35TH CONG....1ST SESS. do not know whether other Senators have thought of the question in that aspect or not. Kansas-Lecompton Constitution-Mr. Bell. or by delegates, and to form a constitution; and when so formed, that, in virtue of the same powers of sovereignty over the subject, they can alter or change it, or form a new constitution, at any time before Congress shall have admitted them into the Union as a State, under the constitution as first formed and adopted in convention. What is the true doctrine on this subject? I had supposed that there could be no disagreement as to the true principles connected with the rights and powers of the people in forming a State constitution; but since I have heard the speech of the Senator from Georgia, I do.not know what prin- I know that the honorable Senator's argument ciple he agrees to. I say that in no disrespect; upon this point was so mixed up with qualificabut I thought he was particularly wild, shooting tions-such as that this act of sovereignty must extra flammantia mania mundi, on those high points be exercised in regular form-that I cannot assert of doctrine which he, in some parts of his speech, that he has admitted the principle I have laid thought proper to enunciate. Does any person down; but others have. All agree that no constituhere deny the proposition, that the people of a tion formed by the people of a Territory, whether Territory, in the formation of a State constitu- formed in one way or another, has any validity tion, are to that extent-quoad hoc-sovereign and or binding force, until the admission of the Teruncontrollable, though still owing obedience to ritory into the Union as a State under it. Then, the provisional government of the Territory? according to the admitted principle that the people | Will any Senator contend that the Territorial Le-of a Territory have a right to form a State constigislature can either give to the people any power over that subject which they did not possess before, or withhold from them any which they did possess? The Territorial Legislature cannot dictate any one provision of the constitution which the people think proper to form. Who is prepared to contend that Congress can do anything more in this respect than a Territorial Legislature? It is usual for the Territorial Legislature, when the people desire to apply for admission into the Union, in the absence of an enabling act of Congress, to pass a law providing for the assembling of a convention to form a State constitution. But that is a mere usage, resorted to when Congress has not thought proper to pass what is called an enabling act. What is an enabling act? Nothing more than to signify to the people of a Territory that if they shall think proper to meet in convention and form a State constitution, in compliance with certain forms therein prescribed, to insure a fair expression of the people's will, Congress is prepared to admit them into the Union as a State. But such an act gives no more power to the people over the subject of a constitution than an act of a Territorial Legislature. But suppose the people, either under an act of the Territorial Legislature or of Congress, meet in convention, by delegates chosen by the people, and form a constitution: what then? Has it any vitality as a constitution? Does it transform the Territory into a State? Has it any binding force or effect either upon individuals or upon the community? Nobody pretends that it has any such force. It is only after the acceptance of the constitution, and the admission of the Territory into the Union as a State, that there is any vigor or validity in a constitution so formed. Before that time, it is worth no more than the parchment on which its provisions are written, so far as any legal or constitutional validity is concerned But, upon principle, the people of a Territory, without any act of the Territorial Legislature, without an enabling act of Congress, can hold public meetings and elect delegates to meet in convention for the purpose of forming a constitution; and, when formed, it has all the essential attributes of a valid constitution as one formed in any other way. Many Senators contend that it is the inalienable and indefeasible right of the people of a State at all times to change their constitution in any manner they think proper. This doctrine I do not admit, in regard to the people of a State; but, in reference to the formation of a constitution by the people of a Territory, there can be no question as to the soundness of this doctrine. They can form a constitution by delegates voluntarily chosen and sent to a convention, but what is it worth when it is formed? Nothing at all, until Congress shall accept it and admit the Territory into the Union as a State under that constitution. It is worth no more in that case than in the casc of a constitution formed under a territorial act, or an act of Congress; but it is worth just as much. The honorable Senator from Georgia says that he special message of the President on this subject will stand as a lasting monument of his pariotism, boldness, and adherence to the high priniples of constitutional justice and right. I say hat, according to the doctrine of that message, he people of a Territory have the right at any ime to meet voluntarily in convention, in mass tution, with or without an enabling act of Congress, or with or without any act of the Territorial Legislature, where is the limitation or restriction upon the power of the people of Kansas to change or wholly set aside any constitution formed by them, at any time before Congress shall have accepted it? Gentlemen say that the Lecompton constitution was regularly and fairly formed, under the provisions of an act of the Territorial Legislature. Let all this be admitted to be true, as stated. What follows? Have the people lost all power over the constitution so formed, before it is accepted by Congress? Suppose the people of Kansas should become dissatisfied with the constitution they first agreed upon, and should desire to change some of the features of it, or to frame a new one, before the one first formed has been presented to Congress; or, if presented, before any action has taken place in regard to it; could not the people, either before the presentation, or between the presentation to and the acceptance by Congress, through the same regular forms in which the constitution was originally formedthat is to say, under an act of the Territorial Legislature-decide to set aside or reject the constitution which had been previously formed, and proceed to form a new one? I should like any honorable Senator to state why they have not ample and complete power over the whole subject until the last moment before the admission of the Territory into the Union as a State; and this upon every principle of sound doctrine and constitutional law known to this country? Certainly they have. Now, take the case of the Lecompton constitution. Admit that it was regularly formed, as gentlemen contend, and that it will not do to look into any frauds nor any contrivances that may have been resorted to in its formation; suppose it to have been formed with all the regularity and fairness that they insist it has; have the people, in that case, so tied up their hands, have they so fettered their inalienable right and power over the subject of their form of government, that they cannot alter, reform, or abolish it; that it must stand as it was originally formed, until Congress shall have passed upon it, accepting or rejecting it? The idea of the President is, that when a Territory is once prepared for admission into the Union by the formation of a State constitution, the Territorial Legislature has no power over it. That is not the question. The question is, have the people of the Territory the power over this constitution, and have they exercised it? The Legislature elected in October did proceed to provide for taking the sense of the people in regard to this constitution with the same regularity, and at least as unquestionable in regard to fairness as the original election of delegates to the convention which formed the Lecompton constitution; and the people have decided, by an overwhelming majority, against that constitution. SENATE. justify us in disregarding the manifest will of the people of Kansas, and taking this instrument presented to us by the President as the legitimate exponent of the sense of the people of that Territory, and admit it into the Union as a State. But unless such a case of overruling necessity can be made out, I maintain that it is enough to say, in opposition to this measure, that there is no application made to us by the people of Kansas for admission into the Union under this constitution. Having disposed of this point, as the Senate has already determined that it will take a recess until seven o'clock, I request that, as but a minute intervenes between this and the appointed time for taking the recess, they will do me the favor to take it now. On motion, the Senate took a recess until seven 'clock. EVENING SESSION. The Senate reassembled at seven o'clock, p.m., and resumed, as in Committee of the Whole, the consideration of the bill (S. No. 161) for the admission of the State of Kansas into the Union. Mr. BELL. I regret that the speech of the honorable Senator from Georgia was of such a character and tenor as necessarily compels me to go more into detail on this subject than I had supposed would be proper after the very full investigation and discussion which have already taken place on most of the material points connected with it. Unless this bill, when it is put to the test of a final vote, shall assume some different shape, I shall be compelled to cast my vote against it; and after what has been said by the Senator from Georgia, I feel it necessary to make a record of the facts of this case, as I understand them—not such a record as I can hope will stand as long as society lasts, in the language of that Senator; but such as I think will stand the scrutiny not only of the present but of future time. I need say but little in regard to my position in relation to this subject, now or heretofore. I will say, that I may claim to be impartial between the parties that divide upon it. I owe no allegiance to either of them, nor am I swayed by any pride of consistency which some may feel, leading them to support all the measures that may be regarded as part and parcel of the original movement of the repeal of the Missouri compromise. The honorable Senator from Georgia treated this question as directly connected with the Kansas-Nebraska act of 1854. The contest at this time he regards as involving a principle and policy embraced in that act. I did not believe, after examining that measure maturely and looking at it in all its asspects, that it would ever bring any solid benefit to the South. I never impugned the motives of honorable gentlemen who took a different view of the subject, but I did not believe that it would lead to the permanent establishment of any principle of any practical advantage to the South; but, on the other hand, that it would prove injurious to southern interests. I think so still. With regard to the present question, I lay down as the basis of my conclusion as to what ought to be done, that the solution of it which promises the speediest termination of this dangerous slavery agitation is the true one. This dangerous agitation has continued long enough. There has been no mitigation of it in the last four years. There have been intervals of apparent repose, but it was just such repose as foreboded increased disorder and commotion. It is time to terminate it. The question is, what is that solution which promises the speediest and most permanent remedy for these difficulties? Divine that to me, whoever can, and I will follow his lead. How shall we cut this Gordian knot of Kansas politics? Shall we cut it by the sword? Shall we I say, therefore, that when you come to exam- first subdue the rebellious faction said to exist in ine this question on every principle connected Kansas by arms, or shall we attempt to unravel with the inalienable rights of her people, an- this tangled skein by some more peaceful means? nounced by the President and his principal sup- The President assures us that the best, and I beporters here, there is really no application before lieve I am warranted in saying, from the language us for the admission of Kansas into the Union of his message, the only mode by which this danwith the assent of the people of that Territory.gerous slavery agitation can be quieted, and peace Nevertheless, there may be such a condition of public affairs as to override all established principles; but it must be a very strong case to do that. It may possibly be that a case exists which may be restored to the whole country, is to admit Kansas under the Lecompton constitution; or, at all events, that to adopt this course will localize agiz tation, and leave the country and the Halls of 35TH CONG....1ST SESS. Congress free from strife upon this exciting subject. The President, furthermore, appears, from the tenor of his message, to consider that Congress is under an obligation, binding it in good faith to admit Kansas under this constitution. He states this proposition in his message," that the organic law recognized the right of the people of the Territory, without an enabling act of Congress; to form a constitution, is too clear for argument. The assumption then is, that this is a constitution formed in pursuance of authority derived from the organic law of Kansas, enacted by Congress. He adds, that "it is impossible that the people could have proceeded with more regularity in the formation of a State constitution than the people of Kansas have done." Kansas-Lecompton Constitution-Mr. Bell. those laws. The Kansas organic law, after de- "The same is hereby erected into a temporary govern- Nebraska contain similar provisions, without the The organic laws of New Mexico, Utah, and variation of a word. I make no account of the other clause in the Kansas organic law, which provides that its true intent and meaning was, to leave the people to form their domestic institutions in their own way; because I agree with the Senator from Georgia, that that gives not one jot of power which was not given to the people of the Territories of Utah, New Mexico, and Nebraska by their organic laws. The authority given in those acts to the Territorial Legislatures extended" to all rightful subjects of legislation, subject to the Constitution of the United States." Why was the peculiar language I have adverted to employed in the Kansas organic act? The purpose it has answered we are all well advised of. We know that it answered fully and completely the design with which it was incorporated into the Kansas-Nebraska It served to conciliate the support of northern men. It would be a most mischievous doctrine, indeed, if it were true that the organic law of Kansas gave the people the power to form a State constitution when they pleased, without any act. In another passage of his message, he speaks of this constitution as having been "fairly submitted for the ratification of the people." Hence the conclusion, that to reject the application of Kansas to be admitted into the Union under these circumstances, would be a violation of plighted faith. It is also said that such rejection would be justly considered as an outrage upon southern rights and feelings, inasmuch as the only objection that can be taken to this constitution by those who would reject it is, that it recognizes slavery. That is the position assumed by the President and those who support his policy upon this subject, with this addition, that we have no right to go beyond what appears on the face of the constitution, and the official authentication of the public acts and proceedings which led to its formation and subse-limitation as to time or population, and to demand quent ratification by the people; and that whatever irregularities or frauds may have occurred or been practiced connected with its formation or ratification, are altogether foreign to the question before us; and so of the question which has been raised as to whether a majority of the people of Kansas approve the constitution or not. All such inquiries are repudiated as irrelevant. Such is the issue made up and presented on the part of the supporters of this measure. On the other side, it is said that the Lecompton constitution has been formed in pursuance of no legal authority; that the organic act vested no such power in the Territorial Legislature; that it does not reflect the will of a majority of the people; that great irregularities took place in the election of delegates to the convention that formed it; that the constitution was not fairly submitted to the people for their ratification; and, upon these grounds, they say it would be an outrage on the rights of the people of Kansas to impose this constitution upon them. Now, how are the facts? Has this constitution been formed in pursuance of legal authority derived from the organic act of Congress? This I understand to be the main pillar on which the argument rests, that Congress is bound to admit Kansas under the Lecompton constitution, without inquiry as to the truth of any alleged irregularities or frauds connected with it, or as to whether the majority of the people approve it or not. I noticed that my friend from Georgia argued the general question to-day on the assumption that that act did give to the people of Kansas the power to form a constitution; but he afterwards said that Congress was not bound to accept the constitution when formed under such authority; though he did contend that Congress would be bound, provided it had passed an enabling act, and the people of the Territory had accepted and acted under it. If Congress would not be bound to accept a constitution formed under territorial authority, derived from the organic law, what is that but an admission that the organic law does not contain the power claimed? If the power is given by the organic law, it is in the place of an enabling act, and would be just as binding on Congress when the people of Kansas accepted it as would be an enabling act accepted by the people of the Territory. With all due deference and respect to the opinions of the honorable Senator from Georgia and the President of the United States, I think there is no pretext for the assumption that the organic law of the Territory conferred any such power as is claimed. If it did, the organic laws of Utah, New Mexico, and Nebraska, conferred the same power on the people of those Territories, for the language is identical in all admission into the Union as a right, which Con- The idea that the Kansas organic law confers Well, sir, to employ the language of the President, it being too clear to admit of an argument that the organic law of Kansas confers no power upon the people to form a State constitution, and there being, of course, no obligation of good faith resting upon Congress to admit that Territory into the Union under the constitution now presented to us, how stands the main question, and upon what principles are we to decide it? Just as all like questions have stood heretofore, when Congress had passed no enabling act, and is to be decided upon like principles of reason, expediency and propriety. The present application of a Territory to be admitted into the Union under a constitution formed without the authority of Congress, is an appeal to the discretion of Congress, which has power to admit or reject, as may be thought expedient or proper, under all the circumstances of the case. The application is open to all exceptions which may be taken to it—to all fair and reasonable objections-as, for example, that the constitution does not reflect the will of the people; that a majority or any respectable minority of them have not been represented in the SENATE. convention which formed it; that a strong feeling of discontent and opposition exists among a large portion of the people upon the subject. One object that Congress ought to have in view in such cases would be, to give general satisfaction, to lay the foundation of good-neighborhood feeling among the inhabitants of the proposed new State. Not only should the complaints of the majority do not know of any instance where Congress has be inquired into, but those of a minority also. I admitted a State where there was a respectable protesting minority. Let us now examine the grounds upon which this application stands, according to the principles I have thus laid down. I am afraid I shall be somewhat tedious, because I propose, at the risk of some repetition of what I have before said, to note all the leading facts and circumstances connected with this subject to be found in the brief and disorderly annals of Kansas. When the Kansas-Nebraska bill was first brought forward in the Senate, in January, 1854, there were probably not over a hundred white inhabitants in the Territory, excluding some few United States troops. As soon as the bill passed, the whole Territory, except the Indian reservations, was thrown open to free competition between the North and the South, between anti-slavery men and pro-slavery men, to settle, by superiority of numbers, whether Kansas should be a free or slave Territory; for, at that time, the popular understanding and interpretation of the Kansas-Nebraska act was, that the people of the Territory were authorized to settle that question by an act of the Territorial Legislature, and before they should come to form a State constitution. To be sure, there was a clause in the organic law that this power was to be exercised, subject to the Constitution of the United States; but the Constitution had been in existence more than half a century, and there had been no judicial interpretation of the Constitution which could lead the people to suppose that they were not fully authorized to decide the question of slavery by a territorial enactment. A considerable portion of the people of the North and East, in resentment of the repeal of the Missouri compromise, and resolving that the South should not derive any benefit from what they considered the wrong inflicted upon them by that measure, in the establishment of a new slave State, resorted to the organization of an emigrant aid society, by which they were enabled to furnish large facilities in money, and in other modes to quicken emigration, with a view to provide a sufficient number of settlers to control the election of members to the first Legislature, which it was supposed would decide the question of slavery in the Territory. The people in the western counties of Missouri, living in slaveholding communities, and feeling a deep concern that Kansas should not become a free Territory or a free State, formed associations on their part, and adopted such other measures as they thought necessary to secure the ascendency of the pro-slavery settlers in the election of members to the Legislature. When the day of election came, on the 30th day of March, 1855, many armed companies of Missourians appeared at the polls in most of the election districts and precincts; and where they found the judges of election opposed to their views, by threats of violence drove them away, and substituted others in their place; where they found the judges friendly to their views, they allowed them to remain in the discharge of their duties. The result, without going into further details on that point, was, that every pro-slavery candidate but one was returned as elected. The returns of the census, taken, under a requirement of the organic law, one month before this election, showed 2,903 qualified voters then in the Territory. At the elec tion 6,307 votes were polled. Of the 2,903 whose names were upon the census rolls, only 898 voted at the election. This fact appears by the comparison of the names on the poll-books with the census returns. These facts speak for themselves. Either the census returns were false, or the FreeSoil voters were driven from the polls. But, be that as it may, it appears certain that some four or five thousand Missourians voted at the elec tion, or the returns were fraudulent. Complaints were made from several precincts 35TH CONG....1ST SESS. that the election was carried by violence, and Governor Reeder set aside the returns in several cases, and ordered new elections; and in all these cases, except one, Free-Soil candidates were returned elected. When the Legislature met, however, they were all ejected, and the persons first returned as elected allowed to take their seats-so that the Legislature may be said to have been a unit on the slavery question. That body proceeded to enact a code of laws. No act was passed establishing or prohibiting slavery. The question was not put to a vote in any form, except on the passage of stringent laws for the protection of slave property; and, among others, a law was enacted, making it a felony, punishable by two years' imprisonment at hard labor, to assert, either by speech or writing, or to circulate pamphlets, magazines, or any printed matter asserting, that it was not lawful to hold slaves in Kansas. Test-oaths were prescribed for voters and other regulations for the conduct of subsequent elections, well calculated, if not designed, to enable the pro-slavery party to carry all elections, and to keep the government of the Territory under their control; and they succeeded in that object until October, 1857. Kansas-Lecompton Constitution-Mr. Bell. tion was made to Congress for the admission of Kansas into the Union, as a State, under it. The House of Representatives, in 1856, passed a bill to admit Kansas into the Union under that constitution, but it was rejected in the Senate. What the motive was to this proceeding on the part of the Free-Soil party may well be supposed to have been, as it is alleged it was, to be relieved from the unjust legislation of the territorial government. The Topeka constitution has been stigmatized as a revolutionary movement. If a government had been set up under it, it would have been so, undoubtedly. But, though there have been two elections of a Governor and members of the Legislature under that constitution, yet no government has been put in operation under it; though I have no doubt that some of the more desperate leaders of the party which formed this constitution were prepared to take that step, and would have done so if they had not been overruled by the more moderate portion of their followers. The Senator from Virginia [Mr. HUNTER] took no notice of the formation of the Topeka constitution, except to ridicule it as General Jim Lane's production. ple at all times to change their form of government; unless you deny to the people of a Territory a right which you concede to those of a State in that respect, which would be contrary to the principle of popular sovereignty so strongly maintained by the authors of the organic law of Kan sas. I am not sure that he was warranted in treating In explanation of, and in justification of, these it with so much disrespect, when the President high-handed proceedings, commencing with the put forth the doctrines to be found in his special election in March, 1855, it is alleged that a gigan-message upon the subject of the right of the peotic fraud was committed by the Emigrant Aid Society in attempting, by unusual and violent means, to make Kansas a free State. I have no defense to make of the proceedings of that society; but it is material to state that, upon investigation, I find that before the first election in March, 1855, only one party or company of emigrants arrived in Kansas under the auspices of the society, consisting of one hundred and sixty-nine souls, men, women, and children, and that thirty-seven of them voted at that election. I deplore, as much as any man can do, the spirit in which this Emigrant Aid Society was gotten up. I believe that it tended strongly to promote and foment discord not only in Kansas, but throughout the country. The Territorial Legislature having passed acts of the character and tendency I have stated, from that time forth, it is fair to both sides to state that the mass, at least much the largest portion of the Free-Soil party, or Abolitionists, as gentlemen, according to their tastes, choose to call themand no doubt many of them were Abolitionistsavowed their determination never to submit to the authority of the territorial government, nor to yield obedience to its laws. That spirit of resistance and rebellion against the territorial authorities continued to exist to October last. I trust that I have, so far, given the history of Kansas affairs truly and fairly. I agree with the Senator from Virginia [Mr. HUNTER] that, as a question of duty and public morals, the free-State men ought to have submitted to the authority of the territorial government, and to have waited, like good citizens, with patience, a remedy for their grievances, which time could not fail to bring, or, at least, so long as any hope remained that relief would come in a reasonable time; for, as the Senator from Virginia says, and says truly, whether a government be founded in fraud or usurpation, or not, there is a necessity for some government; no society can endure in a state of anarchy; civil war and bloodshed are worse evils than the endurance of an unjust government for a short period. To resume my narrative. The second election for members of the Legislature and Delegate to Congress came on in October, 1856. The Territorial Legislature having passed an act in 1855 for taking the sense of the people upon the call of a convention to form a State constitution, at the election in October, 1856, a vote was taken accordingly on that subject. The number of votes polled at that election was about tnty-five hundred, the free-State party not voting. All the Votes cast, I believe, were in favor of the call of a convention, and none but pro-slavery men were elected to the Legislature. I have omitted to state in the regular order of time that the Free-Soil leaders called a meeting of the people in 1855, at which delegates were chosen to meet in convention at Topeka, in September, of that year, to form a State constitution. The convention met, formed a constitution, and applica || The Legislature elected in October, 1856, met in January, 1857, and, in conformity with the vote of twenty-five hundred of the people in the preceding October, they passed an act providing for the election of delegates on the 15th of June to a convention to meet in the following September. Governor Walker made his appearance in the Territory in May. He published an address to the people of the Territory, which was declared to be in conformity with the views of the President and his Cabinet. In that address he assured the people of his determination to use every means in his control to prevent all disorder and violence at the election to be held on the 15th of June, and earnestly advised the free-State party to go to the polls and vote for delegates to the convention, warning them that, although he would use all his influence to have the constitution, when framed, submitted to a vote of all the bona fide inhabitants, and had no doubt that it would be so submitted, yet he had no authority to dictate that course. By the act of the Legislature providing for the election of delegates to the convention, the most obnoxious of the test oaths prescribed by her first Legislature was repealed, and a census was directed to be taken, and a register made of the qualified voters in each county, which was to be the basis of the apportionment by the Governor of delegates among the several election districts into which the Territory was divided, and also the test of a right to vote in the election. One objection to going to the polls, as stated by the free-State party, was, that of the thirty-eight counties of the Territory, including Arapahoe, in which there was no population, there had been no register made of the qualified voters in nineteen of them, as the law required, and that no census had been taken in fifteen of those nineteen, and that, as a matter of course, the people in those counties could not vote. Governor Walker and Secretary Stanton confirmed this statement, and the fact is indisputable. I do not see what could be a greater or more fatal irregularity in getting up a convention to form a State constitution. Sir, one half the counties of a Territory left unrepresented allowed no voice in the convention! Is that no objection to a constitution formed by a convention so constituted? The Senator from Georgia passed this irregularity over as a matter of slight or no consequence. It had, he said, been satisfactorily answered and accounted for. Where is the explanation or justification to be found of this gross irregularity? Upon what evidence does it rest? I have seen or heard of none which does not appear to me a mere pretense-an evasion. To say that some free-State men in some one, two, or three of SENATE. those counties refused to be registered, and threatened the officers with personal violence if they persisted in the discharge of their duties, was a sufficient reason for taking no census and making no register at all in nineteen counties, appears to me to be preposterous. When gentlemen talk of there being no irregularity in forming the convention I must believe that they have not examined into the facts connected with the subject. It is alleged that the population in the nineteen neglected counties was small. In many of them that no doubt was so. But still, after deducting the nine thousand two hundred and fifty-one legal voters returned on the register made out in the other nineteen, judging from the number of votes polled in October, 1857, and again in January following, there cannot have been less than three thousand Jegal voters in the neglected counties. Thus it appears that the sixty delegates to the convention were elected by the nineteen counties in which registers were duly made out; while not a single delegate was voted for or elected in the other nineteen counties of the Territory. Governor Walker, in one of his letters to Secretary Cass, states that in some of the neglected counties the people made out a register on their own authority, and elected delegates to the convention; but they were not allowed seats on the ground that their election was irregular. And the further significant fact is stated by him that in the election of October, 1857, more votes were cast in three of the neglected counties than were given to the twenty-eight delegates who formed the Lecompton constitution. But I am departing from the order of my narrative. The election of the 15th of June for delegates to the convention was held. The freeState party did not participate in it, assigning, as reason for their refusal to do so, besides the one I have just mentioned, that they had no confidence in the officers who were to hold the election, and the opinion given by Governor Walker, that any constitution which might be framed would be submitted, for ratification or rejection, to a vote of all the people in the fall, whether they voted at this election or not. At this election, when it may be presumed the pro-slavery party put forth their whole strength, only twenty-two hundred votes were polled-less by three hundred than the vote polled in October, 1856; but the loss may be fairly accounted for by the exclusion of the pro-slavery voters in the nineteen counties in which there was no register. The convention met on the 5th of September, but adjourned to a day in October, as it was understood, to await the result of the territorial election fixed for the first Monday in that month. Governor Walker had given the strongest assurances of his purpose to use all the means in his control to preserve order and prevent violence at that election. Conventions were called, nominating candidates on both sides. On the one side, they were called National Democratic candidates; on the other side, free-State candidates, or, if you please, Abolition candidates; it is no matter by what name they were called. By that time two thousand regular troops had arrived in the Territory, sent at the earnest request of Governor Walker, who stated that this was the only mode of preserving peace and preventing bloodshed. He stationed them at different and the most exposed points, on election day, to prevent inroads from Missouri, or any other disturbance at the polls. The result was, that the free-State party proper cast some seven thousand six hundred votes, and the national Democratic party, composed of pro-slavery men and such of the freeState Democrats as united with them in the election, polled some three thousand seven hundred yotes. It is material to state that Ransom, the candidate for Delegate to Congress nominated by the national Democratic party, was Free-Soil in his principles. Altogether, there were upwards of eleven thousand votes cast in that election, after rejecting some twenty-eight hundred votes found to have been fraudulently returned; sixteen hundred from the famous Oxford precinct, and twelve hundred from McGee county, in which no poll was opened. These are all strong facts, but the Senator from Georgia can see nothing in them. That Senator asks for the evidence by which these alleged frauds were proved. He said that Governor Walker and Secretary Stanton were 35TH CONG...1ST SESS. not entitled to any greater credit than common witnesses, and by courtesy alone did he concede them that. He said they traveled over the country, looked about, and came to the conclusion that so great a number of voters could not be there. This was the sort of evidence upon which his friend from Kentucky held his immense fabric of fraud and unfairness. Sir, not only did Governor Walker and Secretary Stanton examine the matter, but others of undoubted integrity have confirmed the existence of the frauds alleged. A census has been taken, and forty-nine is returned as the number of residents in the Oxford precinct. Mr. WILSON. There are forty-three voters in the precinct of Oxford, according to the actual census returns. Mr. BELL. There could not be many in that county, because the Shawnee Indians own nearly all the land. How many are there in the whole county? Mr. WILSON. Three or four hundred voters in the whole county. Mr. BELL. I have examined the proof, but I cannot retain all the facts in my memory. The Oxford returns were rejected by Governor Walker on the ground of irregularity in the returns. Singular as it may seem, he appears to have considered it necessary, to justify his interposition, to find out some irregularity in the certificate or return, although he was convinced from the first that the return was fraudulent. Well might the eloquent Senator from Kentucky exclaim that fraud seems to have become native to the region of Kansas, and to claim the privilege of being a sort of established institution there. The result of the October election was, that nearly every member elected to the Territorial Legislature was a free-State man. Kansas-Lecompton Constitution-Mr. Bell. | SENATE. ure now before the Senate should be adopted. The Senator from Georgia said to-day that his friend from Kentucky only had the evidence of Governor Walker and Secretary Stanton as to the frauds alleged to have been practiced in Kansas; and who are they? Those gentlemen, he said, did nothing from the time they went to Kansas until they were taken out of it, except to violate the Constitution of the United States, the organic law of Kansas, and to break down the Administration that had sent them there. Those statements confirm me have been twenty thousand. I must conclude that has made his entire speech with but very litle I believe that no attempt has been made, from any respectable source, to cast a doubt on the genuineness of the vote cast against the constitution on the 4th of January last. The result of that vote shows, incontestably, that there must be a majority of at least four or five to one, of the people of Kansas, against this constitution. I have now narrated the most important facts in the history of Kansas affairs, which have any material bearing upon the question before the Senate, and upon which we may rely in deciding whether this constitution should be accepted or rejected. These, however, are not the only material facts connected with the case-I mean facts calculated to show whether it is expedient, just, or politic to admit Kansas with this constitution. Assuming it as a point that cannot be contested, that a large majority is opposed to the constitution, what are the further facts connected with this subject material to be noticed? Governor Walker declares to you that a large majority of the people of Kansas are determined to resist the organization of a State, government under this constitution. Mr. Stanton expresses the same The convention reassembled in October, according to adjournment, and formed the constitution which is now before us. When the fact transpired that the convention had not submitted the whole constitution to a vote of the people, and that the question of slavery alone was to be submitted, and that in a form and under the restriction of a test-oath which would prevent the free-State party from voting, such a commotion immediately arose as threatened to lead to bloodshed and civil war. In this condition of affairs, acting Governor Stanton, as a means of averting such a calamity, called an extra session of the Territorial Legislature. That body, when assembled, passed a law for taking the sense of the peo-opinion. The people themselves tell you the same ple upon the constitution recently formed, on the 4th of January last-the day fixed by the constitution for an election of State officers and members of the Legislature under that constitution. The 21st of December last was appointed by the convention to take a vote of the people upon the slavery clause of the constitution in this form"the constitution with slavery," "the constitution without slavery." There were six thousand seven hundred and ninety-three votes returned as cast on that day-six thousand two hundred and twenty-six for the constitution with slavery, and five hundred and sixty-seven for the constitution without slavery. The remarks of the honorable Senator from Kentucky in regard to that election were justified by the circumstances of the case. Votes enough were returned in favor of the constitution to overcome any majority that had ever before been given in the Territory. There had been eleven thousand and odd votes given in the October election, and it was arranged to show a vote to exceed one half that number. It is well established by a commission appointed to inves tigate the subject under authority of the Legislature, that two thousand seven hundred, or nearly one half the six thousand and odd votes returned as having been cast on the 21st December in favor of the constitution were fraudulent; and about an equal number returned as polled for State officers and members of the Legislature on the 4th of January last. In the vote taken by authority of the Territorial Legislature, on the 4th of January, on the Lecompton constitution, there were ten thousand majority against it. The Senator from Georgia says that on the same day there were over ten thousand votes cast for State officers and members of the Legislature under the constitution; and that to sustain the fairness of the votes against the constitution the joint vote should But, sir, I am not yet done with the evidences in my possession to show the true state of affairs in Kansas. More than fifteen months ago the leading pro-slavery men in that Territory abandoned the idea of making it a slave State; and I desire to go a little into detail on that point, because I know that, if this measure be rejected, it will be said in some quarters of the South, nay, the idea is already artfully propagated, that a slave State can be established permanently in Kansas if the meas "The following letter, addressed to a gentleman in this city, , has been handed to us for publication. We cheerfully give place to the letter for the purpose of removing any erro neous impression which may still linger in the minds of some of our southern friends in regard to the present feelings, septiments, and position of the pro-slavery men of Kansas. Mr. Tebbs, the writer, is widely known and unversally respected. He is a Virginian by birth, a slaveholder, and is one of the early settlers of Kansas. He has been a member of every Legislature since Kansas became a Territory; and it is scarcely necessary for us to add, that in each instance representing a very decided pro-slavery constituency. His radical views on the slavery question have rendered him peculiarly obnoxious to the Black Republicans of the Territory." Then comes the letter of Mr. Tebbs, from which I take this extract: "Now, sir, how can it be that Governor Walker has done so much, as is charged, to abolitionize Kansas? If Kansas is abolitionized it has been done by the pro-slavery party, and not by Gornor Walker, for they had adopted this poi icy long before he had entered the Territory. But every can. did man will see at a glance, and must admit, that neither Walker nor the pro-slavery party have done it; but the sim ple fact that more anti-slavery men than pro-slavery men have gone to Koas, whether from interest, natural or unnatural causes, it matters not, they are there. But I will not anticipate events or hazard predictions. Let the great principle of popular sovereignty be fairly and honestly car ried out. That is all i ask." Let me also read an extract from a letter of General Whitfield to the editor of the Union, dated Washington city, September 2, 1858: "I have seen the letter addressed by Dr. Tebbs to a gentleman in this city. His letter fully and fairly represents the condition of parties in Kansas, both before and after the advent of Governor Walker. And I have been perfectly astonished, upon my arrival here, to find the crusade from 35TH CONG.... 1ST SESS. the South upon Governor Walker, charging him with an attempt to abolitionize Kansas.' It required no action from Governor Walker to make Kansas a free State. Its doom, if it is fixed, was fixed long before Robert J. Walker ever catered the Territory, "I repeat again, sir, that, knowing Dr. Tebbs well, and knowing him to be thoroughly posted upon Kansas affairs, I indorse fully his views and conclusions as expressed in his letter to you." Dr. Tebbs makes this further statement in the letter from which I have just read: That in January, 1857, four or five months before Governer Walker arrived in the Territory, the pro-slavery party held a convention of all the members of the Legislature and of delegates from every county in the Territory to discuss the condition of parties, and leading pro-slavery men deliberately declared it as their opinion that the pro-slavery party proper was in a hopeless minority." The convention to which I have just alluded concluded that it was no longer worth while to attempt to form a slave State in Kansas. When a convention was held, in July last, to nominate candidates for the October election, over which Judge Elmore, one of the largest slaveholders in the Territory, presided, the same opinions were announced. Not only that, but, from the date of January, 1857, the position was taken by the leading pro-slavery men that the constitution to be formed by the delegates to be elected on the 15th of June should be submitted to the people; and if not, that it ought to be rejected by Congress. General Whitfield himself said, in a speech made last summer, that it ought not to get ten votes in Congress, if it were not so submitted. I have adduced the testimony furnished by the letters and verbal statements of the early and most influential pro-slavery leaders in Kansas, to show that the views I have presented of the actual state of things in that Territory do not rest exclusively upon the information furnished, or the opinions expressed, by Governor Walker and Secretary Stanton. I was, myself, under the impression last spring and summer, that Governor Walker, as well as the President and his Cabinet, was looking more to party and political objects than the support of any particular interests the South could have in the management of Kansas affairs; and it is due to that gentleman, whose course has been so harshly denounced in this debate, that he should be vindicated and sustained by a reference to the course and policy of leading pro-slavery partisans, upon whom no shadow of suspicion rests, as to their perfect fidelity to the slavery cause in Kansas. It appears now, incontestably, that long before Governor Walker arrived in Kansas, and even before the advent to power of the present Administration, the idea of making Kansas a slave State had been abandoned by those leaders who had the deepest interest in the question, being slaveholders themselves. The utmost they had any hope to accomplish, by the conciliatory policy adopted in the convention held on the second Monday in January, 1857, and again in the convention held in July following, so far as the interest of slavery was concerned, was to protect the right of property in the slaves then in the Territory. Governor Walker, in his letter to Secretary Cass, dated 15th July last, states that "It was universally admitted here (Kansas) that the only question is this: whether Kansas shall be a conservative, constitutional, Democratic, and ultimately free-State, or whether it shall be a Republican and Abolition State?" After it became known in Kansas that the Administration had changed its policy, and particularly after the increased exasperation of the freeState party, which ensued upon the promulgation of the Lecompton constitution, I learn from a well informed and reliable source, that a large proportion of the slaves have been sent out of the Territory; and that of the two or three hundred There a year ago, not more than one hundred remain-some say not exceeding fifty. It is a most striking and remarkable feature in he present status of this question in Kansas, that t is not the slaveholders who are most active and orward in keeping up this controversy against hope of making Kansas a slave State, but poitical adventurers, chiefly office-holders or officeseekers, who have not the slightest interest in the uestions beyond the expectation of some peronal benefits. Henderson, who is implicated in he perpetration of election frauds, is, I am inrmed, a special mail agent; Calhoun is sureyor general of the Territory, and McLain his || || Kansas-Lecompton Constitution-Mr. Bell. chief clerk. Others I might name, who are only My friend from Florida [Mr. MALLORY] said, It will not do for these gentlemen to say that there is no record, or other satisfactory proof, to show the frauds and irregularities alleged against the Lecompton constitution, or of many other statements made by the opponents of this measure in relation to the state of things existing in Kansas. The supporters of this measure in the Senate and in the House of Representatives have obstinately persisted in voting down every proposition to investigate and take proof upon the contested questions of fact; and I take it for granted that this course would not have been persisted in, unless it was understood that the facts would turn out to be as they have been charged. If I have not wholly misconceived and misstated the material points in the history of Kansas affairs which preceded the formation of the I 3compton constitution; if I have not misrepresented the facts connected with its formation; if I am not wholly mistaken in the views I have presented of the existing state of public sentiment in Kansas in relation to this constitution, is it becoming the character of the national Legislature to accept this instrument as the organic law of the new State which is proposed to be admitted into the Union? Is it fit, is it becoming the Senate of the United States, to stamp this constitution, with all its attendant circumstances, with their approval, and send it to Kansas to be abided by or resisted to blood by the people there? Surely, sir, there ought to be some great and overruling political necessity existing in the condition of affairs to justify such a proceeding. The President, I understand, from his special message, to say that such a necessity does exist. He insists that in no other way can this dangerous slavery agitation be terminated, and peace be restored to the whole country. He insists that, if Kansas shall be admitted into the Union under this constitution, this sectional controversy will, at all events, be excluded from the Halls of Congress; that the agitation upon this subject will be localized, and confined to the people whom it concerns. This is no new conception; such an experiment has been made before. The country has already had the benefit of a great lesson upon this subject, if it will only profit by it. If I may venture to trespass on the patience of the Senate, I propose to sketch the history of that experiment and its results. I think it will be found rich and abounding in suggestions as to the probable consequences of the renewed experiment proposed to be made, in localizing slavery agitation in Kansas. Four years ago, when it was proposed to repeal the Missouri compromise-to adopt the principle SENATE. of non-intervention, and to concede to the people of the Territories the right to settle the question of slavery in their own way-it was said by the advocates of the measure that as soon as the principle of it came to be understood all agitation and discussion upon the subject of slavery in the Territories would be localized-excluded from Congress-and the country would be left in undisturbed repose. So boldly and confidently were these views maintained that the whole southern delegation in Congress-Whigs and Democrats, with seven or eight exceptions, together with many Democrats from the free States-came into the support of the measure. How were these bold predictions verified? In less than one month of the time during which the Kansas-Nebraska bill was pending in Congress, nearly the whole North was in a flame of resentment and opposition. Old men, of high character and great influence, who had for twenty years opposed the policy and designs of the abolition faction in the North, suddenly became its allies and coadjutors. Thousands of the best citizens at the North, who had exerted all their energies to repress all opposition to the execution of the fugitive slave law of 1850, became suddenly converts to free-soilism. The religious feelings of whole communities became frenzied. The pulpit was converted into an engine of antislavery propagandism, and hundreds of thousands of sober-minded and conservative people at the North, who had never countenanced sectional strife on the subject of slavery, evinced that they had thrown off their conservatism, and were ready to array themselves under the banner of any party leader or faction to check the progress of the South in what they considered its aggressive policy. After that demonstration of opposition at the North, but little more was said in debate of the tranquilizing character of the measure. But its most influential supporters from the South, becoming inflamed and irritated by the fierce invectives with which the measure was assailed, both within and out of Congress, became, in their turn, reckless (apparently at least) of all consequences, and seemed only bent on victory-on obtaining a triumph by passing the bill! It was in vain that they were admonished that they were adding largely to the abolition faction at the North; that they were increasing the free-soil clement of political power in that section. They admitted no distinction between Abolitionists and Free-Soilers, and denounced all at the North, who opposed the bill, as Abolitionists and foes to the South. Some gentlemen declared that the screams of the Abolitionists were music to their ears. It was idle to warn men, in such a tempest of passion, that, instead of sowing the seeds of peace, as they had promised, they were sowing dragons' teeth, that would spring up armed men. So intense did the feeling become on the subject, that some southern members of Congress, who had gone into the support of the bill on the idea that the Missouri restriction act was a violation of the treaty with France, and who would not have listened for a moment to the admission of aliens to the right of suffrage in the Territories, lost sight of these views under the influence of the furor that was gotten up among the friends as well as the opponents of the measure; and they became even more determined champions of the bill when these grounds of their original adhesion were entirely swept away-one by the rejection of the Clayton amendment, and the other by the Badger provisothan they were at the outset. There were, however, a few of the supporters of the bill who to the last contended that the intemperate demonstrations of opposition at the North were but the ebullitions of temporary excitement, which would subside as soon as the equitable and just principles of the bill should be exhibited in their practical operation in Kansas. On what flimsy grounds that delusion was indulged, and how soon and under what circumstances it vanished, I need not recount. The recollection of every patriot must still be painfully impressed with them. enough to say, that soon after these principles were put in operation in Kansas, disorder, anarchy, and civil war, ensued in rapid succession. It required the strong arm of the Government of the United States, and the interposition of the military force, to sustain the territorial govern It is |
