Yet they are sought to be turned away, because a faction in the Territory refused to acknowledge the law, and refused to exercise the right to vote for members of this convention, thus fully and fairly offered to them, and that offer pressed upon them by the Governor, and protected in its free and impartial exercise by the military power of the Government. My honorable friend from Kentucky further objects to this constitution, for the reason that it appears, from an election held on the 4th of January, that there were ten thousand votes against it, and therefore he asserts that it is not the act and deed of the people. This position cannot stand the test of reason or principle, and has already been answered by the principles heretofore established. This constitution was concluded and finished before this vote was taken. It was a nullity. This Territorial Legislature had no more power over it than it had over the constitution of Kentucky. It was a complete act of the people in their sovereign capacity, and was beyond the reach of the Territorial Legislature. Their powers were wholly derived from Congress, and were exhausted with the act calling the convention. Neither the Legislature which called the convention, nor any subsequent, could recall the act or modify or control in any way this sovereign act of the people. It is not a legislative power to control the people in forming a constitution; this is true of State Legislatures, much more of a Territorial Legislature, deriving its powers, not from the people, but from Congress. The case of Iowa is analogous, if sound. My friend from Kentucky says the Territorial Legislature called a new convention and made a new constitution, superseding the old one after the action of Congress. I will reserve criticism on this precedent for the future. It is sufficient to say this Territorial Legislature did not appeal to that source of power-the people-to control their constitution, but undertook the work themselves. The honorable Senatcr confounds the powers of a Territorial Legislature over a constitution with the powers of the people over the same subject. Many of the States have never submitted their constitutions to the people. Can their Legislatures do so now? If not, why? How have they lost the power, if they ever possessed it? The whole doctrine is a fallacy, and a dangerous fallacy, subversive of popular rights and dangerous to public liberty. Like "The fruit Of that forbidden tree, whose mortal taste Brought death into the world, and all our woe," it runs through all the descendants of the original culprit. But there seems to be a sovereign cure for their polluted, evil bodies. Dip them in the turbid waters of Black Republicanism, and they become clean. Then the last became a good Legislature; the others were bad ones! I admit it was a good Legislature; it was as legal as any of them-no more, no less. But when this constitution was adopted by the convention, all except the clause submitted by them became the will of the people, legally, constitutionally expressed, not to be gainsayed here or elsewhere. On the 21st of December, when that clause was submitted and affirmed, the work was complete: nothing but the power which created could destroy it. Then it follows, that the vote of ten thousand on the 4th of January was taken without authority, as the President has justly stated. I think my honorable friend was not successful in his attack on that argument. I think it stands on the soundest principles of public and constitutional law. I think that, as well as the masterly exposition of all the events in Kansas concerning the adoption of the Lecompton constitution, by the President of the United States, has really left nothing for me, or for its advocates on that branch, except to repeat those unanswered and unanswerable arguments. But gentlemen go outside of the constitution. They say again, it is not the work of the people because it was established by usurpation and fraud. I wish to call my friend's attention to a very important branch of this controvery between him and me. He says that the first Legislature was elected by usurpation and fraud, and that that has become history. Who wrote that history? It is not to be found in the legislative records; it "So far as the question involves the legality of the Kan- That is the evidence furnished by the Legislature of Kansas. That is the evidence furnished by the minority and majority of her first Legislature. All the rest of the seats were unanimously affirmed but the seven. The election took place in March; the Legislature did not meet until July, and there were but seven seats contested. The Missouri invasion started here and went back to Kansas. There of course it was dressed up with all the art of the masterly agents who were employed in the business. The same fact was established by a report in the other House, the official document to which I will turn my attention. In both the reports of the majority and minority, even of this roving commission that was sent out to Kansas to get up materials for the presidential campaign of 1856, and who brought back enough of it, perhaps too much-more than the people believed at all events-facts are given disproving this allegation. Compare the tables there given. Thirty days before the 30th of March, according to the organic act, a census was taken. Reeder was Governor, and was required to take the census of the actual residents of the Territory in order to divide the Territory into election districts. The census showed sixteen hundred men from southern States, one thousand from free States, and two hundred from foreign countries. There were nearly two thirds, a majority of six hundred southern men, at the first election by the official report for the purpose of dividing the Territory into election districts. Then the legality of the elections was admitted by both committees in the Legislature and by Governor Reeder himself. Yet my friend says it is history that this was an invasion. The acts of Reeder while Governor, the official action of all parties in the Legislature, are to be set aside before that great history contained in Black Republican reports and stump speeches. If the speech of the honorable Senator from New York [Mr. SEWARD] is history, then frauds are historically established. If the speech of the honorable Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. WILSON] is history, then also are they thus established. The statement I make is to be found in the copy of the official records before me. This census was taken before a single disturbance in Kansas, taken under the organic act by the first Governor, for the legitimate purpose of dividing SENATE. the Territory into election districts according to population, and therefore is freer from suspicion or taint than any other evidence on this subject. The men sent by the Massachusetts aid societies had not got in there; and my friend now gives the authority of his great name to a charge which I say is entirely unsupported by a particle of evidence, but is disproved by the strongest and most irrefragable documentary evidence admitted by all sides of this question. Mr. CRITTENDEN. Will my friend allow me a word of explanation? Mr. TOOMBS. With pleasure. Mr. CRITTENDEN. I did suppose, sir, that it was a generally recognized fact that the history of Kansas was sufficient to show that that election was carried by votes intruded upon the soil of that Territory. I have not been very diligent in tracing the memorials or the written evidences of these matters; but I relied chiefly on the fact that I had conversed with some gentlemen, and I consider them as reliable as I claim to be myself, who told me that they were of the invading party themselves; that they went themselves and acted a part in it; and that the truth was as stated. Mr. COLLAMER. Does the Senator from Georgia know the number of votes cast at the March election, 1855? Mr. TOOMBS. The document is before me, but I have not turned to the point. Mr. COLLAMER. It is in the same document. When the census was taken in February, there were some twenty-seven hundred inhabitants, and there were about six thousand votes cast in March. Mr. TOOMBS. Yes, sir; there was a great in crease. Mr. COLLAMER. A sudden increase on that day. Mr. GREEN rose. Mr. TOOMBS. Excuse me, if you please. Mr. GREEN. I desire to ask one question of the Senator from Kentucky, with the permission of the Senator from Georgia. Mr. TOOMBS. I prefer not. Ask me questions, if you wish; but these cross fires sometimes lead to difficulties. I will answer any question myself. Mr. CRITTENDEN. I would very much prefer that the Senator would allow the question to be put. Mr. TOOMBS. I am quite sure that in any statement my honorable friend made he was perfectly sincere. I know he was. I did not doubt it then or now. Hence, I say, I felt constrained to examine his statement, as it was going forth under the sanction of one so well entitled to the credit and confidence of the country. It is due to the cause, it is due to truth, it is due to this great question, that any inadvertence of my friend, or want of examination on his part, should be corrected. That men went from Missouri to the polls in Kansas, in not exceeding seven districts, what I stated before to have been alleged, when the first Legislature met; but I do not understand that a foray on one ballot-box is to overturn an election in a State or Territory. My friend may have seen a hundred who said they went to the polls and voted illegally. It is often the case everywhere; but to the great majority of the Council and Assembly the certificates were granted by Reeder, and their right to seats was affirmed by the Legislature, by all sides unanimously. Ought not that to outweigh the history of partisans, who at the time the Legislature met, and before the seven contested seats were decided, unanimously affirmed the legality and rightfulness of the elec tion of two thirds of the Council and Assembly: There was no dispute about them. They did say that in three, four, five, six, or seven districts, there was a dispute. It went only to the election of seven men. That was the whole extent of the invasion, as then contended. I say that up to the decision of this question by that Legislature, there cannot be found in the records of Kansas, nor in the memorials to this House for relief against it, even an allegation that in more than seven districts the polls were wrongfully and fraudulently usurped; and in these the allegation is not sup ported by satisfactory evidence. I have a strong opinion, from a former very thorough investigation of this point, that no man was molested or pre vented from voting. Massachusetts men and Mis souri men, who claimed to be residents, on an intention to reside there, did go into the Territory, and vote in some of these seven districts, and that is about all the foundation for this cry of usurpation. The Legislature stands by as rightful a tenure as this Congress. It is alleged that the people were intimidated in different parts of Kansas at these elections. It is well known that more men have been killed in one day, at a single ballot-box, in the old States of this Union, than have ever lost their lives in all the disturbances in Kansas. These events have been distorted and magnified by telegraphs and by newspaper articles for the purpose of deceiving the great masses of the honest people of this country. I stand upon the record made by the Executive, made by the Leegislature of all sides, and that must stand as long as the social fabric stands. Whether it was true or false, it is the only test. They must decide their own elections. You might as well call the government of Kentucky a usurpation. Some men say that the government of Maryland, or at least of Baltimore, is a usurpation; but when it is S decided by proper authority to be valid, it must stand. I have nothing to say about it. I only speak of these allegations. Probably if statements of partisans, if statements of an unsuccessful party can make history, three years hence that will be history. It will have as good a right to be. The outrage at Louisville will be history too; and a sad history will it be for future patriots to contemplate. ટી I have shown that a majority of the first Legislature of Kansas were lawfully elected; were not usurpers; were not fraudulently elected. Then, at the second election, the Abolitionists having failed to get power, gave no votes. Who is to blame for that? Our opponents find it difficult to get rid of this Legislature, because only one side voted. It was elected without a contest, under the authority of the organic act, and was sustained by every department of this Government. Its authority was as fully recognized as that Legislature which elected my friend from Kentucky. This Legislature has not even been assailed by any person here or in Kansas, except upon the ground that it was the successor of what they please to term the Missouri usurpation. This Legislature called the convention in obedience to the expressed and nearly unanimous will of the people. They adopted a constitution, submitted a single provision of it to the people; and my friend from Kentucky attacks this election on the authority of the President of the Council and the Speaker of the House of Representatives which succeeded them; protesting against the principle that the evidence of a man holding office is official evidence. I would inquire, what was their evidence? They say about three thousand of the votes cast on the 21st of December, in favor of this clause, were, in their opinion, fraudulent. I looked into their evidence. My friend takes it in trust from a bad source, the minority report of the Senator from Vermont. He did not give all the facts. Mr. CRITTENDEN. It is in Judge DouGLAS's report. Mr. TOOMBS. Very well. I believe the statement is in both minority reports; yet it is bad authority in both cases. Now, because these men said so, it is to be taken as true! They give their reasons for saying so. They do not pretend to say that they were there, or that they have any other evidence except their general acquaintance with the country; and that evidence my friend accepts as official evidence of a fact! Mr. CRITTENDEN. I am very sorry to interrupt my friend, but I wish to be understood. Mr. TOOMBS. Certainly. Mr. CRITTENDEN. I quoted from what I saw reported to the Senate. supposed that was as good authority as could be, and it is without contradiction. Mr. TOOMBS. Certainly. Mr. CRITTENDEN. I quoted from that as the expression of the opinion of these officers, who say that they were well acquainted with the country. Mr. TOOMBS. That is their statement. Mr. CRITTENDEN. I went on further, and 1 referred to the report made by the board of comNEW SERIES-No. 9. missioners since appointed by the Legislature of Now, Mr. President, let us group the allega- SENATE. gislature asserts that nine tenths of the people are against it. I am obliged to them for furnishing this most indisputable proof of extravagance and want of reliability of their statement. They admit about twenty-five hundred legal votes to have been cast on the 21st of December; and if their statements are true, there must be about twenty thousand votes against it. No election in the Territory has ever shown as many as fourteen thousand votes, counting fraudulent as well as legal; therefore their statement is necessarily untrue. They usurped jurisdiction in an election over which they had no control, which greatly weakens their general credibility; and their atrocious and unconstitutional enactments, when they got power, have marked them as better fitted for the criminal's box than the witness stand. Against all these mere statements, I oppose and offer to the Senate the highest evidence known to our laws, of the popular will-that will as legally uttered through the ballot-box. I leave this branch of the subject-though not exhausted, my strength is nearly so-and invite your attention to a single remaining point in the argument of the honorable Senator. I deeply regretted to hear him say that he disapproved the repeal of the Missouri restriction; that the prohibition of slavery north of 36° 30' had the sanction of great and patriotic names, among whom he enumerates, as one preeminently entitled to the credit of that measure, the name of one of Kentucky's greatest, noblest sons, and one of the brightest ornaments of the Republic-the name of Henry Clay. I am quite sure that it must have escaped the recollection of my friend, that in 1850 that great statesman, in his place in this body, corrected that popular error, and expressed his surprise that so well established a fact should so quote, sir, from memory, but his speech is fully reported in the Globe. He then stated that he was not the author of that measure; that it originated in the Senate while he was a member of the House. It was proposed by Mr. Thomas, of Illinois, and he did not know that he ever voted for it; but be did not doubt his concurrence with his southern friends on that occasion; but that he had no agency whatever in originating or carrying it through either branch of Congress. These are substantially the facts; and this unjust, unequal, and unconstitutional legislation cannot lighten its sentence of condemnation by the authority of that illustrious statesman. In 1850, after thirty years' trial, he condemned and repudiated it, and placed the legislation of the country on the very basis that the Kansas act maintains and upholds. The first allegation is, that the original Legislature was elected by fraud and force. This I have already disposed of; and besides, if it were true, these events happened nearly three years before this constitution was made; and the convention that made it was not even called by this Legislature. Secondly, he avers that there were great and flagrant frauds perpetrated at Oxford, in Johnson county, at the election in October last. These were transactions affecting the present Ter-long have been misunderstood by the public. I ritorial Legislature, and were perpetrated, if at all, before the Lecompton constitution was either made or promulgated, and had no legal or other connection with that instrument. Thirdly, that there were frauds on the 4th of January, in the elections for State officers. These transactions were after the constitution was ratified and proclaimed, and could therefore no more affect its validity than frauds in Kentucky at a State election could invalidate their constitution, and are probably cognizable before another tribunal, and not by this body or the Territorial Legislature. Does it need argument to repel these unfounded charges against this constitution? If there be solid objections against this constitution, they will be equally good against any constitution that ever shall be made by the people of Kansas. If it be a ground of exclusion now, it will be a perpetual ground of exclusion; and if they are solid objections, truly founded on fraud, how can the Senator remove or cure them by a resubmission of the instrument to the people? The taint of fraud, if it truly exists, cannot be thus washed out. My friend cannot stand on these grounds; they are unfounded and untenable, and must fall before the public judgment, and his own calmer consideration of the question. None of these allegations affect the vote of the people to call the convention that made the constitution. None of them affect the validity or legality of the second Legislature which authorized the convention. None of them the vote by which the pro-slavery clause was adopted. All these are legal, valid,untainted acts, and stamps the character of this Lecompton constitution, and rescues it from these unfounded assertions. I know the honorable Senator has been deceived by the statements of persons who have objects far different from his own. They care nothing for these alleged frauds. With him they are reasons for his conduct; with them they are but pretexts,|| fraudulent pretenses, to cover up their hostility to the original Kansas act, that great measure of constitutional right. As further evidence of the fact that this constitution does embody the will of the people, I am referred to Governor Walker and ex-Secretary Stanton, and the present Legislature of Kansas. These gentlemen are willing but competent witnesses, standing upon no better footing than ordinary men, and they are indebted to my courtesy for refraining from further criticism of their conduct in Kansas. They state their opinion against the truth as uttered by the ballot-box; and this Le My honorable friend regrets its fall; regrets its just condemnation by Congress, the country, and the people. From the bottom of my heart I rejoice at it, and renew my gratitude to the Ruler of men and of nations that it has fallen: it was a delusion and a snare; it was the mother of slavery restriction in the Territories, of discord, of strife, of injustice, of wrong. Let it perish forever. I do not now wonder that I should differ with my friend on this question; it is the legitimate result of the overthrow of the Missouri restriction. What was the effect of this repeal upon his constituents and mine? what upon all the people of every section of the Union? It simply restored our common property to the equal common enjoyment of its joint owners. We asked no advantage, and sought none, over any portion of the Union. We demanded that all the people of all the States should not be forbidden by an act of Congress to enter the common domain with their families and property of every sort, but should be protected by our common Government in the peaceable enjoyment of their rights, until the new Territory should be strong enough to take upon herself the duties and burdens and rights of a sovereign State, and then that she might adopt such domestic institutions as she might prescribe in her constitution. We restored to the Kentuckian, in common with all of his brethren of the Union, the long-lost right to carry his slave, on these terms, into all the Territories of the Union. This edict of exclusion was overthrown, and his countrymen and mine were thereby restored to their just rights in the Territories. This is her right, sir; is Kentucky prepared to surrender it? No, sir, never, never! I know her story; it is one 35TH CONG....1ST SESS. Kansas-Lecompton Constitution-Mr. Crittenden. of which she may be justly proud. I know the valor, the prowess, the intrepidity, and the lofty patriotism of her sons. I know, too, that, like my friend's, her devotion to the Union is deep and abiding. I have sometimes feared that her danger was that she might "love, not wisely, but too well;" that her worship of it bordered on idolatry. Yet for all this, she will maintain her just and equal rights in the Confederacy; and if these shackles are again put upon her stalwart limbs; if she is deprived of these rights restored to her by the repeal of the Missouri restriction; if she shall be degraded from her high position of equality in this Union, no State will feel more keenly, or resist more firmly this great wrong, than Kentucky. Nor will the anguish of her great heart be lessened by the consciousness that the fatal blow is struck by one of her own beloved and cherished sons. "Keen [will be] pangs, but keener far to feel, She nursed the passion which impelled the steel." Mr. President, there is another test of the nationality of this policy, to which I would, for a few moments, invite your attention. Not alone in the South, whose interests are mainly and more immediately affected by it, but throughout the non-slaveholding States, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, its supporters are to be found, men who, rising superior to local and sectional prejudices and passions and influences, brave, dare all for the public weal. At the head of this noble column of patriots stands the President of the Republic. Having reached, by the voice of his countrymen, the loftiest pinnacle of honorable ambition, at once the reward and testimonial of a long, able, brilliant, and patriotic career in the service of his country, surely none can doubt the disinterestedness of his counsels, or the purity of his motives. His sands of life have nearly run out. At home and abroad, in the Cabinet and in the Senate, he has won unfading laurels for himself and shed luster over the annals of his country. His political record is made up; it is submitted to the future, to time, and to truth; full of years and of honors he can now only seek to make a record that shall stand the scrutiny of the Judge of all the earth. Looking at this question at his lofty eminence, above the clouds and passions which obscure the mental vision of the active combatants, he supports this great policy which I have reviewed, and decides this measure to be wise, just, and necessary to the peace of the Republic. By his side stands another venerable patriot from the same section of the Union, who has passed the ordinary period of life allotted to man; one whose life has been patriotically devoted to the service of the country, to the practice of virtue, and the pursuit of truth. He, too, gave his voice and his vote against the Missouri restriction, and gives his support to the measure before us. Connecticut and Pennsylvania supply two other able, upright, and distinguished sons in the Cabinet to enlarge this patriot band and to vindicate these measures. Many of the truest, firmest, and most able defenders of this policy are to be found on this floor and in the other House, among the representatives of the northern Democracy. Shoulder to shoulder with ourselves have these noble patriots struggled through long years against the rage and fanaticism of the common enemies of equality in the Territories and the independence of the States. From the beginning of this conflict, with unswerving devotion to their convictions, to the right, they have struggled on, defying prejudice, passion, and the torrents of defamation with which they have been assailed. A large majority of the northern Democracy in Congress voted to strike this restriction from the statute-book, and thus restore the rights of their southern brethren. Their enemies tauntingly point out to them daily the wrecks and ruins of the political hopes of their comrades, who have fallen in this great constitutional battle. Every wave of this fanaticism, to arrest which they have thrown themselves with such heroic and patriotic virtue into the breach, sweeps away some of them. Others will share the same fate; yet the noble remnant are undismayed. Standing for the right, upholding the Constitution, they present a spectacle of moral sublimity which challenges the admiration of friend and foe, and has no parallel in ancient or modern times. This is true heroism. It deserves a monument more durable than brass. While some of their comrades have fallen honorably in the contest, others less fortunate have deserted and swelled the advancing hosts of the enemy, and left the lessened band to bear the brunt of this great contest. Their intrepidity, their courage, their patriotic devotion to their principles have risen with the occasion. Every increase of danger has been met with a sturdier, a more defiant courage. They have thrown their banner on the outer walls; and, neither chagrined by treachery, nor disheartened by desertion, nor overawed by numbers, they display a magnanimity and courage as great as the occasion, as prolonged as the conflict. All honor to this noble band of patriots! Mr. CRITTENDEN. I propose to occupy a few moments to correct a mistake which I believe is rendered necessary by the remarks of my friend from Georgia. I have listened to him with great pleasure, and have cause to thank him for much that he has said. I knew, sir, that Mr. Clay was not the author of the Missouri compromise; I knew that he did not draw the bill; but I knew, from his own declarations in conversation and in his speeches, that he did approve and concur in the passage of the bill. He gave it his sanction. He thought there was nothing unconstitutional in it. I have been brought up in the opinion that it was not only constitutional, but one of the most beneficial acts that had ever been passed by the Congress of the United States; that it had produced more of good than all the tariff laws or all the revenue laws that had ever been passed. It produced you, sir, a revenue of peace and good will among the people of the United States, and that is above all tariffs. Whatever other sanctions it may have failed in the names of the great men who supported it at that date, it has received abundantly from the people of the United States for the thirty-odd years it remained upon the statute-book, and for that number of years, in respect to the territory which it embraced, it gave us peace. It was for that I valued it, and for nothing else. This opinion was adopted by me more than thirty years ago, perhaps without much examination; it had grown up as a fixed fact in my mind that that compromise formed one of the most beneficial acts of legislation that it was ever the good fortune of this Congress to pass. I have often, falling for a time into that common error to which the gentleman has alluded, and ascribing it to Mr. Clay, as its great author, rather than to any mere actual manual part he had in the work, extolled him for it; and, as I said yesterday, it was one of the claims in the opinions of the people which entitled him to the noble denomination of pacificator of his country. Sir, I have not been able to cast away that impression. I admit the Supreme Court to be the great arbiter, as the gentleman claims; and while I differ from it, I do not the less admit its constitutional and sovereign power in all the matters that come within its jurisdiction, and the chances are that any one is in the wrong who differs with it. I admit all that; but yet there are some things we cannot yield up. Our own convictions we cannot yield. We may obey, and yet disbelieve. I entertain the opinion now, that Í have entertained for forty years-I am sorry to give so long a date to it. Since the passage of the Missouri compromise act, (not quite forty years ago,) I have always thought it was a constitutional and beneficial one. But I acknowledge the duty of obedience and submission to the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States. I acknowledge that its decision, within the province the Constitution has assigned to it, is just as conclusive as your decision and mine within the limits to which we are confined. My friend has said that I seem disposed to give no confidence whatever to the action of any of the Territorial Legislatures of Kansas, until they fell into the hands of the Black Republicans. Certainly he cannot suppose that that furnishes any ground of particular favor or attachment in my mind. I considered it merely as the Legislature of the Territory, the actual Legislature. How its members may be divided in politics I do not know, nor do I care; nor was it at all material for my purpose. It is enough for me that it is the Legislature of the Territory, and that it appointed a vote SENATE. to be taken upon this constitution on the 4th of January. The vote was taken, and the result was as reported to us. I have heard nothing to impeach that vote, nor any single fact alleged against it. The result of it was a majority of ten, thousand against the constitution. Certainly, those ten thousand have, at least, as good a right to be claimed against it, as the six thousand returned as having voted on the 21st of December have to be counted in favor of it. That was my object. It was to show that there was a majority against this instrument; and, assuming all this action to be equally legitimate, the members of the convention had no more right to order a vote to be taken by the people on any part of the constitution, it seems to me, than the Territorial Legislature had to order an election to be taken on the whole constitution. Both proceeded from organized, recognized bodies, one the Legislature, the other the convention. When, therefore, the common ap peal is made to us and the constitution is brought before us, it seems to me that we ought equally to take into consideration both these facts. Furthermore, I adverted to the evidence going to show that, from the six thousand in favor of the constitution, there were many spurious and fraudulent vates to be deducted. Mr. President, I acknowledge that forms are not only useful, but in many cases necessary. I agree that if, at an election, two thirds of the people stay away from mere apathy or negligence, the votes of those who do act and do vote must be effectual and must control. I agree, also, that the return is a necessary form, and that the revision of that return is subject only to the particular authority appointed for it, and when that is done there is an end of the case, there being no further tribunal to whom we can appeal; but I supposed and argued that, when this constitution was presented before us, the supreme power, now called upon to recognize the validity of these acts, called upon to recognize what was the wid of the people in respect to them, we have a right to look to all the evidence, as well to that which is furnished in form, as to that which impeaches the formal papers on the ground of fraud. I have spoken on these conclusions, and I shall act on them in voting against the acceptance of this Lecompton constitution. My friend, I have no doubt in perfect sincerity, regrets that my conclusions have forced me to this course; but I have followed my conclusions, and I mean to do my duty as I understand it. Mr. President, I am not wanting, I think, in those feelings of our nature which connect us with our neighbors. Although we have a common cou try to look to, and ought to have a common patriotism which would embrace the whole, our natural affections and our natural feelings bind us with those with whom we are more immediately associ ated; to whom we are more nearly assimilated in manners, customs, and institutions-ay, peculiar institutions. I am not wanting in these sympathies; but what is my duty, as one belonging to a partic ular section, by his nativity and by his residence -what is my duty when a great question of this sort comes up? What is my duty to those neigh bors to whom, by natural sympathies and affec tions, I am most bound? Is it not my duty, in this House of our common councils, to give the best counsel and advice I can; or am I to inquire whether this is to be regarded as a sectional question, and follow whatever course is indicated by a majority of its sectional members? Is it not rather my duty to my friends to give them the best counsel I can? I want to see the South, for instance-to apply this matter to her-always right. How am I to accomplish that? By advising always what my best judgment thinks is right, and by endeavoring to prevail upon her to take that course. Is not that my duty? Is not that my duty to my common country? and more especially is it not my duty to those with whom circumstances more nearly connect me? I have done that. I should have been gratified if the South had taken the same view of this subject that I have. I am sure she would have lost nothing by it. The question of slavery is not in the case. I think there is not one gentleman here who entertains the hope that Kansas can ever be really a slave State. If it be, it must only be for a little moment-a little, feverish moment-filled up with strife and angry controversy. No gentleman here believes it will really and permanently be a slave State. There is nothing, then, to be gained by the South, as I regard the subject. The element of slavery is only thrown in for the purpose of arousing feeling on the one side or the other. It is no real element in the question before us, because no man has any hope that Kansas will be a slave State. We learn that from every source. The hope of it was disclaimed before the Kansas-Nebraska bill was passed; that view is now turned into conviction by all that has occurred since; and there is nobody who deceives himself so much, or would deceive the South so much, as to tell her that Kansas will be made a slave State by the adoption of this constitution, except, it may be, for that miserable and feverish period to which I have alluded, and which would be filled up in a strug-in no pride, in no feeling of affectation, in no feelgle that could serve only to exasperate parties, and make the contest there more fierce than it has been. enlisted under nobody. I am here the Senator of the State of Kentucky. I came here with the purpose, not of acting the character of a party man, or a partisan. I thought I had grown old enough to rid myself of the misconceptions and the prejudices that belong to the partisan; and my pride and ambition, when taking my seat here, were that I should now be able to act rather the part of the patriot than the partisan. I am a true son of the South, and I am a true citizen of the United States, one and all, inseparable and indivisible, now and forever. That is what I am. But whatever fate may betide this or that measure as to the South, no man wishes her better. May the sun shine forever upon her head, and prosperity fill all her borders. The duty which I owe to her, and to my common country, I intend to perform If the South could have taken the view of the case which I have taken, it seems to me it would have been better for her. Then she would say, "the South scorns to take advantage of the little circumstances that might enable her to press her claims upon a reluctaut and unwilling peoplepress the claim to impose slavery against their will; we snatch at no such accidental advantages; we see that the question is determined partly by climate, and more certainly and decisively by the majority of the people; the determination has been against slavery; we stand up in our justice, and in our honor always untarnished, and constituting our great strength as Commonwealths and States; and we say we will make no strife about it." If this element of slavery could be discharged out of the case, put out of our minds, put out of our debates, and we could look at this question singly, with an eye to the fairness of the instrument before us, and to the evidence which leads to the issue whether it is or is not the will of the people, I think there is none here who would be willing to give his sanction even for a moment to an instrument the existence of which, in respect to its fairness, was at all questioned. Why need we of the South be impatient and anxious to hasten the admission of Kansas into the Union? Whatever constitution you put upon them now will not last; but you will have two Senators immediately from there. Should the South be in a hurry to have two more such Senators here as you would now get from there? But these are small matters. If the South could view this subject as I do, if they could have looked at this constitution, and the circumstances from which it had its origin, and those which attend it, as I do, they would have acted the very part which I have indicated; they would take no ignoble advantage; they would occupy no-ignoble position of standing upon little points and nice estoppels. No, sir, the South would say-it is in her character, in her spirit, to say so-we go upon great principles, and we go for the truth. Occupying that position, the South would have stood where I have been proud so often to look upon her, and regard her as standing. Sir, gentlemen of the South who differ with me, misunderstand me very much if they suppose that it is my purpose by these remarks, in any degree or in any way to impugn the integrity of feeling and motive by which they are now actuated. They view this question differently from me, and their course is made to conform to their convictions. I have performed my duty as one of the Senators belonging to the same section; I have given my opinion and my advice, and whether that advice be regarded or disregarded, I cannot be accountable for the result. I have given you the reasons why I have taken the course which I have indicated. Whatever course others choose to take, I hope it may turn out contrary to any antiipation of mine, to be most beneficial and most advantageous to the great interests of the people of The United States. I lament, only, that the course which I have indicated, and which I am pursuing, s not that which a different view of this subject would have led every Senator from the southern States of this Union to pursue. I think it would be the proudest and the noblest position for the South to occupy. She has no truer or more faithFul son than I am. I can desert nobody, for I am ing of superiority of judgment-God forbid-but simply because I believe it to be my duty to the South and my duty to the whole country and to my own integrity and my own convictions. Mr. BELL. Mr. President, it is my misfortune to be obliged to address the Senate at this late hour of the day, upon a subject of so much importance, or not at all. After the speech of the honorable Senator from Georgia, [Mr. TooмBS,] | I shall be compelled to trespass longer upon the indulgence of the Senate than I had hoped would be necessary. He has made issues, he has stated facts, he has promulgated_doctrines and arguments from his seat in the Senate to-day, which no man can pass unnoticed who takes the views I do of this question. He says, in substance, that it is a question of union or disunion; it is no sectional question, but one which concerns the whole country-the North as well as the South. He has proclaimed to the Senate that he has estimated the value of the Union, and that, upon a proper occasion, he is ready to state that value. With him it is a myth, a false idol; and he fears that the State of Kentucky, which my honorable and eloquent friend [Mr. CRITTENDEN] So well represents, has worshiped and loved, not wisely but too well. He has brought the question to a point-an issue which it becomes us all to ponder. I have been fearful that there were such calculations as he has suggested, founded on the possible result of this question; but I had before no evidence of it. It was only a vague dread, an impression resting on my mind; but now we must meet it as an admitted fact. It is now placed before us openly, boldly, directly; and therefore I feel called upon to notice it in every aspect to which he has pointed. I do not mean to go into an estimate of the value of the Union, nor of the consequences which would flow from its destruction; but I mean to go into an investigation of the question before the Senate-the proposition to admit Kansas into the Union under the Lecompton constitution-to show that the rejection of this measure would not be a fit pretext to be adopted by the South for the purpose of leading to that final issue to which the Senator from Georgia has alluded. It concerns not only the Senate, but the whole country, to look at this question in a different light from that in which the honorable Senator from Georgia has presented it. I am tempted by these considerations to depart from any regular course of argument, such as I had prescribed for myself, in order to notice at the outset some of his most unfounded statements in regard to the true facts of the case. I do not mean any personal disrespect to the honorable Senator; I do not mean to say that he has willfully presented a false view of the case; but many of his statements of fact are wholly unfounded. I propose to go back to the original organization of the territorial government in Kansas-a part of the history of the Territory which I had intended to pass over, with a summary statement only of such facts-undisputed facts-as might be found chronicled in the public journals, without going into any minute investigation of them; but I now feel compelled to look more carefully into all the details of the subject, by the exigencies and importance of the question, by the demands which I consider the country has on every man having a seat here, to be well informed upon every material point connected with the subject. Like the honorable Senator from Kentucky, I do SENATE. not mean to refer to the organization of the territorial government in Kansas for the purpose of justifying the party who have opposed that government, for I mean to become the partisan of neither side of this controversy. I have considered from the very origin of these difficulties--the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska act-that there has been more of party interest and necessity than of any possible good to the country connected with this whole movement; and when I say this, I do not mean to impugn the motives of the honorable Senators who disclaim any such party interests: They may be unconscious of them. I therefore give them credit for their disclaimer. I shall not at this time enter into a full statement of the facts connected with the election of members to the first Territorial Legislature, which took place in 1855, or with the armed intrusion of the people of the western borders of Missouri into Kansas, at that election. The Senator from Georgia says that the statements which have been made on this subject are entitled to no credit. He ridicules them so far as they are made on the authority of individuals engaged in that invasion, as it has been called, as the idle boasts of vainglorious individuals. I admit that, as a general rule, little credit is to be attached to such statements; but I will lay before the Senate some facts that are founded upon that sort of record which the honorable Senator says will last as long as society lasts. I shall refer to authentic, well-confirmed facts, proved at the time of their occurrence by cotemporary evidence-testimony taken by men of credit and good character. I refer, in this particular case, to the investigations of members of Congress, and of both sides in politics, commissioned and authorized to investigate. Now, what are the most material and prominent facts connected with the election in 1855? I may possibly go into a fuller statement of the circumstances of that election before I close my remarks. A census was taken under a provision of the organic law of Kansas one month before that election, and the returns showed that there were twenty-nine hundred and three qualified voters then in the Territory of Kansas. The election came on, and six thousand three hundred and seven votes were polled, as appeared from the poll-books. Of the twenty-nine hundred and three returned on the census list, only eight hundred and ninety-eight voted. Where were the remainder of the twenty-nine hundred and odd reported in the census returns? As the honorable Senator from Kentucky has spoken of interviews he has had with gentlemen connected with this transaction, I will tell what I have learned from similar sources. I understand that the census returns were, in part, made out in the border counties of Missouri; and it appears from an examination of the poll-books, that two thousand persons, and upwards, whose names were on the census lists did not vote in the election. We cannot draw any certain inference whether the two thousand who did not vote were freeState men who were driven from the polls, or how otherwise. I only state the simple fact, that but about nine hundred of them voted. The argument on the other side is, that of the twenty-nine hundred persons whose names were on the census returns, seventeen hundred were emigrants from the southern States, and but twelve hundred from the free States. We do not know what proportion of the nine hundred who voted were free-State men from the northern States, or what portion came from the southern States; nor is it material to decide that question, for only about one third of the whole voted. The honorable Senator has spoken of intrinsic evidence; he has appealed to what he considers the monumental record that is to last as long as society lasts. I appeal to it, too. Mr. TOOMBS. Do I understand my friend to say that of the twenty-nine hundred voters recorded on the census only nine hundred voted? Mr. BELL. Yes, sir. Mr. TOOMBS. I assure my friend he is mistaken, for my friend from Vermont [Mr. COLLAMER] said in his report that six thousand voted. His complaint was that they doubled. Mr. BELL. I see that my friend from Georgia does not understand the question at all, and I was utterly astonished when I heard him in his 35TH CONG.... 1ST SESS. statement passing over or denying the principal facts of the case. Mr. COLLAMER. Will my friend from Tennessee allow me to say a word? Mr. BELL. It is needless; I know the facts; but I will allow the Senator from Vermont to say a word, as he was alluded to by the Senator from Georgia. Mr. COLLAMER. The names of the six thousand who voted are all on the roll; and when you count those names, there are but eight hundred of them who are on the census list. Mr. TOOMBS. I do not understand that. Mr. TOOMBS. They have been examined by a friend of mine. Mr. BELL. Is it not a fact that only about nine hundred of those whose names were on the census list voted? Mr. TOOMBS. I think that is a mistake. Mr. BELL. I can refer to the evidence. Mr. TOOMBS. What evidence? Mr. BELL. To the report of the names that were polled, compared with those on the census list. Mr. TOOMBS. That, I think, you will find not to be a record. That is the difficulty. Mr. BELL. But it shows the returns of the election, and is evidence. Mr. TOOMBS. There is no such record in the world. Let me explain to my friend what I mean. The census that was taken was a record. As for all these accounts, by which it is made to appear that only eight hundred of those who were on the census list voted, they do not appear by any lawful authority-by any record. Has any person, on whom the Senator from Tennessee relies, ascertained the fact? Mr. BELL. Yes, sir. Mr. TOOMBS. It was never ascertained by any authority. Mr. BELL. The committee of investigation of the House of Representatives ascertained it. Mr. TOOMBS. I do not consider their report a record; but perhaps I do not understand what a record is. Mr. BELL. Perhaps I do not know what a record is. I refer to all the record that could exist in such a case, and I say that this fact is stated on sworn evidence. Will that pass for evidence? It was testimony taken by authority of the House of Representatives, by members of both political parties. Mr. TOOMBS. If it is evidence in itself, it is evidence for the purpose-not otherwise. Kansas-Lecompton Constitution-Mr. Bell. that election not found on the census returns. The But, sir, I am anticipating my argument. I The honorable Senator from Georgia has furnished me, in the course of his argument, with some points for consideration for which I thank him. He tells us in substance, and plainly enough, that it is victory which is now to be contended for. This measure must be carried, now that an issue is made up on it. He has pronounced high and overwrought eulogies on the course of the distinguished gentlemen now at the head of affairs in relation to this question. I shall attempt to show how far, and with what justice, they are entitled to the eloquent eulogium of the honorable Senator from Georgia; and this I shall not do with a view of manifesting any personal disrespect to those high functionaries. do not seek, in anything I shall say now or at any time, to detract from the high personal character of those distinguished gentlemen. I am not sure, however, that they have been the bold and undaunted men that they ought to be in the positions which they occupy, at such a time as this, in such a crisis as this, and upon such a question as the present. I fear that they have cowered and quailed before such bold men as the Senator from Georgia, and others who concur with him as to the policy which ought to be pursued in relation to Kansas affairs. The Senator from Georgia, throughout his speech, seemed to be resolved upon victory, in carrying out all his plans connected with Kansas affairs, whatever consequences may follow; and I am afraid that the President and his Cabinet may have been constrained to espouse this measure under the positive and imperious requisition of such gentlemen as the Senator from Georgia. Mr. BELL. The clerk of the committee of investigation compared the names on the census rolls with those on the election return lists or pollbooks, and of the twenty-nine hundred returned on the census rolls in February, 1855, he could I intend, if I have time, to review the Kansasfind only eight hundred and ninety-eight names Nebraska act, and its consequences, respectfully recorded on the poll-books or list of voters re- towards the authors of it personally, that the turned in March. Now, the question is, where country may learn a lesson from it. I shall not did the other five thousand and odd votes that undertake to teach the Senate to what extremes were polled on the 30th of March, 1855, come the passions of men may lead them when they from? From over the borders, of course, or made once get fully committed to a violent controversy up by forged returns. These are facts, as well on such questions. It was the passion for victory authenticated as facts of the kind could be--not that carried the Kansas-Nebraska bill through in ancient times, not in the dark ages, but in the Congress, under circumstances more extraordipresent day of light. These facts were ascertained nary than ever attended the passage of any measunder the supervision of a joint commission of ure, so important in its consequences, through any partisans on both sides of the question. I do not legislative body, except, perhaps, in the times of desire, however, to pursue this inquiry now, for revolutionary France. I do not mean to say the I mean to resume it at another time. I will merely gentlemen were actuated by bad principles, or missay here, that at this election, by these means, chievous purposes; but Senators and Representevery member of the Council and House of Rep-atives seemed to me to have been so inflamed and resentatives elected, except one, was of the proslavery party. Governor Reeder set aside the election certificates in several cases, on the ground of irregularity or fraud, and new elections were ordered; but in those cases where free-State men were returned elected, the Legislature rejected their claims to sit as members, and admitted those who had been set aside by the Governor. The pro-slavery party thus secured the whole Legisature, except one member, as I understand the history of the case. Mr. TOOMBS. That is true. Mr. BELL. The honorable Senator admits that to be true. It was all a one-sided affair, and made so by the five thousand and odd voters in exasperated by the fierce collisions of sentiment SENATE. this measure will be regarded as a decision that no more slave States are to be admitted into the Union, and the consequences which may follow such a decision are pointed to in no equivocal language. There is no gentleman here with whom I differ as to the value of the Union of these States, to whom I do not accord honesty and patriotism of purpose. There is simply between us a difference in judgment as to the true interest of this great country; the true interest of the South as well as of the North, connected with the Union. When my attention is invited to the consideration of the advantages and blessings that may follow disunion to the South, I shun the subject as one that is speculative only, and prematurely brought forward. That is a field of inquiry into which I do not propose now to enter. When an issue is made; when a question does arise demanding such an inquiry as that, I shall be ready to enter upon it, and to estimate the value of the Union; but I will not anticipate the occurrence of any such contingency. When the North shall, by any deliberate act, deprive the South of any fair and just and equal participation in the benefits of the Unionif, for example, the Territory now proposed to be admitted into the Union as a State had not been subject to an interdict of slavery for thirty years pow if it were a Territory such as that lying west of Arkansas, by climate adapted to slave labor, and by population already a slave Territory; and if, on an application of such a Territory for admission into the Union as a slave State, the erful North, without any of the feelings and resentments naturally growing out of the repeal of the Missouri compromise in regard to Kansas, should deliberately announce to the South, "yon shall have no more slave States," that would af ford a pretext with which the South might with some reason, and with some assurance of the approval of the civilized world and of posterity, seek to dissolve the Union. I know that it is supposed by some that the day will come when the North, in the arrogance of its power, will furnish just such a pretext as I have indicated; and the Senator from Georgia and others have argued this question on the ground that it will come; but I must see it come before I will calculate the value of this Union. I trust that day will never come. I do not believe it will come if the South is wise and true to itself. I would not have the South truckle or surrender any of their rights. I would not have them yield one jot or tittle of their rights; but I would have them make no questionable issues in advance, stir up no strife upon unnecessary abstract questions, having no practical value; but to do always what is just and right upon all questions. When a people or a Territory applies for admission into the Union under a constitution fairly formed, with the assent of the people excluding slavery, I would admit it promptly; and when an application comes, on the other hand, from the people of a Territory who have fairly formed a constitution recognizing slavery, I would insist upon its admission as a slave State. If the North should not agree to this, it would then be time enough to consider of the proper remedy. But! would make no such issue with the North now, and before any occasion for it has arisen; and I regret most sincerely to hear any Senator from the North suggesting that such an issue will ever be tendered from that quarter. I have been led to make these remarks altogether out of the course of argument I had intended to pursue, by reason of the unexpected speech of the Senator from Georgia on this question; his extraordinary statements and avowals, both as to doctrine and matters of fact. I have felt it necessary, at the outset of my remarks, to meet some of them. Now, Mr. President, unless this is to be the inauguration of a sort of saturnalia of principle; unless, from this time forth, there is nothing to be considered as established or permanent in this country; unless all the old landmarks are to be removed; unless the waters are to be let out, and all the highways are to be broken up, it would be an easy matter-the most easy task in the world -to demonstrate that, according to all sound principles, there is at this time no application before Congress, with the assent of the people of Kansas, for admission into the Union as a State. I |