be reasonable doubt. The history of the organization of the several States fully vindicates Kansas on these points, showing that the proceedings in her case were not only more regular, legal, and binding, than in most cases, but that in these particulars she is an exception to the general practice. Some States have been prepared without any act of Congress, territorial or otherwise; some by enabling acts; some under the direct propositions of Congress; some by action of the Territorial Legislature, without first consulting the people. Some of the constitutions have been submitted to the popular sanction, and others have not. But in Kansas the movement commenced at the very fountain of political power. The people, at the regular election of 1855, were consulted as to their desire to change their form of government from a territorial to a State, and they decided to have a State government. It is true that the Topeka party did not vote; but they had been clamorous for a State government from the beginning. A law was passed, accordingly, providing for a convention of delegates of the people to form a constitution and State government, preparatory to admission into the Union. This law, it is conceded, was well adapted to the end in view. It has been pronounced "right and just in all its objects and purposes. It was modeled, mainly, after a bill which this branch of Congress had passed to accomplish the same end. It was well designed to protect the purity of the ballot-box, and at the same time extend to each citizen a fair opportunity to exercise the high function of an independent elector. The opportunity to vote for delegates it is not pretended was universal or unexceptionable, but it certainly was fair, considering the character of the country. The registry of voters only was liable to reasonable complaint; but no candid man will pretend that it was so imperfect as to impair the legality or authority of the election for delegates. Whilst all were not registered, it will not be pretended that those who were had not the proper authority to make a constitution; for, according to the most conclusive authority, seven out of eight of the legal voters were registered, and had the right to vote. The facts exhibited by the Senator from Missouri the other day, has completely put to rest the allegation that nineteen counties had been disfranchised-I need not repeat these details. There is enough to satisfy any reasonable man in a few general facts. Nine thousand two hundred and fifty-one names were registered in May; a clamor was immediately raised that the Republican party ought not to vote for delegates because the registry was so exceedingly defective; and yet at the October election, at the end of a violent partisan contest, each party charging the other with polling llegal votes, only eleven thousand seven hundred and eighty were cast for the Delegate in Congress. Here is conclusive evidence that the disfranchised wote as it is termed must have been very meager. But the fact, as exhibited in the returns, that the Entire vote in the whole of the nineteen counties, at the January election, when there was no regisry and no qualification except the age of twentyne years, was less than fourteen hundred votes, perfectly conclusive. If these counties conained but fourteen hundred votes in January, what number did they contain when the registry vas taken in the preceding month of April, beore the spring emigration could have reached the ack counties? In my judgment, and I have reeatedly expressed the opinion before, those counes could not, at that time, have contained more an six or eight hundred voters. This was the ly vital point ever presented against the authory of the Lecompton convention, and certainly is has been completely removed by the facts I ve stated. The opportunity to vote was suffient. The authority of the convention was therere perfect, and its proceedings were regular. Mr. DOOLITTLE. Will the honorable Senor allow me to ask him a question on that point? The VICE PRESIDENT. Will the Senator Om Pennsylvania yield the floor? Mr. BIGLER. It is a very bad time of the ht to be asking or answering questions; but let hear the question. Mr. DOOLITTLE. The question which I deto put to the Senator is this: whether more NEW SERIES-No. 8. voters did not reside in the counties which had no Mr. BIGLER. Governor Walker did substan- SENATE. siders had the power to dictate on even that point, and there never was a time when I would not have said the submission of the vexed question of slavery is all that the people of other States had any right even to inquire into; much less have they right to dictate a mode of making a constitution as a condition on which the people who are to live under it may become a State. Yet, this high-handed dictation has been attempted by those who call themselves non-interventionists. That vexed question was presented: that question was voted upon. Now, Mr. President- Mr. DOOLITTLE. Upon that point will the honorable Senator allow me to put a question? Mr. BIGLER. Certainly. Now, sir, I repeat, the opinion expressed here- Mr. DOOLITTLE. Was the slavery question tofore, from what I saw in the Territory early in in fact submitted to the people of Kansas? the season, that at the time that registry was made Mr. BIGLER. Undoubtedly it was. I hold, in April, before the spring immigration could have Mr. President, that if the majority of the people passed to the back part of the Territory, there had voted down the slavery article, that, in its were not more than six to eight hundred votes in own language, in the language of the schedule, the whole of those counties. That is the answer thereafter slavery shall not exist in the new State to the question which the Senator propounded; of Kansas," the institution would have been aboland I trust I have convinced him that the defects ished, and there would have been complete authorin the registry could not have been sufficient to im-ity in the Legislature to have wiped out the rempair the legal or moral effect of the election for nant of slavery that had previously been planted delegates. in the Territory. But it is said that but a meager vote was cast for delegates, and that is true; but that does not impair the force or effect of the election. Governor Walker gave the discontents full notice on this point. He told them that they would be responsible whether they voted or not. That any other doctrine would lead to anarchy. And there never was a truer sentiment. We must either accept or reject this doctrine; if we reject it, and hold that it requires an active agency on the part of the elector to give consent, then we lay down a doctrine that would lead to anarchy in probably every State in this Union. In my own State, on this principle, the fundamental law could be repudiated any day. That State contains five hundred thousand voters; at the last election certain amendments were adopted to the constitution, and the whole vote for and against did not exceed one hundred and thirty-eight thousand votes; and the highest affirmative vote reached only one hundred and seventeen thousand; who thinks of doubting the authority of those amendments? On this principle-and none other can be countenanced-the Lecompton convention had a more complete authority, I venture to say, than any other similar body which ever preceded it. Now, sir, as to the action of the convention. The only objection raised worthy of note is that it did not submit the entire constitution to a vote of the people. I have said heretofore that, at the time, I preferred they should do so; but I never regarded the mode of making the constitution as a reason why the Territory should or should not come into the Union as a State. It was more important to know that what the people did was right in itself than to inquire into the way in which that right thing had been done. They had full authority to do it in " their own way." The right of the people in convention, by delegates, to make and adopt a constitution, was conceded by even Governor Walker. This was one of his special reasons for urging the people to vote for delegates. I think adoption by popular vote a good mode of making a constitution. I certainly do not think it the only good way. It is not the way in which the constitutions of nearly all the original States of this happy Confederacy were made in the earlier and purer days of the Republic. My own cherished State, than whom there is not a happier or greater in the Union, did not make her fundamental law in this way prior to the year 1838, when amendments to that instrument were submitted to a vote of the people, and adopted by a minority of the voters of the State. I did hold, Mr. President, that the spirit of the compromises of 1850, and the organic act for this Territory, looked to the decision of the question of slavery by some direct action of the people; that there was a general understanding throughout the country that the question of slavery should not come back to Congress unaccompanied by an expression of popular will. I did, therefore, regard the Lecompton convention as under special obligations to submit the question of slavery to a vote of the people. But I never thought we out 66 Mr. DOOLITTLE. I desire to ask the Senator, does not the schedule expressly establish that property in slaves in the Territory shall not be interfered with? Mr BIGLER. The property value in slaves is protected. I never heard anybody even in Kansas object to that. But the Senator is certainly aware that there is another provision in that constitution, which says that the Legislature shall not emancipate the slaves without remuneration to the owners; they shall not interdict the immigration of slaves into the Territory so long as similar persons are held in bondage in the Territory. Mr. DOOLITTLE. That is in the slavery artisle. Mr. BIGLER. But they can, by making compensation, emancipate the slaves. The Legislature has that power. The Senator did not fail to see that the Senator from Virginia, on Friday last, in his able and eloquent speech, pointed out clearly the power in the Legislature to get clear of slavery in that Territory without any amendment of the constitution whatever. Therefore I answer that, so far as regards the question of slavery, taking these clauses together, the power is complete in the Legislature as it now stands. Mr. DOOLITTLE. Let me understand the Senator. Is it complete with the slavery article in or with it out? Mr. BIGLER. I said if the slavery article had been voted out. Mr. DOOLITTLE. Well, what then? Mr. BIGLER. Then slavery would have been completely abolished in the Territory by the people. That is what I said. I knew what the Senator had in view, that, because the schedule protected the property value in slaves, he would hold that the posterity of the slaves were to remain in bondage; that there was no power in the Legislature to wipe out that remnant or root of the institution. That is where he is mistaken. Now, sir, I want to notice another point. Mr. DOOLITTLE. I wish to put one further question to the honorable Senator, with his leave. Mr. BIGLER. If the honorable Senator will allow me, I wish to proceed to another point in the case. Mr. DOOLITTLE. It is on this point. Mr. BIGLER. It is now nearly three o'clock in the morning, and I have several points to make before that hour. [Laughter.] Now, I wish to notice the extraordinary course and policy which has from time to time marked the conduct of the anti-slavery party in Kansas. I do not intend to review their acts of folly and insubordination, in standing out against the laws; nor their constant and persistent efforts to produce violence, rebellion, and civil war. Governor Walker's dispatches are full and complete on this point. He describes the Republican party as in open rebellion to the laws during nearly all his service, and as plotting for the overthrow of the Government. Against the other party, the Lecompton party, he made no complaints prior to his departure from the Territory. But I wish to look for the evidence in the career of the Republican party in Kansas that they ever desired to settle the question of slavery. I can find no evidence that they did so desire; but much that they did not. In the language of a distinguished New York politician, (John Van Buren,) I do not understand "this free-State party in Kansas, who are all the while trying to make Kansas a slave State." The remark is witty and true. The freeState party in Kansas have never exercised their power when they could touch the question of sla- | very. In June last, when they had the opportunity of voting for delegates to make a free State, and when they daily boasted of being three or five to one of the population, they would not vote. Different pretexts were set up in different parts of the Territory, as I know of my personal knowledge. Some said," we will not vote, because the laws under which this convention is to assemble are 'bogus laws.'" Others said," none shall vote, because all were not registered." I am sorry that I do not see my friend from Massachusetts in his seat; for as he took the liberty, the other day, of asking me a question relating to my experience in Kansas, he would not take it unkind if I asked him one touching his career in that noted country. I heard it said on more occasions than one that during that honorable Senator's tour in the Territory he had advised the free-State party in Kansas not to vote; and that he also concurred in the policy of at- | tempting to make Kansas a free State by allowing the pro-slavery party to elect all the delegates to make the constitution. I know not whether the rumor be correct or not. It is not important to my purpose. But it is a significant fact that the Republican, or free-State party, did not vote in June when the fate of slavery was involved; and that in October, when nothing was at stake but offices and a Delegate in Congress, they did vote -they did rush to the polls and carry the election, regardless of the humiliation implied in the recognition of the "bogus laws." Then, again, in December following, on the direct question of whether slavery should or should not exist in the new State of Kansas, these anti-slavery men did not vote. The "bogus laws" and the "bogus convention" forbid that they should condescend to vote against slavery, and they did not vote. But less than a month afterwards, when the question of slavery was not involved, when office and honor and emoluments were staked, they readily got over their scruples of conscience against the Lecompton usurpation and rallied to the polls and secured all the offices under, what they term, the "Lecompton swindle.' Comment cannot add to the strength of this history. It is painfully significant. When it was necessary to get office, the "bogus laws" were promptly recognized; when slavery was at stake they were shrunk from as from the touch of death. Constantly boasting their power and determination to make Kansas a free State, these anti-slavery men carefully refrained from dealing the blow, when the institution came within their reach. They boasted of the power, but would not do the deed. The country is agitated from one extremity to the other about an alleged design to force slavery into Kansas; and yet, sir, within the last nine months, the party claiming to have the absolute power, and the will to do the deed, have had two opportunities of abolishing and forever interdicting the institution; but they would not. How many opportunities must they have? How long is the country to be harassed by the complaints of men who will not avail themselves of their prerogatives as freemen? They cannot be made to vote against slavery, and how can they be counted against it until they do vote? SENATE. a mass meeting of one political party, and had the forms. No power on the face of the earth, out- reverse. But, sir, who can foretell the consequences of the rejection of the State? How will the act be interpreted by the people of the southern States? Will they believe that it was the consequence of the informalities or the want of popular sanction of the constitution, or will they believe that it was the consequence of nominal slavery in the State, and that they are bound to treat it as practical and positive evidence that no more slave States are to be admitted into the Union; that the faith of the compromises of 1850 is not to be carried out? It does not become me to say what they should believe, or what they should do if they believe the worst. I should, for one, hope for the best, and struggle to the end to maintain those fraternal relations between the States under which we have so long grown and prospered as a nation. The State I represent will contend for the just rights of all the States, North or South. She will stand by the Union with the Constitution, and resist the waves of sectionalism, come whence they may. But, sir, it is no difficult task to discover that the rejection of Kansas would tend to the perpetuity and aggravation of this fruitless strife about slåMr. BIGLER. I shall be done in a few min-very-this bitter feud, which is so rapidly es But, Mr. President, holding, as I do, that the application of the people of Kansas for admission as a State has been made in due form-that their appearance at the doors of Congress with a constitution and State government is the legal and conclusive evidence of their application for admission, I conclude that an allowable opportunity is presented to admit them as a State; and it is to the alternatives thus presented that I wish to turn my thoughts for a few minutes. Mr. HARLAN. I rise to a question of order. It is very evident there is not a quorum of Senators present, and I object to any Senator proceeding with the discussion of questions involved in the bill before the Senate. utes. The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. SLIDELL in the chair.) It is the impression of the Chair that the Senator from Pennsylvania was allowed to proceed by unanimous consent. Mr. BIGLER. I yielded the floor to the Senator to explain, not to make objections. I have the floor. I got unanimous consent, and therefore I shall proceed. Mr. HARLAN. Of course, then, I shall have no further objection. Mr. BIGLER. I must be allowed to flatter myself with this interruption. I take it the Senator does not like my speech. Mr. HARLAN. Allow me to explain. I supposed the remarks of the honorable Senator, judging from their applicability, would be better delivered to the Senate than to vacant seats. Mr. BIGLER. I have no idea that I can say anything that will influence gentlemen of the Senate. They know as much about the subject as do I. Well, sir, I have held that the application is legal and proper, and that I may vote for the admission of Kansas as a State, if I deem it wise to do so. On the great question of admission or rejection, I have reflected long and seriously, and am a firm believer in the policy of admission. I think it best for Kansas, and for the whole family of States. And I believe, in addition, sir, that so soon as the popular mind is turned from the unpleasant strife in Kansas-from that war of crimination and recrimination-of alleged fraud and usurpations or on the one hand, and persistent rebellion and violence on the other, to contemplate and count the consequences of admission against those of rejec tion, the measure will encounter much less oppo But, Mr. President, I do not understand how honorable Senators on the other side can feel so free to interpose mere formal objections to the admission of Kansas as a State-how they can talk about informalities, or irregularities, or usurp-sition from the people. What great wrong can ations and frauds. They have claimed admission for Kansas on the Topeka constitution-a movement commenced without the authority of any law, territorial or congressional, and in derogation of the authority of the United States. It was conceived in avowed rebellion, and prosecuted in menace of the Federal authority. Nor was it sustained by the popular will. It had its origin in flow from admission? What interest or right of tranging the feelings of one section of our country from the other, rapidly exhausting those sources of fraternal affection without which your Federal ties would be a rope of sand. I believe in the cultivation of good feeling and affection amongst the people as the greatest agency in maintaining the family of States. That can only be done by dealing justly to all, especially toward the weak. The Constitution must be our bond and our guide. Let the two States of Kansas and Minnesota come in, one slave and one free, as an exemplification of the compromises of 1850, and the beauties of the Democratic faith. This will be wiser than the perpetuity of the war of crimination and recrimination, of assault on the one hand, repulse on the other. But if Kansas be rejected, what will be the truth of history on the subject? Will it be that the State was rejected because the mode of getting it up was not satisfactory, or because the constitution recognized slavery? I am confident some northern members of Congress are going against the admission of the State, who would not do so were the proceedings in Kansas satisfactory to them; but I am still more confident that but for the slavery article the opposition to the admission would scarce have amounted to respectability. On the stand as a witness I could give no other testimony. There may be those who would differ with me in this opinion; but, sir, it is too clear that whilst it is conceded on all hands that Kansas is to be a free State, the shadow of slavery that appears in the constitution is the real cause of hostility to the admission on the Republican side. Then, again, sir, what would follow in Kansas were she rejected on her present application? Let her be turned over to the tender mercies of General Lane and his followers, and what will they do? Who will guaranty that they will make a constitution that could be accepted by Congress? What reason have we to believe that we should not have a repetition of the scenes of violence and excess that have so far marked the progress that distracted people? Who believes that Lane and his party would exercise power with moder ation? The conduct of the recent Republican Legislature is suggestive on this point. I should be disappointed-agreeably disappointed, sir—if the of 35TH CONG...1ST SESS. Kansas-Lecompton Constitution-Mr. Bigler. me that I am for slavery and they are against it. SENATE. on this question, and a favorable opportunity I seek to confer upon the people the power to abol-being now offered, I avail myself of it. ish slavery. They object, and yet attempt to make the world believe that they are the peculiar friends of a free State. That is much after the plan that their friends in Kansas have used to abolish slavery. They would always vote when they could not vote against slavery. They would not vote for delegates, for their delegates might have rejected slavery. They would not go to the election on the 21st December, because they could have rejected slavery. rejection did not renew and heighten the strife and complications in the Territory. If the one party proceeded to make a State, the other would abstain from all agency in the work. Indeed, one in the Territory are at this time engaged in party electing delegates to another convention, to make another constitution. The other party refuse to participate, and allege that the election is being held without the authority of any law, the Governor having refused to sanction it; so we are to have a new complication. This new convention will be violently anti-slavery; and I shall be amazed if they do not incorporate some extreme anti-slavery feature, having the effect to keep the State out of the Union. They may interrupt the execution of the fugitive-slave law, or confiscate the property in the slaves that are now in the Territory. It is evident that even the Senator from Wisconsin does not like the constitution now before the Senate because it protects the propertyvalue in the slaves now in the Territory. Is this to be the policy? Is this to be an issue? Is it to be held that, under the doctrines of the compromises guarantying to the Territories admission with or without slavery, slave-owners are liable to lose the property-value in slaves whenever a decision is made against the institution? When the people of all the States go to the Territories, carrying with them their property, of whatsoever kind, in case the Territory should become a free State, are the owners of slaves to lose the property-value in such slaves? That has not been my understanding of the policy of the Government. These complications and new issues could scarcely fail to perpetuate this bitter controversy, which is so ridly uprooting fraternity and confidence being it very much. tween the northern and southern States, and even poisoning the very channels of communication between the people of the several States. On the other hand, as I have inquired, what evil consequences are to flow from the admission of the State? As was so forcibly remarked the other day by the Senator from Louisiana, [Mr. BENJAMIN,] what possible wrong do we inflict on the people of Kansas by conferring upon them the rights and dignities of a sovereign State? We hear much about forcing a government upon Kansas; whilst the truth is, she has proposed to come ia, and Congress is about to accept her proposition. That is all. It is said the constitution is not acceptable to the will of the majority. Well, sir, that is their business, not ours. If they do not like their fundamental law, they can change it. Some gentlemen talk about this constitution as though it was to be, like the laws of the Medes and Persians, unalterable. But so far from this, the question of slavery, like every other feature of the instrument, will be forever subject to the will of the majority. When this issue first came up, in December last, it was a question between admission under the Lecompton constitution on the one hand, and an enabling act on the other. An nabling act-what for? Why, to enable the people to make a State government to suit themselves, the answer is, why not do this under the auspices of a State constitution? I said then, as I say now, the constitution is the best enabling act that the wit of man can devise. It has all the good qualities of an enabling act, without its bad ones. It would terminate, instead of extend, the strife. Then again, if, as alleged, the popular will has en smothered by this Lecompton party, admisson is the most direct mode of complete vindicaton. It is under a State constitution that popular sovereignty is to have unrestrained sway. It in this way that it rises to the complete majaty of its power. Those claiming and having List power, can have no well-founded objection the remedy. Now, the power of the people of Kansas is not equal to the abolition of slavery. Saves are now in that Territory; slaves can go there and be held there. Congress cannot preat it. The people, or the majority, cannot preat it, so long as they remain a Territory. But, when clothed with the sovereignty of a State, they will become equal to the task. I am for admis . I am for giving the people that power. nators on the other side, whilst claiming a large jority for the free-State party, object to admisSoa; object to giving the people the power to immediately abolish slavery; and yet they will tell I at one time expected to participate in the debate at large; but the subject is exhausted by argument, and the country is demanding and expecting prompt action. I had hoped that my respected colleague [Mr. REID] would have been here before this; and to him I looked to express the voice of North Carolina on this exciting question. But the dispensations of an inscrutable Providence have ordered it otherwise, as he is now confined by a protracted illness at Richmond, Virginia, at which place he was arrested on his way here in the early part of January. He desires me to say that he would cheerfully vote for the admission of Kansas under the Lecompton constitution. And, now, Mr. President, what is the state of the question? A constitution is sent to us by the President, adopted under all the forms of law requisite to secure and ascertain the will of the peo Now, sir, a few words more as to popular sovereignty. There are those who hold that, because the constitution was not submitted to a popular vote as an entirety, the process of making it was in violation of popular sovereignty, as recognized in the creed of the Democratic party. That is a fallacious view, unless our representative system be abolished and a common democracy be embraced as the system we prefer. Recognizing the repre-ple; a constitution republican in its form; and, sentative system, it is perfectly competent for the people to delegate their sovereign power and authority to a convention to make and adopt a coustitution and State government. My State did this; more than half the original States did it. Mr. FESSENDEN. Will the Senator give way for a motion to adjourn? Mr. BIGLER. Will the Senator permit me to utter a paragraph or two more? Mr. FESSENDEN. 1 do not know that I shall want to adjourn then. Mr. BIGLER. That is another compliment. The Senator does not like my speech. Mr. FESSENDEN. Yes, I do; I am enjoy Mr. BIGLER. It is near three and a half o'clock in the morning, and I have but a few words more. The doctrine of non-intervention seems to have confused and confounded some people latterly, They talk as though Congress had guarantied that men should not cheat each other in Kansas; as though one political party should not take the advantage of the other; as though representatives should not deceive their constituents. This is more than was bargained for. Congress agreed that they would not interfere with the domestic affairs of the Territories, and that the States, as such, should not interfere; but that was all. It never was pretended that the Federal Government could interfere between the people and their proper local representatives. Nor did Congress guaranty that those who do not vote should carry the election; nor yet that the majority should rule, if they did not do so through the agency of the law. It is the right of the law to rule, and the right of the majority to make the law; but the majority is as much bound by the law, whilst it is such, as is the minority. I intend to vote for the admission of Kansas as a State; and in doing this I do not wish so much to signify my approval of the manner of getting up the State, and the circumstances surrounding the application, as I do to declare my conviction that admission, prompt admission, is the best and wisest of the alternatives that are before us. There is much in the details of the proceedings in Kansas that is unpleasant and distasteful-partaking of evident abuse of the elective franchise on the one hand, and the attempt to supersede its lawful use by violence and faction on the other. Kansas should not be an example for future States; and I trust our country may never be required to witness such scenes again. But, sir, whatever may be the defects on the Lecompton side, on the other is matured, persistent, and avowed insubordination to the laws, if not rebellion to the Government. Between these, I prefer the former side. The addition of two members to the family of States should be cause of general joy, as an event bringing fraternal affection, energy, power, stability, progress, and general prosperity, to the family of States and to our common country. That these blessings are to follow the admission of the two States now on the threshold of the Union, I hope and believe. Now, sir, I have done for the present; and as it is after three o'clock, I think we should vote. [Laughter.] As I have said nothing for a long time, I may claim to close the debate. Mr. BIGGS. I desire to make a few remarks although the population of the proposed State is not so large as I would desire, yet it is manifest its admission is the surest and most expeditious mode to preserve peace and quiet, and withdraw from the political arena the source of agitation and discord which threatens a serious disruption of that bond by which we are linked together as a Confederacy-that Confederacy which is the hope and joy of the whole earth, and of all who' cherish the love of liberty and the success of free institutions. My course, therefore, is a plain one. I vote for the admission. I do not see how the frauds, to which allusion has been made, can affect the question, as now presented. Admit all that has been charged, and deduct such votes from the calculation, and still there is an overwhelming legal majority of the people voting for the constitution. I disclaim the least sympathy for any frauds, or the perpetrators of them. They deserve the emphatic condemnation of all honest men. I frankly confess that, from many circumstances, I have misgivings whether the people of Kansas are of that character from which we may hope for an enlightened self-government; but, upon the whole, it is evident that this measure is the only hope of peace. It is now a contest between law and rebellion; between the supporters of the constitution and the constitutional rights of all the States, and those who, in principle and practice, are opponents of the constitution. Again: it cannot be denied that the objection that this constitution has not been submitted to a popular vote, is not the true reason that influences the action of the Opposition. The convention that formed this constitution was called by the voice of the people. The convention represented their wishes, and being thus clothed with authority, had a right to submit the result of their labors to a popular vote or not. It is well known that in no case in the formation of a new State, until the case of Minnesota, was its constitution required to be submitted to a popular vote; but a complete answer to this objection is that we have no right to compel this submission. To do so, would violate the great doctrine of non-intervention by Congress. But to allude to the great objection-this constitution tolerates slavery. It has been distinctly avowed by Senators here-by the Senator from Ohio, [Mr. WADE,] and the Senator from New Hampshire, [Mr. CLARK,] upon my inquirythat, if all other objections were removed, this is a sufficient objection. Now, it will be remembered that at the formation of the Constitution of the United States, slavery was not only recognized and protected in the States, but slavery formed a portion of the domestic policy of every one of the original States; certainly all, with one exception. Now, I do not propose to discuss the morality of slavery. If it is immoral, upon us rests the responsibility. To those who profess to be overrighteous it is sufficient to say, to your own master will you stand or fall. I am alluding to the political aspect of the question. We formed the Constitution of the United States, all the States being considered and treated as equals, notwithstanding the institution of slavery. Now, to adopt the principle that you consider a State unworthy of association with you in this Union because it tolerates slavery, raises an issue which, if practically enforced, necessarily works a dissolution of the Union, because it changes the ground upon which the Union was formed, and my purpose now is, briefly but emphatically, to say in behalf of the State I have the honor to represent, that such a conclusion cannot, will not, be submitted to. I beg gentlemen to recollect that North Carolina never has manifested the least disposition to take an extreme position, which had any tendency to widen the breach between the sections of this Union. In this feeling, as is well known, I fully concur. I do not sympathize with those who desire a dissolution of this Union. I would resort to every honorable means to avoid such a direful calamity; but it is due to candor and frankness to state that the most conciliatory in the South, in my opinion, could not, without a surrender of every honorable instinct, submit, in the practical administration of this Government, to the doctrine that the slaveholding States, or the slaveholders of the States, are inferior and unequal to others, because of their recognition of the institution of slavery. And this alternative is distinctly presented to them when they are told that we are unfit for political association in this Union. It is evident the extremes are widening. The most prudent and moderate are compelled to look at the question calmly, and examine the tendency of things, if we wish to avoid the catastrophe which we so seriously deprecate. I would, therefore, invoke the moderate and patriotic of all sections never to make such an issue, which it is idle and criminal to suppose can lead to any other result than a dissolution of the Union. I speak not in the spirit of idle alarm. To those who know my public course, when I thus speak, I feel sure my convictions and conclusions will be fully appreciated; but I will assure those who do not know that course, speaking, as far as I am authorized, as one of the representatives of North Carolina, that she will never-never! submit to such a degradation, that would humiliate her in her own estimation, and disgrace her in the eyes of the world. I do not propose to argue the question. I repeat, argument is exhausted. I thought it due to my State, in the absence of my colleague, thus briefly to define my position, and, as I believe, the position of my State. Mr. FESSENDEN. I move that the Senate adjourn. The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. SLIDELL in the chair.) I will state to the Senator from Maine, that what is equivalent to a call of the House is in process of being enforced by the Sergeant-at-Arms; and I do not consider that a motion to adjourn is now in order. Mr. HAMLIN. The practice has been the other way always. decision of the Chair the Senator from Maine appeals. The question is now on the appeal. Mr. FESSENDEN. I ask for the yeas and nays on the appeal. The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. TOOMBS. I move to lay the appeal on the table. It is altogether wrong. I suppose the object is merely by dilatory motions to take up the valuable time of the Senate. This is a dilatory motion. Mr. FESSENDEN. No, sir; it is a motion to adjourn. It is not a dilatory motion. Mr. TOOMBS. I said the appeal was. Mr. FESSENDEN. No; but I want to overrule the decision of the Chair in order to adjourn, so as to advance the business of the Senate. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on laying the appeal on the table. Mr. FESSENDEN called for the yeas and nays; and they were ordered; and being taken, resulted-yeas 20, nays 9; as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Allen, Bayard, Benjamin, Biggs, Bigler, Fitch, Green, Gwin, Hammond, Johnson of Arkansas, Johnson of Tennessee, Jones, Mallory, Polk, Pugh, Sebastian, Slidell, Thomson of New Jersey, Toombs, and Wright -20. NAYS-Messrs. Broderick, Chandler, Clark, Doolittle, Fessenden, Foster, Hamlin, Harlan, and Wilson-9. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The appeal of the Senator from Maine is laid on the table. Messrs. HAMLIN and FESSENDEN. There is not a quorum voting. Mr. PUGH. This is an appeal taken when no quorum was voting. Mr. FESSENDEN. But how can you lay it on the table without a quorum? Mr. TOOMBS. A motion to adjourn, and all motions growing out of that are always in order, and do not require a quorum to decide them. Mr. HAMLIN. You have just decided a motion to adjourn to be out of order. Mr. TOOMBS. I say a motion to adjourn by the minority of the Senate, less than a quorum, is not in order. Mr. FESSENDEN. It does not appear until you take the vote that there is not a quorum. Mr. TOOMBS. We have already decided that. Inasmuch as there has been no intervening business since the last motion to adjourn, the Chair decided rightfully, and the Senate affirmed the decision by a very magnificent majority. It is the law of Parliament from this out. Mr. FESSENDEN. Since the original proceedings were taken, members may have come in, and there may be a quorum; and it cannot appear that there is not a quorum until a vote is taken. The vote having been taken by yeas and nays, it appears that there is not a quorum here. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair considers that the appeal is merely collateral to the question of adjournment, which the Chair decided could not be entertained in the absence of a quorum. It is a mere consequence of that question. I state again, as I stated before, that I pretend to no familiarity with the rules, but it appears to me to be the dictate of common sense; and I con The PRESIDING OFFICER. I understand that the Sergeant-at-Arms has now sent for various absent members of the Senate, and is expect-sider the point of order as well taken. I should, ing their presence here. Although quite inexperienced in these matters, my opinion is that under such circumstances a motion to adjourn is not in order. Having that conviction, I shall not entertain the motion. Mr. FESSENDEN. I appeal from the decision of the Chair. That will be The PRESIDING OFFICER. entertained, as a matter of course. Mr. PUGH. A motion to adjourn was the last motion made, and therefore this motion is not in order. Mr. HAMLIN. We have had a speech since. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine [Mr. FESSENDEN] has moved that the Senate adjourn. The Chair has given as a reason for not entertaining that motion, that the Sergeant-at-Arms, in the absence of a quorum of the Senate, has been directed under a rule of the body to notify absent members to attend. While he is in the performance of that duty, while Senators are being summoned here for the purpose of making a quorum, the Chair, submitting his views with great deference, because he does not pretend to be at all conversant with the rules, decides that the motion is not in order. From that however, be much better pleased if the Vice President would take the chair, and relieve the present occupant. Mr. TOOMBS. I do not think there is any necessity for that. The law of Parliament was well laid down by the Chair, and his decision has been sustained by the judgment of the Senate. Mr. FESSENDEN. Does the Chair assume that there is no quorum? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair decides that, in the absence of a quorum of the Senate, the Sergeant-at-Arms having been directed to summon the absent members and request their attendance, no motion for adjournment can be entertained. Mr. FESSENDEN. Then no business can be done, of course. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair considers the appeal dependent on the question of adadjournment; and the same number of members who could decide the one question can decide the other. Mr. BRODERICK. I hope the Senate will take a recess until half past ten o'clock. Mr. PUGH. That is not in order. SENATE. Mr. PUGH. Nothing. Mr. TOOMBS. Nothing, until we bring in the absent members. Mr. HARLAN. I desire to ask the Chair if a motion to suspend further proceedings under the call of the Senate would be in order? Mr. TOOMBS. That is not in order, I undertake to say, because all we can do now is to wait for those members who are absent, and let those who are here speak if they choose. That is all that is in order. Mr. FESSENDEN. Suppose we do not want to speak? Mr. TOOMBS. We can sit and quietly take a doze. Mr. FESSENDEN. I think that is the best thing we can do. Mr. HARLAN. I desire the opinion of the Chair on the question I have asked. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair is of opinion that, pending the execution of the order of the Senate to request the attendance of ab. sent Senators, no motion is in order. Gentlemen have been allowed to address the Senate by common consent. If any one member of the Senate had objected, of course that objection would have been valid; but they have thrown themselves upon the courtesy of the Senate, and they have been allowed to speak. If any other gentleman is disposed to speak now, the Chair will, with the unanimous consent of the Senate, permit him to do so. Mr. FESSENDEN. With reference to that, I should like to ask the Chair, by way of conversation, as there is nothing going on, what will be done in a given case? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will decide the given case when it arises? Mr. FESSENDEN. The rule provides that if, when the Senate convene, less than a quorum be present, they may send for absent members. If those absent members are at their several homes at a convenient distance, according to the decision of the Chair, those who have sent for them must wait until they can be brought here, and we cannot adjourn in the mean time? The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is the decision of the Chair. Mr. FESSENDEN. We must sit here day and night until they are gathered from the different parts of the Union. Is that the opinion of the Chair? The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is the opinion of the Chair. Mr. FESSENDEN. A most admirable decision! It commends itself to the good sense of everybody, I think! I commend the President's courage. The PRESIDING OFFICER. And now the Chair would be very happy to be relieved from his arduous duties. Mr. FESSENDEN. I think the Chair performs his duties so well that there is no necessity for that. The PRESIDING OFFICER. If any gentleman will take the Chair, and it be the pleasure of the Senate, I may as well say now a few words I have to say on the main question. Mr. GWIN took the chair. Mr. SLIDELL. The protracted debate on this exciting question is now drawing to a close, and I hope that we shall very soon come to the final vote. The discussion has been so generally par ticipated in by Senators; every point, material or immaterial, has been so thoroughly investigated, that were I disposed to offer an elaborate argument I could not hope to say anything that has not been anticipated by those with whom I concur, if not in all their premises, at least in the conclusions at which they arrive. But I owe it to myself, if not to the State which sent me here, to give, as I shall do very briefly, the reasons that will control my vote. I shall enter into no details, if for no other motive, because I have not the presumption to suppose that at this late hour I could command the attention of a wearied Senate. body in July, 1856, by the vote of every DemoI voted reluctantly for the bill that passed this cratic Senator, not that I did not heartily approve the principle on which it was based, but because I was opposed to admitting any new State until it had attained at least a population which is established as the basis of representation in the other House. I yielded that point, as I am always prepared to yield on any question of expediency, to the opinions and wishes of the majority of those with whom I am politically associated, and especially to the judgment of the Senator from Illinois, whom we were all then proud to recognize as our leader and champion." Senator from New York still more recently said: "I expect to see this Union stand until there shall not be the footstep of a slave impressed upon the soil that it protects." Now, without being disposed to make indiscreet inquiries as to the age of that Senator, I may fairly infer, from the large space he has so long filled in the public eye, that he cannot want more than ten to fifteen years to attain that term which the inspired Psalmist has given as the ordinarily allotted period of human life-threescore and ten. The Senator expects to live to see slavery totally abolished in every State and Territory of the Union—that is, within fifteen years. He, of course, will not pretend to say that the slaves will be voluntarily emancipated in that brief interval. Congressional legislation and the strong arm of executive power must be brought to bear to effect such results; and I presume that the Senator only awaits the admission of a few more free States to initiate his plan of operations. Had these declarations been made by any other Senator, I should have paid but lit tle attention to them; but, coming from his lips, they are peculiarly significant. He is "facile princeps," emphatically the chief of the Abolition party, or, as they please to call themselves, the Republican party. He always weighs well his words, and knows the full import of them; is invariably courteous and respectful in his language and deportment, and carefully abstains from saying anything personally offensive to southern men. It is this very moderation of manner that renders him the more dangerous enemy. What he says, he will act up to should his party obtain the ascendency. Let us hear no more, then, of our rights being respected by that Senator and his associates, if ever they shall find themselves in a majority in both branches of Congress, with a President of their choice. SENATE. affect their interests, that a few hundred slaves shall be held by their masters in Kansas or in Missouri? The abolition of slavery in Kansas would not give freedom to a solitary being. And, in this connection, it will be an economy of time for me to say now, that I fully recognize the right of a State Legislature, at all times, to call a convention of delegates of the people for the amendment or total change of an existing constitution, even although that constitution may contain provisions forbidding its amendment for a certain period, and establishing certain formalities and limitations for the exercise of the right. This right of the people of a State to be exercised through the majority of their Legislature is, in my opinion, absolute and inalienable; but were it not so at all times and under all circumstances, it is expressly guarantied to the people of Kansas by the second article of their bill of rights; besides, I think that, general principles and the bill of rights apart, by the very terms of the constitution it may be amended at pleasure until the last day of December, 1864. Entertaining these views, I am prepared to vote, with a mere verbal correction, for the amendment of the junior Senator from Ohio, or for any other amendment of a similar character-not that I consider it in any degree necessary to guaranty the right of the people of Kansas to alter and amend their constitution in their own time and in their own way, but because it may remove doubts and scruples on the part of others which I do not share. The amendment will not be in any sense a congressional interpretation of the constitution of Kansas, but a mere declaration that it is not our purpose, even by implication, to impair or limit the rights of the people of that State, whatever they may be-a surplusage dictated by an abundant caution, and to which no reasonable objection can be made. I shall vote for the admission of Kansas with the Lecompton constitution, not that I now have, or ever have had, any strong hope that slavery will be permanently established there; but because I feel myself bound to discharge in good faith the obligations which I assumed in 1854 and 1856, and because, should she now be refused admission, I know that, whatever may be the pretext, the real motive is that she has presented to us a constitution recognizing slavery. Some rare exceptions in either House may be found of members honestly casting their votes against her admission on other grounds; but if that admission be now refused, the existence of slavery will be the determining cause, and such will be the unanimous interpretation of the South. We of the slaveholding States can have no reliance for safety in the future but on stern, uncompromising adherence to the absolute, unqualified principle of non-intervention on the part of Congress in the question of slavery. In this case we are the more imperatively called upon to insist upon the application of this doctrine, because we are contending only for the abstract principle, while our opponents will probably enjoy all the immediate party advantages resulting from the admission. It is this circumstance which makes the course of our opponents more offensive to us; with us it is a point of honor-we are struggling for the maintenance of a principle, barren, it is true, of present practical fruits, but indispensable for our future The State which I have the honor in part to rep- It has been suggested that this may be consid protection-one which we are determined never resent is, from the character of her population, her ered as a compromise. If I thought it in any deto yield. You are not willing even that Kansas peculiar geographical position, eminently conserv gree, however slight, the compromise of a prinshall become a free State unless you can at the ative; the Union has on this floor no more devoted ciple, it would not receive my assent; but I will same time inflict a gratuitous insult on the South. adherent than I am; in this, I obey not only the not, from the fear of being charged with a dispoIn this I am assuming to be correct the assertion dictates of my individual judgment and feelings, sition to compromise, withhold my vote from an so repeatedly and confidently made, and which in but faithfully reflect the sentiments of a vast ma- amendment which some of our friends from the fact forms the staple of nearly all the argument jority of the people of Louisiana. But it is the free States desire to see incorporated in the bill. and declamation which we have heard almost Union of the Constitution, the union of States They have, in despite of popular clamor and pardaily since the meeting of Congress, that a vast having equal rights and privileges-that is the tisan denunciation, stood nobly by us in support majority of the people of Kansas are opposed to Union to which my allegiance is due, which I have of our constitutional rights, and are entitled at our the existence of slavery within her limits. If, sworn to support, and to which I shall ever be hands to every concession, short of a surrender then, she be refused admission because it nom- found faithful. I have not belonged to the ultra of principle, which they may ask of us. If we reinally and temporarily exists there, what may we school of politics. Some, indeed, of my constit- ject this bill, the agitation gotten up by plotting expect when application shall be made by a State uents, if asked, would perhaps be disposed to and unscrupulous politicians, operating upon the of which it will be a real and enduring institution? question the entire orthodoxy of my State-rights passions and prejudices of the people of the free The scale of political preponderancy is constantly principles, as not being quite as advanced as theirs. States, will be prolonged and aggravated until a gravitating with increased rapidity in favor of This, however, we will not dispute about. I am peaceful solution of this vital question of slavery the free States. If even now they are disposed willing to be judged by my acts, if unfortunately will become impossible. We have every reason, to treat us with contumely and injustice, what the time for action shall arrive. But let me tell so far as material interests are concerned, to be a may we expect when we shall be comparatively Senators on the other side, be the shades of opin- united and harmonious people; but we cannot weak and defenseless? As yet we have abund-ion among us what they may, that in whatever shut our eyes to the melancholy fact that at this ant means to protect ourselves from aggression; may touch the rights or honor of the South she day there prevails between the masses of the peoand if the issue is to be made in our day or that will present an undivided front to resist encroach-ple of the eastern and southern States as deep a of our children, it is wiser and safer for us to ment, be the consequences what they may. As feeling of alienation-I might say of animositymake it now. But we are assured that there is to the slang phrases with which our ears are con- as ever existed between England and France. no reason for our apprehensions; that there is stantly regaled here, of slave-drivers, slave-breed- The fate of this measure will probably decide no considerable party at the North disposed to ers, traffickers in human flesh, &c., &c., they ex- whether this feeling shall be kept alive and eminterfere with slavery in the States. No one who cite in us no other feeling than contempt; they are bittered until longer continuance of a connection has observed the course of things here will place only worthy of consideration insomuch as they so distasteful and repulsive to both parties shall the least confidence in these asseverations. They may be supposed to express the feelings and pan- be intolerable, or whether we shall strive by a are constantly falsified by the votes of Senators; der to the passions of a majority of the constitu- generous emulation in the interchange of good ofand, as they gather courage from success, by their ents of those who employ them. A mere looker-fices, by an abandonment of all irritating subjects deliberate declarations, they now throw off the on would observe no excitement here or among mask which has heretofore disguised their pur- our people at home; he would perhaps be surposes. I will cite a very recent instance: A bill prised to find that there were no popular meetings, was reported from the Committee on Foreign no indignant specches, no menacing resolutions. Relations to pay from an unexpended balance in You misconstrue our calmness. The time was the Treasury a sum of money to certain persons when declarations such as I have cited from the for whom it had been received in trust, under a Senator from New York would have caused a genprovision of the treaty of Ghent, for slaves car- eral cry of angry defiance. We now listen to them ried off by the enemy in the last war with Great with an apparent apathy, which you, perhaps, Britain. On what ground was it opposed by the mistake for indifference. It is this very coolness Senior Senator from New York? On the ground which, if it were understood, would most alarm that the proof of loss and ownership was defect- that portion of our northern brethren who really ive, or that the fund was exhausted? No; on love the Union. It is the quiet, fixed, determined the broad, naked ground that the Senator would purpose, not wasting itself in idle words, infinitely never by his vote recognize the right of owner- more portentous of evil than the most clamorous ship of man in man. His name is consequently demonstrations. Admit Kansas by this bill, and found recorded in the negative with those of every all agitation will cease. In a few short weeks the Senator of his party present, with the single ex- people of the North will marvel at the excitement ception of the Senator from Wisconsin, who sits produced by a question which to them has really Hurthest from me, [Mr. DooLITTLE.] The same no practical importance. How can it in any way of discussion, to become once more what we were in the infancy of the Republic-States sisters in feeling as in name. What I have said of the consequences of the rejection of this bill is in no spirit of bravado or menace; it is uttered more in sorrow than in anger and with a full sense of the responsibility which attaches to it. I anticipate the old clamor of treason and revolution against all who venture to speak the truth on this question; but if it were not told now, it might be too late to avert the danger that threatens the existence of a Union which in better days I was wont to believe would be perpetual. Mr. TOOMBS. I move that such of the absentees as have presented themselves be called upon for their excuses. I move that the Clerk call the names of such as are present, and that they give their excuses for their absence. Mr. FESSENDEN. Does it require a quorum of the Senate to act on that matter? |