The law admitting Arkansas declared the bound- of proceedings by Territorial Legislatures witharies of the State. That, I suppose, establishes the out authority from Congress by special act. That fact that nobody then maintained that there was destroys the whole argument which has been atany authority in her constitution prior to her ad-tempted to be founded upon them. With refermission. The territorial limits of a State are essential to her existence; until they are defined there can be no State; after there is a State, Congress cannot determine its right of territory. On the territory depend the counties, the election districts, the judicial divisions, the apportionments of representation, the very people who are entitled to be heard on the adoption of the constitu tion. If the territorial law can authorize a convention which can adopt a constitution having any legal force prior to the recognition of Congress, it must have the right to define and appropriate the territory of the State it creates; and, if it have not this power, it cannot create a State, in the eye of the law, at all; for Congress may destroy its identity by taking away a half, or two thirds, or all its territory, and give it to another State. Congress recognized the State of Michigan upon the condition that her people should accept the boundaries Congress prescribed; and, on their acceptance only, was Michigan admitted. Jowa was declared to be admitted as a State, in 1845, under her constitution of 1844, Congress declaring her boundaries, and requiring the assent of her people to them. But, in August, 1846, Congress prescribed by law other boundaries for Iowa; and, by that law, recognized the validity of the proceedings of the Legislature of the Territory of lowa of the 17th of January, 1846, submitting the boundary between the Territory and Missouri to the Supreme Court; and, finally, in December, 1846, Congress declared Iowa admitted into the Union under a constitution formed in May, 1846,|| and with the boundaries of the law of 1846. The case of Wisconsin is still more decisive. The territorial legislative power extended to all proper subjects of legislation; yet Congress passed an enabling act, and in it defined the boundaries of the future State, on the 6th of August, 1846. The people formed a constitution on the 16th December, 1846, and Congress admitted the State on condition the people assented to other boundaries. Instead of merely assenting to the boundaries, they formed a new constitution on the 1st of February, 1848; and, on their application, were admitted as a State with the boundaries of the enabling act, on the 29th of May, 1848. These cases demonstrate that, whether a constitution be formed by the people, under or without an enabling act, the constitution has no force of law over either person or Territory till the final and complete admission of the State. Till her Senators and Representatives are entitled to their seats, the territorial authorities continue, the organic law is operative and supreme, the Territorial Legislature retains its legislative power, Congress can absolutely dispose of the territory, assign its limits and exercise its discretion whether to admit the people as a State or to retain them as they are. In a word, these cases display the great fact lost sight of in this controversy, that till actual and final admission as a State, the constitution is et a law; it is merely a proposition, which will become operative only when Congress recognizes the existence of the State. With reference to Michigan, a controversy arose in the Senate which elicited some salutary opinions. We have, first of all, the statement of his Excellency, the President, then in the Senate. When Michigan was applying for recognition, the exact question arose, whether there was a legal power in the Territorial Legislature to proceed, their powers being as I have stated them. Mr. Buchanan then said: "We have pursued this course [that is, to disregard informalities) in regard to Tennessey, to Arkansas, and even to Michigan. No Senator will pretend that their Territorial Legislatures had any right whatever to pass laws enabling the people to elect delegates to a convention for the purpose of forming a State constitution. It was an act of usurpation on their part." This was said in the hearing of the whole Senate, that no Senator would contend that they had legal authority, and he asserted that it was an act of usurpation! And, so far as the record shows, no man rose to controvert the authority of this distinguished expositor of Democratic doctrines of that day. Well, sir, that covers the three cases ence to Arkansas, I am protected by the authority of a name dear to the party which he founded. The Governor of that Territory applied to General Jackson to know whether the Territorial Legislature had any authority to pass an act for the purpose of taking the sense of the people on the subject of a State constitution. General Jackson took the opinion of his Attorney General, Mr. Butler; and the opinion of that distinguished lawyer, acquiesced in by the whole Administration, was, that there was no legal authority in the Territorial Legislature, but that it was beyond their temporary functions; that there was no authority inherent in the people, but that they were subordinate to the power of Congress, governed, as he says, under that clause of the Constitution which gives Congress power to make all needful rules and regulations for the territory of the United States. The new lights had not risen in their day. And as if no authority should be wanting, entitled to command respect with every division of the various opinions that are entertained now in this House, we have the further authority of a gentleman from whom, in many respects, it is my misfortune to have differed in political opinion, but who, in my judgment, was one of the ablest gentlemen that ever graced the councils of this country-more conservative, manly, and upright in his views and convictions and conduct than almost any man of his party; always ready to sacrifice party allegiance upon the altar of truth; always following the dictates of an independent judgment, as well in his votes as in his reasoning, and, for that reason, justly the worshiped idol of the great southern section of this country. I suppose that the strict-constructionist gentlemen of this House will not accuse me of any sympathy for dangerous dogmas from Federal quarters when I quote the authority of Mr. Calhoun: "My opinion was, and still is, that the movement of the people of Michigan in forming for themselves a State constitution, without waiting for the assent of Congress, was revolutionary." What does the incumbent of the Executive chair say to that now? Why were not the military forces of the United States directed-instead of guarding and protecting the Lecompton convention, to turn them out, as they were directed to turn out the Topeka convention, equally illegal or equally legal? Mr. Calhoun proceeds to assign the reason: "As it threw off the authority of the United States over the Territory." That he regarded as necessarily involved in the very idea of their assuming to themselves to take the first step, in a legal form, towards the establishment of a State government. He proceeds to say: -"or to waive the irregularity." Now all the argument of our friends on the other side is to follow the regular course, and break down the irregular course-only they have agreed to call the regular course that which Mr. Calhoun called the irregular course. He proceeds to say: "And to recognize what was done as rightfully doneas our authority alone was concerned-my impression was that the former was the proper course; but I also thought that the act remanding her back should contain our assent, in the usual manner, for her to form a constitution, and thus leave her free to become a State." And so a distinguished gentleman in another place [Mr. CRITTENDEN] thought, not long since, and possibly there are some here who may think like him. Well, sir, no gentleman can rise here and cite any Administration that has ever existed in this Republic, down to the beginning of Mr. Buchanan's administration, that has ever so flagrantly violated the laws of the Republic as to recognize any proceedings of a Territorial Legislature on this subject as having authority of law. No man can name any high officer of the Government that Ho. oF REPS. has ever said so, as no man can show any vote of Congress that has ever looked to such a recognition. It was, sir, the first blunder-to be followed up consecutively and logically by other blunders in law, in policy, as well as in morals-that this Administration made, when it recognized the legal authority of the Lecompton convention, assembled under the Legislature of Kansas. It was the last of the novelties which have been palmed on the country as sound law, to break the fall to which the inventors of the Kansas-Nebraska act have been staggering for the last four years. Sir, it was new in this Administration. No member of either House of Congress, at the last Congress, thought that there was any authority in the act of 1854 for the people to proceed, or for the Territorial Legislature to proceed. That law reserved to Congress the right to divide the Territory. How, then, could it authorize the people of that Territory to form themselves into one State? Did it contemplate that the wandering rabble that was there when that law was passed had then the right? And if they had not the right, pray how and when was the construction of the law changed, so far as the legal meaning is concerned, by the accession of population? Did President Pierce, when he requested Congress to settle the difficulties of Kansas by passing a law authorizing them to form a State constitution when they should have ninety-three thousand inhabitants, think the people of Kansas then had that authority? Did the gentleman [Mr. TOOMBS] who, in another place, during the last Congress, moved a bill authorizing them, when they should have ninety-three thousand inhabitants, to form a constitution, and providing all the detailed organization of the convention, think that without that law they had the authority then? Did this House, when it passed Mr. Dunn's bill, suppose they were doing then what the Territorial Legislature had the right already to do, although that bill postponed the exercise of the authority it conferred until their population had reached the requisite point? If they did not, then we have the concurrent opinions of all departments of the Government during the last Administration -nay, of every member of the last Congress of both sides, Democratic and Republican, as well as of all previous Administrations, of the statutebook speaking for itself no less than the reason and nature of the proceeding, against the possibility of any legal validity being imparted to the convention and its proceedings by virtue of the territorial laws; and those things of themselves ought to be sufficient, in my judgment, to settle the principle that there is no legal authority in the Territorial Legislature to proceed in the matter. But it is perfectly clear that the law of the Legislature of Kansas itself has not been executed. It required a census to be taken in all the counties. It was not taken in half of them. It required the appointment of delegates to be made after the census was "completed" and "returned." It was made before the census was more than half taken. The law contemplated an apportionment on the basis of a completed census of the whole Territory; and, of course, till that was done, there was no authority to make any apportionment. The causes of failure are immaterial to the legal point; but they are certified officially, by the Governor and Secretary, to have been the neglect of the local officers, and not the hostility or opposition of the people. It required the apportionment to be made by the Governor and the Secretary. It was made by the Secretary alone, who was acting Governor at the time. It required counties not having population enough for a delegate, to be attached to some district; the fourteen counties excluded from the census were not attached to any district. They therefore had neither vote nor representation, actual or constructive, in the convention. This failure to execute the law alone is fatal to every idea of legal validity in the proceedings. If there was no legal authority in the Legislature, then I suppose that the fabric of my honorable friends on the other side tumbles about their ears. What becomes of the argument that we cannot look behind the certificates? Why, the certificates have no legal authority. What becomes of the argument that these people who staid at home authorized those who voted to vote for them? If there was no legal election, they were not bound ever met, face to face, in an American manner, at of Congress to redress their grievances; that they The President's policy is high treason against Is it true that the dividing line is between those who are loyal to this territorial government and those who endeavored to destroy it by force and usurpation? Then the latter have been no parties to the proceedings for a convention, yet are to be subject to the constitution. Is it true that the territorial government would long since have been subverted had it not been protected from their assaults by the troops of the United States? Then the stronger part of the people is against the proceeding for a constitution; and it is to the weaker part the President proposes to confide the powers of State government over the stronger. Is not this to deliver the State into the hands of its enemies? or will the rebels submit when the United States withdraw their troops? or are they to guaranty the new usurpation? We are at liberty to see that only two thousand six hundred and seventy people voted on calling a convention; that only two thousand two hundred people elected the convention; that the census shows only nine thousand two hundred and fifty-one voters, and twenty-four thousand seven hundred and eighty people in the Territory which has transformed itself into a State. And if they who hitherto insisted on confining us to legal returns and certificates now suggest the imperfections of the census and registry, I agree we may go further and see that there may be twelve thousand voters, and from thirty-seven thousand to forty-two thousand people in the Territory; but of them not three thousand voters modestly ask the powers of a State government against the votes of ten thousand, and the protest of seven thousand. Nay, sir, emancipated from every trammel, we are at liberty and bound to go further and to inquire whether there has been in this Territory such fierce collisions, such hostile passions, so much of rebellion against their regular government, such an absolute division of the people with reference to their government, so much of civil bloodshed, so much of military control, such an absence of the ordinary political virtues, of calmness, of consideration, of deliberation, as the President describes; whether an overwhelming majority of the people are opposed to the thing that is now sought to be forced or foisted upon them and devoted to another form of government. It relieves us from the fear of encounter-speak, and now that they have spoken, refuse to ing the dangers intimated and vaguely hinted at by gentlemen upon the other side in the event of our venturing to do our duty. It leaves us free to determine whether, under all these circumstances, it is not a fair case for legislative discretion to pause and ask the people again what they say, upon a sober, second thought," about itto see whether the people are likely to submit or likely to resist-whether any such great good is to be accomplished by now forcing this constitution upon them, that inevitable civil war will be compensated by it. We are told by the President that this is the shortest way to settle the agitation. Mr. Chairman, I confess myself astonished at such an opinion from a gentleman who has seen so much of public service, has so long filled distinguished positions, and also knows, or ought to know, so much of human nature. Why, what has been the difficulty in that unfortunate Territory? Was it not that their Territorial Legislature was usurped? Is not that the reason that, from the foundation of the Territory to last October, the people refused to recognize any authority under the laws emanating from that Legislature? Have they not been quieted only by the earnest efforts and warm appeals, backed by the military power, of Governor Walker? Were they not quieted alone by the assurance, which he gave them, that they should have an opportunity of expressing their opinion on the law which was to govern them? Did they not join in the October election because they had confidence in his assurances? Was it not for the first time that the people of that Territory had Is it true that Secretary Stanton was obliged to summon the Legislature as the only means whereby the election of the 21st December could be conducted without collision and bloodshed? Then, why was Mr. Stanton dismissed for summoning them? Was it in furtherance of the same policy which then refused the people an opportunity to hear them? Or if that election could not be conducted without collision and bloodshed, because the people were subjected to an authority they defied, is it the purpose of the President to insure the collision and bloodshed Stanton avoided, by forcing on them a government which they have protested and remonstrated against, and are ready to defy and destroy? Is that the readiest method of settling the Kansas question? Is it the truth, that up to the present moment the Is the reason the people refused to vote for del- HO. OF REPS. change which the mass of the people will demand, if we now refuse to listen to their protest, then, in my judgment, the shortest remedy is the best. Free government is a farce if men are required to submit to usurpation such as has here been perpetrated, and I fear the people of Kansas are not in a mood to assist at the farce. They will turn it into tragedy. Having heretofore resisted, we ought to suppose they will resist again. We ought to act wisely and carefully; and if we have discretion now, we will not drive this people upon revolutionary courses. Give them a mode of relief, and allow them to follow that peaceful course which they are inclined to follow, according to all reports from that Territory. Give them the opportunity of expressing their will as to the law under which they are to live; and having expressed their will-whether it be for slavery or against slavery, is, in my judgment, absolutely immaterial-allow them to come in at a proper time, with a proper population, and with reasonable boundaries and a rich dower, as one of the sister States of the Republic. ADMISSION OF KANSAS. SPEECH OF HON. JAMES B. CLAY, IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, The House being in the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union Mr. CLAY said: Mr. CHAIRMAN: I have repeatedly, sir, sought to obtain the floor to make known some of my opinions; but, until now, have never been so fortunate as to succeed, because, I presume, of the fact that I would not go to the Speaker's chair to ask my name to be placed on the list there kept, having determined that if I could not get the floor from this, my seat, as a Representative in Congress, I would confine myself to my duty of roling upon all questions of importance. And now, sir, having been recognized, I am ill, quite ill, as I have been for some days; and this fact must be my excuse and my apology for doing that which, under ordinary circumstances, I disapprove, reading the greater part of the remarks I shall offer; but to-morrow is the last day allowed to this debate, and I must say now what I wish to say, or not at all. I have desired, sir, at some time during the pendency of the question of the admission or nonadmission of Kansas as a State into the Union, under the constitution made at Lecompton, to give public expression of some of my views upon the subject from my proper place in this House. It is so late, sir, in the debate that the subject seems, indeed, almost to be exhausted; the minds of members are made up, and I can hope to accomplish nothing beyond placing myself upon the ree ord, whilst there is some doubt as to the ultimate fate of the measure. I only desire to do this that my friends at home, and the country generally, may know precisely how I stand upon the ques tion; and it will be my purpose to express myself with that frankness and freedom which I have endeavored always to observe during my short political career. In the first place, sir, I wish to make a personal explanation, which, perhaps, I ought to have made at the time, but which I have considered would be more apropos when I should have other occasion to address the House. In the early days of the session I had the honor to call upon the President, with other gentlemen, for the purpose of giving him information as to the state of the Democratic party upon the Kansas question, which, in my opinion, was at the time important. Of this I made no secret; and yet, in newspapers of my own country and elsewhere, I was greatly misrepresented, as having gone to tender advice and remonstrance to the Chief Magistrate. went to the President for no such purpose. Ad have been a sort of intervention which my sense Ivice or remonstrance on my part to him would of propriety would have forbidden. He understood me well, or ought to have done so, as did all those who knew the facts. My sole desire was to preserve harmony and good feeling in a party with which I was acting. 35TH CONG....1ST SESS. Mr. Chairman, we have now before us all the light upon the Kansas question that we can expect to have. A committee of investigation of this House was early appointed. Majority and minority have made their reports, if not to the House, at least they are before the country. The whole subject has been elaborately discussed in both Houses of Congress, and there is not a single fact bearing in the remotest degree upon it, not even the determination of Mr. Calhoun in respect to the State officers of Kansas, which is not well known. It is impossible to disguise the fact, sir, however much gentlemen may protest against it, that at the bottom of all the difficulties about Kansas, lies that same question that has so often put the Union in peril: I mean the question of negro slavery. And it does seem to me, sir, that if we could only bring ourselves to be actuated by the same spirit of lofty patriotism that inspired the best men of all parties in those momentous periods of 1820, 1832, and 1850, we should find but little difficulty in our way. I am perfectly aware, sir, that many gentlemen assert that the question of slavery has nothing to do with their opposition to the admission of Kansas; and I am free to admit that I believe some of the northern Democrats in opposition honestly think it has not. I believe, sir, that they only deceive and delude themselves, and that they will find it impossible to convince the country that such is not the fact. Everywhere in Kentucky, during the contests of 1856 and 1857, whilst those with whom I acted asserted that the Democratic party was a national party; that its members North as well as South were true to the Union and to the guarantees of the Constitution, especially upon the question of slavery, we were met by the response that the whole North was abolition in sentiment, and that we were only deceived by our northern friends, honest though we might be ourselves; and that at the first presentation of the question, they would desert us. How will we return to our constituents should Kansas be refused admission? They will say to us, that up to the meeting of Congress; from the time immigration, actual or forced, first began to flow into Kansas, the question of slavery, and that alone, was the prominent, absorbing, and agitating question. They will say that the northern Democrats took their position against admission before many of the matters which have since afforded pretexts had any existence; before the elections of December and January, pronounced, and perhaps justly, as full of fraud; before the conduct of Calhoun was known. No matter what questions of submissions or of enabling acts have since been raised, all, all, they will say, have been but pretexts by which gentlemen have sought to disguise from themselves and from others the bare, naked truth, that their opposition to the Lecompton constitution is because of the slavery clause. Scornfully they will point to the aspect of parties in this House. They will show how the Republican party presents itself in solid, unbroken phalanx, not a member of it hesitating or wavering for an instant; all, who answer the question frankly, declaring they will never vote for the admission of a slave State. Turning to the Democratic opposition, they will show that not a man comes from south of Mason and Dixon's line. They will see some few southern members, it is possible, untrue to the constitutional rights of the South; but they are not of the Democratic party; they are of that party so signally defeated in my own State, some of whose members openly asserted, in 1856, that they would prefer the success of Frémont to that of Mr. Buchanan; and who, upon the news of every Abolition victory over the Democrats, threw up their hats and shouted for joy; who, by their sullen opposition to the Democratic party, to say the least, laid themselves open to the charge of suffering Mr. Banks to be elected Speaker of this House. Sir, whilst in this connection, I cannot fail to notice some passages of the very remarkable speech of the old and distinguished Senator from my State, [Mr. CRITTENDEN.] Filial, if not public duty requires that I should do so. I refer to that part of the honorable Senator's speech against the admission of Kansas in which he alludes to the compromise line of 360 30', in the language which I read, as the creation of Mr. Clay: "That compromise was a bond and assurance of peace. I would not have disturbed it. It was hallowed in my es Admission of Kansas-Mr. Clay. timation by the men who had made it. It was hallowed in Sir, this statement of Mr. CRITTENDEN is of a "Sir, while I was engaged in anxious consideration upon this subject, the idea of the Missouri compromise, as it has been termed, came under my review, was considered by me and finally rejected, as in my judgment less worthy of the common acceptance of both parties of this Union than the project which I offer to your consideration. "Mr. President, before I enter into a particular examination, however, of that Missouri comproinise, I beg to be allowed to correct a great error, not merely in the Senate, but throughout the whole country, in respect to my agency in regard to the Missouri compromise, or rather the line of 36° 30', established by the agency of Congress. I do not know whether anything has excited more surprise in my mind as to the rapidity with which important historical transactions are obliterated and pass out of memory, than has the knowledge of the fact that I was everywhere considered the author of the line of 36° 30', which was established upon the occasion of the admission of Missouri into the Union. "It would take up too much time to go over the whole of that important era in the public affairs of this country. I shall not attempt it; although I have ample materials before me, derived from a careful and particular examination of the Journals of both Houses. I will not occupy your time by going into any detailed account of the whole transaction; but I will content myself with stating that, so far from my having presented as a proposition the line of 35° 30', upon the occasion of considering whether Missouri ought to be admitted into the Union or not, it did not originate in the House of which I was a member. It originated in this body. Those who will cast their recollection back-and I am sure "At the next session it was renewed; and, at the time of Ho. OF REPS. admit slavery. The bill was finally passed. The committees of conference of the two Houses recommended the detachment of the two bills, and the passage of the Missouri bill with the clause of 36° 30' in it. So it passed. So it went to Missouri. So, for a moment, it quieted the country. But the clause of 36° 30', I repeat, you will find, sir, if you will take the trouble to look into the Journals, was, upon three or four different occasions, offered. Mr. Thomas, acting in every instance, presented the proposition of 36° 30'; and it was finally agreed to. But I take occasion to say, that among those who agreed to that line were a majority of southern members. My friend from Alabama, in the Senate, Mr. King, Mr. Pinckney, from Maryland, and a majority of the southern Senators in this body, voted in favor of the line of 36° 30'; and a majority of the southern members in the other House, at the head of whom was Mr. Lawrence himself, voted also for that line. I have no doubt that I did also; but, as I was Speaker of the House, and as the Journal does not show which way the Speaker votes, except in cases of a tie, I am not able to tell, with certainty, how I actually did vote; but I have no earthly doubt that I voted, in common with my other southern friends, for the adoption of the line of 36° 30'." Mark this language, sir: "The committee of conference of the two Houses recommended the detachment of the two bills, and the passage of the Missouri bil with the clause of 36° 30' in it. So it passed. So it went to Missouri. So, for a moment, it quieted the country." Sir, I cannot conceive how a gentleman of the great reputation of the honorable Senator from Kentucky can so soon have forgotten an historical fact, can so completely have overlooked the solemn protest of Mr. Clay, made at so recent and so momentous a period as 1850. Sir, I have great respect for the distinguished Senator; I have the kindest feelings towards him. So far as I am concerned, requiescat in pace. Mr. Chairman, whilst I believe the question of slavery is the true matter of difficulty, and only real ground of opposition to the admission of Kansas, at least on the part of Republicans and those Democrats in opposition, I do not mean to discuss it. Far too much has already been said. I have regretted and deplored the extreme speeches that have been made on either side, calculated only to widen the breach between the two sections of the country, and still further to endanger the existence of that Union, which in my opinion depends now, only, upon the justice and patriotism of the North. On this subject I array myself, sir, under the banner of my old friend from Oregon, [General LANE,] and by the side of my young friend from Connecticut, [Mr. BISHOP.] Sir, whilst I will not discuss this slavery question, I will briefly notice some of the objections made to the admission of Kansas. Whatever may have been said in the earlier part of this discussion about enabling acts and the necessity of submitting a constitution formed by a convention, for the ratification of the people, no one now believes that either the one or the other is a necessary prerequisite to the admission of a new State. It appears to me that the only proper inquiries for Congress upon a new State applying for admission into the Union of States, are: Whether it has sufficient population; whether its proposed constitution be republican in form; and whether its proposed constitution be the act and will of the people proposing to be governed by it, expressed in lawful manner. So far as Congress is concerned, these are the only requisites. Applied to Kansas, the first two of them are admitted on all hands. No one has questioned that she has a sufficient population; and although gentlemen have asserted that the clause restricting amendments of the constitution after 1864 is anti-republican, no one can seriously maintain it. It may be wrong, but it is not anti-republican. If it be, the Constitution of the United States itself is anti-republican; because that instrument, in its fifth article, provides "that no amendment made prior to 1808 shall, in any manner, affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article;" a provision in principle just as anti-republican as the clause in the Kansas constitution. Neither is so. Whether it were wise in the people of Kansas to insert that clause in their constitution, is not for me to determine. As a member of Congress, I have nothing whatever to do with it. It is their business to settle their organic law in their own way, provided it be republican. They have chosen to do so, and it is my opinion that we cannot interfere with it, unless we wish to assume for Congress power directly in conflict with the doctrine of "non-intervention." I have, however, no objection to 35TH CONG....1ST SESS. the Senate bill, which, in this respect, neither gives nor takes away any right of the people of Kansas. The only question, then, of all those made in the first instance is, whether the constitution presented to us is the act and will of the people of Kansas, lawfully expressed. The distinguished Senator from Illinois, the master spirit of the Op; position, without whom it could not have stood for an hour, has admitted, over and over again, that this was the only question of importance. Upon this point, sir, what evidence shall we, as members of Congress, receive? Prima facie, the Lecompton constitution is the will of the people of Kansas. There is nothing in the instrument itself furnishing the least proof to the contrary. In its provisions, it is similar to most of the new constitutions of the other States. The proof is clear, and beyond all doubt, that the people of the Territory proceeded, in the usual mode, to call a convention; its delegates were chosen by a fair vote of the people, who chose to vote at all, for the express purpose of framing a constitution; they proceeded regularly in the performance of their duty, and did frame the constitution under Admission of Kansas-Mr. Clay. finest agricultural portions of America; where, indeed, in the language of the poet, "All save the spirit of man is divine." Tell me that they will be fools enough to proceed to a fratricidal war amongst themselves, about the miserable question of slavery, when they have, in fact, no slaves amongst them, and when they know they have the power to make Kansas a free State when they will. I do not believe one word of it. I have lived amongst and known frontier people half the days of my manhood, and I know them well enough to believe that if you admit Kansas at once as a State, instead of bedewing the green sod of the prairie with kindred blood, they will drive out the bad and vicious men from amongst them by the force of moral sentiment; and the country, under the genial influence of the plow, rather than the sword, will be made to bloom like a garden. If we have doubts about mere technical abstract questions, in our desire to accomplish this great good, let us not forget that we should give the benefit of those doubts to the welfare of the country; and that greater men than any of us have, in other days of this Republic, compro HO. OF REPS. Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, if I may be allowed permission, I would reply, for a moment or two, to the remarks of the gentleman from Ohio. 1 did not come into this House to-day, sir, for the purpose of bringing here the speeches of the gentleman from whom I am proud to have descended. The sole purpose with which I alluded to his name was to correct a misstatement, or misrepresentation, or misconstruction, whichever it may have State, in reference to the so-called Missouri combeen, of the honorable Senator from my own promise line of 560 30'. The position, sir, of Mr. Clay upon the question of negro slavery is well known, and I have no doubt that the gentleman from Ohio has correctly quoted his language. But I will tell you what you will find in the speech delivered by him upon the compromise measures of 1850. You will find that in place of that line of 360 30', which he himself believed was no longer operative for the purpose for which it was designed, he gave us another compromise, and that was the very doctrine of non-intervention by Congress upon the subject of slavery. He, sir, in his speech in 1850, said also, as I am willing to admit, that, by his own act, he never would which, and which alone, Kansas now demands mised, conceded-ay, even yielded, something place slavery where slavery was not; but at the admission as a State. So careful were they to do nothing which the reasonable and fair men of the Territory could object to, that they did what, in my judgment, there was no obligation upon them to do-submitted the only feature of the constitution liable to objection, to a vote of the people. I am aware, sir, that now, searching about in all directions to find pretexts to justify opposition, gentlemen have lately attacked the Legislature which summoned the convention; that it has been asserted that the convention itself represented but partially the people of the Territory. These attacks and assertions are not in my opinion sustained before us by any competent testimony. On the contrary, in the earlier part of the discussion it was on all hands admitted-and I have since heard distinguished gentlemen in the Opposition regret the admission-that the Legislature was a legal one, and that the convention properly represented the people of the Territory. It was only in the eleventh hour that anything was said about fifteen or nineteen counties being unrepresented; and in this Governor Walker has been unsustained by his own friends. The only matter of evidence strongly insisted upon, and appearing, indeed, like proof that the constitution is not the will of the people, is the vote of the 4th of January last. But, sir, in my judgment, that vote cannot properly be considered by us at all. I do not believe that the Legislature called by Mr. Stanton, competent as it may have been for other purposes, had any power to submit to a vote of the people the constitution formed by the represented sovereignty of the people, which had not chosen in its Sovereign capacity to submit it. That a large portion of the people of Kansas thought so themselves is evident from the fact that the vote was all on one side. As against the constitution, if it were not their will, I believe the people of Kansas had a clear legal remedy. I believe it was in their power to have furnished Congress with competent testimony against it. I mean by petition. They have not chosen to exercise that right; and I, for one, cannot regard a one-sided party vote, directed by incompetent authority, in the light of a petition, which is a clear legal right. Sir, I do not, as a member of Congress, give any weight whatsoever to individual or newspaper charges against the Lecompton constitution. I believe there has been fraud and violence-far too much of fraud and violence on all sides; but aside from the question of policy, I do believe that the weight of testimony before us is altogether in favor of the proposed requirement that the "constitution presented was at the time of its adoption the will of the people of Kansas lawfully expressed.' But, sir, when I come to the question of the policy of admission, a question to which the practical statesman ought always to look, I am free from all doubts. The country is heartily sick and tired of the whole Kansas question. Even the opponents of Lecompton in Kansas are sick and tired of it-they want quiet, they want peace, they want opportunity to develop the glorious country they inhabit, over most of which I have myself been, and which I know to be one of the of principle, for the good of the country and the safety of the Union. These, sir, I believe to be the sentiments entertained by the great mass of the people whom I have the honor to represent. They have heard, as I have heard, and as they and I have regretted to hear, much said by extreme men about a dissolution of the Union in any contingency. Against such idea, sir, I wish, for them, to enter a solemn protest. It may do well for gentlemen from the far South, with a barrier of States between them and the North, to talk about dissolution, and a northern republic and a southern republic. Sir, Kentucky, in old times, was called the dark and bloody ground. Her sons of this day do not mean that she shall ever more deserve the appellation. We are ready, and we have in every battle-field shown that we were willing, to shed our blood for the honor and the glory of the whole country. Painted above us upon the ceiling of this gorgeous chamber, is our coat-of-arms; and its legend is, "United we stand, divided we fall." So may it be to the end of time. Mr. HOUSTON. If no one else wants the floor, I will move that the committee rise. Mr. CAMPBELL. If the gentleman from Alaabama will yield to me for a minute or two I desire just here, at the conclusion of the speech of the gentleman from Kentucky, [Mr. CLAY,] to read an extract from a speech delivered in the Hall of the House of Representatives, in favor of relieving Kentucky from slavery. In speaking of those who complained of the movement, the distinguished orator said: "What would they who thus reproach us have done? If they would repress all tendencies towards liberty and ultimate emancipation, they must do more than put down the benevolent efforts of this society. They must go back to the era of our liberty and independence, and muzzle the cannon which thunders its annual joyous return. They must revive the slave trade, with all its train of atrocities." "They must blow out the moral lights around us, and extinguish that greatest torch of all which * * * America presents to a benighted world, pointing the way to their rights, their liberties, and their happiness. And when they have achieved all these purposes, their work will be yet incomplete. They must penetrate the human soul, and eradicate the light of reason and the love of liberty. Then, and not till then, when universal darkness and despair prevail, can you perpetuate slavery, and repress all sympathies, and all humane and benevolent efforts among freemen, in behalf of the unhappy portion of our race who are doomed to bondage. "Our friends who are cursed with this greatest of human evils, deserve the kindest attention and consideration. Their property and their safety are both involved. But the liberal and candid among them will not, cannot, expect that every project to deliver our country from it is to be crushed because of a possible and ideal danger." The gentleman from Kentucky censures the course which northern members have seen fit to take in opposition to the extension of slavery into territory now free-into territory north of 360 30'. The extract I have just read was the sentiments uttered in the Hall of the House of Representatives by the illustrious predecessor of that gentleman who represents the Ashland district of Kentucky. I read the speech when a boy. The distinguished man who made it taught me the very first lesson I ever learned upon this subject of slavery. His name, sir, was HENRY CLAY. saine time, and in the same speech, he said that if a new State were to present herself at the door of Congress, asking admission into the Union of States, he, for one, would neɣer oppose her admission because she had chosen to have slavery in her constitution, for in that case slavery would Congress would be absolved from all agency in be there by the will of the people themselves, and placing it there. He believed that the people of this country were capable of self-government, and was willing that they should decide the question for themselves; and when they presented themselves to Congress asking admission with slavery, he would vote to admit them into the Union. That was the position then held. That is the position I am proud to hold, and that is the position in which I am proud to follow him. Sir, talk about the Kansas-Nebraska bill, and the doctrine of non-intervention contained in it, as though it were there to be found for the first time! You find it thing-that doctrine of non-intervention-than for the first time in 1850, a substitute, a better your line of 36° 30'; a better thing than any compromise ever made upon the subject of slavery; at least, so thought the author of the compromise of 1850, and I follow him. I speak by the record when I assert that these were his sentiments. Mr. CAMPBELL. I had no disposition, when I rose, to enter into any discussion upon this subject. My opinions in regard to slavery are pretty well understood. I did not think the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. CLAY] would become excited over the fact that I dared to quote from the speech of a man to whom I became attached in my early boyhood, and whose banner I followed in politi cal struggles as long as he lived. Mr. CLAY. If the gentleman will allow me, I will say if he thought I was excited by his referring to Mr. Clay as he did, then he must attrib ute it to perhaps an unfortunate manner of mine, and not in the least degree to any excitement which I felt. Mr. CAMPBELL. I defend the principles of that departed statesman; I adopted his position that slavery ought not to be extended into free territory; and it was upon that principle that I opposed, through many days and many nights, the repeal of the Missouri compromise a measure which, if Henry Clay did not vote for, he supported throughout the subsequent portion of his life, as one bringing peace and harmony to our then distracted country which he loved. In the same speech from which I have read, delivered by him in 1827, he uses this language. I recite from memory: "Could I relieve of this foul blot [slavery] the revered State which gave me birth, and the no less beloved State which adopted me as her son, I would not exchange the satisfaction I should enjoy from such a triumph, for the proudest laurels ever worn by Roman conqueror." It would seem not only that Henry Clay was opposed to the extension of slavery into free terri tory, but that he was desirous of removing the blot entirely from Virginia, where he was born, and from Kentucky, that had so highly honored him. The gentleman has referred to the measures of 1850, and to the position which Mr. Clay took 35TH CONG.... 1ST SESS. then. What was it? He was at the head of a committee of thirteen, appointed by the Senate, and he made an able report in regard to the territories acquired from Mexico. In it he addressed himself to the North to this effect: there is no necessity for applying a Wilmot proviso to this territory, because slavery can never go there; it was excluded by the law of Mexico; California has already adopted a constitution rejecting slavery; in all human probability Utah and New Mexico will do the same. Admission of Kansas-Mr.. Harlan. is about to be committed by the Government of a country against the peace and repose of society, nothing is more common than for the party engaged in the wrong to seek to accomplish it under the name and with the pretext of restoring some lost right or liberty of the people. Weak and corrupt administrations frequently resort to these false pretenses for the purpose of perpetuating their power. When, therefore, for the purpose of expanding the institution of slavery, extending its area, increasing and rendering permanent its And following out the suggestion of that report, political power, by pulling down all obstructions you may remember that Daniel Webster, in his in its way, which must necessarily agitate society speech of the 7th of March, so highly lauded and disturb the peace and harmony of the country, throughout the South, said to the Senate, in sub-it was to be expected that those who had resolved stance: you ought not to ask the Wilmot proviso, upon this outrage should invent some plausible because it is but a human statute applied to a plea or false pretense that there was some long-lost territory over which nature's God has decreed liberty or equality of the people to be reclaimed through his laws of climate and soil, that slavery and restored by the new policy, the repeal of never can go; and why reenact His statutes? the Missouri compromise was effected by using, in the act to organize the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska, these very remarkable words: By the compromise measures of 1850, it must be borne in mind, there was no provision for squatter sovereignty. They provided that the people of the Territories of Utah and New Mexico may, when they acquired sufficient population, decide the question of slavery for themselves, and not before they were prepared to form a State constitution. It was not contended by Mr. Clay, Mr. Webster, or by any other leading member of either branch of Congress, of any party, that while they remained in a territorial condition, slavery could enter the Territories of the United States. Mr. Chairman, I have said all I desire to say at this time. Mr. CLAY. I regret, and I feel it proper to express my regret, that the name of my father has been brought so frequently into this discussion. Mr. CAMPBELL. I have referred to it with the most profound respect, and in vindication of my own position as a Representative. Mr. CLAY. I know it; and I thank the gentleman from Ohio, and I thank all others who were his friends, for having been so. My heart has always been full of gratitude to them. My sole reason, as I stated in the first instance, in mentioning his name at all, was because it had been mentioned in the Senate Chamber by a gen、 tleman of great distinction, and great influence over this land, and who has been looked upon as his great friend; but who had, unintentionally perhaps, misrepresented him. I had no purpose of going into the question of squatter sovereignty and other questions, which my honorable friend from Ohio has brought up, to show, or to attempt to show, the opinions of Mr. Clay, upon any of those subjects. It was for a single and sole object that I mentioned his name at all. Always, however, it has been my fate, since first I raised my head above the political waters, and stood out a freeman before the country, to be sought to be crushed in his name. Those attempts have failed, thank God, in my own country, and I hope always everywhere to be able to sustain the positions I have taken by his record. I have not spoken upon any of those subjects of squatter sovereignty, &c., to which the gentleman has alluded; and I shall no longer continue a discussion upon what were or were not the opinions of Mr. Clay, which I do not think relevant to this debate on Kansas Mr. CAMPBELL. I have no disposition to put the gentleman from Kentucky down. Mr. CLAY. I know it; I know it. Mr. CAMPBELL. I merely wished to show that I preferred to follow the course of his father, rather than to follow his; that is all. Mr. CLAY. Very well; very well. We shall see; we shall see. "The eighth section of the act, preparatory to the admission of Missouri into the Union, approved March 6, 1820, which, being inconsistent with the principle of non-intervention by Congress with slavery in the States and Territories as recognized by the legislation of 1850, commonly called the compromise measures, is hereby declared inoperative and void; it being the true intent and meaning of this act not to legislate slavery into any Territory, or exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States." Why not say, in direct words, that" the eighth section of the Missouri compromise act, which prohibited slavery north of 360 30', is hereby repealed?" Why all this circuity of language? Why pretend that the legislation of 1850 was inconsistent with the act of 1820? Why this talk of "leaving the people perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way," if it were not to conceal the wrong under the name and pretext of extending the blessings of freedom? It was with an air of triumph asked, why not extend all the rights now enjoyed by the people of the States to the people of the Territories? Why not allow this right of self-government to the few settlers of a Territory as well as to large communities and States? The Democratic party, from the time this provision was incorporated into the law for the organization of Kansas Territory, determined to appropriate this doctrine of "popular sovereignty' to its own exclusive use and benefit. It was to be claimed as a great distinguishing principle between them and all other parties; and this was to be kept very prominently before the people. The chief leader at the South in setting up this claim was Mr. STEPHENS, of Georgia, who, while the Kansas bill was pending in the House of Representatives, said: "Those who hold that Congress ought to impose their arbitrary mandates upon the people of the Territories in this particular, whether the people be willing or unwilling, hold the doctrine of Lord North and his adherents in the British Parliament towards the Colonies during his administration. He and they claimed the right to govern the Colonies in all cases whatsoever, notwithstanding the want of reprosentation." Yes, sir, the people of the Territories must be left" perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way;" and those who did not subscribe to this doctrine must be charged with holding the political opinions held by Lord North and the British Government in the days of the Revolution. This was the Democratic doctrine in 1854. Two years afterwards, the Democratic national convention, held at Cincinnati, revised this doctrine of" squatter sovereignty" by one of their resolutions, which reads as follows: "Resolved, That we recognize the right of the people of all the Territories, including Kansas and Nebraska, acting through the legally and fairly expressed will of a majority of actual residents, and whenever the number of their inhabitants justifies it, to form a constitution, with or without domestic slavery, and be admitted into the Union upon terms of perfect equality with the other States." This commentary upon the original text placed an apparent limitation upon the power of the Territories; but still a "majority of the actual residents," when they came to form a constitution, could form their "domestic institutions" to suit themselves. The President having placed himself upon this Cincinnati platform so fully that, according to his Ho. oF REPS. own language, he was no longer James Buchanan, but was the Cincinnati platform, it was but reasonable to expect, at least, that this exposition of "squatter sovereignty" would be fairly and fully carried out in his administration. In his inaugural address he said: "It is 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." In his instructions to Governor Walker, in speaking of the constitutional convention, and of the constitution then about to be formed by it, he says: "When such a constitution shall be submitted to the people of the Territory, they must be protected in the exercise of their right of voting for or against that instrument; and the fair expression of the popular will must not be interrupted by fraud or violence." Governor Walker proceeded to Kansas under these instructions; and, in his inaugural address to the people, among other things, he said: "I repeat, then, as my clear conviction, that, unless the convention submit the constitution to the vote of all the actual resident settlers of Kansas, and the election be fairly and justly conducted, the constitution will be, and ought to be, rejected by Congress." To show that these statements were made by Governor Walker in good faith, in pursuance of his instructions, and with the knowledge not only of the President, but with the approval of all the members of his Cabinet, and with a view of presenting other facts and arguments on this subject, I beg leave to read from Governor Walker's letter of resignation the following extracts. He says: "I accepted the appointment of Governor of Kansas on the express condition that I should advocate the submission of the constitution to the vote of the people for ratification or rejection. "These views were clearly understood by the President and all his Cabinet. They were distinctly set forth in my letter of acceptance of this office of the 26th of March last, a. I reiterated in my inaugural address of the 27th of May last, as follows: "Indeed, I cannot doubt that the convention, after having framed a State constitution, will submit it for ratification or rejection by a majority of the then actual bona fide resident settlers of Kansas.' "With these views well known to the President and Cabinet, and approved by them, I accepted the appointment of Governor of Kansas. "In my official dispatch to you of 2d June last, a copy of that inaugural address was transmitted to you for the further information of the President and his Cabinet. No exception was ever taken to any portion of that address. On the contrary, it is distinctly admitted by the President in his message, with commendable frankness, that my instructions in favor of the submission of the constitution to the vote of the people were general and unqualified.' By that inaugural and subsequent addresses I was pledged to the people of Kansas to oppose, by all lawful means,' the adoption of any constitution which was not fairly and fully submitted to their vote for ratification or rejection. These pledges cannot recall or violate without personal dishonor and the abandoment of fundamental principles; and, therefore, it is impossible for me to support what is called the Lecompton constitution, because it is not submitted to a vote of the people for ratification or rejection." "I repeat, that in nineteen counties out of thirty-four, there was no census. In fifteen counties out of thirty four there was no registry, and not a solitary vote was given or could be given for delegates to the convention in any one of these counties. Surely, then, it cannot be said that such a convention, chosen by scarcely more than one tenth of the present voters of Kansas, represented the people of that Territory, and could rightfully impose a constitution upon them without their consent. These nineteen counties in which there was no census constituted a majority of the counties of the Territory, and these fifteen 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 on the 7th November last. If, then, sovereignty can be delegated, and conventions, as such, are sovereign, which I deny, surely it must be only in such cases as when such conventions are chosen by the people, which we have seen was not the case as regards the late Lecompton convention. It was for this, among other reasons, that in my inaugural and other addresses I insisted that the constitution should be submitted to the people by the convention, as the only means of curing this vital defect in the organization. It was, therefore, among other reasons, when, as you know, the organization of the so-called Topeka State government, and as a consequence an inevitable civil war and conflict with the troops must have ensued, these results were prevented by my assuring, not the Abolitionists, as has been erroneously stated-for my address was not to them, but the people of Kansas-that in my judgment, the constitution would be submitted fairly and freely for ratification or rejection by their vote; and that, if this was not done, I would unite with them, the people, as I now do, in lawful opposition to such a procedure. "The President takes a different view of the subject in his message; and, from the events occurring in Kansas as well as here, it is evident that the question is passing from theories into practice, and that, as Governor of Kansas, I should be compelled to carry out new instructions, differing, on a vital question, from those received at the date of my appointment. Such instructions I could not execute con |
