The chair does not believe these demonstrations will be repeated, and therefore takes no further notice of what has occurred. The senator from Illinois will proceed.

Mr. Douglas. The interposition of the denial that about one half of the counties were disfranchised, I presume, can have but very little weight on the argument. It has been proven over and over again. In my estimation the proof is conclusive as to the fifteen counties, and satisfactory, I think, as to nineteen, being half the counties of the Territory, that there were not such a census and registration as authorized a vote for delegates. It has been attempted to be proved, however, that there was not a great many votes in those counties. I believe the president of the convention estimates that there were not more than fifteen hundred or two thousand in those counties. Suppose that was all. There were only a little over two thousand votes polled at the election of delegates in the other nineteen counties which elected all the delegates. If the disfranchised counties contained fifteen hundred voters, is it not conclusive that, with the addition of five or six hundred persons in the other counties, they could have changed the result? Having been disfranchised in one half the counties, the friends of those who were disfranchised may not have voted in the other counties, because they had no hope of overcoming the majority in the other half. I did not intend to go into the argument on that point again, and I should not have alluded to it now but for the fact that the senator from South Carolina had to assume as true, what I understood not to be true, in order to predicate his answer upon it, that he, as a Southern man, would vote to admit the state if the case had been reversed, and a free-state Constitution was being forced upon an unwilling people, with the knowledge that it did not reflect the sentiments of that people.

Mr. Hammond. Allow me to say that if the slaveholders, under these circumstances, had never had a majority at all, they would, nevertheless, have submitted until they could alter the Constitution, if they could possibly do it. Mr. Douglas. I can only say, then, that they are a very submissive people. [Laughter.]

Mr. Hammond. Not at all.

Mr. Douglas. I have never seen the day when I would be willing to submit to the action of a minority forcing a Constitution on an unwilling people against their will because it had got an advantage. It violates the fundamental principle of government; it violates the foundations on which all free government rests; it is a proposition in violation of the Democratic creed; in violation of the Republican creed; in violation of the American creed; in violation of the creed of every party which professes to be governed by the principles of free institutions and fair elections.

Mr. Hammond. Will the senator allow me to say one word more? If the slaveholders, under the circumstances that he stated, were a minority, they would have submitted. If they were a majority, as I assume, they would have submitted until, under the forms of constitutional law, they could have properly asserted their power.

Mr. Douglas. I understood the senator to say that; I must say to him that I would rather not repeat questions on the same point over and over again. I am very feeble to-night, and shall probably not have strength enough to go through with my remarks. I only desire to say on that point that I regard the principle involved here as vital and fundamental, as lying at the foundation of all free government, and the violation of it as a death-blow to state rights and state sovereignty. But, sir, I pass on. If you admit Kansas with the Lecompton Constitution, you also admit her with the state government which has been brought into existence under it. Is the evidence satisfactory that that state government has been fairly and honestly elected? Is the

evidence satisfactory that the elections were fairly and honestly held, and fairly and honestly returned? You have all seen the evidence showing the fraudulent voting; the forged returns, from precinct after precinct, changing the result not only upon the legislative ticket, but also upon the ticket for governor and state officers. The false returns in regard to Delaware Crossing, changing the complexion of the Legislature, are admitted. The evidence is equally conclusive as to the Shawnee Precinct, the Oxford Precinct, the Kickapoo Precinct, and many others, making a difference of some three thousand votes in the general aggregate, and changing the whole result of the election. Yet, sir, we are called upon to admit Kansas with the state government thus brought into existence not only by fraudulent voting, but forged returns, sustained by perjury. The Senate well recollects the efforts that I made before the subject was referred to the committee, and since, to ascertain to whom the certificates of election were awarded, that we might know whether they were given to the men honestly elected, or to the men whose elections depended upon forgery and perjury. Can any one tell me now to whom those certificates have been issued, if they have been issued at all? Can any man tell me whether we are installing, by receiving this state government, officers whose sole title depends upon forgery, or those whose title depends upon popular votes ? We have been calling for that information for about three months, but we have called in vain. One day the rumor would be that Mr. Calhoun would declare the free-state ticket elected, and next day that he would declare the pro-slavery ticket elected. So it has alternated, like the chills and fever, day after day, until within the last three days, when the action of Congress became a little dubious, when it was doubtful whether Northern men were willing to vote for a state government depending upon forgery and perjury, and then we find that the president of the Lecompton Convention addresses a letter to the editor of the Star, a newspaper in this city, telling what he thinks is the result of the election. He says it is true that he has received no answer to his letters of inquiry to Governor Denver; he has no official information on the subject; but, from rumors and unofficial information, he is now satisfied that the Delaware Crossing return was a fraud; that it will be set aside; and that, accordingly, the result will be that certificates will be issued to the free-state men. I do not mean to deny that Mr. Calhoun may think such will be the result; but, while he may think so, I would rather know how the fact is. His thoughts are not important, but the fact is vital in establishing the honesty or dishonesty of the state government which we are about to recognize. It so happens that Mr. Calhoun has no more power, no more authority over that question now than the senator from Missouri, or any other member of this body. The celebrated Lecompton schedule provides that,

"In case of removal, ABSENCE, or disability of the president of this convention to discharge the duties herein imposed on him, the president pro tempore of this convention shall perform said duties; and in case of absence, refusal, or disability of the president pro tempore, a committee consisting of seven, or a majority of them, shall discharge the duties required of the president of this convention."

As Mr. Calhoun is absent from the Territory, and, by reason of that absence, is deprived of all authority over the subject-matter, and as the president pro tempore has succeeded to his powers, is it satisfactory for the deposed president to address a letter to the editor of the Star announcing his private opinion as to who has been elected? I should like to know who the president pro tempore is, and where he is; and if he is in Kansas, whether he has arrived at the same conclusion which the ex-president Calhoun has announced. I should like to know whether that president pro tempore has already issued his certificate to the pro-slavery men in Kansas, while Mr. Calhoun expresses

the opinion in the Star that the certificates will be issued to the free-state men? If that president pro tempore has become a fugitive from justice, and escaped from the Territory, I should like then to know who are the committee of seven that were to take his place; and whether they, or a majority of them, have arrived at the same conclusion to which Mr. Calhoun has come? Inasmuch as this opinion is published to the world just before the vote is to be taken here, and is expected to catch the votes of some green members of one body or the other, I should like to know whether certificates have been issued? and, if so, by whom, and to whom? where the president pro tempore is? where the committee of seven may be found? and then we might know who constitute the Legislature, and who constitute the state government which we are to bring into being. We are not only to admit Kansas with a Constitution, but with a state government; with a governor, a Legislature, a judiciary; with executive, legislative, judicial, and ministerial officers. Inasmuch as we are told by the President that the first Legislature may take steps to call a convention to change the Constitution, I should like to know of whom that Legislature is composed? Inasmuch as the governor would have the power to veto an act of the Legislature calling a convention, I should like to know who is governor, so that I may judge whether he would veto such an act? Can not our good friends get the president pro tempore of the convention to write a letter to the Star? Can they not procure a letter from the committee of seven? Can they not clear up this mystery, and relieve our suspicious minds of any thing unfair or foul in the arrangement of this matter? Let us know how the fact is.

This publication of itself is calculated to create more apprehension than there was before. As long as Mr. Calhoun took the ground that he would never declare the result until Lecompton was admitted, and that, if it was not admitted, he would never make the decision, there seemed to be some reason in his course; but when, after taking that ground for months, it became understood that Lecompton was dead, or was lingering and languishing, and likely to die, and when a few more votes were necessary, and a pretext was necessary to be given in order to secure them, we find this letter published by the deposed ex-president, giving his opinion when he had no power over the subject; and when it appears by the Constitution itself that another man or another body of men has the decision in their hands, it is calculated to arouse our suspicions as to what the result will be after Lecompton is admitted.

Mr. President, in the course of the debate on this bill, before I was compelled to absent myself from the Senate on account of sickness, and I presume the same has been the case during my absence, much was said on the Slavery question in connection with the admission of Kansas. Many gentlemen have labored to produce the impression that the whole opposition to the admission arises out of the fact that the Lecompton Constitution makes Kansas a slave state. I am sure that no gentleman here will do me the injustice to assert or suppose that my opposition is predicated on that consideration, in view of the fact that my speech against the admission of Kansas under the Lecompton Constitution was made on the 9th of December, two weeks before the vote was taken upon the slavery clause in Kansas, and when the general impression was that the pro-slavery clause would be excluded. I predicated my opposition then, as I do now, upon the ground that it was a violation of the fundamental principles of government, a violation of popular sovereignty, a violation of the Democratic platform, a violation of all party platforms, and a fatal blow to the independence of the new states. I told you then that you had no more right to force a free-state Constitution upon a people against their will than you had to force a slave-state Constitution. Will gentlemen say that, on the other side, slavery has no influence in producing that united,

- almost unanimous support which we find from gentlemen living in one section of the Union in favor of the Lecompton Constitution? If slavery had nothing to do with it, would there have been so much hesitation about Mr. Calhoun's declaring the result of the election prior to the vote in Congress? I submit, then, whether we ought not to discard the Slavery question altogether, and approach the real question before us fairly, calmly, dispassionately, and decide whether, but for the slavery clause, this Lecompton Constitution could receive a single vote in either house of Congress. Were it not for the slavery clause, would there be any objection to sending it back to the people for a vote? Were it not for the slavery clause, would there be any objection to letting Kansas wait until she had ninety thousand people, instead of coming into the Union with not over forty-five or fifty thousand? Were it not for the Slavery question, would Kansas have occupied any considerable portion of our thoughts? would it have divided and distracted political parties so as to create bitter and acrimonious feelings? I say now to our Southern friends that I will act, on this question on the right of the people to decide for themselves, irrespective of the fact whether they decide for or against slavery, provided it be submitted to a fair vote at a fair election, and with honest

returns.

In this connection there is another topic to which I desire to allude. I seldom refer to the course of newspapers, or notice the articles which they publish in regard to myself; but the course of the Washington Union has been so extraordinary for the last two or three months, that I think it well enough to make some allusion to it. It has read me out of the Democratic party every other day, at least, for two or three months, and keeps reading me out (laughter); and, as if it had not succeeded, still continues to read me out, using such terms as "traitor," "renegade," "deserter," and other kind and polite epithets of that nature. Sir, I have no vindication to make of my Democracy against the Washington Union, or any other newspaper. I am willing to allow my history and action for the last twenty years to speak for themselves as to my political principles, and my fidelity to political obligations. The Washington Union has a personal grievance. When its editor was nominated for public printer I declined to vote for him, and stated that at some time I might give my reasons for doing so. Since I declined to give that vote, this scurrilous abuse, these vindictive and constant attacks, have been repeated almost daily on me. Will my friend from Michigan read the article to which I allude?

Mr. Stuart read the following editorial article from the Washington Union of November 17, 1857:

"FREE-SOILISM.-The primary object of all government, in its original institution, is the protection of person and property. It is for this alone that men surrender a portion of their natural rights.

"In order that this object may be fully accomplished, it is necessary that this protection should be equally extended to all classes of free citizens without exception. This, at least, is a fundamental principle of the Constitution of the United States, which is the original compact on which all our institutions are based.

"Slaves were recognized as property in the British colonies of North America by the government of Great Britain, by the colonial laws, and by the Constitution of the United States. Under these sanctions vested rights have accrued to the amount of some sixteen hundred million dollars. It is therefore the duty of Congress and the state Legislatures to protect that property.

"The Constitution declares that the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.' Every citizen of one state coming into another state has therefore a right to the protection of his person, and that property which is recognized as such by

the Constitution of the United States, any law of a state to the contrary notwithstanding. So far from any state having a right to deprive him of this property, it is its bounden duty to protect him in its possession.

"If these views are correct-and we believe it would be difficult to invalidate them-it follows that all state laws, whether organic or otherwise, which prohibit a citizen of one state from settling in another, and bringing his slave property with him, and most especially declaring it forfeited, are direct violations of the original intention of a government which, as before stated, is the protection of person and property, and of the Constitution of the United States, which recognizes property in slaves, and declares that 'the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states,' among the most essential of which is the protection of person and property.

"What is recognized as property by the Constitution of the United States, by a provision which applies equally to all the states, has an inalienable right to be protected in all the states."

**

*

*

"The protection of property being, next to that of person, the most important object of all good government, and property in slaves being recognized by the Constitution of the United States, as well as originally by all the old thirteen states, we have never doubted that the emancipation of slaves in those states where it previously existed, by an arbitrary act of the Legislature, was a gross violation of the rights of property." "The emancipation of the slaves of the Northern States was then, as previously stated, a gross outrage on the rights of property, inasmuch as it was not a voluntary relinquishment on the part of the owners. It was an act of coercive legislation.' *

*

*

*

*

*

**

*

*

*

*

*

"This measure of emancipation was the parent or the offspring of a doctrine which may be so extended as to place the property of every man in the community at the mercy of rabid fanaticism or political expediency. It is only to substitute scruples of conscience in place of established constitutional principle, and all laws and all constitutions become a dead letter. The rights of persons and property become subservient, not to laws and Constitutions, but to fanatical dogmas, and thus the end and object of all good government is completely frustrated. There is no longer any rule of law nor any constitutional guide; and the people are left to the discretion, or rather the madness, of a school of instructors who can neither comprehend their own dogmas nor make them comprehensible to others." "Where is all this to end? and what security have the free citizens of the United States that their dearest rights may not, one after the other, be offered up at the shrine of the demon of fanaticism, the most dangerous of all the enemies of freedom? If the Constitution is no longer to be our guide and protector, where shall we find barriers to defend us against a system of legislation restrained by no laws and no Constitutions, which creates crimes at pleasure, punishes them at will, and sacrifices the rights of persons and property to a dogma or a scruple of conscience? All this is but the old laws of Puritanism now fermenting and souring in the exhausted beer-barrel of Massachusetts. The descendants of this race of ecclesiastical tyrants, or rather ecclesiastical slaves, have spread over the western part of the State of New York, and throughout all the new states, where they have, to some extent, disseminated their manners, habits, and principles, most especially their blind subserviency to old idols, and their abject subjection to their priests. There is no doubt that they aspire to give tone and character to the whole confederacy, and believe that their dream will be realized? We are pretty well convinced, however, that the people of the United States will never become a nation of fanatical Puritans."

Mr. Douglas. Mr. President, you here find several distinct propositions ad