It is unnecessary to state in detail the alarming condition of the Territory of Kansas at the time of my inauguration. The opposing parties then stood in hostile array against each other, and any accident might have relighted the flames of civil war. Besides, at this critical moment, Kansas was left without a governor by the resignation of Governor Geary.

On the 19th of February previous, the Territorial legislature had passed a law providing for the election of delegates on the third Monday of June, to a convention to meet on the first Monday in September, for the purpose of framing a constitution preparatory to admission into the Union. This law was in the main fair and just; and it is to be regretted that all the qualified electors had not registered themselves and voted under its provisions.

At the time of the election for delegates, an extensive organization existed in the Territory, whose avowed object it was, if need be, to put down the lawful government by force, and to establish a government of their own under the so-called Topeka Constitution. The persons attached to this revolutionary organization abstained from taking any part in the election.

to a direct vote. How wise, then, was it for Congress to pass over all subordinate and intermediate agencies, and proceed directly to the source of all legitimate power under our institutions!

How vain would any other principle prove in practice! This may be illustrated by the case of Kansas. Should she be admitted into the Union with a constitution either maintaining or abolishing Slavery, against the sentiment of the people, this could have no other effect than to continue and to exasperate the existing agitation during the brief period required to make the constitution conform to the irresistible will of the majority. The friends and supporters of the Nebraska and Kansas act, when struggling on a recent occasion to sustain its wise provisions before the great tribunal of the American people, never differed about its true meaning on this subject. Everywhere throughout the Union they publicly pledged their faith and their honor that they would cheerfully submit the question of Slavery to the decision of the bona fide people of Kansas, without any restriction or qualification whatever. All were cordially united upon the great doctrine of popular sovereignty, which is the vital principle of our free institutions. Had it, then, been insinuated from any quarter that it would be a sufficient compliance with the requisitions of the organic law for the members of a convention, thereafter to be elected, to withhold the question of Slavery from the people, and to substitute their own will for that of a legally-ascertained majority of all their constituents, this would have been instantly rejected. Everywhere they remained true to the resolution adopted on a celebrated occasion recognizing "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 justified it-to form a constitution with or without Slavery, and be admitted into the Union upon terms of perfect equality with the other States." The Convention to frame a constitution for Kansas met on the first Monday of September last. They were called together by virtue of an act of the Territorial legislature, whose lawful existence had been recognized by Congress in different forms and by different enactments. A large proportion of the citizens of Kansas did Did Congress mean by this language that the delegates not think proper to register their names and to vote at elected to frame a constitution, should have authority the election for delegates; but an opportunity to do this finally to decide the question of Slavery, or did they in- having been fairly afforded, their refusal to avail themtend, by leaving it to the people, that the people of Kan-selves of their right could in no manner affect the legalsas themselves should decide this question by a direct ity of the convention. vote? On this subject I confess I had never entertained a serious doubt, and, therefore, in my instructions to Governor Walker of the 28th March last, I merely said that when "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."

The act of the Territorial legislature had omitted to provide for submitting to the people the constitution which might be framed by the Convention; and in the excited state of public feeling throughout Kansas, an apprehension extensively prevailed that a design existed to force upon them a constitution, in relation to Slavery, against their will. In this emergency it became my duty, as it was my unquestionable right, having in view the union of all good citizens in support of the Territorial laws, to express an opinion on the true construction of the provisions concerning Slavery contained in the organic act of Congress of the 30th May, 1854. Congress declared it to be "the true intent and meaning of this act not to legislate Slavery into any Territory or State, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way. Under it Kansas, "when admited as a State," was to "be received into the Union with or without Slavery as their constitution may prescribe at the time of their admission."

In expressing this opinion it was far from my intention to interfere with the decision of the people of Kansas, either for or against Slavery. From this I have always carefully abstained. Intrusted with the duty of taking care that the laws be faithfully executed," my only desire was that the people of Kansas should furnish to Congress the evidence required by the organic act, whether for or against Slavery; and in this manner smooth their passage into the Union. In emerging from the condition of Territorial dependence into that of a sovereign State, it was their duty, in my opinion, to make known their will by the votes of the majority, on the direct question, whether this important domestic institution should or should not continue to exist. Indeed this was the only possible mode in which their will could be authentically ascertained.

This Convention proceeded to frame a constitution for Kansas, and finally adjourned on the 7th day of November. But little difficulty occurred in the Convention, except on the subject of Slavery. The truth is, that the general provisions of our recent State constitutions are so similar, and, I may add, so excellent, that the difference between them is not essential. Under the earlier practice of the Government, no constitution framed by the convention of a Territory preparatory to its admission into the Union as a State had been submitted to the people. I trust, however, the example set by the last Congress, requiring that the constitution of Minnesota "should be subject to the approval and ratification of the people of the proposed State," may be followed on future occasions. I took it for granted that the Convention of Kansas would act in accordance with this example, founded as it is, on correct principles; and hence my instructions to Governor Walker, in favor of submitting the constitution to the people, were expressed in general and unqualified terms.

In the Kansas-Nebraska act, however, this requirement, as applicable to the whole constitution, had not been inserted, and the Convention were not bound by its terms to submit any other portion of the instrument to an election, except that which relates to the "domestic institution" of Slavery. This will be rendered clear by a simple reference to its language. It was "not to legislate Slavery into any Territory or State, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way.' According to the plain construction of the sentence, the words" domestic institutions" have a direct as they have an appropriate reference to Slavery. "Domestic institutions are limited to the family. The relation between master and slave and a few others are "domestic institutions," and are enBesides, there was no question then before Congress, nor indeed has there since been any serious question before the people of Kansas or the country, except that which relates to the "domestic institution "of Slavery.

The election of delegates to a convention must necessarily take place in separate districts. From this cause it may readily happen, as has often been the case, that a majority of the people of a State or Territory are on one side of a question, whilst a majority of the representatives from the several districts into which it is divided may be upon the other side. This arises from the fact that in some districts delegates may be elected by small majorities, whilst in others those of different sentiments may receive majorities sufficiently great not only to overcome the votes given for the former, but to leave a large majority of the whole people in direct opposition to a majority of the delegates. Besides, our his-tirely distinct from institutions of a political character. tory proves that influences may be brought to bear on the representative sufficiently powerful to induce him to disregard the will of his constituents. The truth is, that no other authentic and satisfactory mode exists of ascertaining the will of a majority of the people of any State or Territory on an important and exciting question like that of Slavery in Kansas, except by leaving it

The Convention, after an angry and excited debate, finally determined, by a majority of only two, to submit the question of Slavery to the people, though at the last

forty-three of the fifty delegates present affixed their signatures to the constitution.

show that the President did not mean to 66 recommend" the Lecompton Constitution, but that he only

A large majority of the Convention were in favor of establishing Slavery in Kansas. They accordingly inserted an article in the constitution for this purpose referred that document to the Congress of the Unisimilar in form to those which had been adopted by ted States-as the Constitution of the United States other Territorial conventions. In the schedule, how-refers it-for us to decide upon it under our own responever, providing for the transition from a Territorial to a sibility. "It is proper," said Mr. D., " that he should State government, the question has been fairly and ex- have thus referred it to us as a matter for congressional plicitly referred to the people, whether they will have a action, and not as an administrative or executive measure, constitution" with or without Slavery." It declares that, for the reason that the Constitution of the United States before the constitution adopted by the Convention says, Congress may admit new States into the Union.' "shall be sent to Congress for admission into the Union Hence we find the Kansas question before us now, not as a State," an election shall be held to decide this quesas an Administrative measure, not as an Executive meation, at which all the white male inhabitants of the Ter- sure, but as a measure coming before us for our free ritory above the age of 21 are entitled to vote. They action, without any recommendation or interference, are to vote by ballot; and "the ballots cast at said directly or indirectly, by the Administration now in poselection shall be indorsed 'constitution with Slavery,' session of the Federal Government." and constitution with no Slavery.'" If there be a majority in favor of the the "constitution with Slavery," then it is to be transmitted to Congress by the president of the Convention in its original form. If, on the contrary, there shall be a majority in favor of the "constitution with no Slavery," "then the article providing for Slavery shall be stricken from the constitution by the president of this Convention;" and it is expressly declared that "no Slavery shall exist in the State of Kansas, except that the right of property in slaves now in the Territory shall in no manner be interfered with;" and in that event it is made his duty to have the constitution thus ratified, transmitted to the Congress of the United States, for the admission of the State into the Union.

Mr. President, I am not going to stop and inquire how far the Nebraska bill, which said the people should be left perfectly free to form their constitution for themselves, authorized the President, or the Cabinet, or Gov fere and tell the Convention of Kansas whether they ernor Walker, or any other Territorial officer, to intershould or should not submit the question to the people. I am not going to stop to inquire how far they were authorized to do that, it being my opinion that the spirit of the Nebraska bill required it to be done. It is sufficient for my purpose that the Administration of the Federal Government unanimously-that the administration of the Territorial government, in all its parts, unanimouslyunderstood the Territorial law under which the Convention was assembled to mean that the constitution to be formed by that Convention should be submitted to the people for ratification or rejection, and, if not confirmed by a majority of the people, should be null and void, without coming to Congress for approval.

Not only did the National Government and the Territo

At this election, every citizen will have an opportunity of expressing his opinion by his vote "whether Kansas shall be received into the Union with or without Slavery," and thus this exciting question may be peacefully settled in the very mode required by the organic law. The election will be held under legitimate author-rial government so understand the law at the time, but, ity, and if any portion of the inhabitants shall refuse to vote, a fair opportunity to do so having been presented, this will be their own voluntary act, and they alone will be responsible for the consequences.

Whether Kansas shall be a free or a slave State, must eventually, under some authority, be decided by an election; and the question can never be more clearly or distinctly presented to the people than it is at the present moment. Should this opportunity be rejected, she may be involved for years in domestic discord, and possibly in civil war, before she can again make up the issue now so fortunately tendered, and again reach the point she has already attained.

Kansas has for some years occupied too much of the public attention. It is high time this should be directed to far more important objects. When once admitted into the Union, whether with or without Slavery, the excitement beyond her own limits will speedily pass away, and she will then, for the first time, be left, as she ought to have been long since, to manage her own affairs in her own way. If her constitution on the subject of Slavery, or on any other subject, be displeasing to a majority of the people, no human power can prevent them from changing it within a brief period. Under these circumstances, it may well be questioned whether the peace and quiet of the whole country are not of greater importance than the mere temporary triumph of either of the political parties in Kansas.

Should the constitution without Slavery be adopted by the votes of the majority, the rights of property in slaves now in the Territory are reserved. The number of these is very small; but if it were greater the provision would be equally just and reasonable. The slaves were brought into the Territory under the Constitution of the United States, and are now the property of their masters. This point has at length been finally decided by the highest judicial tribunal of the country-and this upon the plain principle that when a confederacy of Sovereign States acquire a new territory at their joint expense, both equality and justice demand that the citizens of one and all of them thall have the right to take into it whatsoever is recognized as property by the comnon Constitution. To have summarily confiscated the property in slaves already in the Territory would have been an act of gross injustice, and contrary to the practice of the older States of the Union which have 3shed Slavery.

as I have already stated, the people of the Territory so understood it. As a further evidence on that point, a large number, if not a majority, of the delegates were instructed in the nominating conventions to submit the constitution to the people for ratification. I know that the delegates from Douglas County, eight in number, Mr. Calhoun, President of the Convention, being among them, were not only instructed thus to submit the question, but pledge that they would submit it to the people for ratifithey signed and published, while candidates, a written cation. I know that men high in authority, and in the confidence of the Territorial and National Gove nment, delegates, and each one of them pledged himself to the canvassed every part of Kansas during the election of people that no snap judgment was to be taken; that the constitution was to be submitted to the people for acceptdone; that the Administration would spurn and scorn it as ance or rejection: that it would be void unless that was a violation of the principles on which it came into power, and that a Democratic Congress would hurl it from their to see the people left free to form their domestic institupresence as an insult to the Democrats who stood pledged tions for themselves.

tion assembled, on the 1st of September, so far as I can Not only that, sir, but up to the time when the Convenwas to be submitted for ratification or rejection. They learn, it was understood everywhere that the constitution until after the October election. I think that it was wise met, however, on the 1st of September, and adjourned and prudent that they should thus have adjourned. They which would divide the Democratic party, and weaken did not wish to bring any question into that election when I saw that they did adjourn, so as not to show their our chances of success in the election. I was rejoiced party until after the election. During that recess, while the hand on any question that would divide and distract the Convention was adjourned, Governor Ransom, the Democratic candidate for Congress, running against the present Delegate from that Territory, was canvassing every part of Kansas, in favor of the doctrine of submitting the constitution to the people, declaring that the Democratic party were in favor of such submission, and that it was a slander of the Black Republicans to intimate the charge that the Democratic party did not intend to carry out that pledge in good faith. Thus, up to the time of the Conabol-vention, in October last, the pretense was kept up, the profession was openly made, and believed by me, and I thought believed by them, that the Convention intended to submit a constitution to the people, and not to attempt to put a government in operation without such submission. The election being over, the Democratic party being defeated by an overwhelming vote, the Opposition having triumphed, and got possession of both branches of the legislature, and having elected their Territorial

MR. DOUGLAS ON LECOMPTON. Mr. Douglas, who very early joined in the debate on the President's Message, at first said he dissented from the views of the President in regard to Kansas, but afterward endeavored to

Delegate, the Convention assembled, and then proceeded | not violate the Constitution of the United States and the to complete their work.

Now let us stop to inquire how they redeemed the pledge to submit the constitution to the people. They first go on to make a constitution. Then they make a schedule, in which they provide that the constitution, on the 21st of December-the present month-shall be submitted to all the bona fide inhabitants of the Territory on that day, for their free acceptance or rejection, in the following manner, to wit: Thus acknowledging that they were bound to submit it to the will of the people; conceding that they had no right to put it into operation without submitting it to the people; providing in the instrument that it should take effect from and after the date of its ratification, and not before; showing that the Constitution derives its vitality, in their estimation, not from the authority of the Convention, but from that vote of the people, to which it was to be submitted for their free acceptance or rejection. How is it to be submitted? It shall be submitted in this form: "Constitution with Slavery, or constitution with no Slavery?" All men must vote for the constitution, whether they like it or not, in order to be permitted to vote for or against Slavery. Thus a constitution made by a convention that had authority to assemble and petition for a redress of grievances, but not to estab lish a government-a constitution made under a pledge of honor that it should be submitted to the people before if took effect-a constitution which provides on its face, that it shall have no validity except what it derives from such submission-is submitted to the people at an election where all men are at liberty to come forward freely, with out hindrance, and vote for it, but no man is permitted to record a vote against it!

That would be as fair an election as some of the enemies of Napoleon attributed to him when he was elected First Consul. He is said to have called out his troops and had them reviewed by his officers, with a speech, patriotic and fair in its professions, in which he said to them: "Now, my soldiers, you are to go to the election and vote freely, just as you please. If you vote for Napoleon, all is well; vote against him, and you are to be instantly shot!" That was a fair election. (Laughter.) This election is to be equally fair. All men in favor of the constitution may vote for it, all men against it shall not vote at all. Why not let them vote against it? I presume you have asked many a man this question. I have asked a very large number of the gentlemen who framed the constitution, quite a number of delegates, and a still larger number of persons who are their friends, and I have received the same answer from every one of them. I never received any other answer, and I presume we never shall get any other answer. What is that? They say, if they had allowed a negative vote, the constitution would have been voted down by an overwhelming majority; and hence the fellows shall not be allowed to vote at all. (Laughter.) Mr. President, that may be true. It is no part of my purpose to deny the proposition that that constitution would have been voted down if submitted to the people. I believe it would have been voted down by a majority of four to one. I am informed by men well posted there -Democrats-that it would be voted down ten to one; some say by twenty to one.

But is it a good reason why you should declare it in force, without being submitted to the people, merely because it would have been voted down by five to one if you had submitted it? What does that fact prove? Does it not show undeniably that an overwhelming majority of the people of Kansas are unalterably opposed to that constitution? Will you force it on them against their will, simply because they would have voted it down if you had consulted them? If you will, are you going to force it upon them under the plea of leaving them perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way? Is that the mode in which I am called upon to carry out the principle of self-government and popular sovereignty in the Territories-to force a constitution on the people against their will, in opposition to their protest, with a knowlege of the fact, and then to assign as a reason for my tyranny, that they would be so obstinate and so perverse as to vote down the constitution if I had given them an opportunity to be consulted about it?

Sir, I deny your right, or mine, to inquire of these people what their objections to that constitution are. They have a right to judge for themselves whether they like or dislike it. It is no answer to tell me that the constitution is a good one, and unobjectionable. It is not satisfactory to me to have the President say, in his message, that that constitution is an admirable one, like all the constitutions of the new States that have been recently framed. Whether good or bad, whether obnoxious or not, is none of my business, and none of yours.

It is their business, and not ours. I care not what they have in their constitution, so that it suits them and does

fundamental principles of liberty upon which our institutions rest. I am not going to argue the question whether the banking system established in that constitution is wise or unwise. It says there shall be no monopolies, but there shall be one bank of issue in the State, with two branches. All I have to say on that point is, if they want a banking system, let them have it; if they do not want it, let them prohibit it. If they want a bank with two branches, be it so; if they want twenty, it is none of my business; and it matters not to me whether one of them shall be on the north side and the other on the south side of the Kaw River, or where they shall be.

While I have no right to expect to be consulted on that point, I do hold that the people of Kansas have the right to be consulted and to decide it, and you have no rightful authority to deprive them of that privilege. It is no justification, in my mind, to say that the provision for the eligibility for the officers of Governor and Lieut.-Governor requires twenty years' citizenship in the United States. If men think that no person should vote or hold office until he has been here twenty years, they have a right to think so; and if a majority of the people of Kansas think that no man of foreign birth should vote or hold office unless he has lived there twenty years, it is their right to say so, and I have no right to interfere with them; it is their business, not mine; but if I lived there I should not be willing to have that provision in the constitution without being heard upon the subject, and allowed to record my protest against it.

I have nothing to say about their system of taxation, in which they have gone back and resorted to the old exploded system which we tried in Illinois, but abandoned because we did not like it. If they wish to try it and get tired of it and abandon it, be it so; but if I were a citizen of Kansas I would profit by the experience of Illinois on that subject, and defeat it if I could. Yet I have no objection to their having it if they want it; it is their business, not mine.

So it is in regard to the free negroes. They provide that no free negro shall be permitted to live in Kansas. I suppose they have a right to say so if they choose; but if I lived there I should want to vote on the question. We, in Illinois, provide that no more shall come there. We say to the other States, "Take care of your own free negroes and we will take care of ours." But we do not say that the negroes now there shall not be permitted to live in Illinois; and I think the people of Kansas ought to have the right to say whether they will allow them to live there, and if they are not going to do so, how they are to dispose of them.

So you may go on with all the different clauses of the Constitution. They may be all right; they may be all wrong. That is a question on which my opinion is worth nothing. The opinion of the wise and patriotic Chief Magistrate of the United States is not worth anything as against that of the people of Kansas, for they have a right to judge for themselves; and neither President, nor Senates, nor Houses of Representatives, nor any other power outside of Kansas, has a right to judge for them. Hence it is no justification, in my mind, for the violation of the great principle of self-government, to say that the Constitution you are forcing on them is not particularly obnoxious, or is excellent in its provisions. erhaps, sir, the same thing might be said of the Topeka Constitution. I do not recollect its peculiar provisions. I know one thing: we Democrats, we Nebraska men, would not even look into it to see what its provisious were. Why? Because we said it was made by a political party, and not by the people; that it was made in defiance of the authority of Congress; that if it was as pure as the Bible, as holy as the Ten Commandments, yet we would not touch it until it was submitted to and ratified by the people of Kansas, in pursuance of the forms of law. Perhaps the Topeka Constitution, but for the mode of making it, would have been unexceptionYou have no right able. I do not know; I do not care. to force an unexceptionable constitution on a people. It does not mitigate the evil, it does not diminish the insult, it does not ameliorate the wrong, that you are forcing a good thing upon them. I am not willing to be forced to do that which I would do if I were left free to judge and act for myself. Hence I assert that there is no justification to be made for this flagrant violation of popular rights in Kansas, on the plea that the constitution which they have made is not particularly obnoxious.

But, sir, the President of the United States is really and sincerely of the opinion that the Slavery clause has been fairly and impartially submitted to the free acceptance or rejection of the people of Kansas, and that, inasmuch as that was the exciting and paramount question, if they get the right to vote as they please on that subject, they ought to be satisfied; and possibly it might be

I am

better if we would accept it, and put an end to the ques- If Kansas wants a Slave-State Constitution, she has a tion. Let me ask, sir, is the Slavery clause fairly sub-right to it; if she wants a Free-State Constitution, she has mitted, so that the people can vote for or against it? Sup- a right to it. It is none of my business which way the pose I were a citizen of Kansas, and should go up to the Slavery clause is decided. I care not whether it is polls and say, "I desire to vote to make Kansas a Slave voted down or voted up. Do you suppose, after pledges State; here is my ballot." They reply to me, "Mr. of my honor, that I would go for that principle, and Douglas, just vote for that constitution first, if you leave the people to vote as they choose, that I would now please." "Oh, no !" I answer, "I cannot vote for that degrade myself by voting one way if the Slavery clause constitution conscientiously-I am opposed to the clause be voted down, and another way if it be voted up? I by which you locate certain railroads in such a way as to care not how that vote may stand. I take it for granted sacrifice my county and my part of the State. that it will be voted out. I think I have seen enough in opposed to that banking system. I am opposed to this the last three days to make it certain that it will be reKnow-Nothing or American clause in the constitution turned out, no matter how the vote may stand. (Laughabout the qualifications for office. I cannot vote for it." ter.) Then they answer, "You shall not vote on making it a Slave State." I then say, "I want to make it a Free State." They reply, "Vote for that constitution first, and then you can vote to make it a Free State; otherwise you cannot." Thus they disqualify every Free-State inan who will not first vote for the constitution; they disqualify every Slave-State man who will not first vote for

the constitution. No matter whether or not the voters state that they cannot conscientiously vote for those provisions, they reply, "You cannot vote for or against Slavery here. Take the constitution as we have made it, take the Elective Franchise as we have established it, take the Banking System as we have dictated it, take the Railroad lines as we have located them, take the Judiciary System as we have formed it, take it all as we have fixed it to suit ourselves, and ask no questions, but vote for it, or you shall not vote either for a Slave or Free State." In other words, the legal effect of the schedule is this: all those who are in favor of this constitution may vote for or against Slavery, as they please; but all those who are against this constitution are disfranchised, and shall not vote at all. That is the mode in which the Slavery proposition is submitted. Every man opposed to the constitution is disfranchised on the Slavery clause. How many are they? They tell you there is a majority, for they say the constitution will be voted down instantly, by an overwhelming majority, if you allow a negative vote. This shows that a majority are against it. They disqualify and disfranchise every man who is against it, thus referring the Slavery clause to a minority of the people of Kansas, and leaving that minority free to vote for or

against the Slavery clause as they choose.

Let me ask you if that is a fair mode of submitting the Slavery clause? Does that mode of submitting that particular clause leave the people perfectly free to vote for or against Slavery as they choose? Am I free to vote as I choose on the Slavery question, if you tell me I shall not vote on it until I vote for the Maine Liquor Law? Am I free to vote on the Slavery question, if you tell me I shall not vote either way until I vote for a Bank? Is it freedom of election to make your right to vote upon one question depend upon the mode in which you are going to vote on some other question which has no connection with it? Is that freedom of election? Is that the great fundamental principle of Self-Government, for which we combined and struggled, in this body and throughout the country, to establish as a rule of action in all time to come?

Let me ask you, why force this Constitution down the throats of the people of Kansas, in opposition to their wishes and in violation of our pledges? What great object is to be attained? Cui bono? What are you to gain by it? Will you sustain the party by violating its principles? Do you propose to keep the party united by forcing a division? Stand by the doctrine that leaves the people perfectly free to form and regulate their institutions for themselves in their own way, and your party will be united and irresistible in power. great principle, and the party is not worth saving, and Abandon that cannot be saved, after it shall be violated. I trust we are not to be rushed upon this question. Why shall it be done? Who is to be benefited? Is the South to be the gainer? Neither the North nor the South has the right to gain a sectional advantage by trickery or fraud.

Sir, I am opposed to that concern, because it looks to me like a system of trickery and jugglery to defeat the fair expression of the will of the people. There is no necessity for crowding this measure, so unfair, so unjust, as it is in all its aspects, upon us.

On the 2nd of Feb., 1858, the President transmitted to Congress the Lecompton Constitution, accompanied by a special Message strongly urging the admission of Kansas as a State under this constitution. statement in regard to the origin of the Le(The following is a brief compton Constitution :)

The first Territorial Legislature passed an act in 1855 to take the sense of the people on the call of a Convention to form a State Constitution, at the election in Oct., 1856. Accordingly, an election was held at which about 2,500 votes were polled, the Free-State men not voting. At this election, a new legislature was elected, all Pro-Slavery, which met in Jan., 1857, and in conformity with the vote of 2,500 at the preceding October election, passed an act providing for the election of delegates on the 15th of June, to meet in convention in September following. Soon after this, Gov. Walker went to Kansas, and published an address to the people in which he assured them of his determination to use every means in his power to prevent all disorder and violence. He persuaded the Free-State men to go to the polls and vote. An objection which they urged was, that in 19 out of the 38 counties no registry had been made, and that in 15 out of the 19 no census had been taken, so that it was impossible for the people to vote in those counties. These facts are confirmed by Gov. Walker and Secretary Stanton.

The election for delegates to the Convention was held on the 15th of June. The Free-State men did not vote, for the reason just mentioned, and also (as they stated,) that they had no confidence in the officers who were to hold the election, and because the Constitution which might be formed, must, in the opinion of Gov. Walker, be submitted to a vote of all the people for ratielection or not. fication or rejection, whether they voted at this The entire vote for delegates

was only about 2,200.

tion at Lecompton, Sept. 5th, but soon adjourned The delegates elected assembled in ConvenBut I am beseeched to wait till I hear from the election over to October, to await the result of the Teron the 21st of December. I am told that perhaps that ritorial Election on the first Monday of that will put it all right, and will solve the whole difficulty. month. How can it? Perhaps there may be a large vote. There At this Territorial Election, both parmay be a large vote returned. (Laughter.) But I deny ties nominated candidates. At the request of that it is possible to have a fair vote on the Slavery Gov. Walker, 2,000 U. S. troops were in the TerClause; and I say that it is not possible to have any vote on the Constitution. Why wait for the mockery of an election, when it is provided, unalterably, that the people cannot vote-when the majority are disfranchised?

ritory, and they were stationed so as to protect the polls as much as possible. Over eleven thousand votes were polled, after rejecting But I am told on all sides, "Oh, just wait; the Pro- 2,800 as fraudulent and irregular, 1,600 of which Slavery clause will be voted down." That does not obviate any of my objections; it does not diminish any of Were returned from the Oxford precinct, where, them. You have no more right to force a Free-State according to the census, there were but 43 voters, Constitution on Kansas than a Slave-State Constitution. and twelve hundred from McGee County, where