shall be submitted to the people of the Territory, they must be protected in the exercise of their right of voting for or against that instrument ; and the fair expression of the p. pular will must not be interrupted by fraud or violence." H re, then, we have the interpretation given by the President and his Cabinet to the Kansas Nebraska law and the Cincinnati platform. The language is not equivocal, doubtful or condi tional ; it is not if the convention submit the constitution, but it is undoubiing, unhesitating, having in view a fixed event " when such a constitution shall be submitted to the people of the Territory, they must be protected in the ex ercise of voting for or against that instrument." It was not the right of the people to vote on the slavery clause, nor on the " domestic institu tion," but "for or against the constitution." Governor Walker accepted the appointment in the following bold, clear, and explicit avowal of his understanding of the requirements of the law and of its interpretation by the President and his Cabinet : "I understand that you and all your Cabinet cor dially concur in the opinion expressed by me, that the actual bona fide residents of the Territory of Kansas, by a fair and_ regular vote, unaffected by trend or violence, must. be permitted, in adopting their State constitution, to decide for themselves what shall be their imolai institutions." .Nor ie this all. In his inaugural message, _Governor, Walher put the matter beyond all con troversy. No man ban mistake it. There is no room for equivocation or denial. The message NUMBER 138 was published, at the time, throughout the whole length andbreldth of the ,and It was forwarded to the President, and filed in the archives of tho nation with the S-or , •:,,ry of State, and remains there now. To , CI v..rt..q. : "With these ki , ,wn to the President and Cabinet, an upprovF ••y them, I accepted tLe appointment of Govern-r of Kansas. My instrue tiens from the Prositialit, turough the Secretary of State, under date nt the 30th of March last, sustain the regular Legislature of tlio Territory' in' assent- bling a convention to form a constitution,' and they express the opinion of 'ho President, that when such a constitution shall bo submitted to-the people of the Territory, they must be protected in the exor cise of their right of voting for r 'gainst that in strument ; and the fair expression of the popular will must not be interrupted by fraud ur violence.' " I repeat, then, as my clear conviction, that unless the convention submit the constitution to the vote et all toe actual resident settlers of Kansas, and the election bo fairly and justly oondueted, the constitu tion will be, and ought to be, rejected by CongroPa." The Governor declare , his clear conviction that the convention must submit the constitution," not " the slavery clause," nor any other isolated clause, to a vote of the people. The vote ILIUM be "for or against it," not " for tho constitution," or, "for the constitution without slavery." The people were to be secured the right to vote against the constitution; and, if this right was not so cured, the Governor declares that " the congtitu tion will lie, and ought to be, rejected by Con gress." If this was nut the intention of the President; if ho never meant to oppose the ad mission of Kansas if the constitution was not submitted to a full and fair vote of the people, then was the time to speak. Free State and other voters might well stand aloof from the election of delegates, confidently relying on this promise of the Chief Magistrate, made through his official representative, that the constitution should be submitted to a vete of the people ; and, if not submitted, that it would be rejected by Congress. It is monstrous injustice to the people of Kansas that this declaration should now be repudiated, when their rights under it have been denied. The great Democratic party of the North anchored their hopes for the final and eternal settlement of this angry controversy in the faithful fulfillment of that declaration. It was what we bad always understood. as the true interpretation of the Kansas Nebraska law. We took our stand upon it, and we cannot be driven from it now. Others may abandon the doctrine of popular sovereignty ; but I pledged myself to my constituents to adhere to it, and that pledge shall be redeemed. Guy. IN Allier adhered to this doctrine of submie sit', and resigned his office rather than desert the principles which he had been instructed to sup port, and which he had pledged his party to carry out. secretary Stanton clung to this in alienable right of the white man, and was dis missed from office for hie devotion to the people. The author of the Kansas-Nebraska bill insiste that its provisions shall be fairly interpreted and honestly carried out, and Douglas is proscribed. Governor \Vise, Governor Packer, and the great historian, Bancroft, refuse to strike the flag of popular sovereignty, and they are denounced as— renegades. The Democracy of New Jersey. New York, all New England, Onto, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, lowa, and Calfornta, de votedly and persistently adhere to the principles of the Cincinnati platform, and demand that the Lecompton constitution shall be rejected, and they are read out of the party as deserters from the Democratic army Thank God, the people of the North are true on this question, and al though they may be 'tetrayed and deceived, they will never abandon their devotion to the princi ples of self-government, nor strike the Demo cratic flag. I have thus shown that the Lecompton consti tution can be supported on neither principle nor precedent. I have shown that it should have been submitted to a full, fair vote of the people, and that such submission was 'not had. I have shown that we, as a party, were pledged to this submission by the Cincinnati platform ; and that this pledge was recognized by the present na tional Administration in every act and declara tion concerning Kansas, until after the Lecomp- ton convention had refused to submit the Con stitution to a veto of the people. 1 have shown all this from the record and from the coustitu- don itself. I have not gone behind the consti tution itself, but I speak from the record, and by the record The constitution shows on its face that it never was submitted for adoption by the people. I hope, therefore, I may hear no more about going hack of the record. But even if I ware to admit that the election of delegates to a convention conferred - on such delegates the power not only to form a constitu tion, but to force it upon an unwilling people, still the Lecompton constitution would not a le gal instrument Now, I freely admit that, where the pe ,, ple have an opportunity to vote, and a part of them refrain from voting, that they are bound by the action of those who do vote Nor is it material whether those who refuse to vote are a majority of the people or not. This doctrine is disputed by nobody ou this floor, or elsewhere. Yet it has been repeated, by every speaker on the other side of this question, with a triumphant confidence in its power to overthrow the whole opposition to the Lecompton constitution. Permit me to say, once far alt, that uo man predicates his opposition to the Lecompton con stitution on the refusal of the free-State party to vote—nothing of the kind. Our opposition stands on higher and broader grounds We say, that if all other reasons should be abandoned, and were we to admit your premises, 81 , 11 you cannot sustain that instrument, because the whole people - of Kansas were pot represented nor per mitted to vote. Nineteen of the thirty-eight counties were not registered—had no delegates apportioned to them, and were not permitted to vote. Some weeks ago we were told by gentle.- men on this floor, that a part of these counties were annexed to other counties for election pur poses, and it is true that they were so annexed for some election purposes, but not for the lee tion of delegates. No man could vote utile! she was registered. No registry was made in nine teen counties,and therefore no votes could be given in those counties ; they were all disfrin chised. Four of these counties were compara- tively old and thickly pooplid, and gave at the election in October over nineteen hundred votes, nearly as many as were cast at the June election, 'or the Lecompton delegates in all the rest of the Territory. The people of Kansas were not per mitted to vote for delegates. The slat) delegates were apportioned amongst nineteen counties; the other nineteen count es had no deleeates and no eight to vote. It is idle mockery to say that the people of those counties did not desire to be reg istered. It was the duty of the Legislature to have them registered. All the officers of the Territory, it must be remembered, were appoint ed by the Legislature; they were not elected by The people, and were not responsible to 'he peo ple They were the creatures of the Legislature and it should have seen that they discharged their duty faithfully. The question presented is not whether the peo ple voted or did not vote, but whether they had the privilege of voting; and the record shows that they had not. We are asked decide that one half the counties of the Territory of Kansas can disfranchise the other half, and can elect delegates and force a constitution, not upon themselves, but upon the people of the whole Territory We are told that the constituent is bound by the act of the representative; but nineteen counties had no representatives. Were they hound ? If a portion of the counties of the Territory an bind the rest, where will your principle stop ? If one half of the counties of a Territory can act for themselves and the other half, why cannot five or ten counties act for the whole ? Such a princi ple once recognized, then farewell to all free gov ernment. Nineteen counties are not represent. ed in the convention, and yet we are told that they are bound without representation, or even the right of representation If this is net despo tism I do not understand the meaning of the term You: tell me that the Locompton Consti tution is a legal instrument. What legislative power, exists in our Government to deprive the people of representation, and bind them by the act of the representaties of others ? If that is legal, then we do not live in a Republic, and our revolutionary fathers braved the dangers of bat tle in vain. Nor is it an answer to say that the number disfranchised was not large. The prin ciple is the same, whether the number was small or large If we can concede the right to dis franchise two thousand voters in four counties, we concede the principle on which our Govern ment rests. If we can deny two thousand men their rights, we can deny the same to ten thou sand, and free government is at an end. Then, if we were to:ooneede to the Lecompton eonven.
Significant historical Pennsylvania newspapers