35TH CONG....1ST SESS. were completed," and not before, an apportionment of the delegates to be elected was to be made by the Governor and Secretary, "by dividing the whole number of legal voters in the Territory by sixty." No such census and registry were ever made and "completed;" and consequently no apportionment of delegates could legally be made under the law. 4. The census and registry never being " pleted," the apportionment was made in violation of law, and the convention was illegally constituted, even if the law had been valid. com By a copy of an extract from a Kansas newspaper, directed to be obtained by a majority of the select committee, (the only evidence given of the census and registry required by the law,) it appears a census was made in fourteen counties, and a registry in eighteen counties. There being thirty-eight counties in Kansas, this left twentyfour counties in which no census was taken, and twenty counties in which no registry was made. (Often called nineteen, but in fact twenty, as now appears.) These twenty counties were wholly deprived of delegates or representation, and no one residing in them could vote. own institutions for themselves. remaining twenty counties. Had these counties has not arrived for the people to determine their It is said the people prevented a registry from is no answer to be made to it. A copy of the census registry and apportionment, as it now appears, is annexed. Counties. Doniphan... Jefferson Districts. Population. Voters. Delegates. 42421 4 3∞ 1 7 No returns. 2 Nemaha ...... 512 206 2 Atchison 5 Leavenworth.. Calhoun... Pottawatomie.. No returns. 205 S 2 3 Four counties.....14 .15 16 Governor Stanton said, in a recent speech, that Riley.. he was "satisfied the officers did not perform their duty even in the eighteen counties in which an imperfect registry was obtained;" that, in some instances, he knew they did not do their duty. And he said he knew the officers refused to take the census, or make the registry, as required, in some instances; and that, if he had then known the facts since ascertained, he would not have made the apportionment. And he certainly ought not to have done so. The registry was fraudulent as far as it went, and it never was "completed." The apportionment and election under it were in direct violation of the very law ordering the election, and in violation of the rights of every legal voter who was disfranchised by this law, and the manner in which it was fraudulently executed. The law was thus made a means and an instrument of fraud! No one denies that these twenty counties, by the fault of pro-slavery officers of the Territory, were deprived of the right to vote, and to be represented. But, again, it is said not to be material, as Calhoun says there were not many voters! Even the committee of fifteen agreed that his statements were no evidence, and much less could his opinions be. But who knows how many voters there were in these twenty counties, settled as rapidly as Kansas had been? No one; no reliable estimate could be made, even by an honest man. That was one reason why a registry was required. The law required a registry of all the legal voters. These partisan officers could not deprive a single county of the right to vote, and of representation, but by a direct violation of the law. But the pre tense that there were but a few voters in these counties is untrue in fact. Governor Walker states that fifteen of these counties, "in which there was no registry, gave a much larger vote at the October election, even with the six-months' qualification, than the whole vote given to the delegates who signed the Lecompton constitution." It cannot be known how many more there were who did not vote. More than half the counties were deprived of representation, and nearly half the legal voters of their right to vote-taking into account the many omitted in the eighteen registered counties, and the total omission of all in the One county Five counties.....19 23,149 Four counties were wholly omitted in the fore going list. There are thirty-eight counties in all. VI.-POPULATION INSUFFICIENT. VII.-REMONSTRANCE OF THE LEGISLATURE. The Legislature recently elected, and fairly representing the people of Kansas, protest against the Lecompton constitution, as follows: "Preamble and joint resolutions in relation to the constitu tion framed at Lecompton, Kansas Territory, on the 7th day of November, 1857. "Whereas, a small minority of people living in nineteen of the thirty-eight counties of this Territory, availing themselves of a law which enabled them to obstruct and defeat a fair expression of the popular will, did, by the odious and chinery of said law, procure the return of the whole numoppressive application of the provisions and partisan ma ber of the delegates of the constitutional convention recently assembled at Lecompton; and whereas, by reason of the defective provisions of said law, in connection with the neglect and misconduct of the authorities charged with the execution of the same, the people living within the remaining nineteen counties of the Territory were not permitted to return delegates to said convention, were not recognized in its organization, or in any other sense heard or felt in its deliberations; and whereas, it is an axiom in political ethics that the people cannot be deprived of their rights by the negligence or misconduct of public officers; and whereas, a minority-to wit, twenty-eight only of the sixty members of said convention-have attempted, by an unworthy contrivance, to impose upon the whole people of this Territory a constitution without consulting their wishes, and against their will; and whereas, the members of said convention have refused to submit their action for the approval or disapproval of the voters of the Territory, and in thus acting have defied the known will of nine tenths of the voters thereof; and whereas, the action of a fragment of said convention, representing as they did a small minority of the voters of the Territory, repudiates and crushes out the distinctive principle of the Nebraska act,' and violates and tramples under foot the rights and the sov ereignty of the people; and whereas, from the foregoing statement of facts, it clearly appears that the people have not been left free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way,' but. on the contrary, at every stage in the anomalous proceedings recited, they have been prevented from so doing: "Be it therefore resolved by the Governor and Legislative Assembly of Kansas Territory, That the people of Kansas being opposed to said constitution, Congress has no rightful power under it to admit said Territory into the Union as a State, and the representatives of said people do hereby, in their name and on their behalf, solemnly protest against such admission. "Resolved, That such action on the part of Congress would, in the judgment of the members of the Legislative Assembly, be an entire abandonment of the doctrine of nonintervention in the affairs of the Territory, and a substitution in its stead of congressional intervention in behalf of a minority engaged in a disreputable attempt to defeat the will and violate the rights of the majority. "Resolved, That the people of Kansas Territory claim the right, through a legal and fair expression of the will of a majority of her citizens, to form and adopt a constitution for themselves. "Resolved, That the Governor of this Territory be requested to forward a copy of the foregoing preamble and resolutions to the President of the United States, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and to the Delegate in Congress from the Territory," These facts, thus authoritatively stated by the legal Legislature of the Territory, should be taken as indisputable, unless disproved by higher evi dence, that has not been done or attempted. And these facts brand that constitution as irregular and fraudulent, and prove that the people of Kansas are opposed to it. VIII. PLEDGES. tablished by southern votes; and Kansas and all In 1820, the Missouri compromise line was es the other territory acquired of France north of that line was pledged to freedom, and slavery therein "forever prohibited." In fourteen counties where the census was taken This, like all efforts to admit slave States, was there were twenty-three thousand one hundred a political question, to increase and extend the unand forty-nine inhabitants. To these counties fifty equal political power given to the owners of slave of the sixty delegates were given. At the same property, by the admission of new slave States, rate as to voters, the population in the other four with their Senators and Representatives in Conregistered counties would be four thousand six gress. The effort to make Kansas a slave State, hundred and twenty-nine-making a total in the has the same object in view. The slave States eighteen counties of twenty-seven thousand seven have about six million of free people. The free hundred and sixty-eight--not one third enough States about thirteen million. Yet the slave States for a single Representative, which requires about have already more than four times the extent of ninety-three thousand five hundred. If the twenty territory, admitted as new States, in proportion counties not registered contain only some three to their population, that the free States have. The thousand inhabitants, as our opponents assert, slave owners numbered, in 1850, less than three Kansas has only one third the population required hundred and forty-seven thousand, yet they are for her admission as a State. And that is a good counted, in representation, at between two and objection. If these twenty counties have twenty thousand inhabitants, the number is still too small power, controlled the Government for the last three million; and they have, by this unequal for admission, while it is so large as to destroy sixty years. They wish to make this inequality all pretense of fairness in the election of delegates still greater, and to make their power absolute. to the Lecompton convention. The fraud would Nine new slave States have been added, with vitiate the proceedings; and in any view the num-eighteen Senators and forty-eight Representatives ber is not much more than half enough. The time in Congress. And this unequal power is held by 35TH CONG.... 1ST SESS. them all. New free States have not been added in the same proportion. According to population, the additions made to slavery are more than four times what has been allowed to the free States in proportion to their numbers. But all this does not satisfy the slave power! Hence, when Kansas was to be settled, they made their arrangements to reduce that to slavery. To do this, the Missouri prohibition was repealed, in 1854, against the uniform action of the Government from the day of its establishment, upon the plea that it was unconstitutional, that Congress had no power to legislate upon the subject of slavery, and the great principle that it belonged to the people was adopted. To extend slavery into free territory, the compromise of 1820 and the finality of 1850 shared the same fate; the slavery question was reopened and renewed; it was unsettled where it had been settled, and the struggle transferred to the people of the Territory to be again settled by them. They have again settled it; but their decision is now disregarded! By the terms of that act Congress and the Government were bound not to interfere, but to leave the people "perfectly free❞ to settle that question for themselves in their own way. The Democratic party declared that as their party creed in their Cincinnati platform. The President indorsed it. He got upon it so emphatically, he thought he was a part of it, and in his inaugural approved of the conception of Congress in applying the rule that the will of the majority shall govern in the settlement of the question of domestic slavery in the Territories," and said "it was the imperative and indispensable duty of the Government of the United States to secure to every resident inhabitant the free and independent expression of his opinion by his vote. This sacred right of each individual must be preserved." How was this sacred right of each individual preserved at the election for delegates? In his instructions to Governor Walker he said: "The institutions of Kansas should be established by the votes of the people of Kansas, unawed and uninterrupted by force or fraud.” And further that "It is my imperative duty to employ the troops of the United States, should this become necessary, in defending the convention against violence while framing the constitition, and in protecting the bona fide inhabitants qualified to vote, under the provisions of this instrument, in the free ercise of the rights of suffrage, when it shall be submitted to them for approbation or rejection.” This was on the 15th August last. Up to that time it was not only their right to vote upon the constitution, but it was his imperative duty to protect them in the exercise of that right. Governor Walker and Secretary Stanton, in their published letters and speeches, state that they pledged their honor and character to the people of Kansas, in every way, that the constitution should be submitted to them for adoption or rejection. And told them they expressed the views of the President and the whole Cabinet. They spoke to them officially as the officers of the President. Even the delegates to the convention gave pledges to see that this was done-a majority of them in writing, as it is stated. A copy of one of these is annexed as an example: To the Democratic voters of Douglas county: It having been stated by that Abolition newspaper, the Herald of Freedom, and by some disaffected bogus Democrats, who have got up an independent ticket, for the purpose of securing the vote of the Black Republicans, that the regular nominees of the Democratic convention were opposed to submitting the constitution to the people, we, the didates of the Democratic party, submit the following resolutions, which were adopted by the Democratic convention which placed us in nomination, and which we fully and heartily indorse, as a complete refutation of the slan ders above referred to. JOHN CALHOUN, L.S. BOLLING, A. W. JONES, LECOMPTON, Kansas Territory, June 13, 1857. Resolved. That we will support no man as a delegate to the constitutional convention, whose duty it will be to frame e constitution of the future State of Kansas, and to mold Admission of Kansas-Mr. Bennett. the political institutions under which we, as a people, are to live, unless he pledges himself fully, freely, and without reservation, to use every honorable means to submit the same to every bona fide actual citizen of Kansas, at the proper time for the vote being taken upon the adoption by the people, in order that the said constitution may be adopted or rejected by the actual settlers in this Territory, as the majority of the voters shall decide." All were pledged to this-the party, the President, the Governor, and the Delegates, as deeply as men could be; yet all these pledges have been deliberately and wantonly violated by this Ad ministration. IX. WHY THE CONSTITUTION WAS NOT SUBMITTED, The answer is easy, why the constitution was not submitted to the people. Because, if it had been, it would have been rejected by a vote of more than five to one. This was a matter of entire and absolute certainty. The refusal to submit it was a confession of its weakness. Speaking of the free State party, the President says: "They have ever refused to sanction or recognize any other constitution than that framed at Topeka. Had the whole Lecompton constitution been submitted to the people, the adherents of this organization would undoubtedly have voted against it." Ho. OF REPS. osition so repugnant to reason as to require no answer. Its statement is its refutation. Make it a slave State, beyond the power of change, but by revolution, in order to give the majority a better chance to make it a free State ! X.-ELECTION ON THE FOURTH OF JANUARY. The refusal to submit the Lecompton constitution to the people for their adoption or rejection in violation of the organic act, of the general understanding, and of all the promises that had been made, created such a feeling of just indignation that acting Governor Stanton, in order to preserve the public peace, judged it advisable to convene the Legislature to take such action as might be deemed proper to prevent the attempted fraud from being consummated showing that he at least intended to fulfill the promises he had made. For his integrity in this respect he deserves the thanks of all good men. In his message he advised against repealing the law calling the convention or interfering with its action, recommending simply the passage of a law submitting the constitution to a fair vote, and expressing his confident belief that if adopted, Kansas would be peaceably admitted under it; and But that would have been no harm, and no if rejected, that Congress never would violate the reason for refusing to submit it, even with the rights of the people by forcing a constitution upon pro-slavery party, unless the free-State party, by them against their will fairly expressed. The Levoting against it, could have defeated it; and that gislature met and passed an act in accordance with is conceding this to be the constitution of a mi- this recommendation on the 17th December, 1857, nority, to which the majority were known to be submitting the constitution fairly to the people at opposed. Rebellious people; preferring freedom an election to be held on the 4th of January last. to slavery! Why, indeed, submit it to them, On that day an election was held under the law, when they were unalterably opposed to it, had and according to law, and the vote stood, for the predetermined not to have it, and "would doubt-constitution, 162; against it, 10,226-being the less have voted against it?" Again, the President says they refused to vote for delegates to the convention, not because "there was an omission to register the comparatively few voters who were inhabitants of certain counties of Kansas," "but because they had predetermined, at all hazards, to adhere to their revolutionary organization, and defeat the establishment of any other constitution than that they had framed at Topeka." Disloyal subjects! what right had they to adhere to their own constitution and their own opinions, against United States troops and Federal dictation; against a legal minority sustained by the President! The "few voters of certain counties," were all the voters in more than half the counties of the Territory, by fraud deprived of all representation and of all right to vote! Is that maintaining the sacred right of each individual to Vote? And if those not voting were free-State men, as the President assumes-and as is doubtless the fact they composed more than three fourths of the legal voters, even in the registered counties. Here, those who could vote are censured for not voting! They expected and desired to vote upon the constitution, but that is not allowed, because they "would doubtless have voted against it;" and the minority had "predetermined, at all hazards, to adhere to" the constitution they had framed at Lecompton! The arguments used in favor of this constitution concede, or assume, that the majority of the people are opposed to it. The President does not deny this; the majority of the committee do not deny it; no honest, unprejudiced man can deny it. Is there a member of this House who will rise here in his place and say that he honestly believes a majority of the people of Kansas are in favor of this constitution? I ask for a reply. Will any one say "yes" to that inquiry? Not one! No one believes it; and yet you are for forcing it upon them against their will. Is that your non-intervention? Is that the "popular sovereignty" you promised them? The argument is, one party is legal and the other illegal; that is, one party has a right to their opinions, and the other party has not; that the people in fourteen States will not like it if Kansas is not made a slave State. Was there any pledge made to them, because they voted for the President, that Kansas should be made a slave State? If not, why should they demand any interference by the President? Why should he urge the absurdity that, after a pro-slavery constitution, irrepealable as to slavery, is once firmly fixed upon the people, they can get rid of it and make it a free State much easier than they can before? A prop largest vote ever polled at any election in Kansas, and the last election held, and the question being directly upon the Lecompton constitution. The election was fairly and peaceably conducted, and this vote stands of record as the actual and legal expression of the will of the people of Kansas against this constitution; rejecting it not only by a majority, but by a vote almost unanimous. The people have decided, and rejected the Lecompton constitution. This election was recognized and approved by the Administration before it was held, and Governor Denver was directed to see it properly conducted without interruption." And he did so. The election was fairly and peaceably conducted. Secretary Cass, in his instructions dated 11th December, 1857, says: "The Territorial Legislature doubtless convened on the 7th instant, and while it remains in session its members are entitled to be secure and free in their deliberations. Ils rightful action must also be respected. Should it authorize an election by the people, for any purpose, this election should be held without interruption, no less than those authorized by the convention. While the peace of the Territory is preserved, and the freedom of elections is secured, there need be no fear of disastrous consequences." Why should not the decision of the people of Kansas be respected? It is their right to make their own constitution; they are to live under it, and be governed by it. And that right was guarantied to them by the organic act. But because the decision was in favor of freedom and against slavery, the Administration now disregards this election. The President objects: First, that he has had no "official information" of the result. Second, that after the doings of the convention, the Legislature had no power to order the election. 1. As to notice. The President, upon the principles of special pleading, adopted in the message, does not deny information, but admits it; his denial is, that it has not been "officially communicated." If it has not, it is the fault of the President's friends, who give or withhold "official information," just as he wills and directs. Calhoun, president of the bogus convention, has long been here. Why is official information improperly withheld? Are the fraudulent returns still incomplete, or secreted in so many places he has as yet been unable to gather them together? But we have an official and admitted report. PROCLAMATION. In accordance with the provisions of an act entitled "An act submitting the constitution framed at Lecompton under the act of the Legislative Assembly of Kansas Territory, entitled An act to provide for taking a census and election of delegates to a convention,'" passed February 19, A. D. 1857, the undersigned announce the following as the offi Admission of Kansas-Mr. Bennett. Before that time, and before the constitution was pretended to be in existence for any purpose, the Legislature provided by law for its submission to a fair vote of the people. On the 8th of December the President said, in his annual message: "Whether Kansas shall be a free or a slave State must eventually, under some authority, be decided by an election." On that very same day Governor Stanton convened the Legislature of Kansas to provide for such an election. On the 17th of December the law was passed, and under it the question has been decided by an election!" The President also said: "The truth is that no other authentic and satisfactory mode exists of ascertaining the will of a majority of the people of a State or Territory, on an important and exciting question, like slavery in Kansas, except by leaving it to ă direct vote." Here the only authentic and satisfactory mode has been adopted, and the will of the majority has been ascertained "by a direct vote!" Had the Legislature calling the convention enacted it might put the constitution into operation without submitting it to the people, its authority to do so would have depended entirely upon that act of the Legislature; and that act, like any other law, might have been changed or repealed, or a submission required at any time before the constitution had been put into operation under it; and no State constitution could be put into operation until Congress admitted the Territory as a State. Attempting to do this, is called rebellion! And where there was a general dissatisfaction expressed, the Legislature should require it to be submitted to a vote, as they did. A mere law may be changed by the same power that can enact it. A further law may also be enacted. When it is admitted the power belonged to the 2. As to the validity of the election.-The act of the Legislature calling the convention did not require the constitution to be submitted to the peo-Legislature, and that it might have directed a subple. Governor Geary vetoed it for this reason, and the bogus Legislature passed it by a twothird vote, over his veto. Was the fraud since attempted, then designed? All concede that the Legislature could then have required its submission! But no one contends it could have dictated the form of the constitution. Why this difference? The right to form the constitution was delegated to the convention, the right to pass upon it belonged to the people. The delegates could not ratify their own acts. The act of the Legislature (and the President says it was an act of usurpation) only authorized them to form a constitution. That was all the authority the convention had. It had no legislative powers. The Legislature could not be affected by it-that remained the same until Kansas was admitted as a State as if no convention had been called. Yet the convention assumed legislative power, and provided that all laws not repugnant to their constitution should not be altered, amended, or repealed (they omitted to provide against the passage of a new law) until after the constitution was adopted; and that all civil and military officers should hold their offices until after that time. The convention met in September and adjourned over until after the October election, to know what kind of a Legislature might be elected; and with all the frauds practiced, it was against the pro-slavery party. Then they legislated their laws to stand and their officers to hold over, in the convention, In effect, the convention abolished the Governor and Legislature without a pretense of authority to do anything of the kind. Until it is admitted as a State Kansas must remain a Territory. The President calls it a Territory and keeps the territorial officers there. And the Governor and Legislature hold their offices until others are commissioned to act. No caucus or convention could deprive them of their offices or impair their authority. This convention also displaced the legal officers and judges of election, and appointed John Calhoun to a dictatorship, with full power to fill these places with his own corrupt tools and agents, acting under no legal responsibility or sanction whatever, for the convention could not impose any, to conduct an election for the pretended submission, and for State officers under this constitution, so as to declare their friends elected, let the result be as it might! This election was to be held on the 21st December. HO. OF REPS. voice, have repudiated, rejected, and condemned this constitution. That no man may deny or dispute. The assent of the people is as necessary as the assent of Congress to this instrument; indeed, more so; for they are to live under it and be governed by it. Congress cannot rightfully force a State into the Union against their will, and under a constitution rejected by them. This would be an arbitrary and unconstitutional exercise of power. A government thus imposed upon a peo. ple would not be republican either in form or in fact. Had the people of Kansas all signed a remonstrance against this constitution, and sent it here, would it be any answer to say no law had been passed authorizing them to protest against it in this manner? The fact is the same, whether their wishes are or are not expressed under color of law. The voluntary expression of public sentiment is the same as if it was done under the forms of law. And here the fact cannot be denied, the people are opposed to this constitution. XI. VOTE ON THE STATE OFFICERS ON THE FOURTH OF JANUARY. According to the official certificate of Governor Denver and the presiding officers of the Legislature, who were present at the canvass, the freeState officers and member of Congress were all elected, the lowest majority being over three hundred. To the Senate, thirteen free-State and six pro-slavery members were elected; and to the House, twenty-nine free-State and fifteen pro-slavery members were élected. Mr. Calhoun, however, who does the heavy work in this Kansas business, has never declared the result, either as to the State officers or members of the Legisla ture. It is said he stated freely, in Missouri, that the entire pro-slavery State ticket was elected, and also the pro-slavery member of Congress, and that the pro-slavery party had a majority in both will be the declared result, contrary to the true result, as certified by Governor Denver. If intended to be made otherwise, it would have been actually settled long ago, and been used as an argument in favor of the expediency of accepting the Lecompton constitution. Withholding these election returns, and refusing to declare the result, with the knowledge, and, as it must be presumed, the approval of the Administration, is one of the many things that mark the true character of this Lecompton fraud. But the secret is out at last: Calhoun, in his statement to Senator Green, says the whole free-State vote at this election was seven thousand and fifty-nine, of which six hundred and thirty-one were "illegally cast," and that the legal pro-slavery vote was six thousand five hundred and eighty-one. Deducting the six hundred and thirty-one votes which he declares ille gal, and the pro-slavery party has a majority of one hundred and fifty-three! mission before the convention met, it may not be denied the same power still remained, and a sub-branches of the Legislature. And this, no doubt, mission could just as legally be directed afterwards as before; and this provision, afterwards made, would be as legal as if embraced in the original act. This power had not been surrendered. The Legislature could not lose it, or the convention acquire it, by implication. The law for the submission is as valid as the law for the convention; one rests on the same authority as the other, and must have the same force and effect. The law ordering the election was, therefore, legal and valid; and the decision of the people under it, final and conclusive! 3. As to the effect of this election. The past and present Administrations have constantly urged the people of Kansas to settle all their difficulties peaceably at their elections. Yet, the President now refuses to recognize that fair and peaceable mode of settlement. The professions and practice are in conflict. At one time when the Legislature was elected, an armed invasion interferes and prevents a fair election; at another, they are required to vote viva voce, so that frauds may be practiced to any necessary extent. And by the President's officials the people in twenty counties are disfranchised and denied the right to vote. All these fraudulent proceedings are recognized, and these are all held to be valid elections. But when a fair election has been held, the President will not hear the result, or recognize its force when heard! He says a submission to the people is correct in principle, and he trusts will be adopted "on all future occasions." Why apply this correct principle to future occasions only? No case can ever arise where a greater necessity for it will exist. In this case it was made indispensable by the organic act. It is not only correct in principle but it is universal in practice. There is not an existing State constitution in the Union that has not in some way been sanctioned by a vote of the people governed by it. Why should Kansas be made an exception? Whether the law for this election was valid, as the people all believed, or invalid, as is now pretended, is, in truth, wholly immaterial, so long as the election was fairly held, and the will of the majority fairly expressed. No legal objection or legal quibble can change or alter the great fact that the people of Kansas, not only a majority, but the whole people, with almost one unanimous XII.-DELAWARE CROSSING. On the 4th January the free-State officers were elected, as I have stated, by about three hundred majority. This majority it was necessary to overcome, and to change the Legislature by having a majority in Leavenworth county. Enough votes to do this were fraudulently returned from Delaware Crossing, namely, three hundred and seventy-nine-every vote pro-slavery? It has since been established; and Isaac Munday, one of the judges of the election at that precinct, testified that only forty-three votes were polled at that place; that the returns had been taken off, a forged return of three hundred and seventy-nine votes added, and the certificate of the judges at tached; that the true returns were given to Henderson to carry to Calhoun before this forged vote was added. Calhoun denies receiving them, but the forged returns are found secreted on his premises. In this transaction Calhoun, his chief clerk, McLane, his brother-in-law, Diffendorf, and Henderson, one or all, appear to be implicated, and their testimony and statements do not agree. This appears to be a sore place; and Mr. Calhoun was forced to come out in the newspapers with a story that he, poor soul, was imposed upon! The proof of the fraud could not be disputed, and Calhoun said if Governor Denver would take the testimony of the judges of the election, he would count out this fraudulent and forged vote. Mun 1 35TH CONG....1ST SESS. day, on his way to give his evidence, was shot. The dead tell no tales. His testimony was never taken again, as Calhoun required. He exposed the crime. Who were the criminals? The proslavery men say Munday shot himself, or was murdered by some free-State man! How improbable! He had no reason for suicide; he had concluded to serve God and let slavery alone. Who had anything to fear from Munday's evidence? What party might lose? what men be exposed by it? Who could have any motive of fear or of revenge, to prompt them on to such a deed? Those who had been guilty of forgery or perjury, or both, in regard to this transaction! If he was murdered, it was not by free-State men; they were glad to have him tell the truth; they wanted his evidence! It was done by some fiend of the proslavery faction from fear, or for revenge-another crime in the effort to make Kansas a slave State. Delaware Crossing. Isaac Munday, being sworn, deposes and says: I reside at Delaware Agency, Leavenworth county, Kansas Territory; was one of the judges of election at that precinct, on the election held there on the 4th of January, 1858, for offcers under the Lecompton constitution; I was before this board to testify at Leavenworth city on the 26th day of January, 1858; I did not then see the poll-books of Delaware Agency precinct. I have been shown now, by the board, a roll, which purports to be the poll-books of that precinct; I find, on examination, a certificate made out upon a portion of a sheet of paper, containing the certificates of the judges of election, sigued by me and the other judges; the signatures, I believe, are genuine, but the preceding seven sheets of paper, with lines drawn between two columns of names, and numbered to represent three hundred and seventy-nine names, I never saw before; the portion of paper upon which the certificates are made out appears to have been cut from the original poll books, as made out and signed by the judges of election, and has been wafered to this list, which was never made out by us; the poll-books which I signed at the close of the election were made out upon three sheets of paper, wafered one upon the other; the heading of the original poll-books was made out upon a broader sheet of paper than this, and in an entirely different handwriting; the names on the list were in one column, and numbered differently from what they are in this; I see nothing genuine in these poll-books, except the certificate which is appended, and which has apparently been cut from the original roll; there were some names signed on the last sheet, just above the certificate; this has been cut between the certificate and the names; the paper which we used was wafered together with red wafers; these are fastened with wafers of a different color; the names of the persons who really did vote there on that day were written in a different order from what they are here; there were just forty-three votes taken in by us there, and those were all the names written on the list; on this I find three hundred and seventy-nine names, and names of men who did not vote there, and men that ĺ never saw or heard of; I believe the whole thing is a forgery, except what appears on the last sheet, which contains the certificate, as signed by inyself and the other judges; I have been shown by this board a tally-list, accompanying the poll-books, which tally-list gives to each of the Democratic candidates three hundred and seventy-nine votes; I never saw that tally-list before; the heading and the certificate which we used at the election were brought to the poll-room on the day of the election, I think, by Mr. Garrett; blank spaces were left for the name of the precinct to be written in; I think Mr. Findlay, one of the clerks, filled in the name of the precinct in the blank space in the heading and certificate; I do not know whose handwriting the original heading and certificate were made out in; I do not think it was in the handwriting of Garrett, Wilson, or any of the clerks or judges of election; I do not know where Mr. Garrett got the heading and certificate; the impression made on my mind at the time was that he had brought them up from Wyandot; something was said about making out the poll-books, and he remarked that he had brought them up all prepared; I have been shown an affidavit by this board as follows: "Territory of Kansas, County of Leavenworth: "The undersigned, judges and clerks of the election held for State officers and members of the State Legislature, held at the precinct known as Delaware Agency, on the 4th day of January, 1858, do hereby certify that the returns made by us of said election were correct and genuine; and that any statement made by any person as to the vote of said precinct can only be determined, as to its truth or falsity, by a reference to said returns made by us as managers and clerks of said election at said precinct." I signed an affidavit worded as above, at Westport, Missouri, on the 18th day of January, A. D. 1858, before Samuel Salters, an acting justice of the peace for Johnson county, Kansas Territory; the affidavit was signed by myself and the other judges and clerks of the election; I heard, prior to signing the affidavit, various rumors as to there being forged returns from our precinct; the affidavit was made in Westport; was drawn up by Mr. J. H. Danforth; fearing the various reports as to there being forged returns from our precinct, and knowing that Mr. Garrett had been arrested, and that some one had been at my house to arrest me, on a charge of having something to do with it, I went to Westport for the purpose of seeing General Calhoun, who it was reported would be there; I did not find him there; Mr. Danforth was there; I met him at the post office; never aw him before that day; at the time I signed that affidavit did not know that there were any forged returns with my signature attached; I supposed then that the genuine reEurns were in the hands of Calhoun, and believed that if we NEW SERIES-No. 16. Admission of Kansas-Mr. Bennett. made this affidavit, Calhoun would get our signatures cor- XIII. VOTING BY FREE-STATE MEN. That part of the free-State party that voted for State officers on the 4th of January, (about half the free-State men refused to vote,) have been claimed as indorsing and assenting to the Lecompton constitution. This is an error. They voted to take from their enemies, in any contingency, all pretense of authority; and they voted protesting against the Lecompton constitution. The convention nominating the free-State officers unanimously "Resolved, That the candidate nominated by this convention, on accepting this nomination, will be considered as pledged, should the constitution be approved by Congress, to adopt and execute immediate measures for enabling the people, through a new constitutional convention, to obtain such a constitution as the majority may approve." And the free-State officers elected (but who have not been, and will not be, declared elected) have sent to Congress their protest against admission under it, reciting how it was made, and concluding as follows: "In view of these facts-that the Lecompton constitution was framed by a bare majority of a convention, elected by a small minority of the people of Kansas, and that the convention refused to submit the constitution thus framed to a fair vote of the people for their ratification or rejection, and that the Territorial Legislature did provide by law for its submission, under which law it was submitted and rejected by an overwhelming majority of the people; and for the sake of harmony and the integrity of the Union, we, the officers elected under said constitution, do most respectfully and earnestly pray your honorable bodies not to admit Kansas into the Union under said constitution, and thus force upon our people an organic law against their express will, and in violation of every principle of popular govern ment. "G. W. SMITII, Governor elect. "W. M. ROBERTS, Lieutenant Governor elect. "ANDREW J. MEADE, State Treasurer elect. "J. K. GOODIN, Auditor of State elect." These facts are stated by responsible men. They are true, and can be proved; and they are undisputed. XIV. SUBMISSION ON TWENTY-FIRST DECEMBER. The pretended submission, on the 21st December, of the constitution, was a most shameless fraud. To submit a constitution to the people, allowing them to vote for it, but not to vote against it, was no submission. It was a confession that it ought to be submitted, but a refusal to submit it. HO. OF REPS. property in slaves and their increase cannot be interfered with, it must remain so. Instead of a prohibition of slavery, here is a constitutional sanction. It also declared, in relation to amendments, that "no alteration shall be made to affect the rights of property in the ownership of slaves.' The other constitution was one undisguisedly establishing slavery and prohibiting its repeal, but allowing slaves, upon certain terms, to be emancipated. Here was a double fraud. First, the votes must be for the constitution, and could not be against it. Next, the votes must be for slavery, and could not be against it. If they voted for the "constitution with no slavery," that established slavery, and made it perpetual! What a "fair opportunity" was here presented! A fair opportunity to establish slavery! and to provide that it should never be abolished! and no opportunity to vote against it in any way. "Heads I win, tails you lose"-what a fair opportunity! The President regrets the people neglected to improve it. It was an insulting fraud, that a blackleg would have the grace to disown. XV. VOTE ON THE TWENTY-FIRST DECEMBER. According to the official certificate of Governor Denver and the presiding officers of the Legislature, the whole vote was six thousand seven hundred and twelve for the constitution at this election. They were present at the canvass on the 14th of January. According to Calhoun, it is now six thousand seven hundred and ninety-five. When or how the eighty-three votes were added is not explained! This vote, as reported and counted, was to a great extent fraudulent. The following is a comparison of the reported vote of four precincts, with the actual vote as proved by the judges and clerks of the elections, before the investigating committee of the Territorial Legislature: Oxford. Shawnee................................... Total.... Reported. Actual. Here are frauds at four precincts of nearly three thousand of the six thousand votes returned. But this is denied and proof withheld. The officers of the Legislature say: "Taking into view other, but less important, frauds, we feel safe in saying, that of the whole vote polled, not over two thousand were legal votes polled by citizens of the Territory." The real vote at this election was, in fact, about the same as at the election for delegates; that is, the actual strength of the factious pro-slavery minority, according to the best and most reliable evidence to be obtained-namely, about two thou sand. At the election on the 4th of January, when a fair vote either way was allowed, there was from ten to twelve thousand majority against this constitution. At the election on the 21st of December, the real vote was about two thousand in its favor. But at this election no one could vote against it! XVI. AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION The President insists that the majority, if they are for a free State, (as he seems to assume,) can amend this constitution at pleasure, after it is adopted; and says: "The will of the majority is supreme and irresistible, when expressed in an orderly and lawful manner. They can make and unmake constitutions at pleasure. It would be absurd to say that they can impose fetters upon their own power which they cannot afterwards remove. If they could do this, they might tie their own hands for a hundred as well as for ten years." The President says the convention "did not think proper to submit the whole of this constitution to a popular vote, but they did submit the question whether Kansas should be a free or a slave State to the people." And he afterwards says that this election presented "a fair opportunity" to decide the question of slavery. It is true, the votes were to be labeled "constitution with slavery" and "constitution with no slavery;" but it is equally true, that the constitutions, in both cases established and perpetuated slavery; the one with no slavery being made unalterable and irre- His position is that the proceedings to make a pealable, and in that respect even worse than the constitution are irrepealable, and the question of other, which did allow slaves to be emancipated its adoption cannot even be submitted to the peoupon certain terms. The President says that "Kan-ple, but when once firmly fixed upon them, the sas is as much a slave State as Georgia or South Carolina;" and, therefore, that" slavery can never be prohibited in Kansas except by means of a constitutional provision." The constitution with no slavery declared "that the right of property in slaves now in the Territory shall in no manner be interfered with." If it is now a slave State, and the right of will of the majority is supreme and irresistible. The very reverse is the fact. Before they are admitted under it, the will of the majority is fettered by no conditions, and should be supreme and irresistible. After it is adopted it can only be amended in a legal manner, according to its provisions, and slavery could never be prohibited. ! 35TH CONG....1ST SESS. Can a majority of the people, or even of the stitution? The President promised the people of Kansas, through the Governor he appointed for them, that the constitution should be submitted to the people, for them to adopt or reject. That promise has been violated. Now he expresses an opinion that if the constitution establishing slavery is adopted, it can be easily amended and made a freeState constitution! The opinion is more worthless than the promise; for if in this instance he should maintain his integrity, he cannot decide this question-that will come before the pro-slavery judges of Kansas, subject to an appeal to the pro-slavery judges of the Supreme Court. The Kansas judges are the same who directed indictment against citizens of Kansas for their political opinions. The supreme judges are the same who recently, in an opinion-not a decision-(the Dred Scott case) usurped legislative powers beyond those admitted to belong to Congress, and by a kind of judicial usurpation, and judicial enactment, attempted to extend slavery beyond the limits of the States where it existed, into all the Territories of the United States. And this the President recognizes as law, when these judges had no more authority to extend slavery beyond the limits of the States where it was upheld by local law than so many other persons who never had been judges. Both courts are intensely pro-slavery, and, judging the future by the past, ready to do anything for slavery that party necessities may require. These courts would say the constitution, if once adopted, could only be amended in a legal way, and according to ita provisions, and not at all as to slavery, which is made irrepealable. Nor could any act of Congress change this, as has been suggested. Congress can only admit or refuse to admit the State under the Constitution. The people of Kansas, up to this time, have been unable to get rid of the illegal legislation of 1855. And they never could change this pro-slavery constitution, if it should be adopted, short of revolution. XVII. EQUAL RIGHTS. The rulers of this Government, the privileged political class, who represent slavery, say they must have equal rights in the Union or they will go out of it. It is just and right that the people of different States and different sections, of different occupations and pursuits, should have equal political rights, and, in proportion to their numbers, equal political power. We all agree in this great principle, upon which alone a representative government can rest. If those who complain are denied this, I will aid them to obtain it by a change of policy, or of the Constitution itself. Will they do the same? Will they consent to stand upon a real and true equality? If so, we have only to examine fairly what section, or class of States, or individuals, have had more than their equal share of political power, and correct it. This question of slavery has been made, and is, a question of political power. So says Senator MASON; so says the gentleman from Mississippi, [Mr. DAVIS,] and I admit it. It is this that brings it here; it is this that gives to it its bitterness; and, as they say, endangers the Union. How stands the account? Who hold the power of this Government in their hands? Who have held it in their hands for the last sixty years? Is it the Representatives of all the people of all the States equally? Have the Admission of Kansas-Mr. Bennett. Representatives of the free States had it in their five of the slave-owners have been. As far as the Since 1809, the President pro tempore of the Sen- Since 1820, for thirty-eight years closing with the present Congress, slave-owners have been Speakers of the House for thirty years; and freeState men for only eight years! The Speaker, by the appointment of committees, controls the legislation of the country more than any other officer of the Government, and the committees never were appointed in so unfair and partisan a manner as in the present Congress! In the thirty-five Congresses, we have had twen ty-two Speakers who were slave-owners, and twelve who were free-State men. What class of men have had more than their equal rights? HO. OF REPS. are counted nearly two million more than they are, because they own slaves. Instead of three Representatives in Congress, they have thirty, because they own slaves. But this is not all the political power they have. They control those States. The free whites in the slave States, not owning slaves, numbering five million eight hundred and thirty-eight thousand three hundred and fifty-seven, the great body of the people, do not seem practically to have any political power. Who ever heard of any of them being President, Vice President, a Cabinet officer, a Senator, or member of Congress, or a judge of the Supreme Court, or filling any other important office under this Government? The slave-owners, by their property and political privileges, are made the ruling class in those States. They control the press, and force submission to their will by a system of terrorism and constrained public sentiment. We must add to their power the nearly six million non-slaveholders in the slave States. These three hundred and forty-six thousand slave-owners, bound together by a single interest, have therefore in their hands practically the political power of about eight million people, bond and free. Do they claim more than that for their equal rights? We find that three hundred and forty-six thou sand slaveholders have had one department of the Government in their hands absolutely-the judiciary; the executive practically, and also the legislative-all; and yet they are going out of the Union if they cannot have their equal rights. This is no over statement. More than twenty million free people are governed by some three hundred and forty-six thousand, and have been for sixty years; and they claim more, or will go out of the Union after equal rights. All I can say is, if they were fairly out of the Union we might, after their departure, have equal rights. They talk of an equilibrium-that is the phrase. A greater absurdity could not be imagined. How can you arrest the natural increase of over twenty million free people, and the immense immigra tion here, to keep pace with three fifths of your increase of slaves? for, if one increases faster than the other, your equilibrium is overthrown. You cannot do this; and, therefore, you attempt to overthrow the principle of equal rights in representation. Every departure from this is a step towards despotism. Would it not be absurd for the shoemakers in the free States (and they are more numerous than the slaveholders) to demand an equilibrium, or say they would leave the Union? or for Rhode Island to say she would dash the Union into fragments unless her relative strength in the Government was kept exactly sta tionary, as it was when there were but thirteen States in the Union? We should answer to all Since 1789, up to the present Administration, these claims: "Keep cool; you are not wronged; the Secretary of State has been appointed fourteen you have your just and equal share in the Govtimes from slave-owners, and only eight times ernment in proportion to your numbers;" that is, from free-State men. This is the first officer of republican and democratic. So have slaveholdthe Cabinet, who has charge of the foreign rela-ers; and more than that, just so much more as tions of the country. What men have had more than their equal rights? Since 1841, slave-owners have held the office of Secretary of the Navy, except two years, up to the organization of the present Cabinet; and since 1849, a slave-owner has always been Secretary of War. The free States furnish most of the shipping and seamen for the Navy, and most of the soldiers for the Army; but slave-owners command them. Who have had more, in this, than their equal rights? In the Supreme Court, five of the nine judges, including the Chief Justice, have always been slave-owners, and only four from the free States, and these must be sturdy adherents of the slave power. So that one department of the Government has been forever exclusively in the hands of slave-owners. Is this giving the other citizens their equal rights? Nearly one hundred to one of the people of this country are not slave-owners, and more than three fourths of the business of this court arises in the free States! There is a class of the people having more political power, than any other class of citizensnamely, the slave-owners. There are three hundred and forty-six thousand and forty-seven of them, including men, women, and children. They admit and boast that they have controlled the Government for sixty years, and do now. They own three million two hundred and four thousand two hundred and eighty-seven slaves. Three fifths of them are counted; so that three hundred and forty-six thousand and forty-seven persons are counted as if they numbered in fact two million two hundred and sixty-eight thousand six hundred and nineteen in the scale of representation. These three hundred and forty-six thousand slave representation increases it. And this they have. Whether there should be one or more slave States, their equal rights can never be destroyed. Increasing free States or decreasing slave States could never deprive a single slave State of their equal rights. It might lessen-it could never remove-the inequality and injustice that now give them absolute power in the Government. The annexed table and extracts are added upon this subject: EXTENT, POPULATION, AND REPRESENTATION OF THE FREE AND SLAVE STATES. Free States. Sq. Miles. Population. Sen. Rep. 1. New York........ 46,000 2. Pennsylvania...... 47,000 3. Ohio........ 3,048,325 2,258,160 39,964 1,955,050 4. Massachusetts..... 7,250 5. Indiana... 6. Illinois... 2 33 2 95 21 33,809 985,450 2 2 11 55,409 846,034 8. New Jersey....... 6,851 35,000 581,813 6 465,509 5 395,071 4 363,099 317,456 313,402 304,756 .... 191,881 143,875 13,347,035 50,914 Fifteen States......454,344 |