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.