Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

35TH CONG....1ST SESS.

sistently with my views of the Federal Constitution, of the Kansas and Nebraska bill, or with my pledges to the people of Kangas. Under these circumstances, no alternative is left me but to resign the office of Governor of the Territory of Kansas.

"No one can more deeply regret than myself this necessity; but it arises from no change of opinion on my part. On the contrary, I should have most cheerfully returned to Kansas to carry out my original instructions, and thus preserve the peace of the Territory, and finally settle the Kansas question by redeeming my pledges to the people."

As a further proof that it was the universal understanding, before and at the time of the election of the delegates to the Lecompton constitutional convention, that the constitution was to be submitted to the people; and to corroborate the evidence of Governor Walker, if it required any, I read the publication of John Calhoun and seven other candidates for the convention, in which they pledge themselves that the constitution shall be submitted. It speaks for itself, and reads as follows:

To the Democratic Voters of Douglas County:

It having been stated by that Abolition newspaper, the Herald of Freedom, and by some disaffected bogus Demoerats, 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 candidates of the Democratic party, submit the following resolution, which was adopted by the Democratic convention which placed us in nomination, and which we fully and heartily indorse, as a complete refutation of the slanders above referred to.

[blocks in formation]

LECOMPTON, Kansas Territory, June 13, 1857.

"Resolved, That we will support no man as a delegate to the constitutional convention, whose duties it will be to frame the constitution of the future State of Kansas, and to mold the poles, Estitutions under which we, as a people, are to live, unless he pledges himself, fully, freely, and without reservation, to use every honorable means to sub.

mit 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 of this Territory, as the majority of voters shall decide."

Under the assurances thus given by the Cincinnati platform, by the instructions of the President of the United States to Governor Walker, by the advice of his Cabinet, by the addresses of Governor Walker to the people of Kansas, by the published pledges of the candidates for the convention, the election for delegates to the Lecompton convention was held; and a majority of its delegates were found to be in favor of making Kansas a slave State! It then, for the first time, began to be whispered that the constitution would not be submitted to the people for their adoption.

To show with what indignation this suggestion was met at the South at that time, I refer to an extract from a Virginia newspaper, the Richmond Examiner, of the 14th July, 1857. This extract is as follows:

"Here is the whole question, then, from alpha to omega: Shall the constitution be submitted to the people? The Democracy of Kansas demand that it shall, and the Democracy of the Union second their demand. Mr. KEITT says, nay; the ultra South clamors in chorus, nay. Well, why should not the constitution be submitted to the people? What is the objection of the ultras? Strange to say, the reason is not denied. We blush for the South that the reason is avowed. The reason alleged is, that the people of Kansas would vote down such a constitution as the clamorers would frame for them; and the effort is to thrust upon them, by a political trick and contrivance, what could not be put upon them by air Democratic means. Such is the scheme of the chivalry' of the South! such the lame and impotent conclusion of all the grand airs and affectations of virtue and honor, with which the chivalry' have amused the country so long! A paltry fraud, a political juggle, a legal swindle, upon the people of Kansas-insisted upon,

Admission of Kansas-Mr. Harlan.

18th July, 1857, with the following indorsement, and approval by its editor:

"WILL THE SOUTH COUNTENANCE THE FRAUD-We commend the following article from the Richmond Examiner to the earnest attention of our readers. Its statements, its reasonings, its indignant expostulations, are so eloquent and forcible that they cannot fail to impress the minds of all who read them. The more we examine this subject, the more we attend to the reasonings of others; the more we are impressed with the palpable error into which our southern friends have fallen in condemning Governor Walker and the Administration for proposing to submit the constitution of Kansas, when framed, to the people. It is a war against a principle universally acknowledged by the national Democracy to be right; it was adopted as a principle of their national platform; it was accepted, acquiesced in, and sanctioned by the southern Democracy, as well as by the Democracy of the whole country, without a dissenting voice. We fought upon it, and with every other issue connected with it we triumphed. These very southern men, aided by their spirited efforts and united votes in bringing into power a great statesman, a true friend of the South, an ardent patriot and a pure man, committed to the very principle now called in question by every act of his past life. And can it be believed, the very first moment that it is attempted to apply the principle in practice-that is, to allow the people of Kansas to adopt, by their votes, such a constitution as they may be willing to live under-many of our southern friends practically repudiate their previous acts, repudiate their resolution of the Cincinnati platform which contains the principle, and array themselves for the moment against an Administration which is only endeavoring to do its duty, and faithfully fulfill its pledges; and this, we think, is very clearly shown by the following article." [The one above read.]

In an editorial, of the same date, the editor of the Union says, in speaking of the Kansas constitution:

"If the convention shall make a constitution in the name of the people, and refuse to let their constituents pronounce upon it, we can only say that the best evidence of its authenticity is withheld."

And this was the tone of the party press here, and all over the country, until the 7th of November last, when the convention closed its labors, adopted the Lecompton constitution, refused to submit it to a vote of the people for.their rejection or approval. Since that time we have had, from the organs of the Administration, and from the President of the United States, and those who profess to be his friends, all sorts of opinions,

statements, and claims.

First, the convention was censured; then excuses and apologies were made; and then a complete justification for not submitting the constitution to a vote of the people; and lastly, and finally, it is claimed by the President, in a message to Congress, that the constitution was submitted to the people, in accordance and substantial compli

ance with his instructions to Governor Walker. When this last pretense was gravely written by the President, and read by his friends, it would not be surprising if both he and they should have exclaimed, in the celebrated language of Jack Falstaff, when caught in an unmitigated falsehood, "Lord, Lord, how this world is given to lying!" That the constitution was submitted for adoption or rejection in substantial compliance with the provisions of the Cincinnati platform or the pledges of the President, or his instructions to Governor Walker, is wholly false; not one word of truth in it. The claim that the question of slavery or no slavery, the question of a slave or a free State, was submitted, is equally without truth-unqualifiedly false. The scandalous and contemptible mockery of submitting the shadow of the question of slavery or no slavery to the people was performed. The substance of even that single question was withheld-expressly withheld.

Why, sir, what was submitted to the people? Simply whether, in future, slaves should be im

HO. OF REPS.

the constitution of the people of Kansas? Is it the work, or the act and deed of that people? Does it speak their voice or reflect their will? If it is their constitution, then let it be so treated; if it is not their constitution, then let it be treated as the work, the vile work, of the infamous scoundrels who made it. What is the evidence this upon ques tion? Those who assert it to be the constitution of the people of Kansas rely upon a series of legal inferences and presumptions. Inferential evidence will do if no positive evidence is furnished to contradict it. The assent of the people might be presumed if they were silent; but when they do speak, we must be governed by their voice; we must know what it is; we are no longer at liberty to infer their assent; they have spoken yea or nay, and we must see and know what they have said.

Now look at the evidence. A bogus Legislature ordered the convention to be elected. At the election for delegates to the convention, by the evi dence of Governor Walker above referred to, it is shown that nearly half the Territory was disfranchised. He says:

"I repeat, that in nineteen counties out of thirty-four, (the whole number in the Territory,) 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."

Acting Governor Stanton, in his message to the Territorial Legislature, says that all the votes given at the election in June last for delegates to the Lecompton convention, only amounted to about two thousand two hundred. If they are all set down as in favor of this constitution with slavery, there were only two thousand two hundred of them, all told. At the election in October last for a Delegate to this Congress, there were two candidates; one was the slave-State candidate, the other was Mr. PARROTT, the free-State candidate, and who is now a member of this House. This

election was held under the laws of Congress, which all parties in the Territory recognize as

valid.

All parties voted, and the election was warmly contested. The majority for the freeState candidate was about five thousand.

At the election held on the 21st December, on the adoption of the Lecompton constitution the whole vote cast for the constitution, as the returns show, was only six thousand one hundred and forty-three, one half of which have since been proven to be fraudulent, and a considerable number more given by non-residents; showing the actual strength of the pro-slavery party in Kansas to be only about three thousand.

But a more conclusive vote than either of those mentioned was given on the 4th of January last, when the question of adopting or rejecting the Lecompton constitution was directly submitted to a vote of the people, and over eleven thousand votes were then cast against the constitution and against slavery. No evidence has been offered in this House to impeach the fairness of this vote.

We can, then, with perfect confidence, claim that we have positive and affirmative evidence that there is now, in truth and in fact, a majority of over eight thousand of the citizens of Kansas protesting that this is not their constitution.

There have been memorials, signed by over seven thousand residents of Kansas, sent to this Congress, remonstrating against admission under this constitution.

The Delegate on this floor, elected and sent here to represent their interest in person, remonstrates against the admission of Kansas ander this constitution.

The Territorial Legislature but recently elected

demanded, clamored for, by the chivalry,' par excellence, ported into Kansas. The perpetuity of all the send here their remonstrance, and ask, what right

by the pink and pick politicians of the South. "Our tools in the convention will frame a constitution for Kansas; it will be such as the people would repudiate ;' we will take care to prevent the people from voting upon it; we will juggle it through a show of mock formalities;' and we will accomplish by chicane what we could not Have accomplished by straightforward, honest, Democratic practice.' Such is the position of the peculiar champions of the South; such the attitude in which they are striving to place the South before the Union and before the world; such the bumiliating depths of dishonor-with faith violated, pledges broken, and reputation blasted-in which they would sink the noble Democracy of the slaveholding States. The fraud is infamous enough in itself, but it is doubly so in being in violation of express pledges given by the Deof the Union, and participated in, in the most solinocracy emn manner, by the ultras themselves."

The above article appeared in the organ of the Administration, the Washington Union, of the

slavery then in Kansas, was provided for in the constitution in express terms, no matter which way the people voted on the question submitted. The man who in private life would claim in his private affairs that his obligations under such circumstances, and with such compliance, were discharged, would but live to be loathed and despised as a man without honer, without truth.

The Lecompton constitution is now presented with slavery as fully recognized by it as by the constitution of any State in the Union; and the President in his message tells us "it is as much a slave State as Georgia or Alabama." That slavery exists there, either by law or by force, is emphatically true.

Such, then, is the Lecompton constitution. Is it

has Congress to admit Kansas as a State into the Union against her will?

This remonstrance is in the following three resolutions:

"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 we, 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 this Legislative Assembly, be an entire abandonment of the doctrine of non-intervention 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.

[ocr errors]

1858.]

35TH CONG....1ST SESS.

"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."

It may well be averred that " Congress has no rightful power under it to admit said Territory into the Union as a State." And it may, with still greater propriety, be asked by what rightful power does Congress propose to force Kansas into the Union against her will? Why drown the voice of four-fifths of the people of Kansas, and do for her what she has not done for herself, and that is, to make a constitution for her and compel her to receive it? If this is to be done, let it be done under the name of congressional non-intervention. Let it be done by the Democratic party of this country; let it be done by the southern portion of that party; let it stand forth as the last and latest commentary upon the doctrine of "congressional non-intervention with slavery in the States and Territories."

Governor Hammond's views on this subject are brilliant and clearly expressed. He meets the question just as it is, and with manly courage disposes of it as becomes a modern Democrat. He says:

"If this was a minority constitution I do not know that that would be an objection to it. Constitutions are made for minorities. Perhaps minorities ought to have the right to make constitutions, for they are administered by majorities."

This may be very good Democracy, but it is not exactly Cincinnati-platform Democracy, so far as I understand it. Does the South now again propose to disregard wholly the will of the inhabitants of the Territories, and that Congress shall give not only laws to the Territories, but constitutions for the new States? Before this is done it might be well for gentlemen to look to the results of the next census, to the time when the race of doughfaces will be extinct, and when the power of legislation may be in the hands of non-slaveholding States, and when the examples now set may be followed to its utmost results. Sir, disguise it as you may, the plain simple proposition, divested of all its fraudulent robes and false pretenses, is whether Congress will usurp the power of making a constitution unalterable for seven years to come, and force Kansas into the Union under it?

Why, if this has been determined on, did you not divide Texas into four or five more States, bring up New Mexico as another, and have Nebraska and Arizona all organized as slave States with constitutions unalterable for twenty years to come, and admit them all together? This might be done, and not one half the evidence to prove the fraud that now stares us in the face in relation to Kansas. And could not a few more Calhouns have been found to distribute over these Territories, ready and willing to make these new States with constitutions to order?

Does any member of the Administration party in this House doubt what the people of Kansas would do if left to themselves "perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way?" Then let him vote with us to send this question back to the people for their free choice of a constitution for themselves. Will any member of this House refuse, and for what reason will he refuse? Will it not be for the same reason that the Lecompton convention refused to submit the question to the people, and that was, that this rascality would, in that event, be defeated? The result will be left in no uncertainty. I desire to see Kansas a free State; my constituents desire it, and I am bound to use all fair means in my power to accomplish it; I will go for results regardless of words or forms. I cannot now here, by my own vote, make her a free. State. I will delegate the power to her as my agent, and she will have both the power and the will to do it. She has battled with this question of slavery for four years, against border ruffians, southern cutthroats, against the oppressions and wrongs of a ruthless Administration against all odds. Her honor and her interests are all at hazard, and she has a greater and stronger interest in the question than I have. The friends of freedom there have suffered everything but martyrdom, and some have suffered even that. Then why not trust them?

A Democrat cloaked by his name and professions of bowing at all times to the people's will, and of leaving them "perfectly free to regulate

Admission of Kansas-Mr. Underwood.

their domestic institutions in their own way,"may
refuse, but those who do not wear this name and
the cloak which this name gives, are compelled
to wear the substance and maintain the cause of
popular freedom. Unfortunately for the honor of
this country the history of Kansas is written and
it cannot now be blotted out. Every step in its
onward march, from the date of the organization
of the Territory until this day, is a step marked,
and that step may now be traced by a fraud, a
forgery, a wrong, a robbery, a plunder, a violence,
a murder, an assassination-a people ruled by op-
pression, overawed by bayonets; houses plun-
dered and burnt, towns sacked, peaceable citizens
driven from the Territory; the roads, rivers, and
avenues leading to the Territory blocked up, emi-
grants turned back, and leave to enter the Terri-
tory refused; and all this done and suffered by the
connivance of the past and present Administra-
tions. The picture would not be complete with-
out this crowning act of infamous injustice, of
forcing upon them a slavery constitution, by first
making the people themselves slaves.

No gentleman can shut his eyes to the great
question of political power lying at the bottom of
this great effort to make Kansas a slave State.
Look at a few passages in the speech of Govern-
or Hammond. He says:

"The Senator from New York says that that is about to be at an end; that you intend to take the Government from us; that it will pass from our hands. Perhaps what he says is true; it may be, but do not forget-it can never be forgotten; it is written on the brightest page of human historythat we, the slaveholders of the South, took our country in infancy, and after ruling her for sixty years out of the seventy years of her existence, we shall surrender her to you without a stain upon her honor, and boundless in prosperity, incalculable in her strength, the wonder and the admiration of the world. Time will show what you will make of her, but no time can ever diminish our glory or your responsibility."

Again, he says:

"But what guarantee have we, when you have this Government in your possession in all its departments, even if we submit quietly to what the Senator exhorts us to sub

HO. OF REPS.

President silenced his scruples of conscience, if he had any; obsequiously asked pardon, forced Walker and Stanton out of office, and restored himself to favor; and having done so himself, expects all others to follow the example.

Let it be remembered by the people of this country, that, while men are every day read out of their party for refusing to do its dirty work, and for honorable, manly, and independent opposition to the despotism of party desperation, there is no example of any man, high or low, being read out of his party for loathsome and sycophantic subserviency.

I have referred to the pledges of the Democratic party, as a party, to the claim set up of having inaugurated a new territorial policy far more liberal than any ever before offered to the people of this country; to the pledges and claims of its newspaper press; to the speeches of its leading men; the inaugural address of the Chief Magistrate, and to his official correspondence with Governor Walker. These pledges now all broken, trodden under foot and despised; and this proposition, (to admit as it is pretended,) but in fact, to force Kansas against her will into the Union under the Lecompton constitution, with slavery provided for and perpetuated by it, deserves to be met, not with argument, but with denunciation; and denunciation in language far more harsh and severe than the usages and proprieties of this Hall will permit. To call it a fraud, a cheat, a conspiracy against popular rights, fails to do justice to the subject or to characterize the outrage.

We have been told by at least twenty southern gentlemen here in this House of Representatives, that if we Republicans will not agree to admit Kansas into the Union under the Lecompton constitution, that, well and dearly as they always have and still do, and as the South always has loved and cherished the Union, they will feel compelled to advise the South to withdraw from the Union and defend their rights to the last extrem

mit to the concentration of slavery in its present territory, ity. Will they go home and hold another south

and even to the reconstruction of the Supreme Court-that
you will not plunder us with tariffs, that you will not bank-
rupt us with internal improvements?"

Yes, sir, it is very plain that the Government
must remain in the hands of the slaveholders, or
if we take it we must give security for our good be-
havior. It may be we will give them that security;
the whole sum and substance of which is, that
the South shall be allowed to make as many more
slave States as may be necessary, at all times, to
maintain the control of the Government in the
hands of the slaveholders. This is to be done re-
gardless of population. The States must be made,
population or no population. The slave States
now have only one third part of the population
of the nation; but their equality must be main-
tained in the Senate, where the slaveholders are
to exercise a veto power upon the legislation of
the country-a veto upon all the appointments
and patronage of the country. This is modest,
and most decidedly cool. We, the slaveholders,
he says, have ruled you for sixty years. They
who constitute one fortieth part of the population
of this country shall have their power perpetuated.
This may be Democracy. If it is, I know it is
not so written in their platform; and were it not
historically true in the past, and had it not been so
often and continually claimed for the future, it
might be ascribed to the ravings of a madman.

I regret to hear any anti-Lecompton Democrat complain of being read out of the party for his course on the Kansas question. It should be remembered that at no time during the last or present Administrations has any Democrat been allowed to set up his own judgment, his honor, or his conscience, against the wishes of the President or the party on Kansas affairs. Have not offenses of this kind been uniformly punished by dismissal from office and exclusion from the ranks of the party? Was it not for such offenses that the first, second, and third Governors of Kansas were removed-Reeder, Shannon, Geary, all read out of the party? Yes; it was for honorable adherence to the instructions of the President that Walker and Stanton were forced out of office. The President himself came very near being read out of the party for instructing Walker to use his influence to cause the Lecompton constitution to be submitted to a vote of the people. But the

ern Hartford convention? And why is this folly to be perpetrated, and why is it threatened? For no other reason, in fact, than that the Republican Representatives, and a few of the free-State Democrats in this Hall, will not compel Kansas to come into the Union with a slavery constitution, while four fifths of her people are opposed to it. And these gentlemen constitute the choice spirits of the southern Democracy. They are the Union savers the national men-the deadly enemies of sectionalism. They are the patriots of this country. Whether this patriotism is of that quality which has been defined to be "the last refuge of a scoundrel" or not, I leave the country to decide.

ADMISSION OF KANSAS.

SPEECH OF HON. W. L. UNDERWOOD,
OF KENTUCKY,

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
March 30, 1858.

The House being in the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union

Mr. UNDERWOOD said:

Mr. CHAIRMAN: I rise to essay no effort at elocution, nor any extended observations upon the vexed question of Kansas. Contemplating that question from a point of view differing from that of most if not all others that have addressed you, entertaining in regard to it opinions that have not yet found expression, duty to myself demands that I should announce the reasons that shall control my action.

To those who know me at home I shall have no occasion to defend myself against any charge of intentional infidelity to the South and her cherished institutions. From the dawn of my humble political career until now, they have had no more devoted friend than I. Born in a slave State, having lived in one all my life, a large owner of slaves, and representing one of the largest slave districts in the Union, it would be nothing short of impossibility for me to become faithless to its real interests. I have heretofore expressed my opinions on this floor with sufficient fullness upon the subject of the relations of master and slave. I will not repeat them. It is sufficient for me to say, that I honestly regard them as the best pos

[blocks in formation]

"That nothing in this act shall be construed to abridge or infringe any right of the people, asserted in the constitution of lansas, at all times to alter, reform, or abolish their form of government, in such manner as they may think proper."

Why was this clause inserted? Does anybody suppose that, if Kansas should become a State, she would thereafter be dependent on Congress for her right "to reform or abolish her form of government in such manner as she thought proper?" Certainly not. For what purpose, then, was this formal disclaimer of a power or right of Congress to do that which no one ever supposed before Congress had the power to do, asserted in this bill? It was, Mr. Chairman, a negative pregnant of most affirmative meaning. It is a direct intervention by Congress in the affairs of Kansas, in violation of your cry of non-intervention. Your President, sir, had, in a labored argument, in his Kansas message, announced the doctrine

HO. OF REPS.

The second of the motives which are urged upon us is, that it is the shortest way to make Kansas a free State. The President, in his Kansas message, after correctly stating that Kansas is now a slave Territory, tells us, in this remarkable language:

"Slavery can, therefore, never be prohibited in Kansis except by means of a constitutional provision, and in no other manner can this be obtained so promptly, if a major ity of the people desire it, as by admitting it into the Union under its present constitution."

sible relations which can exist between two dis- that any candid man will venture to say it) that by a reference to those grand fundamental prinsimilar and unequal races of men thrown together this principle, touching the right of the majority ciples of human liberty which underlie all free upon the same territory; and that every attempt to override the terms and forms of the constitu- governments, and which, in proper cases, are the to create other relations than these, whilst the two tion by amendments, alterations, or abrogations; last resorts of nations. No people so well as ours races thus coexist, has thus far only deepened in violation of those terms, is not contained in the know the right of revolution, and none, thank the degradation and misery of the black race. I act passed by the Senate. Mr. Chairman, it is God, in a most righteous cause, God being our should, therefore, instead of circumscribing sla- there, and, I grieve to say, insidiously there. If it helper, have asserted it so triumphantly. I trust, very, be perfectly willing to see it extended, with is to be there at all, put it in like a man. Speak however, that no legislative or political necessity the consent of those immediately interested, to it out like a freeman. Let us have no quibbling will ever compel any portion of our beloved counthe remotest confines of the Republic. It is not, about it. But it is there plain enough. The hon- try again to resort to this terrible arbitrament. then, because, in any possible form, I am opposedorable Senator [Mr. PUGH] proposed in plain, di- And if I had no other reason for voting against to slavery, that I am opposed to the Lecompton rect terms to insert it. His amendment was with- the admission of Kansas under the Lecompton constitution for Kansas. Indeed, rather, it is be- drawn by himself, because, as he said, its sub-constitution, I should be justified in doing so in cause I am the friend and advocate of the peculiar stance was embodied in the bill as it now stands; order to avoid the dread expedient approximating institutions of the South that I am in part con- and it was thus withdrawn to make room for the revolution, to which the President refers the peostrained to object to that constitution. more insidious and entrapping provisions now ple of Kansas, whereby to extricate themselves Mr. Chairman, there are new theories of gov-contained in the bill, to wit: from the difficulty in which his policy has inernment and motives of action presented by the volved them, by a change of their constitution, advocates of the Lecompton constitution that canregardless of the forms and methods prescribed not fail to grate harshly on southern ears: First, in the constitution itself. in order to induce our assent to the admission of Kansas under the Lecompton constitution-which constitution provides that "after the year 1864, whenever the Legislature shall think it necessary to amend, alter, or change this constitution," they shall proceed to do so according to certain salutary precautions and methods prescribed in the instrument-it is now contended that this fundamental provision may be disregarded, and that steps may be immediately taken to abolish it so soon as Kansas is admitted under it. The people of the United States have heretofore been taught to regard constitutions as the sacred repositories of their dearest rights; as removed, by the solemnities by which they have been inaugurated, from the flippancies of change; and as constituting the bulwarks upon which they might repose in the security of established order. But now, for the purpose of making room for this new comer, all these established theories of government are forsaken, and pass away as the baseless fabric of a dream. A new light dawns upon the political sky, and anarchy is organized. Constitutions, which were intended heretofore for the protection of minorities, lose their power. Majorities, we are told, at their pleasure, may cast them down, and riot on the rights which constitutions were intended to preserve inviolate. The distinction heretofore so well understood and recognized between a legislative act and a constitutional provision is no more, and the only step which remains to be taken, since the all-prevailing voice of mere numbers is enshrined, is to declare that this voice need not even proclaim its edicts in written laws, but has only, in the fury of the mob, to issue its mandates and execute them. Strangest to me of all this, is, that this wild doctrine finds countenance with my southern friends, interested, like me, in preserving and maintaining to the last our southern rights and our southern property. Why, sir, with such governmental policy as this, not only will the general prosperity sicken-for all the interests of society must sicken with the instability of government-but the peculiar institutions of the South must die. Let me read you what is already said by a Black Republican organ, the Chicago Tribune, on this subject:

"It is now said that the act admitting Kansas into the Union, under the Lecompton constitution, will contain a clause declaring that the people of the new State may amend their constitution at any time they please, though in doing so they violate a plain and emphatic provision of the constitution itself. With this power to overhead constitutional barriers, recognized by solenin act of Congress, we shall be disposed to abate our opposition to Lecompton and help it along; but with this express understanding, that the rule laid down for Kansas shall be applied to the Constitution of the United States; and that when a majority of the legal voters of the Republic choose to demand an amendment of the fundamental law, the mode of amendment prescribed in the Constitution shall not stand in the way of the attainment of their will,”

Mr.Chairman, I enter my solemn protest against this suicidal doctrine. Kansas, with her Lecompton constitution, brings with her no benefits to any part of our common country which would compensate a solitary State for the damning tendency of such a dogma. And if it shall be inaugurated into the political theories of the times by the present Administration, Ishall preserve the proud consciousness of saying that it was by no act of mine you did it, and, therefore,

"Shake not your gory locks at me.” But it may possibly be said (I hardly think

that

"A majority can make and unmake constitutions at
pleasure. It would be absurd to say they can impose fet-
ters upon their own power which they cannot afterwards
remove."
"If, therefore, the pro-
vision changing the Kansas constitution after the year 1864

[ocr errors]

*

*

could, by possibility, be construed into a prohibition to
make such a change previous to that period, this prohibi-
tion would be wholly unavailing. The Legislature already
elected may, at its very first session, submit the question to
a vote of the people, whether they will or will not have a
convention to amend their constitution, and adopt aii ne-
cessary means for giving effect to the popular will."

It was necessary, therefore, to insert these pro-
visions in the bill; but lest an outspoken expres-
sion of them should justly offend the public ear,
and justly alarm the settled and conservative ele-
ments of society, they have been couched in the
covert and ambiguous phrase quoted in the law.
But they will not the less confidently be appealed
to as the expression of the legal right, in the Ab-
olition portion of the people of Kansas, to abol-
ish the few remnants of slavery that exist in that
devoted Territory on the instant, should Kansas
be admitted under the Lecompton constitution.
And then will come, sir, in the event Kansas is
thus admitted into the Union with her Lecomp-
ton constitution, under the provisions of this act
of admission, one of those struggles, weak and
feeble, perhaps, it may be, compared with others,
which I yet contemplate in her eventful history,
a struggle in which her peace may be seriously
jeoparded, and the rights of the slaveholder
rights which I feel it my duty here to forewarn,
if I cannot forearm-will inevitably be sacrificed.
According to the programme thus suggested by
the President, and significantly and obsequiously
intimated to Kansas by the Senate bill, a new con-
stitution will be adopted prior to 1864, in disre-
gard of the Lecompton constitution. It will abol-
ish slavery; the slaveholders in Kansas will assert
their rights under the Lecompton constitution,
wrongfully overturned, in violation of the provis.
ions for its own amendinent; and I do not hesitate
to declare my opinion that there is not an enlight-
ened jurist in America but will recognize their
result, even from this comparatively minor con-
flict, no one can doubt; and, I ask, is it the part
of statesmanship thus to legislate in blind disre-
gard of such inevitable consequences?

claim. That agitation, bitterness, and strife will

Mr. Chairman, when I consider this opinion of the President, in connection with the means he suggests of effecting the object of making Kansas a free State, to wit: by the unauthorized alteration of her constitution in the manner I have stated, I cannot forbear the expression of my surprise at the support which his purpose and his policy receive at the hands of the South. For myself, I am free to declare that I am not anxious to pursue that path which shall most promptly admit Kansas into the Union as a free State; not that I would throw obstacles in the way of the admission of a State, whether slave or free, into the Union, when justly entitled to come in; but when I consider how rapidly the number of free States has increased and is increasing; that the safe equality that so long existed between the free and slave States has passed away, giving place to an exist ing preponderance in favor of the former, to be augmented by other free States pressing at our doors for admission; more than this, when I consider who are likely to come, as the Senators of Kansas, to take their places here-Lane and Robinson, perhaps reeking with bitterness and wrath against the institutions of the South, from the fierce conflicts and raids in which so long and recently they have been engaged-I confess to no indecent haste for the admission of Kansas; and the last thing, I think, that ever I shall be guilty of doing will be to dissolve the Union of these States because she is not admitted "so promptly to swell the tide of political ascendency that beats already so heavily against the South.

In this connection, Mr. Chairman, I would invite your attention to a most singular fact-singular, indeed, it would be if it did not recur in every phase of Democratic policy and tactics. It is the rare and singular facility—I should rather call it craft-of the Democratic party to give to all their measures a northern and a southern aspect. In no instance have they succeeded so well, ween, as in this. They did apprentice work in the repeal of the Missouri compromise, when they declared in the North it was a measure of freedom, and in the South that it was the unlocking of the Territories for the expansion of slavery. They did journeymen's work in their divers interpretations of squatter sovereignty, suited to all latitudes and localities; and they are doing mas ter work now, when this very measure of the admission of Kansas under the Lecompton consti northern supporters as the "promptest" manner tution is advocated by the President and his of prohibiting slavery in that State, whilst their southern brethren are advocating it, and are ready to split the Union about it, because it recognizes slavery north of 360 30'; albeit it shows its head there for a moment, and disappears thenceforth forever.

Mr. Chairman, the great excellency of American liberty is, that it is the liberty of law. The President, in the principles which I have thus deduced from his Kansas message, proclaims the European idea of liberty, which is the liberty of You are too familiar with the bold and ardent license. The one is peaceful, the other rebellious. He attempts to fortify his specious conclusions to cite instances to prove the burning zeal with declarations of my southern friends to require me

[ocr errors]

35TH CONG....IST SESS.

which they contemplate and advocate admission under the Lecompton constitution. It will be more novel, and not less instructive, that I quote to you what John Van Buren, the most sagacious of the Democratic Abolitionists of the North, dedeclares on the same subject. In his celebrated speech at Tammany Hall, he says:

By admitting Kansas into the Union, you put her in a condition where she can cure all this evil-stop fraud, and make herself a free State; and those men from the free States who refuse this opportunity to admit Kansas with this population and their disposition to made the State free, and who would keep her out as a slave State; as she now is, until the population is thrown there to make her permanently a slave State, will have to answer to their constituents for the result they have thus produced."

And this sentiment, we are told, was received with " applause" by the vast Democratic audience assembled to hear him. Why, Mr. Chairman, John Van Buren did not announce a new Democratic policy at the North. Let me read to you from a handbill for a Democratic meeting at Mifflinsburg, Pennsylvania, September, 1856:

"Democrats! Whigs! Republicans! turn out and learn the fact that it is the Democratic party that is laboring for freedom for Kansas, the assertion of opposition orators to the contrary notwithstanding."

I could quote from Dix and other orators of this political school, but I forbear. I however affirm that the northern Democratic advocates of the Lecompton constitution all maintain this view, contending that it is another measure for freedom. Should not these bold contrasts, then, teach forbearance to our extreme southern friends? especially when they were told the other day on this floor, by one of their northern allies, that the North got the oyster whilst the South got the shell, in this division of the spoils. Are they not at least sufficient to silence the cry of " Abolitionism," which, I doubt not, is preparing to be raised throughout the South against all those who shall dare to resist this measure, so really destructive of every principle the South should hold sacred and inviolate? But, Mr. Chairman, more than this, is it not time for us to have a straightforward and honest policy? Have we not been paltered with long enough in a double sense? How much longer will the South, or the North either, suffer itself to be deluded thus with fallacious hopes, having the word of promise kept to the ear but broken to the hope? For myself, I am weary of the Janus face and the forked tongue.

I desire now, Mr. Chairman, to invite your attention to the questions: first, is the Lecompton constitution of such legal validity and force as to claim adoption from its inherent legality? and, second, if legal in form, are there not facts connected with it that render it invalid? And, first, as to its legality.

I shall not go back to inquire into the validity of the Territorial Legislatures of Kansas. I shall take them for granted, for all the purposes of my argument, however great and grating may have been the improprieties practiced in the earlier elections under the territorial law. Nevertheless, those Legislatures have been recognized, and must be considered the legislative branch of the de facto government of Kansas; and I shall concede to them the right to exercise all powers delegated to them by the authority which created them, to wit: the Kansas-Nebraska act. It will not be contended that the Legislature of a Territory can exercise, like the Legislature of a State, any independent, sovereign powers. The Legislature of a Territory is but the creature of the law establishing the Territory, and has no power to step beyond it. It then becomes material to inquire what powers did Congress confer upon the Kansas Legislature? The language of the act is: "That the legislative power of the Territory shall extend to all rightful subjects of legislation consistent with the Constitution of the United States and this act." I would venture an original argument upon the nature and extent of this qualified and limited legislative power, if argument upon it had not long ago been merged in authority, and that authority so high with those to whom I would commend it, that nothing is wanting to give it absolute command. Upon the admission of Arkansas, during the administration of President Jackson, the question arose, how far the Territorial Legislature was competent to inaugurate the preliminary measures to cast off its territorial existence, and to prepare to assume the

[ocr errors]

Admission of Kansas-Mr. Underwood.

attitude of a State. This question was submitted
to his Attorney General, Mr. Butler, who used
the following language:

"To suppose that the legislative powers granted to the
General Assembly include the authority to abrogate, alter,
or modify the territorial government established by the act
of Congress, and of which the Assembly is a constituent
part, would be manifestly absurd. The act of Congress, so
far as it is consistent with the Constitution of the United
States, and with the treaty by which the Territory, as a part
of Louisiana, was ceded to the United States, is the supreme
law of the Territory; it is paramount to the power of the
Territorial Legislature, and can only be revoked or altered
by the authority from which it emanated. The General
Assembly and the people of the Territory are as much bound
by its provisions, and as incapable of abrogating them, as the
Legislatures and people of the American States are bound
by and incapable of abrogating the Constitution of the Uni-
ted States. It is also a maxim of universal law, that when
a particular thing is prohibited by law, all means, attempts,
or contrivances to effect such a thing, are also prohibited.
Consequently, it is not in the power of the General Assem-
bly of Arkansas to pass any law for the purpose of electing
members to form a constitution and State government, nor
to do any other act, directly or indirectly, to create such
new government. Every such law, even though it were ap-
proved by the Governor of the Territory, would be null and
void. If passed by them, notwithstanding his veto, by a
vote of two thirds of each branch, it would still be equally
void."

This was the ground taken by the Administration of General Jackson in regard to Arkansas; and the position is an unanswerable one. Any law passed by the Territorial Legislature of Kansas-which possessed no greater authority than the Territorial Legislature of Arkansas-initiating a convention, is utterly null and void.

In addition to this, I present you the authority of Mr. Buchanan, the present distinguished Chief Magistrate of the United States, whose early counsels are so worthy of the consideration of his later years; and who, upon the occasion of the admission of Michigan, expressed himself in the following emphatic language:

"We ought not to apply the rigid rules of abstract political science too rigorously to such cases. It has been our practice heretofore to treat our infant Territories with parental care, and to nurse them with kindness, and when they had attained the age of manhood, to admit them into the family withont requiring from them a rigid adherence to forms. The great questions to be decided are: Do they contain a sufficient population? Have they adopted a republican constitution? And are they willing to enter the Union upon the terms which we propose? If so, all the preliminary proceedings have been considered but mere forms, which we have waived in repeated instances. They are but the scaffolding of the building, which is of no further use after the edifice is complete. We have pursued this course in regard to Tennessee, 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."

And on the same subject, Mr. Calhoun, the brightest constitutional luminary of all, used the following brief but emphatic words:

"My opinion is, and ever was, that the proceeding of the people of Michigan, in taking the first steps to form a State constitution without waiting for the assent of Congress, was revolutionary."

If these quotations fail to convince, then, so far as my Democratic auditors extend, they would not be convinced though one rose from the dead. But, to obviate these high authorities and these unanswerable arguments, it is now stated that the Kansas-Nebraska act is itself an enabling act, dispensing with all others. Unfortunately for those who affirm this, it proves too much for them. That act, it is true, "leaves the people perfectly free to form their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution." Prior to it the people had been restrained in this " perfect freedom" by the provisions of the Missouri compromise line, which prohibited slavery north of 36° 30′ north latitude; and this provision was intended merely to apply to the condition and privileges of the people when, subsequent to the repeal of this line, they should come legally to form their domestic institutions in their own way, and was not intended to confer upon them any new powers or privileges, contrary to the consent of Congress, whereby they might at pleasure cast off their territorial allegiance. If such be not the true interpretation of this clause; if it conferred upon the people of the Territory the inherent right at any time they pleased to form a constitution and claim admission absolutely under it; how can we resist the application of those who formed the justly and universally repudiated Topeka constitution for admission under it into the Union of

Ho. OF REPS.

these States? Their constitution is first in point of time; and it will be observed that it is not the Legislature of the Territory, but the "people of the Territory," that are left "perfectly free to form their own domestic institutions in their own way;" and hence, upon this hypothesis and language of the law, you need not apply for an enabling act, even from the Territorial Legislature, because that language does not confer the power upon the Legislature, but confers it "on the people;" and the high prerogative of making a constitution is not a legislative function. Besides, if the Kansas-Nebraska act enabled the Legislature of Kansas to call a constitutional convention, why did President Pierce recommend, and why did the Democratic Senate under his administration, with a singular unanimity, pass an act authorizing Kansas to call a convention?

Without pursuing this argument further, I conclude, from the high authorities cited, and from the reasons already adduced, first, that the Legislature of Kansas was not competent to commit an act of political suicide, and to subvert and overturn the very power of which they were but constituted the keepers, guardians, and preservers, by the Congress of the United States; and second, that the Kansas territorial law was in no sense an act which enabled its Legislature thus to subvert the territorial existence at its pleasure.

It follows, then, that the Lecompton constitution is not an imperative legality; that it cannot challenge and demand our implicit and unquestioning submission, because it comes accredited to us by all the regularities and forms of law. But losing these high pretensions, which are all the title that it brings, it loses all. For, unless it can be sustained upon the ground of legitimacy, it has no other foundation to sustain it.

Mr. Chairman, let it not be inferred from anything I have said that I hold it illegal or rebellious for a Territorial Legislature to institute preliminary proceedings in order to bring about the transition from a territorial to a State condition. All I wish to establish is that their proceedings bind not the Government of the United States, or render it in any sense imperative upon such Government to admit such Territory into the Union as a State, merely because the Territorial Legislature have gone regularly through the formalities it may have instituted. The power of the United States, and the duty of the United States, stand untouched and unaffected by these subordinate territorial formalities, except so far as they may address themselves to the Congress of the United States as matter of petition, deserving its favorable consideration from their inherent merit, and not from their inherent legality.

2. If the Lecompton constitution be legal in form, are there not facts connected with it that render it invalid in fact? Mr. Chairman, this field of argument has been perfectly exhausted. Let me add but a few words to what has been so much better said by so many others. And let me premise that the Congress of the United States is under no stress, or legal or political necessity, to admit new States into this Confederacy. Neither Kansas, nor any other Territory, can demand as a right, admission into this Union; although she may have formed a republican constitution, and although every man, woman, and child within her borders desired it, yet the right and the power to admit or not to admit, according to its own will or pleasure, rests alone in the Congress of the United States.

This high power and unlimited discretion is expressed in the Constitution of the United States in the simple words, "New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union." In the exercise of this high prerogative, perhaps the most morally grand of any which our current history exhibits, the Congress has the right, and it is its duty, to look with the utmost scrutiny and caution upon every fact, circumstance, and condition which bears upon the prudence, fitness, and propriety of the permanent relations it is about to establish between the new comer into the Confederacy and the old; and if there be any time and any act which, above all others, should demand the exercise of the utmost good faith, forbearance, and honesty, it is this. I do not hesitate to declare that, if new States are to be precipitated into this Confederacy contrary to the consent of a ma

35TH CONG.... 1ST SESS.

terial portion of the old ones, and above all, with constitutions contrary to the ascertained will of a material portion of the citizens of such new State, then are the sappers and miners at work beneath the foundations of the Republic, and the enemy to its perpetuation has entered within its walls.

Admission of Kansas-Mr. Underwood.

give to all the right and unquestionable American privilege of being represented in the body which was to ordain their highest law. The free-State party in some of the counties made an attempt to elect delegates to the convention, notwithstanding the failure to take the census and registration. Their delegates were rejected. I will not dwell on these things. One fact of importance, during the progress of this election, occurred. It was the unequivocal, clear, distinct, and absolute promise of the Governor, in his own name, and in the name of the President of the United States; it was the promise of his Secretary, Mr. Stanton; it was the promise of Mr. Calhoun and many of his associates, that the constitution, when formed by the convention, should be submitted to the people for their ratification or rejection.

Governor Walker, everywhere in Kansas, pledged his honor, by the approval, as he told the people, of the President and his Cabinet, that the constitution should be submitted. Without stopping to refer to his inaugural, in which he is most emphatic on this point, I read from a speech of his, delivered at Topeka, on the 8th of June, 1857, and published in the Topeka Statesman of the 9th:

Mr. Chairman, if we could for a moment relieve ourselves of all party bias and excitements, we should find the facts pertaining to the Kansas question to be few and simple. A portion of its people are in favor of a constitution with slavery, another portion are in favor of a constitution without it. For years they have been waging a disreputable contest, disturbing the quiet and repose of the Union, and seeking political advantages of each other. Both of these parties have made themselves a constitution-one at Topeka, relying for its support upon your naked doctrine of popular sovereignty; the other at Lecompton, relying upon popular sovereignty indorsed by legislative intervention, without congressional sanction. The latter is much the better, I think, of the two, but both bad. Each party has endeavored, as far as possible, to ignore the other, and to refrain from a recognition of the legal validity of its acts. The free-State party believed it was outraged and trodden down by an invasion from Missouri, which gave despotic character to the Legislature, inasmuch as it was elected, not by the people of the Territory, but by alleged invaders, and hence, thereafter, abstained from participating in elections authorized by this Legislature.submitting the constitution to the vote of the whole people. Whilst the slave-State party denied the extent of the force and violence charged by their opponents, and justified themselves by the charge that emigrant aid societies had thrown upon Kansas, for the purpose of controlling its domestic institutions, a population as spurious as any introduced from adjacent States.

Thus waged the war until delegates were authorized to be chosen by the Territorial Legislature to form a constitution preparatory to the admission of Kansas into the Union. From this point onward we have a right, and it is our duty, to look, in order to ascertain what it is proper for us to do. Delegates, under the law, were to be apportioned among the thirty-four counties of the Territory according to their population, to be ascertained by a census directed to be taken. This was fair and right, and ought to have been done; but, if we may believe the very highest authorities on this subject, it was not done, and by reason of the failure, nearly one half of the counties of the Territory were denied any representation in the convention that formed the constitution under which they were to live. Hear what Governor Walker and Secretary Stanton say on this subject. Governor Walker, in his letter to General Cass, of the 15th December, 1857, says:

"In nineteen of these counties there was no census, and therefore there could be no such apportionment there of delegates, based upon such census; and in fifteen of these Counties there was no registry of voters. These fifteen counties, including many of the oldest organized counties of the Territory, were entirely disfranchised, and did not give, and (by no fault of their own) could not give, a solitary vote for delegates to the convention."

*

*

[ocr errors]

"In fifteen counties out of the thirty-four there was no registry, and not a solitary vote was given, or could be given, for delegates to the convention in any of these counties." Governor Stanton, in corroboration of this statement, in his address to the people of the United States, says:

"The registration required by law had been imperfect in. all the counties, and had been wholly omitted in one half of them; nor could the people of the disfranchised counties vote in any adjacent county, as has been falsely suggested." I could multiply proofs on this subject, but it is unnecessary. These are sufficient, except to those determined not to believe. It is true that many of the free-State party refused to vote for delegates to form the constitution. They professed to believe, and perhaps did believe, they would be defrauded out of their votes by their opponents, who had complete control of all the machinery by which the elections were to be conducted; and they were unwilling, as before stated, by voting at an election authorized by what they denominated the bogus Legislature, to recognize the validity of its acts. I am not their advocate or defender. I think in all this they did wrong; and the other side were wrong in not taking the census and registration as far as practicable, to

"At the next election, in October, when you elect the Territorial Legislature, you can repeal these laws; and you can also, by a majority of your own votes, adopt or reject the constitution, presented for your consideration, next fail. Can you not peaceably decide this question in the mode pointed out by act of Congress, if you, as you can and will, have a full opportunity of recording your vote? [A voice. How are we to get it?"] You will get it by the convention [A voice, Who is to elect the convention? That is the grand question.'] Gentlemen, it is a comparatively small point by whom the constitution is submitted. Do not let us run away after shadows. The great substantial point is this: Will the whole people of Kansas next fall, by a fair election, impartially and fairly conducted by impartial judges, have an opportunity to decide for themselves what shall be their form of government, and what shall be their social institutions? I say they will; but I go a step further. [A voice. Have you the power?] If I have not the power to bring it about, if the convention will not do it, I will join you in lawful opposition to their proceedings. [Cries of Good!' "Good! We hold you to your promise. Nothing can be asked fairer than that.']"

This, with me, is high matter of substance. Here you see a people, jealous of their rights, holding earnest question with their Governor, and receiving from him solemn answer, touching those important rights upon which we are acting now; and in consideration of his solemn pledge that the constitution should be fairly submitted to them, yielding it up indifferently to be formed by these who might be selected to do it, yet relying upon their own ultimate right to pass judgment upon it in the last resort. Shall we obtain the benefits of their non-action, without complying with the conditions upon which it was procured? Shall we, in any sense, fail to comply with the solemn assurances thus given? It will not do to say that Governor Walker had no authority to make these assurances. That he had the authority of the President there is no doubt. He states it, and it is not denied. Whether he had authority or not, the confiding people believed he had; and it would be inconsistent with all my notions of propriety and honor to take advantage of their ignorance or credulity to wring from them advantages which they at least held sacred. I cannot-I will not do it.

How the constitution was submitted, Mr. Chairman, we all know. The slavery clause was only submitted; and, strange to tell, you could not vote against the slavery clause without swearing to support the constitution with slavery. An act like that needs no comment. I am a slaveholder

and a friend of slavery; but, thank God, slavery needs no instrumentality like that for its extension; and its most dangerous adversaries are those who would identify it with violations of personal propriety and honor, and especially with an outrage upon the unquestioned American right of the people, when forming a constitution, to say whether it shall exist with them or not. When the slavery clause of the constitution was submitted, some six thousand two hundred and twenty-six are reported to have voted for it, of which subsequent investigations have shown two thousand seven hundred and twenty were fraudulent; five hundred and sixty-nine votes were cast in favor of the constitution without slavery; thus leaving only two thousand nine hundred and thirty-seven votes in favor of the constitution

||

Ho. OF REPS.

with slavery. So great was the excitement of the people of Kansas at the events I have thus detailed, that we are informed by Governor Stanton that they were almost on the point of civil war, which was only prevented by his convening the Legislature.

In the hope (which proved successful) of restoring peace, a law was passed taking the sersa of the entire people for and against the coustiva tion, abolishing all test oaths, and leaving all fee to vote just as they pleased. The result of that election was that ten thousand two hundred and twenty-six persons voted against the constitution. The friends of the Lecompton constitution did not vote. This election was held on the 4th of January, 1858.

Mr. PEYTON. I ask my colleague whether he believes that the ten thousand two hundred and twenty-six votes cast on the 4th of January were all bona fide legal voters?

Mr. UNDERWOOD. I will state, in all frankness, that it is my opinion-mere guesswork, of course-that it is highly probable they were not. I will say, however, in all candor to my colleague, whose interruption is agreeable, or cer tainly not embarrassing to me, that there is no proof that any of that vote was fraudulent or illegal, and that all concurrent testimony agrees in proving that three-fourths, or more, of the inhabitants of Kansas are inimical to the constitution.

Mr. PEYTON. I would like to know from my colleague how he arrives at that conclusion?

Mr. UNDERWOOD. I am gratified at the opportunity of saying to my friend that I arrive at it from various sources of information-authentic sources which are open both to him and myselfand from private statements from gentlemen of the highest respectability cognizant of the facts. It is the uniform report coming to us from Kansas, that there is a decided, an unqualified, and almostan unmitigated disinclination on the part of the people to accept the Lecompton constitution. I trust my friend is answered. And now I ask him whether he would force any constitution or form of government upon any people against their will?

Mr. PEYTON. I will reply to my colleague very frankly and very candidly, that I would not.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. I knew, sir, that there was a Kentucky spirit beating in my friend's bosom which would keep him from such a course.

Mr. PEYTON. Will my friend permit me to state my own position in regard to this matter? Mr. UNDERWOOD. I hope my colleague will not exhaust too much of my time.

Mr. PEYTON. I ask him whether, in all State, county, and presidential elections, it is not well known that there are more or less improper fraudulent votes polled? That there have been frandulent votes polled in Kansas I have but little doubt; and I have as little doubt that in any elec tion, from the first authorizing of the convention down to the final ratification, there have been votes enough withheld to have changed the result. My colleague says that if the fraudulent votes on the ratification of the constitution were thrown out, there would be only twenty-seven hundred votes left. Well, that may be so; but then those wh did not go to the polls authorized those who did to vote for them, and this left a clear majority of twenty-seven hundred votes in favor of the cen stitution. Now, I ask my friend if he thinks that the votes cast on the 4th of January were all legal? I say, that out of the ten thousand two hundred votes cast on that day against the Lecompton constitution, nine thousand six hundred were polled in those registered counties where the pro-slavery party had cast six thousand votes in favor of the constitution?

Mr. UNDERWOOD. In regard to the legality of that election, my friend will bear me witness that I have, at least, endeavored to establish the proposition that these elections were not of such a character as to demand of the people to come to the polls, and hence, that his position does not apply, that those who stay away from the fi tion authorize those who go to vote for them. My friend asks me in regard to the nine thousand six hundred votes cast in the counties which had already given six thousand majority in favor of the constitution; and I ask him if he will venture to say, on his integrity as a gentleman, and a

« ZurückWeiter »