V^^^ L. Class. Book. SPEECH OP HON. GRAHAM N. FITCH. OF INDIANA. THE CONSTITUTION OF KANSAS; DELIVERED IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, DECEMBER 99, 1857. WASHINGTON': PRINTED AT THE OFFICE OF THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE. 1857. THE PUESIDENT^S MESSAGE-KANSAS. The Senate having resumed the consideration j rjf the motion of Mr. Douglas, to refer so much ! of the President's message as relates to aflairs in Kansas to tlie Committee on Territories — I Mr. FITCH said: i Mr. President: Being indebted to the courtesy j of the Senator from Michigan for the floor, I shall ask the indulgence of the Senate during but a brief occupancy of it, for I am anxious, as I know those abottt me are, to listen to that Senator, and to others who can be heard on this subject v/ith far more pleasure and profit than anything I can say will afford. Yesterday, sir, was the day fixed for the action of the people of Kansas on that portion of the constitution submitted to tlie popuhir vote. We shall soon know the result, and congressional ac- tion in the [iremises will soon be required — assum- ing, that is, that the election took place, and that no violence, no fraud interfered to prevent it or control it. Whatever my views and opinions of the question of slavery, the unfortunate subject rtf so much sectional controversy, m.iy be, i am unwilling that the character of the decision yes- terday had in Kansas on that stibject shall pos- ^bly be supposed to control v,-hatevcr action I may hereafter take on the question of admitting that Territory into the Union as a State; and hence I dtisire now to state the reasons which will govern my action. 1 wish to state the reasons in advance of any possible knowledge on our part tional l»osition and ]ilaning it under the rule. This is rendered undeniable by the very language of the repeal. It proceeds to say: " That the Constiliilion, and all laws of ihe United State; which aro not locally inapplicahlc, sliall have the san)c Ibrce and eli\'oi within the said Territory ol" Kansas as elsewhere wiihni the United !?tates, except the cijihtli section of the act preparatory to the admission of Mis.^uuri into the Union, approved March 6, 1820, which, being ineonsisient with the principle of non intervention by Uiiiisress with slavery in the Slaves and Territories, as recognized liy the legislation of 1850, commonly called the coinproiiiise measures, is hereby declared inoperative and void." It need not be said at this day that " non-inter- vention" has been construed frim the day.sof the Nicliolson letter to mean an acknowledgment of the right of the people of the Territories to decide the question of slavery for themselves, at least when they framed their State constitution, and to decide it untrammeled by any congressional prohibition or interference. Following the com- promise of 185U — based upon that comj)romise — the Kansas act proposed, its supporters proposed, its author proposed, merely to carry out the spirit and principles of the compromise by extending them to Kansas and future Territories. Non-in- tervention, when first iiUroduced as a term in pol- itics, was applied solely to the slavery question. The compnnnise of IHSO was upon the slavery question. The Missouri line was only a restric- tion on the suijject of slavery. Its rejjeal in the Kansas act was only upon the subject of slavery. The whole controversy during the discussion, alike on the compromise and the Kansas act, was on that subject, and that only. The opponents, both of the compromise of 1850 and of the Kan- sas act, endeavored to have that one question re- tained as an exce))lion to the general rule, which underlies our Government, permitting the citizens of each State to control their own domestic affairs; and they sought to have it thus retained as an exceptional one, by endeavoring to induce Con- gress to prohibit to the people of the Territories, or the States formed from those Territories, any control whatever over that ipiestion. Now, sir, we find an effort at this time to so construe those measures as to make- them apply to all subjects of domestic legislation — an effort to 80 construe them as to make it a condition prece- dent to the admission of any new State tluit every proposition in its constitution shall have been sub- mitted to a i>opular vote after the constitution has come from the hands of a regularly organized and le'gal convention! This is a construetion incon- sistent with the circumstances whieli brought those measures into existence. It is a construc- tion not contemplated by their su|)porters, among whom, as a private citizen, 1 was early included. It is a construction scarcely compatible with their phraseology. We are said to be a progressive people. Is this new reading of these measures an evidence only of our general progress, a part only of our yearly accruing wisdom .' Or lurks there behind it some policy of a personal bearing? Mr. President, I doubt not that every gentle- man is governed by the most honorable and pa- triotic motivae in assuming whatever jiosition he may take On this question. I will attribute none other to any man. But if there, unfortunately, be men, high in the Democratic party, who desire to avail themselves of the present phase of this I question to take a position out.^ide of that party, ! with the hope — by throwing fire-brands into its ' midst, or by directing their artillery against it — to [j destroy it, in return for some past grievance, real I or fancied, I would commend to such the lessons j fairly deducible from the result of every such at- |i tempt, from Burr's to Van Buren's. The Dem- |l ocratic is the great conservative party of the coun- ji try — the only national party. It is the only mere ]; political link in the chain which now binds the ;| States in one common country. It is so deemed jl throughout the world; so known to its own mem- Ij bers; so admitted even by the more candid and j conservative of its political opponents; and none I of these will hold that man guiltless, who aban- ji dons it upon a question having in it so little of I j>ractical importance as there is in this, and, by ' seeking its destruction, thereby admits his not ! unwillingness that a similar fate should be vi.^^itcd Ij on the Union, perhaps, to subserve his selfish 1 purpose. The measures to which I have alluded — the compromise of 1850 and the Kansas act — as I have I; said, were designed to take one question, pre- ! viously, in part at least, an c.xcejjtional one, from I that position, and apjily to it the same rule always ': previously applied under our Government to all other questions of domi:3tic policy. They were IJ designed, in fact, to subjtcl that onequcstion to , the same control and the same usages to which all others were subjected. They did not contem- ■ plate either th(> enlargement or diminution of the I)owcrs jMX'viously possessed on other questions; I neither an expansion nor coniraclion of those ' powers. They left all other powers in statu quo, \\ to be exercised as they previously had been, only ' placing this one among them. But now we find an effort being made to so construe them as to make them subversive of the past usages of the Government; to make them limit the i)ower pre- viously possessed by our people, by compelling them to exercise it in one manner, and one only. We find an effort now being made, in fact, to so construe them as to deny to delegated authority the right to form an organic law — a right hitherto often exercised. This denial is explicitly mnde by Governor Walker in his recent (I am sovry to say somewhat egotistical) manifesto; one in whicii he sustains his position by quoting from himsi'lf only to support it, lie makes this denial explicitly. According to his opinion, the consti- tutions of more than one half the States of this Union, and even the Constitution of the United States itself, are uncons'titulional; becauie in the case of the former they have been formed by con- ventions called by acts of Territorial Legislatures; and because in the latter, in common with the former, they have become operative without any orevious action uj)on them by a popular vote. Most fortunately for us, his opinion is not the paramount law of the land; otherwise, a majority of the most populous and wealthy States of the Union would be resolved at once into a territorial condition, and even the Old Thirteen would be compelled to fall back either upon their original articles of confederation or their colonial charters. It was not, to my knowledge, intimated by any person anywhere, during the discussion of tiie Kansas bill, that it was the intention to construe that bill, as is now declared, so as to initiate an innovation into the past usage of our Govern- ment, by requiring the submission of every dis- tinct proposition in a new State constitution to the popular vote after such constitution has been legally framed by an authorized convention, as a necessary condition precedent to the recognition of that constitution here. The Missouri line was a restriction upon the right of self-government, upon the doctrine of popular sovereignty, inas- much as it denied to the people north of that line any control whatever over the question of slavery. The Kansas act repealed that line, and therefore annulled the denial, placing that question in the same category with others of a domestic charac- ter, subject to the same popular will, leaving that will to be exercised as before, in whatever manner it chose, cither through delegates or by a direct vote. The recognition of popular sovereignty by the repeal of the Missouri line, consisted in the fact that it placed the question of slavery where all others previously wore. It did not provide, nor did it contemplate, nor did its supporters imagine, nor did its author intimate, that it contemplated the submission of every bank proposition, every internal improvement/o-oje/, every school system, every election qualification in a new constitution, to the people, before the people by and for whom it was formed should be admitted into the Union. Any attcmjit at that time to so shape its language as to place that construction on it, would have been resisted — I can venture, for the truth of this asser- tion, to appeal to those about me who acted with its author at the time of its introduction — not only as an uncalled-for and unnecessary innovation upon the past usage of the Government, but as in conflict with that very popular sovereignly which its author then so ably advocated, and for which he now declaims, by denying to the ])cople their right to delegate their power and authority. If the constitution of Kansas comes here, as we are told it will, without previous submission to the popular vote, I shall regret the fact as much as any gentleman on this floor, or any citizen throughout the Republic; but yet, if it comes here undersuch circumstances, it will not be an isolated eitception to a general rule. Whence this new- born anxiety as to the manner in which that particular constitution shall come before Con- gress? The rule, on the contrary, has been quite the reverse; for, as the Senator from Missouri [Mr. Green] so ably told us, a few days since, a majority of the new States, Indiana, Ohio, and t Illinois, included, have been admitted with con- j stitutions which had not previously received the popular sanction, and no complaint followed, either from the States or Congress. Such man- ner of submission has heretofore met the sanction i of the Senator from Illinois himself. I do not! make this allusion to convict him of inconsist- : ency, because I know not and care not whether he has been inconsistent or not. As he well said , yesterday, it has no bearing whatever on this ; question; and if attempts to convict each other of inconsistencies are to constitute the staple ar- gument on this question, I fancy very few of ub will escape unscathed. This manner of submis- sion has before met his sanction, both positive and implied; positive, in his having voted for the admission of States with constitutions similarly formed and similarly presented; implied, in his having, jointly with others, framed a jiennissory act for Kansas, without providing for the sub- mission of the constitution it contemplated to the people, before that constitution tame here. If that permissory act had passed both branches of Congress, and become a law, the result would have been precisely wliat it now is. Emanating as it did, from a Democratic source — the Senator from Georgia [Mr. Toombs] and the Senator from Illinois — it met the unqualified opposition of the opposite, or Republican party. That opposition would have been manifested in Kansas precisely as has their opposition to every other proposition not emanating from the Topeka faction, precisely as has their opposition to the ter- ritorial law calling a convention, namely, by their refusal to vote at the election of delegates to a con- vention. Such has been the policy and course of the Topeka faction within Kansas, and their abettors and sympathizers without. They have constantly refused to recognize any law in Kansas, except it was the work of the self-constituted law-makers of their own faction. They have refused to obey any law there, or hold it worthy of obedience, except the will of that faction. Their refusal to vote at the election of delegates, under the con- gressional permissory act, would have resulted precisely as has their refusal to vote under the territorial act. The same kind of constitution would have been formed and presented here in the same manner, without previous submission. The manner then would have been chargeable to Congress, especially the Democratic portion, and particularly the authors of the bill. Now it is chargeable to the people of the Territory, through their Territorial Legislature, and chargeable in the present case, as it would have been in the former, because of the omission to provide for its submission. If the present constitution had come here under the congressional permissory act, as it would if that act had passed, in all probability, it is scarcely to be believed that it would have met the same reception it has now, from the same source — that a demand would have been made by the Senator from Illinois that it should previously be submitted to the people; that he would have been as prompt to condemn his own work as ha now is that of others. It is objected to this constitution that it was formed by a convention called into existence by a Territorial Legislature — a body, which those making the obj(!ction believe not possessed of the right or authority to make the call. In my estimation, this objection might have been well taken in the earlier days of the Republic, but it is too late to take it now, after the oft-repeated rec- ognition of this right by admitting new States, whose constitutions have been similarly t'ramed and presented. Usage, it need not be said, be- comes, in legislative matters, law. Moreover, the Kansas organic act itself refutes this objection, giving, as it does, to the people of that Territory, the right to " form and regulate their domestic in- 6 Btitulionsin thcirown wny." Then, if they Imd of those risrhts by a majoritv- While the right not |ircvioiisIy tlic right lo cnll n convention by ''of tlie majority to rule is clearly recognized, it and tliroiii,'li the Tcrriiorinl Le£;i.sl;iiure,eitlier as ;| must ruli; in a ic^al manner. If a majority re- ivjcissary incident to tlic right lo act through delegates or representatives, or as bestowed on them i)y tlie past usage of the Government in solve itself into a mob, and will neither vote nor observe law or order, the minority who are law- abiding, wiio form and obey government, cannot idniilling many States with conslilulions framed i be deprived of the benefits and protection of that by conventions tiuis called into existence, that J government by such majority. Is mobocracy to act e.xplicitly gives them tlie right. ' be substituted Air democracy ? The denial, by the The case of Arkansas has been cited liere. It I Topeka faction, of the legality of the Territorial has very little bearing on this. No Kansas act, | Legislature is a part of their plan to subserve a no organic law, permitting the people of Arkansas \' particular purpose. They design thereby to force to " form and regulate their domestic institutions L upon Congress a retrospective recognition of the in theirown way" wasenacted for that Territory. ' Topeka constitution, with the officials created Conscious liiat this objection has really little under its pretended adoption. Hence their pro- valid foundation, some of those making it resort to 'claimed determination to receive no constitution, anotiier, namely, that the Territorial Legislature, ji not even that framed at Topeka, from the liands which called thisconvention was,in theirparlance, ^ of the lato convention. Its acceptance now would a " bogus" one, an illegal oni;, and that, being }; imply the necessity of a future election, and the illegal, neither the convention it formed, nor the |i Robinsons and Lanes, and their sympathizers constitution framed by that convention, can be here, are apprehensive they might not be as suc- legal. The Senator from Illinois (and I really feel i! cessful at those elections as they were at such myself under the necessity of begging his pardon, ij as were ordered and controlled by themselves. and that of the Senate, for such frequent reference to iiim; but it is unavoidable, as I have said, because of his previous connection with Kansas matters, and because liis argument has been the only one in the Senate on that side of the case, in opposition lo my views) — the Senator from Illi- nois does not agree with those who affirm the first of these propositions; in other words, he asserts the legality of the Territorial Legislature of Kan- sas, but he is understood to concur with the Topeka men in affirming the two hitter. Now, sir, Congress (the Senator from Illinois included) having repeatedly acknowledged the legality of the Territorial Legislature, it is very difficult to perceive by what process of special pleading we are to avoid acknowledging the legal Therefore they demand the recognition, and of course the legalization of the Topeka constitution of the ]Kist, with all its attendant anarchy, all its attendant defiance of llie legal territorial and con- stitutional authorities, and indeed with all its fac- tious treason. In furtherance of this demand they take exceptions to certain portions of the present constitution other than the slavery clause. To that they do not deem it advisable to object, because being sulimitted to the popular vote, they know that it will be expected of them by the world out- side of that Territory, if they have the majority they claim, that they show their majority by rejecting that clause. A comparison of the features to which they objpcl in the Lecnmiiton constitution, with sim- ily of its acts if thev do not conflict with the !| ilar ones in that of Topeka, which they profess to Constitution of the llnited States or the Kansas j have adopted, is favorable to the former, showing organic act. That many, and perhaps a inajority i! that their olijections are merely factious. Among of the citizens of Kansas, did not vote either at the election of representatives to the Territorial Legislature, or delegates to the convention, mny be true. Where is your remedy? You cannot compel men to vote. They can only be permitted and invited to do so. If a part in any given com- munity, in order to subserve some particular po these objections is, that twenty years' citizenship is required as a qualification for Governor. Their own — the Topeka constitution — permits a semi- barbarous Indian to be Governor! There is a bank clause in both; and if there be any choice where, as in matters of banks, all is evil, thai choice is clearly in favor of ilie Lecompton instru- litical purpose, to su)iply pabulum, it may be, for ; ment, because the bank for which that provides some political party, to promote the purposes of II cannot go into operation without the previous some |)artisan kader, neglect or nject the invita-'j assent of the people. Both contain a clause pro- tion, and will not vote, is the machinery of Gov- ' hibiting amendment forn certain number of years ernment hence to slop, and society to resolve !l in the future. I grant you it is a dead letter in it.scif into anarchy ? Heeause some political party ;| both, because the peoide will amend or change or, pirhaps, a sufficiency of them to change a i their constitution in their own good time. In the majority, will not vote, are those who will do so | Topeka instrument this prohibition extends to to be deprived of any government .' Permit such |l 1S65. The conduct of that Topeka faction, their an absurdity, and you dejirive New York of any j! resistance to le^al territorial and national au- Slate government during the period for which its |' ihority, their incipient rebellion, are yet loo fresh officer.s were recently elected. Admit such an i| in the minds of our people to permit a direct absurdity, and you enable any faction to over- jiroposition to be seriously entertained for one turn your Govemnienl by keeping away from the moment, to legalize their acts; yet we are called poll.s, especially if they can substantiate a prob- upon to do so indirectly; we are called upon to abiliiy that the majorityand the laws would have | truckle lo this treasonable faction, to humbly ask been dilTennt if tliey had voted. I| it whcthcrlhis orsomc otherconstitulion will best Our CJovernment is one of checks and balances; !| subserve its purposes. We are asked lo ignore and some of its check.s apply even lo the people;; the existence of any law-abiding citizens in Kan- thcmselves. Among the objects of our Govern- 1| sas to place such men in power and position. ment, one ia to protect the legal rights of the [I The compromi.'^e of l!^.')() and the Kansas act of minority against an illegal assumption or denial U 1854 based upon it; both recognize in the people of the Territories the same rio;ht and power pos- sessed by the people of the States, namely: the right and power to govern themselves, subject only to the Constitution of the United States and the laws necessary to enforce it. The recognition of this right and power has resulted, in all exce|U two of our present Territories, in the formation of a legal and orderly government of the character contemplated. The two exceptions are Utah and Kansas. In the former, usurpation, defiance of and opposition to the constitutional authorities of ihe country have resulted; in the latter, anarchy and faction, and a determination to yield obedience to no law except the offspring of faction. The remedy in the former case is a plain one — it is force. In the latter the only remedy must be the recognition of the acts of such law-abiding citi- zens as have evinced a v/illingness to be governed and to govern themselves by yielding obedience to a constitutional and legal government. The in- terests, the welfare, indeed 1 may say the safety, not only of the neighboring States and Territo- ries, but of the entire Confederacy, demand that tJiis Kansas controversy, a local one, should be localized; that it should no longer be permitted to form an irritating clement of national politics, dis- turbing the peace and endangering the unity of our Government, but should be limited to Kansas. The experience of the past, and indeed of this moment, clearly shows that this can only be done by admitting Kansas as a State. The people of Kansas have no right to demand or expect the en- tire country to be continually agitated, its pros- perity interrupted, its unity endangered, because they will not reconcile their contemptible feuds — will not settle their factious quarrels. When ad- mitted as a State, then, and then only, its people will, as they must, govern themselves. Then faction in Kansas will have no apology for call- ing on its abetors and sympathizers without, or upon Congress. Then no power outside of itself will have any pretext for interfering with its do- mestic feuds. Then, if one constitution be not pleasing to a majority of its inhabitants, itcan be amended, or another substituted whenever that majority so will, even if it be within a few days. With all deference to those, especially from my own section, who differ with me on this sub- ject, I see no course for Congress to adopt in the present emergency but to admit Kansas with whatever constitution it may present here — ns- euming always that the election of yesterday was not fraudulent, and was not interrupted by force — after first satisfying ourselves as to the consti- tutional requirement, is it republican in form.'' and next, did it emanate from a legal source .' was it formed in a legal manner.' These are the only questions, in my judgment, that we have any warrant for asking. It is not for us to inquire how many votes were cast at the election of del- (jgates to the convention. It is not for us to ask whether .some portion or all of it was submitted to the popular vote, unless indeed, as in the case of the constitution of Wisconsin, the instrument provid(;d for its own submission; or unless, as in the case of Minnesota, a previous act of Con- gress required such submission. In all other than these two exceptional cases, such questions ure for the decision of the people alone. If they choose to enact a law through their Territorial Legislature, calling a constitutional convention, in the absence of any congressional law on the sub- ject, they have a right to do so. If in enacting such law they choose to permit or provide fora submis- sion of the entire constitution, or only a part of it to a popular vote, or to have all of it withheld from such submission, they have a right to do either. They possess the right under tlieir organic law permitting them to form and regulate their institutions in their own way," and they possess it generally under our recognized doctrine of non- intervention, or popular sovereignty. If any do- mestic differences occur between themselves and their servants, their representatives or delegates, the same doctrine of non-intervention prohibits us from interfering. Their domestic differences, like their "domestic institutions," must be settled by them in " their own way," so that the way be legal. If a portion of the citizens choose to refrain from voting, either for representatives to their Legislature, or for delegates to their con- vention, or for or against whatever portion of their constitution may be submitted, we have no remedy. We cannot force them to vote. Those who abstain from voting, whether they abstain merely as peaceable citizens or for factious pur- poses, as has been the case with a va.sl number in Kansas, permit others to vote for them, and if the decision at the ballot box be adverse to their views they permit that decision to be talcen by default. Congress, acting under llie Consti- tution, and the doctrine of popular sovereignty, recognizes their right to vote and their right " to form and regulate their domestic institutions in th.eir own way;" but it is for them, and them alone to say to what extent they will exercise the right of voting, in what manner they will exer- cise it, or whether they v/ill exercise it at all. It is not for Congress to prescribe the manner and extent, or to dictate a particular way, in which they shall form their " domestic institutions," whether immediately through the ballot box, en masFc, or by delegating authority to act for them. If they present a constitution here, republican in form, emanating from legal authority, formed in a legal manner, it is not for us to require that a certain number of votes shall have been cast at the election of the delegates who framed it; it is not for us to require that a portion of it, or all of it, shall have been submitted to a popular vote, unless such submission be required by the instru- ment itself or by a previous act of Congress; it is not for us to require that it shall contain a bank clause or an anti-bank clause, a slavery clause or an anti-slavery clause. These are all questions for the decision of the party directly interested — the people of Kansas. If these or similar require- •ments arc adhered to, and the constitution re- turned because it does not fulfill them, such action on our part will be a denial of popular sover- eignty, a denial of their right to regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, and a demand that they shall form and regulate them in that way, whatever it may be, prescribed for them and dictated to them by Congress. It would be, in fiict, direct intervention with their domes- tic institutions, their internal affairs. I should have greatly preferred, especially in the present state of feeling in Kansas and through- out the country, that the entire constitution had been submitted to the people. It would have bcen„ if the people would have exercised the right guar- 8 nnlied to tliem. The fault is their own, not ours. We cannot go behind their own Ir^nl actions — recog^nized as ioiral heretofore by Congress and the Executive. We are bound*by that action in my estimation. 1 say I sliould iiave greatly pre- ferred that the entire instrument had been submit- ted to the people; but, notwithstandin.^ this pref- fjrence, the legal right of the convention, urider the law which called it into existence, to withhold (he constitution in part or altogether from submis- ston, is to my mind unquestionable. The con- Tention is responsible to the people of Kansas alone for the exercise of that right. We are told that if we recognize the present con- stitution, ditKculties will ensue. I believe it; and «o they will if we reject it. Indeed, I have heard of nopropositionconnccted withthi.s matterwhich has not its attendant difficulties. My own sincere desire is to liave that course adopted which will be productive of the least evil to the greatest num- ber. Without committing myself for or against any other proposition which may come up, and wliich may be rendered necessary perhaps by some exigency — either a failure to hold an election yesterday, or a forcible prevention of an election, or interference with it — 1 shall only select at pres- ent between the two which are likely from the present state of facts to come before us. One of these is to recognize this constitution ; the other, to reject it. The first of these propositions is recommended by the President, the chief Executive otlicer of the nation; the man but recently elected by an overwhelming majority to preside over its desti- j nies for four years; an old man, almost three score and ten; one who has devoted the greater portion of his long life to thi! service of his country, and has been placed in almost every position in the gift of its citizens, and discharged the duties of all to : their satisfaction; one who has no political future, noschemes of personal ambition to subserve, who is no candidate for a future nomination, but will ; retire from the position he now holds with far more , pleasure than he entered upon its duties, desiring only to leave behind him a fair fame and name, ; and to so administer tiie Government as will best promote its power, its honor, and its prosperity. The otlier of these two propositions is supjiorted by the Senator from Illinois. Ihonorhim. I have ever admiri d him; yet, in some respects, he is the antipodes of the President. Young, of a brilliant intellect, of which all iiis counlrymcn might well be proud, but ambitious, and a candidate past, and perhaps future. I do not speak this in any f disparagement of him, for ambition, divested of Belt — a desire to hold place without any selfish motive inciting it; a di'sire to hold place merely ^ to leave the impress of his policy on the Govern- ' ment of his country iind to enhance the pros- 1 perity of its people — is an honorable feeling. j In justification for his so ill-timed hurrying this debate upon the Senate, and upon the country, ' the Senator from Illinois told us that the Presi- dent, in his message, had assailed liirn and his previous course. Ileiutimaied further, thatevery allusion to him here, in debate upon the affairs of ■ Kansas, was designed as a continuation of the attack, and that there was some person, or some ! power, using a suborned press and suborned let- tor-writers, to likewise assail him. In all this, he sees more of himself than others do — fancies him- ' self the object of actions which have little reference to him, and with which little thought of him was associated. He did not name or locate thi.-j per- son, or this power, thus suborning the press, leav- ing full play for our imaginations. It maybe sorrto tangible person; it may be some myth, some fog, some sliadowy nothing, existing only in his im- agination; or it may be that this one of his allega- tions grew out of a recollection of a similar charge once brought against himself — a charge to which he then very promptly and properly took excep- tion, as I do to this general charge of liis againsi a somebody who is not designated. He was once charged — and it was not in a .subdued whisper, but trumpet-toned and hundred-tongued — with at least no unwillingness, that a public journal, thought to be controlled by him, and claiming to be the mouth-piece of the national Democracy, should throw overboard iVIr. Buchanan, General Cass, and other fathers of the party, as " oUl fogies." 1 have thus, sir, briefly stated the qualities of the two gentlemen who recommended these oppo- site propositions. I have the most profound re- spect for them both. Locality, every considera- tion of self, if such could enter into my motive* of action in this matter, would induce me to go with the Senator from Illinois. We are geograph- ically neighbors. I may almost say that his people and my people are one. He has, perhaps, mors influence among my people than 1 have myself. These considerations, however, liave nothing- whatever to do with my course, or my opinion on this question. Between these two counselors, thus recommending opposite propositions, I have no hesitation as to whose advice to follow. Of the two propositions, I look upon the one to re- ject this constitution as far the most mischievous, because it will prolong this controversy as an element of that dangerous sectional agitation, which threatens, and has threatened, the unity of the Republic. Between the two, assuming that one or the other must be acted on here, my choic« will unhesitatingly be fen- the former. Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I ask pardon of the Senator from Michigan for occupying a Cgw moments of the time properly belonging to him. I regret that, as the Senator from Indiana spoke by the courtesy of the Senator from Mich- igan, he should have deemed it necessary to say anything that demanded a reply from me at th« expense of the Senator who is entitled to the floor. I understand the Senator's argument to rest upon the proposition, which he argues at some length, that the object, the only object, of that portion of the Kansas-Nebraska bill which repealed llw Missouri restriction, was to place the slavery question on the same footing with each and every other local and domestic question, as had been done from the b(>ginning of the Government. I do not misunderstand him on that point. Mr. FITCH. No, sir. Mr. DOUGLAS. I am glad to find that on the very basis of his argument he and I agree. It was the object of repealing the Missouri compro- mise, to put the slavery question on the same fool- ing with each and every other domestic question in the Territories and new States: that is, to leave the people perfi>ctly free to form and regulate aJl their domestic institutions, slavery included, to suit themselves. On this point, however, he dif- 9 fers with tlic President of the United States; for tlie President tells us that the object was to make slavery an excej^^ion and submit that by itself, but not submit the other questions. I was sorry to see the Senator taking issue with the President of the United States upon a ques- tion of that kind, and, at the same time, arraie^n- ing me for having done the same thinjSf. The whole head and front of my offending consists in the fact, that I dissented from that part of the President's message which declared that the sla- very question was an exception, and argued to prove that tlie object of the Kansas-Nebraska bill was to exclude that exception and put the slavery question on the same footing with every other question which was local and not national. State and not Federal. The Senator from Indiana now agrees with me that the President was wrong in tJiat part of his message, and that I was right. There is no avoiding this conclusion. He re- peated the proposition a dozen times in the course of his speech. I am glad to find that he and I agree thus far. I hope he will not consider that he is outside the pale of a healthy organization; that he is abandoning the President, and engaging in an ambitious scheme to break down the Ad- ministration, because he difters with the Pres- ident on the same point that I do. He says I have come out in favor of a general rule, novel in the history of the Government, that, hereafter, every constitution formed by a new State coming into the Union must be submitted to the people before it is sent here. The Senator argues against the general rule as being a novel and revolutionary principle, which ought not to be fastened on the country at this day. Has he read the President's message on that point.' In the message, the President of the United States tells us that the example of the Minnesota bill, in re- quiring the constitution to be submitted to the peo]:»le, is a noble example; and should be fol- lowed in all cases hereafter to arise. The Sen- ator is arraigning the general rule of the President in regard to the submission of constitutions to the people for ratification. I stand with the President in behalf of that general rule. I am a little at a loss to see upon what ground it is that the Senator utters vague inuendocs about men putting themselves in a factious position towards the party, dividing and distracting its councils to such an extent that they ought to be considered outside of the party. He dilfers with the President on two points: I on one. The President says the slavery question is treated by the Kansas-Nebraska bill as an exception. The Senator says that by that bill, and by the Cincin- nati platform, the slavery question is put on the same footing with all other questions, without any exception. On that i)oint,as I have said, the Sen- ator from Indiana and myself agree, both dif- fering from the President. He differs from the President in regard to the general rule that the constitution ought to be submitted to the people. On that point I agree with the President. If to differ from the President is faction, then the Sen- ator has just double the amount of faction in his position that I have in mine. Then what is the issue between the Senator from Indiana and myself.-' Agreeing that the object of the Kansae-Nebraska bill was to place the slavery question on an equal footing with all other local and domestic institutions, and leave the people free to decide the whole, he takes the ground that he will not submit those questions to the people, and 1 take the ground that they should be submitted to the people. That is the simple point of difference. On that point the reasoning of the President is with me, for he says, that by the terms of the Nebraska bill, it was incumbent upon the Di'mocratic party to insist that the slavery question should l)c submitted to the people for their decision; and if the Senator from Indiana bo right in saying that by the Nebraska bill the slavery question was put on the same footing with all others, then if he agrees with the Presi- dent, he affirms that the whole constitution should be submitted to the people for their ratification. Thus we find the gentleman in conflict with the President of the United States at all points, and in conflict with the President upon the very rec- ommendations he makes in regard to the Terri- tories which are about to become States, to wit: the general rule of submission. The Senator from Indiana will not claim, like the Senator from Penn- sylvania, that he has "other sources of informa- tion" than the message. He will not claim that there are scmrces of information which authorize him to deny the propositions laid down in the message. If he will, 1 should like to know who is the friend, and who ia the enemy, of the Pres- ident of the United States? The Senator from Indiana cannot maintain his position without rebelling against a large portion of the message on the Kansas question. But I hold that he has a right to differ from the Presi- dent. God forbid that I should ever surrender my right to dift'er from a President of the United States of my own choice ! I have not become the mere servile tool of any President, so that I am bound to take every recommendation he makes, without examining and ascertaining whether it meets the approval of my judgment or not. I know that the President would not respect me if I should thus receive a dictuvi from any author- ity contrary to my judgment. Again, yesterday, I tried to ascertain if there was any one Senator on this floor who was pre- pared to yield obedience to the President's rec- ommendations in his message, without exception. I instanced the Pacific railroad, the bankru))t law, the tariff", and many other questions, and I could notget a response from any one man who indorses the whole, or i.s prepared to carry it out. All other men are permitted to dissent but me! It is factious in me to dissent ! If I dissent, it disturbs the harmony of the Democratic parly ! I tell the Senator that if he will stand faithful by the Cin- cinnati platform, which allirmid the right of the people to decide all their local and domestic insti- tutions for themselves, there will be harmony between him and me; and if each member of the party will stand by that platform, there will be harmony in the whole party. Why not stand there? Oh, it is factious! it is intimated, not charged, that there is something fearful, some- thing terrible in this thing of a man daring to be true and faithful to his principles, when other meu do not desire that he should be. Allusions are made to men whose names are known— to Burr and Van Hnren— as if they came from sources that would read me out of the Dem- ocratic party. 1 should like those who are ar- 10 roigcnin.? my course licro, to compare records wilh mc ill my devoiion and .service to llic party fur llic fourteen yfui'« ll'at I liave been in Congress. The assumpiiiin i.s, that I will not bow the knee to power, Nvli('n lliat power itself does not rocom- mend it, and the insinuation is that I am factious. Sir, call it faction; call it what you please; I intend to stand by the iSebraska bill, by tlie Cincinnati platform, by thi- orsjanization and principles of iJie parly; and 1 defy opposition from whatever quarter it conies. I predict that sixty days shall not go over my head liefore I shall be in harmony with those who .ire now most relied upon to crush me and the principle of the Nebraska bill, by the adniis.sion of the Lecompton constitution. I shall be mistaken if, in sixty days, you come here unanimously demandinj;: tlie indorsement of the Lecompton constitution, as a test of faith. The pro-slavery clause stricken out may make popular sovereignty look very dilTerent in genth-men's eyes from what it would if it were in. Tiie pro-slavery clause in, with the exception of tlie Senator from Indi- ana, the merits of that convention may look very differently to some gentlemen from what they would if it were out. With mc it can make no difference. I regard the result of that convention as a trick, a fraud upon the rights of the people, and come with slavery or without slavery, I am opposed to the whole of it. Rut we are told we must force the Lecompton constitution down the throats of tlic jieople for the sake of peace; for the sake of localizing the quarrel. How is that to be done.' By ])assing on act of Congress forcing a constitution on the people of Kansas against the will of that people What next.' When you find the stubborn, fac- tious majority resisting the government that you havciniposud on them, thePresident will be called upon to use the Army and the Kavy to put down insurrection; and inasmuch as this Lecompton faction is only composed of perhaps one tenth or one twentieth of the whole people, and there is not a man of them wiio dares slay there a day without the United States army to protect him, wc should have a special message from the Pres- ident recommending an increase of the Army, and the calling out of volunteers to march to Ivansas to put down the insurrection, and maintain the government which you force on them ut the point of the bayonet. That is the mode in which you are going to localize the Kansas quarrel — by call- ing troops from Virginia and from Wisconsin, from Illinois and from South Carolina, from Mas- •achusetts and from Mississippi, and stationing tiiosc volunteers around the city of LecumiHon to protect the Govi'rnor whom you impose upon that people against their will ! Tiien I suppose there will be perfect peace and harmony among them all. You will restore jieacc in ihat way, and localize the Kansas difficulty! No, sir. The moment you impose a constitution on ihat people against their remonstrance and protest, you iiave nationalized ihisdifficulty.and pledged yourselves to maintain that government at the point of the bayonet, and with all the power at your com- mand. Vou have legalized civil war instead of localizing the Kansas quarrel. These are my convictions. I believe tlial sui-h will be the con- sequences, if we proceed in this mad career of forcing a constituiion on a people against their will. I hope I may be mistaken, and that such consequences will not result; but, wliile such aro my convictions, 1 must be perMilied to exfiresi them. If my doing so brings uowii assaults on me, from whatever quarter, high or low, from my own section or an opjiositc section, I must repel those assaults; but I tlo not choose to go into any crimination or recrimination in regard to consist- ency on former phases of this question. I am willing that my consistency shall be judged of by the public. I think my course is pretty well known, and I am willing that the people shall judge of it. If the course of the Senator from Indiana is equally well known, let the penpU judge of it by that knowledge. If it is not as well known, I have no desire, no disposition, to hunt up old speeches and old records and old let- ters to show liis inconsistency. Consistency has very little to do wilh this question. The greal point is, is it right to force a constitution upon a people against their will.' Am I not right in my opposition to that act of power and oppression? I would rather argue that question than go into any controversies with political friends or even political opponents. I would prefer that they should consider mc so humble an individual thai my history of fifteen years is not necessary to be discussed, inasmuch as during the whole fit'teen years, I have found them loud in ])raise of my course as to the political iniquities which they now propose to bring in judgment against me. But, sir, I ask no mercy in relation to this mat- ter. I will not provoke controversy wilh any- body. I shall not shrink from the avowal of my opinions and the vindication of my character whenever I choose to do it. I may not reply to all. It may be an object to worry out my strength by these constant attacks from day today. When- ever I find it failing I will reserve myself, and then come back and take a raking fire at the whole group. [Laughter.] But whenever I shall feel inclined I will repel the blow at the lime it is struck. Mr. FITCH. Mr. President The VICE PRESIDENT. The Scnatorfrom Michigan is entitled to the floor. Mr. FITCH. I should not ask the indulgence of the Senator from Michigan, but for the fact that the Senator from Illinois, for reasons best known to himself,attributed to me language which I did not utter, and sentiments which I liavc not expressed or entertained. I must, therefore, ap- peal to the courtesy of the Senator from Michigan to allow me to answer. Mr. STUART. Inasmuch as I commenced the day by acts of courtesy, it would hardly be grace- ful now for me to refuse to extend the courtesy. 1 yield to the Senator. Mr. FITCH. At first, the Senator from Illi- nois assumed that his own and my argument were based on the same idea — the idea that the slavery question, from being an exceptional one, was, by the compromises of 1^50 and by the Kansas bill, placed under the gemral rule, and subjected U) the po|)ular will, in precisely the same manner with other domestic questions. Whatever his views now may be, he did not express that view in his (q)cning speech. Here it is, in the pamph- let form, as ordered by the Senator: " Now, nir, wliiu was the principle nniinciiited by the authors aud bupportcrs uf tliut bill, when it was brought Sot- 11 ward ? Did wo not come before the country, and say that wi- repealed the MLssouri restriction for the purpose of sub- ititutingnnd carryins out, as a peneral rule, the great prin- (JphMifsi'lf ffovernnient, which left the people of each State and each Territory free to form and regulate Iheir domestic institutions in tlieir own way?" •' Repealed the Missouri restriction for the pur- pose of substituting" a something else — a new •* general rule;" self-government in lieu of the rule of government previously rnforced. Why, sir, that paragraph implies that the Senator from Illinois wrested the right of self-government from some tyranny, and bestowed it on the people; that he gave them a " general rule" — a power which tJieydid not previously possess. Now he claims merely to have taken one question from an ex- ceptional position and placed it undera "general rule" previously in force. I grant that, subse- quently, in the course of his remarks, he spoke of the slavery question as an exceptional one, ■which his Kansas bill proposed to place upon the same footing v/ith tlie other domestic questions; but not so in the opening remarks of his speech — its foundation. He tells ine, I differ with the President. I stop not to ask whether I differ with him or the Senator from Illinois. Neither the President nor any other gentleman is responsible for my course, but myself. 1 would differ v.'ith tlie one as soon as with the other, if I thought his reasoning, or the conclusions at which he ar- rived, were not correct. I do not read the mes- sage as the Senator from Illinois reads it, and his reading is not justified by its language. I nowhere find the President saying that tlie slavery ques- tion was made an exceptional one by the Kansas bill. He says, in substance, that it was the prom- inent question, the one which had been disciRsed, the one which had been agitated; and, therefore, Uiat it was highly proper that it should be sub- mitted to llie people as a distinct proposition. The Senator from Illinois asserted— not in terms, but that v/as the purport — that I denied the pro- priety of submitting a State constitution — inclu- ding that of Kansas — to the people. I distinctly n.sserted my regret that it was not thus submitted; but declared that, in my opinion, we had no right to go behind the authority we had recognized as legal, and demand its submission, when that au- thority had omitted to demand it. The Senator from Illinois mustconfine himself to the record — to what I have said — when he pretends to quote me or my sentiments. The Senator asks me, as he asked the Senator from Pennsylvania yesterday, why these innu- endoes about faction and a division of the party. He was tlie first Senator to introduce here what lie calls innuendoesand intimations upon thatsub- ject. He was the first to allude to any possible division of the party; the first to allude to any faction in connection with this question. 1 merely answered his allusion, and am not to be taken to task for it. I did not quote the message, as he says. I scarcely made allusion to it, except as to the con- dusions at which the President arrived. Has the 8enatorno otherdefense than attributing language to me I did not utter — attributing sentiments to me I did not express? He says he agrees with the President in some jioints, and differs with him on others; and that I disagree with him on some, and coincide with him in others. The difference between the Senator and myself is simply this: he denies the President's conclusion, but pretends to coincide with him in liis reasoning; while I concur Ijoth in his reasoning and conclusion. Mr. DOUGLAS. What conclusion do yoa refer to ? ! Mr. FITCH. The conclusion that the consti- tution of Kansas, ifitcomcs before us, as it is sup- I posed it will, from the convention directly, with- i out previous submission, will nevertheless be a constitution which we can legally accept, and per- j haps, under the circumstances, ought to accept. I The Cincinnati platform is lugged again and ! again into this controversy by the Senator. I have some little, but not much, faith in political plat- forms. You know, sir, how they are framed. A committee is appointed to draft resolutions; they bring them forward, and because they do not happen to expressly conflict with the sentiments of the wise gentlemen then and there assembled for another purpose than to build a political plat- form to guide all posterity, namely, to nominate candidates for President and Vice President, for- sooth they are to control Government and its policy from thence henceforth forever. I have no objection to the Cincinnati platform; on the con- trary,! believeit to bean admiralile one. It recog- nizes, in almost the language of the Kansas bill, the right of the people to regulate their domestic institutions in tiieir- own way. The people of Kansas have exercised that right in their own way, a way deemed legal; a way the President deems legal. True, there is opposition to that way, and some demand that their institutions shall be regulated in another way, namely, by the sub- mission of the constitution, emanating from what we deem a legal source, to the popular vote; when the source from which it emanated was not com- pelled by the people in enacting the law, calling that source into existence, to thus submit it. I should be pleased to have it submitted; but it is not my will, but the will of the people of Kansas, legally expressed, which is to control the matter. The people of Ivansas frame their own laws through a Legislature. I look at those laws, and find one calling a convention to frame a consti- tution, without requiring its submission to the people. The people, in fact, were willing to pari with control over it, and leave the whole matter in the hands of the convention. I can only know their will through their laws, and I knovv no right, except it be an arbitrary one, authorizing me or Congress to set aside or go behind their laws. The Senator takes exception to what he calls insinuations. Mr. President, much of his first speech was devoted to insinuation, and hence it ill becomes him to charge insinuations to others, when simply alluding to his own. It is well known that ho insinuated, in his opening remarks, that improper influences were at work upon the affairs of Kansas, either outside or within the Territory, of which he possessed a knowledge, and yet he would not give that knowledge to the Senate. He insinuated, as is within the recollection of every gentleman who heard him, that some kind of influence was at work, an improper and unau- thorized influence, to compel the slavery clause to be struck out of the constitution. He insir*- uated some sort (jf knowledge on his part that the "returns'' — emphasizing the word — would show a great majority for striking out that clause, as 12 though there was to be a second edition of the Oxford frauds, thouafh in an opposite direction; and he lind icnowludg:<'' of litis fact, but would not cominunicaio it. This was a mere insinu- ation. U|)on wiuit was it based ^ Now, again, he indulges in the same strain. He insinuates tiuU witliin sixty days those now agrceins^ with tiie President in liis views in rela- tion to this matter, particularly southern Sena- tors, will stand side by side witli liim, because the slavery clause will, in all probability, be stricken out. Mr. DOUGLAS. I did not say northern or; southern. 1 Air. FITCH. Then those who agree with the President. This is an insinuation that gentle- men — he says he did not indicate southern gen- tlemen — who have avowed, in public and private, their views and their determination to vote for this constitution, if it comes here with a fair elec- tion yesterday, not interrupted by force, whether the slavery clause b(; left in or voted out, leaving that question for the decision of the people, will change their determination if that clause be stricken out. Mr. President, it was to avoid just such an in- 1 sinuation in relation to myself, because I knew it would come, that I determined, if an opportunity olfered, to state the reasons for my action in ad- j vance of any possible knowledge of the character ' of the decision yesterday. I was determined that neither that Senator, or others, should be able to : say to me, you would have voted dilTerently if, tiiat clause were in, or differently if it were out. Other insinuations are also made. One is that some power or person, some vague shadowy something, which he would not name or locate, was suborning and buying editors and letter-writ- ers to assail him. I have not the money, if I had ; the inclination, if it was intended in part for me. Another insinuation which I did not think proper to answer, and an uncalled for one, was, if I did not misunderstand his language yesterday,! that those who were opposed to him were, in a great measure, governed by Executive patronage and favor. 1 iiave nothing to ask of the Execu- tive, present or future, for myself, and scorn any i such imputation, come from where it may. When im)Hitatmns like that are thrown abroad to in- fluence and prejudice the people against their rep- resentatives here, it oidy indicates what kind of motive can govern the man who makes them. Mr. DOUGL.'VS. Mr. President, I have a word to say in regard to what the gentleman designates insinuation. It is true I did intimate by some form of expression, (the precise form 1 cannot! now call to mind,) that I had not the most im- idicit faith in the returns that will come from Kansas, as to the election held yesterday, and I will tell you why I intimated that doubt. In the first place, I saw that the convention took that election out from under the existing laws of the j Territory, and placed it under the direction of three commissioners to be appointed by the pres- ident of the convention, who should appoint the judges, and they the clerks, and hold the election without law. Ii is the first time in the history of this Government, so far as I know, that a con- vention has ever taken the election from under the existing laws of the land in the Territory. In the ' either cases the president of the convention has i', issued the writs of election to the sherilTs and the j other county officers who were authorized by law toconduct ei(;ctions:and it was provided that they should be conducted and returned according to law. Here they expressly took it away from th« law, and thus gave an opportunity to the judge* and clerks to make as many false returns as they pleased, without violating any law of the land. I thought it was very extraordinary that a conven- tion desirous of a fair election and honest returns should have taken it out from under the law, thu« to give unfaithful clerks and judges an opportu- nity, if they chose, to make false and frauduleni returns. That was the reason why 1 had my doubts. I looked into the constitution of thatconvenlioo and I found my doubts strengthened by that ex- amination, fori found that the Oxford frauds wera legalized in the constitution. I found that John- son county, which had only about four hundred legal voters, was assigned four representatives and two senators; while Shawnee county, with nin« hundred voters, was assigned two representatives and one senator. The county having double tha number of legal voters had but half the represent- ation. I am informed that, when that fact was called to the attention of the convention by Judg« Elmore, who represented Shawnee, and asked why it was, the answer given was: " The gentle- man forgets that Oxford city is in Johnson coun- ty." The adding of the one thousand six hundred fraudulent votes of Oxford city swelled the num- ber from four hundred to two thousand, and thus enabled them to give four representatives and two senators to Johnson county, based on that fraud-; when^ without the fraud, it would not have been entitled to more than one senator and one repre- sentative. It appearing on the face of the constitution that the Oxford fraud was thus legalized — it being as- certained that the fact of its being legalized was called to the attention of the convention at the time they did it — that Oxford fraud being alluded to a« a justification for doing it; and then it being known that the members of the convention almost unan- imously denounced Governor Walker for having set aside that fraud, furnished a presumption that there must have been a reason why they provided, by that schedule, that the returns hereafter should not be trammeled by any law which would au- thorize anybody to set aside frauds. With thesa facts before me, I did entertain a doubt as to whether it was intended that there should be honest returns* find I say now, frankly, I have not the slightest idea that those returns will b« entitled to any credit whatever. Mr. FITCH. Will the Senator allow me to interrupt him, because I cannot ask the Senator from Michigan to yield the lloor again.' Tho Senator from Illinois says that he based his insin- uation that improper motives were at work, either within or without Kansas, to insure the striking out of the slavery clause yesterday, on a knowl- edge of the fact that fraudulent returns had been previously made, and that the manner of election for the constitution was unusual. I have before me his language — the language of the insinuation. The facts to which he now refers had been long known to him. TheO.Kford tVaud was long known to him, for it was a matter of public notoriety for weeks before Congress assembled. The manner 13 in which the election of yesterday would be con- ducted was known. The schedule of their con- stitution and the report that their election would be conducted in that manner and by certain offi- cers created by the constitutional convention was well known for weeks. But the knowledge which was in his possession, and upon which he insin- uated improper motives were at work in Kansas to secure the striking out of the slavery clause, was something altogether different, if we are to believe the honorable Senator's words at the time of the delivery of his speech. He said: ••I think I have seen enough in the lasitlirce da5s to ninke it certain tliat it will be retained out no matter liow the vote may stand." Mr. DOUGLAS. I am much obliged to the Senator for calling my attention, and that of the Senate, to the express language. The facts which 1 have detailed warranted me in the supposition that there was an opportunity to return the slavery clause in or return it out, just as should be thought best, and that the convention intended to give that ojiportunity by providing, in effect, that the laws of the Territory, with their penalties, should not{ bo brought to bear on the offenders, if they did ; perpetrate fraud. 1 thought I saw such a de-' si^-n. I Now, what I alluded to having seen within the last three days, was this: there were rumors cur- rent — I did not know wiicther true or false, and I do not know now whether they are true or false — that several gentlemen had started from here to go by express to Kansas to use all their ]iower and influence to get the pro-slavery clause stricken out, so that northern men could vote for the constitution, whereas it was supposed they could not if it was not stricken out. Mr. FITCH. Does the Senator wish to be understood as intimating that any northern Sen- ator sent such a message.' If so, in the spirit of his language to the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Bigi.er] yesterday, from what source does he derive his knowledge.' Who is his authority, and who sent the message.' Mr. DOUGLAS. I made no insinuation that any northern Senators or any southern Senators had anything to do with it. I stated that the rumors existed. I saw one gentleman, a warm pro-slavery man, who was hurrying off to Kansas for the purpose of inducing tliem to strike out the clause, in order that a vole of Congress should be received in favor of the constitution. He did not say that anybody sent him. I heard thai others had ffone. LIBRARY OF CONGREbb V<