>r >- 
 
 
 y^^^f^X 
 
Qass /^( b^sS" 
 Book - (^^^ 
 
THE SPURIOUS KANSAS MEMORIAL. 
 
 DEBATE 
 
 SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, 
 
 MEMORIAL OF JAMES K LANE, 
 
 THAT THE SENATE RECEITE AND QRANT THE PRAYER 
 
 MEMORIAL PRESENTED BY GENERAL CASS, AND AFTERWARDS WITHDRAWN; 
 
 BMBRAOIIfG 
 
 THE SPEECHB8 OP SENATORS DOUGLAS, PUGH, BDTLJill, TOUCET, RUSK, &c. 
 
 
 WASHINGTON: 
 PRINTED AT THB UNION OFFICE, 
 
 1856. 
 
'""/I/ r- 
 
 
 
THE SPURIOUS KANSAS MEMOEIAL 
 
 Debate in the Senate, April 14, 1856, on the memorial of James H. 
 Lane, 2^^'((I/ing that the Senate receive and grant the prayer of the 
 memorial presented hij General Cass, and afterwards ivithdratvn, em- 
 bracing the speeches of Senators Douglas, Pugh, Butler, Toucey, 
 EusK, dc. 
 
 The debate was opened by Mr. HARLAN, who presented the memorial of Colonel Lane, 
 and proceeded to pass a high eiilogium upon him for his services as a politician and a soldier. 
 After detailing Colonel Lane's services, Mr. Harlax proceeded : 
 
 But, Mr. President, I desire to remind the democracy of the country, so ably represented 
 on this floor, who had conferred on him so many distinguished honors, that when he came to 
 his own his own knew him not. They seemed to have entirely forgotten his distinguished 
 services in days of yore. It was not remembered with sufficient vividness to be a voucher 
 for his personal honesty. The honorable senator from Louisiana (Mr. Benjamin) said of the 
 paper which he presented to the Senate of the United States, in the name of the members of 
 the Senate and House of Representatives : 
 
 "I believe, upon the face of this petition and upon scrutinizing its statements and the 
 signatures which are attaclied to it, that it is an impudent forgery, attempted to be palmed 
 off upon the Senate of the United States through the hands of the venerable senator from 
 Michigan. I do not believe this to be the petition of the men from whom it purports to ema- 
 nate. I want to know how this petition got here under such circumstances as to call for 
 such observations as it has elicited from all sides of the house." 
 
 But no one answers. No one knows. No one seems to remember who James H. Lane is. 
 The honorable senator from Connecticut, (Mr. Toucet,) who, I believe, was a member of 
 the cabinet organized by Mr. Polk, whose election was aided very materially by the stump 
 speeches of Mr. Lane, does not seem to know who he is. The honorable senator from Ohio, 
 (Mr. PuGH,) his companion in arms, too, seems to have forgotten him. 
 
 Mr. PUGH. Mr. President, I desire that the Senator from Iowa shall not misrepresent 
 me. I made no remark whatever, not a syllable, in reference to the gentleman who brought 
 this petition here. I abstained carefully from anything of the sort, and the senator will so 
 find in the report of my remarks. 
 
 Mr. HARLAN. If the remark which I made does misrepresent the honorable senater 
 from Ohio, no one will more gladly stand corrected than myself. 
 
 Mr. TOUCEY. I beg leave to correct the senator. 
 
 Mr. HARL\N. I think, if honorable senators will suffer me to proceed, they will find 
 that I do not differ with them as to what they did state. 
 
 Mr. TOUCEY. I did not say one word in regard to Colonel Lane. I did not allude to 
 him. 
 
 Mr. HARLAN. It is this death-like silence [laughter] that, I suppose, caused the hon- 
 orable senator from South Carolina to inquire of the Senate who was the bearer of the peti- 
 tion. All his friends had forgotten him. The honorable senator from South Carolina asked, 
 Who IS this James H. Lane ? He told us he did not know him. The honorable senator from 
 Ohio made no response. 
 
 Mr. PUGH. I heard no such question. If the Senator himself, or any one else, had 
 asked me who was Colonel Lane, I should have given all the information in my power ; and 
 if the senator desires me to give it, I will do so now. 
 
 Mr. HARLAN. Fortunately now, by reference to the records and the history of the 
 country, I am tolerably well posted up. If the information had been given on Thursday last 
 it would have been very acceptable. 
 
 Mr. PUGH. Then the senator does not wish to hear from me. 
 
 Mr. BUTLER. I never mentioned Lane's name. 
 
 Mr. HARLAN. By reference to the printed speech of the honorable senator from South 
 <^arolina, he will find that he propounded the question, How did this petition get here.' and 
 
he told us that he did not know. The honorable senator from Michigan, too, who presented 
 the petition, was unable to answer the question. It seemed just at that time that his memory 
 was oblivious, and that he had forgotten the author of the letter addressed to himself at Pans, 
 dictated and drawn up, I believe, by this James H. Lane. 
 
 Mr CASS. Does the senator mean to say that I made any allusion to him at all.'' 
 Mr! HARLAN. I meant to say that the question of the honorable senator from South 
 Carolina was not answered by any one of these honorable senators. 
 
 Mr CASS Allow me to say one word to the gentleman. He assumes that a question 
 was put which was not answered. Why, sir, you have no right to require every man to get 
 up here and answer every question put in that way. If a senator, in the course ot his 
 remarks, says that a fict is not so, am I bound to contradict it." You may allude to what a 
 senator himself says, but you can draw no inference from his failure to notice or answer a. 
 ouestion that is not addressed to him ; there is no ethics in that. 
 
 ' Mr BUTLER. I do not intend to detain the Senate by making any reply to the senator 
 from iowa— very far from it ; but I do not wish the senator from Iowa to make an issue for 
 me which he cannot understand. 
 
 Mr HARLAN. Will the honorable senator state his remark again. 
 
 Mr. BUTLER. I say that I do not wish you again, as you have attempted heretofore, to 
 make' an issue for me before the country which you cannot understand. 
 
 The o-ravamen of my argument against the printing of this memorial last week was that the 
 motion^o print it was in violation of a rule of the Senate. Why do I say it was a violation 
 of the rules of the Senate ? Because it came in here with the intrusive title marked upon it 
 that it was a paper that was presented by the senators and representatives of the btate ot 
 Kansas T did ask the question who has presented this petition that can be invested with 
 any of the attributes or the dignity of senators or representatives of Kansas, when we knew 
 there was no such State > That is tlie way in which I stated my proposition, i did not 
 allude to Colonel Lane. 1 do not know that the mere person was in my mmd. i asked 
 officially who was it that presented it here— in what capacity -, and how did it get to the 
 Senate of the United States.? Did it come here through the straight gate, or over the wall, 
 or under it.' That is what I said, and I confine myself always to the proposition before the 
 Senate. The gentleman, I have no doubt, is very willing to take a great advantage ot the 
 fact that sometimes I illustrate the few remarks which I make by some allusion to the iliad. 
 I did not know before that Lane was the hero of Buena Vista. I have no doubt hereafter 
 this oration will be put in verse and will be called the Lanead. [Laughter.] 
 
 The gravamen of my proposition was as I have stated ; and I now state that the rule re- 
 quires every petition coming to the Senate of the United States to have signatures attached 
 to it. My friend from Illinois will take care of that. I have used the word gravamen. 1 
 hope the gentleman will forgive me, for I understand about as much of Latin as he does ot 
 
 English. [Laughter.] . r .i, »■ <• tu-^ 
 
 Mr DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I propose to raise the question of the reception ot tnis 
 memorial, and to give the reasons why it ought not to be received. Colonel Lane now pre- 
 sents a paper here in his own name, claiming to be entitled to a seat in the Senate ot the 
 United States from the State of Kansas, and sets forth in the memorial—— 
 
 Mr HARLAN. I hope the honorable senator will allow me to state the proposition. He 
 claims to be entitled to a seat on this floor from the State of Kansas when that State shall 
 have been received into the Union. 
 
 Mr DOUGLAS. He puts the form of expression in that way to avoid the objection 
 which was taken to the memorial the other day, purporting to be from the senators and rep- 
 resentatives of the legislature of the State of Kansas. It shows clearly that it is an evasion 
 to chancre the phraseolotry, and yet affirm his right to a seat in this body. He makes it an 
 individual memorial, and" then annexes to it the obnoxious paper which was rejected by the 
 Senate the other day. Inasmuch as he annexes that paper, and makes it a part of his rne- 
 morial, it is liable to all the objections which were urged to that, together with others ot a, 
 still more serious character. „ , . . j .i .., 4i,„ „*i,on 
 
 Now, sir, what is the explanation which he gives for having presented the paper the other 
 day, through the senator from Michigan, with a declaration that it was a memorial from the 
 members of that legislature then in session? The excuse is, that the paper then presented 
 was copied from an original memorial reported to the legislature of the self-styled btate ot 
 Kansas from a committee by Mr. Hutchinson, its chairman, and which was first adopted 
 and then referred to a committee of revision. This fact is verified by the oatfi of Colonel 
 Lane, drawn in language so equivocal and evasive as to raise a doubt in regard to the lair- 
 ness of the explanation. His oath is, that that paper was drawn up and adopted, and was 
 referred to a committee of revision, from which the present revised copy is taken. Hy whom 
 was it taken.' 1 will show you that it is a totally different document, and not a true or even 
 substantial copy of the one which he alleges was adopted in Kansas. -.u «i 
 
 Here I mav be permitted to remark that I do not see what connexion it has wijh Uie 
 genuineness 6f the paper to prove that Colonel Lane was in the Mexican war. I do not sec 
 the force of that fact to elucidate the point in dispute. Great pains have also been taken 
 here to prove that this could not have been a fraud, because Colonel Lane was a democrat. 
 I admit that is a pretty fair presumption. I admit there is great weight in that position. 
 The senator from Iowa also assumes that this could not have been a frijud because Coionei 
 
h'Tir*^'^ •^'"" l^^ Nebraska bill. That fact, too, ought to have its full weight in his favor, 
 SudTp^oJTe s'la'te!""^'"" ''"' ^" " '" '^°"'^' "'^"' ^"'^ '"^^P^^'^ «^ perpetrating a 
 v.„'^«!n'""'' ^h^ff^i^f'^ftofy proofs on the point in dispute? I have known men to claim to 
 be democrats before who had about as good a title and as good a record as Colonel Lane. I 
 1 suppose that Mr Francis P. Bla.r could prove a good record during the lifetime of General 
 Jackson, and a volume could be written to show his services and his devotion to the demo- 
 cratic cause But if you will trace his history a little further, you will find him president ot 
 a black republican convention at Pittsburg. In the face of that fact, would you deem it fair 
 to quote him as a democrat at the present time.' I suppose that one Andrew Jackson Donel- 
 son could show a record representing him as private secretary to the old hero, with the false 
 claini put forth by his new friends that he was entitled to claim the honors of an adopted son. 
 He, too, IS a candidate tor the vice presidency of the United States on the know-noti)ing 
 ticket ! Does this fact prove that he is a democrat now > "^uiuig 
 
 .J I'l^^u'""- !' 'V]} T^ "^f ''f"'f? V '■'" "''^ P°''^'^=i' associates that Colonel Lane now is as 
 essentially Identified with the black republican party as Mr. Blair himself is, or as Mr. Don- 
 elson IS with tiie know-nothing party. Is the mere fact that they once belonged to the demo- 
 cratic party conclusive evidence that they could not have done anythincr wrong since their 
 apostacy? Is there so much virtue in democratic associations that it protects a man's repu- 
 tation from all iniurious imputations after having fallen from grace.' 1 admit the virtue so 
 long as they are faithful to democratic principles, but I deny that they have a right to claim, 
 as a saving grace, sufficient to exculpate them for subsequent sins that they were once demo- 
 crats and apostacized from the true faith. That, sir, is all 1 have to say- of the democracy 
 of Colonel Lane, and all that class of modern politicians whose chief claim to popular favor 
 consists in the fact that they were once democrats, and have betrayed those who have reposed 
 confidence in them and heaped honors on them. ^ 
 
 I have to deal with this paper as I f^nd it. Now, is the paper which was presented the 
 other day a copy, or not, of the paper now presented as the original.' The first three pacre.s 
 of the original are not to be found at all in the paper presented by the senator from Michio-an 
 l^wiH read some portions of those tlireo pages. On the second page will be found this para 
 
 " The Constitution of the United States guaranties to every State a republican form of 
 government, and delegates to Congress no power to establi.sh any laws over any State, except 
 Mich as are national, and affect the States alike for the common good. The people of any 
 Jerritory or State, over wJiom the Constitution extends, although not admitted into the 
 Union as a sovereign State, have reserved to themselves the same inherent and inalienable 
 rights as belonged to the people of the several States of the Union. The Constitution declares 
 that powers not delegated to tlie United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the 
 States, are reserved to the States respectively or to the people. Therefbre, since the Consti- 
 tution delegates to Congress no power to establish a government over the new Territories 
 the same inherent rights are reserved to the people of a Territory over which the Constitution 
 extends, as are reserved to the people of the several original States." 
 
 Thus the memorial, which, as it is said, was adopted by the Kansas legislature, declared 
 their riaht to form a State constitution because the Nebraska bill was unconstitutional ; be- 
 cause, being unconstitutional, it was a nullity ; because there were no constituted authorities 
 in tiie territory ; because Congress had no power over tliem ; and hence they would not sub- 
 mit to the power of Congress. That is the ground on which this memorial adopted by the 
 Kansas legislature puts their case. It, is the very point asserted in the majority report, and 
 denied by the senator from Vermont (Mr. Collamer) in the minority report-the very point 
 in controversy between us and our opponents. Colonel Lane comes here standino- on the 
 revolutionary right, with a memorial that denies the power of Congress, and defies it's author- 
 ity ; he finds his friends backing out, saying that it is not their position ; and then he sits 
 down and makes what he calls a copy, and omits that fundamental principle on which their 
 whole action rested. It is not an immaterial point. It is not a mere surplusage as pretended. 
 It IS striking at the fundamental principle upon which they rest all their action. It is a 
 change in a vital part of the memorial, for the purpose of avoiding the issue which the major- 
 ity of the Conimittee on Territories had made with the minority, for the purpose of avoidinjr 
 the weiglit of the blows under which the defenders of this rebellion were staggering and tot- 
 tering, until tliey found that they could not maintain their position. 
 
 In order to enable them to change the position in which they had been beaten in argument, 
 somebody took their own memorial and struck out tlie very ground on which they justified 
 their whole action, and brought forward a difterent thing altogether, as a justification of their 
 conduct. I submit whether this does not make it a totally different document, affirming 
 entirely diiierent .principles, in order to place their action in a totally different li<rht The 
 Kansas legislature, in the original document, said they justified their acts because" Connress 
 had no power over them. The memorial came in tlie other day recognizincr the power of 
 Congress. I ask, then, if it is not a forgery, thus to change the document in"tlie most vitally 
 important point upon wliicii the whole proceeding rests? I do not say by whom the fom-ery 
 was committed— I care not. The taint runs through this wiiole proceedincr, and the affidlivit 
 does not cure or rem.edy it. Here are other parts of this original memorial, which were 
 
omitted or suppressed in tlie paper presented tlie other day, purporting' to be a memorial 
 signed by all the members of this bo^us legislature : 
 
 " By the provisions of the organic act a government was established over the Territory, 
 and olHcers were appointed by the Fiesident to administer said government. This form of 
 government is unknown to the Constitution, is extra-constitutional, and is only the creature 
 of necessity awaiting the action of the people, and cannot remain in force contrary to the will_ 
 of the people living under it. It may he regarded as a benevolent provision on the part of 
 Congress thus to provide a government for a spar.'^ely settled people, too few in numbers to 
 support a government of tiieir own ; but when it becomes oppressive, or ivhen the pt^nple become 
 sufficiently strong to eslablisk a govermnent of their own, in accordance ivith the Comtitution of 
 the United States, it is their right so to do and thereby throw off that extended over them." 
 
 Here their revolutionary rigiit is again asserted to throw off the government established 
 over them by Congress. Here they again atfirm the precise position taken by the Committee 
 on Territories, and denied by their advocates here, in running tln-ough tlie whole document, 
 you find that every passagethat would tend to sustain the argument of the majority of the 
 coiii.ui...i; and to controvert tlie positions of the minority, is stricken out. This shows that 
 the plan of campaign on that side of the House has been changed since this memorial was 
 got up. The mode of defence here has been changed ; and official documents must be gar- 
 bled and modified, added to or subtracted from, in order to conform to that change of policy. 
 Why, sir, to show what free use has been made with the sacred right of petition of these 
 people of Kansas, I will refer to another fact. It had been contended in argument, in the 
 minority report, tliat the Arkansas case was a case in point to justify Kansas, because Mr. 
 Attorney General Butler there said that the territorial legislature could give no authority for 
 forming a State constitution without the consent of Congress. They took the same position 
 in thisleport, stating the Arkansas case as interpreted by tlie minority of the committee ; 
 but when I, in my first speech, showed that, in the same opinion, Mr. Butler had said that 
 unless the proceeding was had in subordination to the territorial government, it was revolu- 
 tionary and criminaH this memorial was changed, in order to avoid the force of my exposure, 
 by obliterating tlie passage, striking out all reference to the Arkansas case. 
 
 I can take up this memorial and show that, as I have exposed one heresy after another of 
 their pretensions, they took the pen and ran through this memorial to get rid of the objec- 
 tion. It has been changed from time to time in material points, striking out and inserting, 
 until it has hardly a vestige of its original form. The very comparison which is here chal- 
 lenged between the pretended copy, presented the otlier day, and the original now, proves 
 conclusively that such is the case. I then submit whether here was not evidence of the most 
 glaring fraud ever attempted to be perpetrated upon a legislative body. After that fraud has 
 been once delected and exposed, the question is whether a second one is to be perpetrated 
 upon us by taking the same spurious document and attaching it to a memorial and thus 
 dragging it into the Senate. 
 
 Again, the original memorial does not pretend that the legislature was in session. Take 
 the copy which tliey brought here the other day, and you find interlined the words, "now in 
 session." 1 can sliow you the different handwritings" in which various interlineations have 
 been made from time to time. 
 
 Further, the memorial, as presented to us the other day, Ind the signatures of all the 
 members of the leffislature attached to it. Li ok at the original here ; it has no signatures at 
 all ; and there is no certificate that it was ado])ted in either house ; no mode of auUientica- 
 tion, and no date. How do they account for that? By saying that a committee of revision 
 was appointed to revise the memorial, and that the members let\ three copies of their names 
 to he appended. It is pretended that the committee revised the paper, and delivered it to 
 Colonel Lane and Governor Robinson without any signatures to it ; and that they brought it 
 to Washington and revised it aoniii,und changed it into its present shape, ready for append- 
 ing the signatures, when it wasr discovered that they had lost them ! And then, because they 
 had lost them, they sat down and wrote tlie names of tlie members of the legislature, and 
 attached them to the new document which they had thus manufactured. How did they get 
 the names? Why, they find a memorandum book, belonging to Colonel Lane, which he 
 exhibits to the Senate, but is not willing that we should read, because it contains private 
 matters ! 
 
 Why exhibit the book unless we are permitted to examine it? Of what use is it to us to 
 seethe outside of the hook if he will not let us see the inside, and read the writing in it ? 
 Does this contain authority to him to change the memorial and sign their names to it ? This 
 is not pretended. Why tliis formality of shakiny- in our faces a memorandum-book containing 
 these names ? He says they are original signatures. Tiiat may be, but -we have no curiosity 
 to see the autographs of these illustrious legislators, unless they are signed to the memorial. 
 Their names fn the memorandum-book are of no authority unless it contains a power of 
 attorney to Mr. Lane to make a memorial for them. No such authority is pretended ! 
 
 Then we find that tiiere is no authentication of this document, except tlie affidavit of Mr. 
 Lane, made this day, and sworn to before .Judge McLi.'an of the Supreme Court. I will 
 read the affidavit : 
 
" District of Columbia, 
 
 " County and City of Washington, ss : 
 
 " Personally appeared before the undersigned, duly authorized by law to administer oaths, 
 James H. Lane, Senator elect from Kansas " — 
 — he swears in that capacity — not as an individual — 
 
 " who, being duly sworn, upon his oath, states : that the twenty-four half sheets of paper 
 hereunto annexed contain the original draft of the memorial from the members of the general 
 assembly of Kansas, which convened at Topeka on the 4th of March last, to the Congress of 
 the United Sates as reported to the said assembly by John Hutchinson, esq., chairman of 
 the committee appointed to draft said memorial ; as adopted by both branches of said assem- 
 bly ; as referred to the committee on revision, and intrusted by said committee to this affiant, 
 and from which the revised copy was prepared which was submitted to the Senate of the 
 United States by General Cass, and which was the subject of remark on Thursday last." 
 
 Dated Washington city, the 14th day of April, 1856. 
 
 J. H. LANE. 
 
 Sworn and subscribed before me this 14th day of April, 1856. 
 
 John McLean, 
 Justice Supreme Court United States. 
 
 " From which it was prepared ! " By whom " prepared ? " Not by that revising com- 
 mittee, for his memorial shows that it was prepared in the city of Washington. The paper 
 on which it is written shows that it is paper of the House of Representatives — entirely dif- 
 ferent from that on which the original was written, and which could not have been had in 
 Kansas. 
 
 I submit, then, Mr. President, whether we ought to receive the memorial at all, with these 
 badges of fraud running through every line of it. I object to its reception, and hope that 
 the Senate will wash its hands of this spurious paper, and of all proceedings that are con- 
 nected with it. 
 
 Mr. WADE said he saw nothing wrong in the conduct of Colonel Lane. His affidavit 
 explained the matter satisfactorily. He says the original paper was prepared by the legisla- 
 ture that convened at Topeka just as they "adjourned. They had no time to draw it up and 
 prepare it with all the particularity of language with which they would be glad to clothe 
 their ideas. Conscious of this, and having entire confidence in certain gentlemen of the 
 legislature, they referred it to them, and entrusted them with a discretionary power to alter 
 it, so far as they thought it might be altered without altering the sense. 
 
 Mr. PUGH. Mr. President, I agree with my colleague (Mr. Wade) that whether we 
 receive this document or reject it can have no influence upon the decision of the questions 
 relating to the Territory of Kansas. 1 do not rise to spea ; with that view, but I must com- 
 plain of the senator from Iowa (Mr. Haklan) for the language and the tone which he has 
 employed toward me. 
 
 When one of these papers was before the Senate on Thursday last, I desired to be rid of 
 the discussion raised upon it, and, as the record will show, voted to proceed to the consid- 
 eration of the orders of the day, and allow the subject to remain where the decision of the chair 
 left it. But when I saw upon the other side of the chamber a resolution to force us into the 
 debate of very serious questions, when I discovered the purpose of certain gentlemen to raise a 
 controversy upon the right of petition, to invent a collateral and colorable issue for the sake 
 of adding to the disputes which already agitate the nation, 1 felt bound to give the paper a 
 careful and deliberate examination. I stated the results of my examination to the Senate. 
 I said that the petition and its signatures were written by one hand ; no senator denies that. 
 I said there were important interlineations in the document, such as changed its sense to some 
 extent ; that is not denied. I >aid there were erasures in it, not merely of words, not merely 
 of sentences, but of whole paragraphs, as if the person who had it in charge, after listening 
 to our discussion here, had abandoned some propositions as untenable, and altered the peti- 
 tion accordingly. I said that whenever the original should be produced, if there was any 
 original, it would be time enough to decide upon my course.. For having said that, sir, the 
 senator from Iowa has arraigned me this morning in the course of his reiterated discussion of 
 the general subject. 
 
 T should think the senator ought to be satisfied. When a proposition was made to print 
 extra copies of the documents submitted to us by the President of the United States, in order 
 that the country might be informed on these questions from Kansas, that, instead of irre- 
 sponsible paragraphs in the newspapers, appeals to passion and to prejudice, our common 
 constituents — the constituents of that senator as well as my constituents— might see the origi- * 
 nal and authentic reports transmitted to the Senate by the executive head of the govern- 
 ment — when that proposition was made, senator after senator on th? other side claimed the 
 right to be heard, and thus postponed any discussion. Tiie question has not yet been taken, 
 sir, although o period of more than two months has elapsed. The senator from Iowa gave 
 us notice that he desired to return home, and asked the privilege of being heard on the sub- 
 ject, as an act of courtesy. His request was granted, and he addressed the Senate for several 
 Iiours. 
 
 Mr. HARL.^N. I think the senator, on reflection, will find that he is mistaken. He 
 
8 
 
 makes a mistake when he suys tlial I slated to the Senate that I intended to return home, and 
 ffave that as a reason. The gentleman must be tlihiking of some other senator. 
 
 Mr PUGH. Sir, I appeal to the record. When two reports were made from the Com- 
 mittee on Territories, and senators on the other side challenged us to allow the reports to be 
 printod too-ether, and thus sent before the country, I moved that a certam number of copies 
 should be so printed ; and the motion went to the Committee on Printing, under the rules. 
 I then stated that, by this system of debating immaterial motions, we had been prevented 
 from printino- extra copies of the President's Kansas message, and urged the Senate to de- 
 cide the question at once, and agree to proceed with the discussion upon tiie bill ot which 
 the committee had given notice. I was answered by the senator from l\ew \ork, (Mr. 
 Seward,) that the senator from Iowa claimed the floor upon the motion to print the Presi- 
 dent's special message, and that he wished to be heard. Accordingly, sir, the motion was 
 laid over from day io day, from week to week, until the senator had made his speech. 1 
 missed him then i'rom the chamber, and supposed that he had gone home. 
 
 Now, sir, there are some others of us who feel bound, by the emergencies of our position, 
 to express the opinions which we entertain with reference to these Kansas troubles. I desire, 
 at a i)r'-'ier time, to express my opinions ; but I do protest that when a senator has been 
 heard, hour after hour, upon the question, he ought not, on the mere presentation of a me- 
 morial, to obstruct the prosrress of business in the Senate by repeating his speech ; and 
 especially should he avoid calling in question the conduct or the motives of other Senators. 
 
 Mr. President, I made no reflection upon the gentleman who brought this paper here— 
 none I did not feel bound to give the Senate his biography ; I did not know it. I knew 
 that he was once a citizen of the State which you represent ; I knew that he had been pro- 
 moted to important offices by the nomination of the democratic party in your State ; but 1 
 have heard, whether it be true or not, that, four or five months ago, in the Territory of 
 Kansas, he publicly expressed a full adhesion to the rei)ublican party and platform. He is 
 not the first man who has enjoyed the confidence of the democratic party, and then aban- 
 doned us for some other political organization. But I tell the senator from Iowa this: When- 
 ever a man joins the republican party (su called) he is a democrat no more ; and the sooner 
 he parts with that title the better for himself and for all concerned. 
 
 Now, sir, the question is upon the reception of another pretended memorial. It is pro- 
 duced here as the original of the petition which we rejected on Thursday last, and, as I un- 
 derstand, in compliance with a demand then made for the original. Is it anything of the 
 sort? What senator so pretends? It is not the same petition in any conceivable sense. It 
 does not resemble the other in beginning or in conclusion. Shall we, then, receive this paper ? 
 That is the question. To the other paper, I have said, all the signatures were subscribed by 
 one hand. This has an advantage ; there are no signatures to it, and no attestation. Whence 
 it comes, sir, we know not, except from the assertions of senators, and from the affidavit 
 which I shall now read : 
 
 "District of Columbia, 
 
 "County and city of Washington, ss : 
 
 " Personally appeared before the undersigned, duly authorized by law to administer oaths, 
 James H. Lane, senator elect from Kansas, who, being duly sworn, upon his oath, states : 
 that the twenty-four half sheets of paper hereto annexed contain the original draft of the me- 
 morial from the members of the general assembly of Kansas, which convened at Topeka on 
 the 4th March last, to the Congress of the United States, as reported to the said assembly by 
 John Hutchinson, esq., chairman of the committee appointed to draft said memorial ; as 
 adopted by both branches of said assembly ; as referred to the committee on revision, and in- 
 trusted by said committee to this affiant, and from which the revised copy was prepared 
 which was submitted to the Senate of the United States by General Cass, and which was 
 the subject of remark on Thursday last. 
 
 " Dated Washington city, the 14th day of April, 1856. 
 
 "J. H. LANE. 
 
 " Sworn and subscribed before me this 14th of April, 1856. 
 
 " JOHN McLEAN, 
 '^ Justice Supreme Court United States." 
 
 I doubt whether Judge McLean has authority to administer such an oath ; but let that 
 pass. Now, Mr. President, what does the affidavit declare? Is this the memorial of the. 
 general assembly, so called, of the State of Kansas? No, sir ; by Colonel Lane's own state- 
 ment, it is not. This is the mere draft, adopted by a committee, and read to the so called 
 legislature. That body, we are told, has agreed to it in substance, but never has ordered it 
 to be engrossed and signed. Neither the members nor the officers, in fact, ever afhxed their 
 signatures. They gave it no sort of authentication. 
 
 What did the "members of the self-styled legislature direct? They referred it to another 
 committee for revision, intending that it should be jiut into shape before its final adoption 
 and signature ; but this committee of revision, instead of performing the duty enjoined — in- 
 stead of revising the memorial, and reporting it to the legislature, so called, for consideration, 
 has given the paper to Colonel James H. Lane, and devolved on him, not a member of the 
 legislature at all, tiie duty and the authority of^ revision. That is what Colonel Lane here 
 
Tiffirms, and that,! presume, is tl.o case. The committee of revision never renorted the 
 memor.al. The draft of it was bunded to Col-.nel Lane, and Colonel Lane has Ked 
 He assumes to be the spokcsnran for all those provisional legislators. They have only to 
 swear m h,s words, and follow ,n ins footstops ; whatever he chooses to say, 1 suppose tJ,ey 
 
 ^ht^Sy^?:^^SZ:i^^ '^'"'''^-^^ c£cretion-ot^men^2S!;r?^^Se 
 Mr President, if it were not fur the great question which is behind-if it were not for the 
 agitation winch now prevails in all quarters of the Union-if no terrible controversy. Political 
 aid sectional, had ansen-there ,s not a senator in this chamber who would vote to receive 
 tins paper—not one It is an imperfect undertaking at best. If the self-styled general 
 assembly of Kansas should ever hold another session-if the members can succeed nes^caping 
 grand junes and mdic ments, marshals, and writs, and the issue, of solemn judicial inve ti? 
 i enoH^H ^'^"'r?"?^' ^"[ "'° ^■•■■'".^'^^'i°" °f business-it may be that this document w 1 
 be reported regularly from the committee on revision, and authenticated as well as adopted 
 m due form. When such an event shall have happened-if happen it possibly can-and he 
 
 .enatortlrrf.T ""'iT'"^ '"'^^??■ '"'" "'"-''-f-"' I will d'e'cide v^hat be^comes r^e as a 
 senator toward the petitioners and the country at larfre 
 
 Now, sir, as we have heard s., much lately about "the right of petition, let us see how far 
 this paper confornis to the rules established in ancient times, and written down for oi^ n- 
 Ka^^Hf pi^h^L^t;- °pSgelJ^: '^"""^"^ '''''' " Laws, Privileges, Proceedings, and 
 
 JiJ^^ ^n'^'""] f ""''' be written upon parchment or paper, f.,r a printed or lithographed 
 petition will not be received ; and at least one signature should be upon the same fheet or 
 skin upon w nch the petition is written. It must be in the English lan^uaffe or accomDanied 
 
 mterl?n'";"'''""H"'''=' "" •-'"'^- -'- P— ^s it states to le correc^rif mut'be ?"e f^^' 
 interlineations and erasures ; it must be signed ; it must have original signatures or mark" 
 nni b.l ?if the original, nor signatures of agents on behalf of others ; and it mus( 
 
 ^rlit 1 u^' "°'-/ffidavits, or other documents annexed. Petitions of co;porations ag- 
 gregate should be under their common seal. To these rules another may be added, that Jf 
 ieP.?iTT^"fh "" P;^blic meeting signs a petition on behalf of those assembled, it is only 
 L>n W f P^^'/'7°^V" '"'^'^'dual, and is so entered on the journals, because the 
 
 signature of one party for others cannot be recognized. 
 
 " It may be a useful caution to state tliat any forgery or fraud in the preparation of peti- 
 tions, or in the signatures attached, will be punished as a breach of privilege. By a resolution 
 of the House of Commons, 2d of June, 1774, it was declared • it-.oiuiion 
 
 Jr.'.J!'^^ v.! ^"^'''^ unwarrantable, and a breach of the privilege of this House, for any 
 person to set the name of any other person to any petition to be presented to this House. ' 
 and unisheT" "^ " frequent instances in which such irregularities have been discovered 
 
 That is the English rule. We are not quite so strict in the United States. Here is what 
 Mr. Jetierson says : 
 
 " Petitions must be subscribed by the petitioners, unless they are attendincr, or unable to 
 sign, and ai^rred by a member. But a petition not subscribed, but which the member pre- 
 senting It afhrmed to be all in the handwriting of the petitioner, and his name written in 'he 
 beginning, was on a question (iMarch 14, 180U) received by the Senate. The averment of a 
 member, or of somebody without doors, that they know the handwriting of the petitioners is 
 necessary, if it be questioned " >= i , 
 
 I do not ask even this strictness. I simply ask that the paper should express the sentiments 
 ot the persons from whom it purports to emanate, in their own lanffuatre, or in lano-uaire 
 which they have considered and adopted. "^ " >= e ' 
 
 I do not agree that these men, whether you call them a legislature, or by some other title 
 can deputize Colonel Lane to put the recital of their grievances into form. I do not ajrree to' 
 receive any paper from him at all, unless it be his own petition, in his individual character 
 and upon his responsibility as a citizen. ' 
 
 But, sir, this is not the only objection. I find another rule worthy of notice, on pao-e 304 
 or the book which I first quoted : -- i o 
 
 " The language of a petition should be respectful and temperate, and free from ofit-nsive 
 imputations upon the character and conduct of parliament, or the courts of justice or other 
 tribunal, or constituted aiitliority. it may not allude to debates in either house of parliament 
 nor to intended motions." ' 
 
 Now, Mr. President, I wish to call the attention of the Senate to a few parao-raphs in this 
 paper : r o r 
 
 " The undersigned have witnessed, with astonishment and deep regret, the coarse insinua- 
 tion on the character and conduct of the people of Kansas contained in the recent special 
 message of the President of tiie United States." 
 
10 
 
 Again, sir, on a subsequent page : 
 
 " Toleration of such ouirages is but an enslavement of tlie people of Kansas, and a breach 
 of faith, and a dereliction of duty on the part of the Federal Executive." 
 
 Mr. President, whatever ni}' relations to a citizen so eminent as he must be who is exalted 
 to the office of Chief Magistrate— if 1 were ever so much opposed to him in political senti- 
 ment I could not vote to receive any petition w'hich thus reflected upon his cliaracter and 
 
 motives. What right have we to receive such a petition? This, sir, is not the House by 
 which the President can be impeached. This is the House which must try the President 
 whenever he has been impeached ; and shall we permit any accuser, except the House of 
 Representatives, to drag him before us? Shall we dignify or affirm charges of so gross a 
 character, in advance of any trial, in advance of any impeachment, by enjoining on our com- 
 mittees the duty which attends the reference of a petition ? Sir, the grossest act ot usurpation 
 ever practiced in this body, as 1 believe, was when President Jackson was condemned by 
 resolution without a trial. 1 will not agree— knowing that among the duties devolved on me, 
 in virtue of my official oath, is that of delivering judgment upon the Chief Magistrate when- 
 ever he shall have been properly arraigned — I will not agree that Colonel Lane and his asso- 
 ciates shall assume the office and authority of the grand inquest of the nation, which now 
 sits at the other end of the Capitol. 
 
 I told the Senator from Iowa, when he first referred to me by name, that 1 had not made 
 any charge or insinuation against the character of Colonel Lane. I did not think it neces- 
 sary to the maintenance of my position. I make no charges now. I cannot imagine what 
 we have to do with that gentleman. I do not see the propriety of thrusting his praises mto 
 this discussion. The senator from Iowa has related his biography at great length, his public 
 services, and his partisan services, and then appeals to me, in a sneering manner, as his 
 companion in arms, his political confederate, and what not, that I was under some obliga- 
 tion to support Colonel Lane's pretensions or endorse his behavior. I violated my duty, 
 forsooth, because I did not answer some general question propounded by my honorable friend 
 from South Carolina, (Mr. Butler,) which I did not hear, and which I told the Senator from 
 Iowa distinctly I did not hear. Besides, sir, I agree with my honorable and distinguished 
 friend from Michigan, (Mr. Cass,) that I was under no obligations to answer a rlietorical 
 question, general in its character, if I had heard it. I have other duties here and other tastes 
 than to rehearse the biography of individuals, living or dead, at the mere solicitation of a 
 senator I am not one of Colonel Lane's witnesses. He has not asked me to be his witness; 
 he has not asked me to present any of his papers ; he has not asked me to give a recital of 
 k\s services, his sufierings, or his sacrifices ; and, indeed, the senator from Iowa has dispensed 
 with the necessity of all that 
 
 My colleague says that the citizens of Ohio feel a deep interest in the afiairs ot Kansas 
 Territory. J believe that is true ; I believe the citizens of every State in the Union feel such 
 an interest. He declares, furthermore, that it shall be a part of his duty to extend a special 
 protection over those who have emigrated from the State of Ohio into the Territory of Kan- 
 sas, and established tlieir residence in it. Sir, I disclaim such duty, for my part disclaim 
 all charo-e over them, or partisanship for them, except as they are citizens of the United 
 States, a'lid entitled to the protection of the Constitution and the laws. There sitsbelore me, 
 sir, a o-entleman who once held a prominent position in the State whinh 1 have the honor to 
 represent, but who hns since become a citizen of the State of California, (Mr. Wkller,) and 
 she has showered honors upon him. I should like to know if my colleague imagines tliat he and 
 I are to exercise guardianship over the honorable senator from Cahlornia? Tliose men who 
 emitrrated from Ohio to Kansas have gone from his care and mine. They iibandoiied our 
 State and all allegiance to it. They are no lon-er citizens of Ohio in any sense. .\i!d when- 
 ever the State, by any of her authorities— her legislature, iier governor, or either ot her sen- 
 ators-shall assum ; to dictate for the Territory of Kansas, upon such a pretence as that, it 
 will be an act of uuwarruntable and inexcusable usurpation. 
 
 I understand, jicrliaps, to what my colleague alludes. 1 know the fact— he knows it- 
 others know it— that the gentleman who now iiolds the chief executive office in Ohio has ad- 
 dressed a message to the general assembJv ol the State upon the sul)jnct of K^mis^is affiiirs— 
 advisino- that the State should intervene, in its s.-vereign capacity, for the sell.ljment of cer- 
 tain controversies between the territorial legislature upon the one side, and tli.- insurgents at 
 Lawrence upon the other. It was a proposition to engage the State in re:icllion and civil 
 war. Thereupon, sir, one member of the legislature— a representative of t'l.- county, per- 
 haps, in which my colleague resides— introduced a resolution tiiat five reginieuis of soldiers 
 should be enlisted and serJt to Kansas for the purpos.- of waging a war upon the lerntorial 
 
 authorities , \ i . j v . 
 
 I am happy to inform the Senate, however, that the proposition was not adopted. Yet 
 the le<rislature has passed resolutions which, in my iudgment, are almost as objectionable- 
 resolutions which indicate, as do some of flieir statutes, the design of urging our citizens to a 
 choice, finally, between their allegiance to the Union and their alloiriancc to the State gov- 
 ernment. The resolutions will be presented here, I suppose, in a few days. Sir, it is this 
 intervention from abroad in the affairs of Kansas Territory— intervention by States, by mu- 
 nicipal and private corporations, by organized bands of factions and parties, by the arts of 
 ambitious men stimulating the passions of our people, north and south, with fal.sehoods, 
 c'amors, and every species of plausible appeal— which prevents the fair adjustment of all 
 controversies in the Territory and elsewhere, and which, worse than even that, has induced 
 
11 
 
 throughout the republic an anxiety, and horrible fear and distrust for the perpetuity of the 
 Union. I give my colleague notice, once for all, that I engage in no such enterprises ; that 
 I shall resist them, here and elsewhere, with whatever zeal and ability God has bestowed on 
 me. In their true character, as citizens of the United States inhabiting the Territory citi- 
 zens who have gone thither, in good faith, to enjoy the protection of the Consiitution under 
 the guarantees of the organic law — all who have emigrated from Ohio, and all who have 
 
 emigrated from other Stales, are entitled to whatever attention and respect for their wishes 
 
 whatever redress for their grievances — it may he in my power to grant. But, sir, 1 will not 
 take u])on myself; directly or mdircctly, tiie regulation of domestic affairs or local institu- 
 tions for the Territory further tlian to restore"'peace and silence rebellion, to maintain the 
 supremacy of the laws, to protect every individual— high and low, rich and poor — from all 
 outrages and all oppression. 
 
 Mr. HALE thought the true question was not as to the reception of the memorial for the 
 admission of Kansas, but the reception of Colonel Lane's petition for redress of a grievance 
 growing out of imputations cast upon his character. 
 
 Mr. PUGH. I appeal to the candor of the senator from New Hampshire, while he has that 
 document in his hand. The prayer was as I stated, that the Senate would receive the former 
 memorial. That is the prayer of the petition. The senator from New Hampshire says tliat if 
 we refuse that prayer, we refuse this genllenien an opportui-ity of explanation. I say again, 
 that if Colonel Lane presents a petition here, stating that he considers himself injured or 
 jiggrieved by tlie language of the senator from Virginia— which is a matter with which I 
 have no concern— I will vote to receive the paper ; but, if he only uses his own memorial as 
 the machinery by which, he brings these papers affain before the Senate, T shall not vote to 
 •eceive it. 
 
 Mr. DOUGLAS. As I trust this is the last time that the question of the genuineness of 
 these papers will be presented, 1 have another point to which I wish to call the attention of 
 senators. The agents of this mock legislature presented to the honorable senator from 
 Michigan, and got him to present to the Senate, the constitution of this pretended State of 
 Kansas. I have kept my eye on the history of that document, and the proceedings con- 
 nected with it ; and it is well known to the country that there was a clause adopted by a 
 separate vote of the people, and made a part of that constitution, making it a duty of the 
 legislature never to permit negroes (free or slave) to enter the State of Kansas— a provision 
 similar to the one in the constitutions of Illinois and Indiana, and some other States, which 
 have been so severely condemned and denounced by those who have become the special cham- 
 pions of Kansas. Look into the constitution, as they furnish it, and as the senator from 
 Michigan has presented it here, and you will find that clause is suppressed ; that important, 
 material provision is not to be found in the document which they bring here. I know, from' 
 the history of the transaction, that it was voted in by a majority of the persons who 'voted 
 for the adoption of the Kansas constitution. Am I mistaken? I ask, was it not adopted at 
 the same election at which the constitution of the pretended State of Kansas was adopted as 
 a part of the constitution? ' 
 
 Mr. WILSON. If the senator will allow me I will answer, by saying that it was not to 
 be a part of the constitution. Such a vote was given in Kansas, but not makin<r it a part of 
 the constitution of the State. " 
 
 Mr. DOUGLAS. There was a separate vote upon it. 
 
 Mr. SEWARD. Mr. President 
 
 Mr. DOUGLAS. I will hear the senator from New York. 
 
 Mr. SEWARD. It is no favor to me ; but I hope the honorable senator likes to be riu-ht 
 Mr. DOUGLAS. I do. , ° 
 
 Mr SEWARD. I beg to tell the honorable senator that 1 speak of no knowledge of my 
 own ; but Colonel Lane, senator elect from that State, leaned over, as the senator from Illi- 
 nois was making his statement, and gave me his account of the transaction ; which was, that 
 this provision, such as the honorable .senator from Illinois describes, was submitted to the 
 people for their consideration and approval or rejection, by a provision which directed that it 
 should not ho a part of the consiitution, but should be in the nature of instructions to the 
 first legislature of the State of Kansas. That is all of it. 
 
 Mr. DOUGLAS. Now we come to the point It is admitted that such a provision was 
 submitted to the voters at the same election wilii the constitution, and was adopted as an 
 instruction to the legislature, commanding them to pass such a law. Hence it was adopted 
 in precisely the same way that a similar provision was adopted in Illinois, and was in like 
 manner submitted to the people as a distinct provision, to be voted on separately, and when 
 ratified become a part of Ihc ?;onsiilution. Rut the senator from New York says this was not 
 to be a pnrtof tiie constitution! Such is not my recollection of the provision. I do not 
 believe that the provision did declire that it was not to be a part of the constitution as stated 
 by Colonel Lane. I deny his slatement, and call for the production of the instrument It 
 will show, when produced, that that was a part of the constitution, as well as an instruction. 
 What does he mean by an instruction to the legislature ? Was it not adopted as a part of 
 the supreme law of the land ? He admits that it was. He tells us that it was an instruction 
 to the legislature, and hence binding on thmn. Wliat is that called which instructs the legis- 
 lature, and commands certain things to be done, and forbids others to be done ? Do we not 
 call it a constitution? What is the constitution, unless it be the supreme law of the land 
 
12 
 
 adopted by the people to instruct and control the action of the legislature ? This provision 
 was adopted as an instruction to the legislature ; it was submitted at the same time, and 
 adopted at the same election, with the other portions of the constitution ; it has the same 
 validity and binding force over the legislature as any other clause of the constitution ; it will 
 become tiie supreme law of the land whenever Kansas shall be admitted into the Union with 
 that constitution. 
 
 You mio-ht as well denj^ that any other provision of that instrument is a part of the consti- 
 tution, as to deny that this is a part of the constitution, when you admit tliat it is llie supreme 
 law of the land, binding on the legislature the moment Kansas shall be admitted with the 
 Topeka constitution. I care not by what name you call it, so long as you admit that it is 
 obligatory on the legislature. Call it a constitution ; call it a fundamental law ; call it the 
 supreme law ; call it an instruction ; call it what you please — the name does not change its 
 substance, so long as you admit that it compels the legislature to keep the negroes out, and 
 not allow them to live or breatlie in Kansas. You cannot avoid the force of my argument 
 by calling a provision of the supreme law by a different name. The point I make is that you 
 have presented here a paper purporting to contain the supreme law of Kansas, omitting and 
 suppressing at least one material provision of that supreme law. You profess to have pre- 
 sented the whole of the supreme law, while you have withheld a part of it. You withheld 
 the part which you dare not defend ! I drove the senator from New York to the wall on 
 tiiis point the other day. After various attempts to evade the point, he acknowledged that 
 he did not approve and would not defend the provision. He cannot destroy its validity by 
 calling it an instruction, or by any otiier name. If his bill passes to admit Kansas with her 
 Topeka constitution, that provision will become the supreme law of the land. The only 
 way he can avoid that result is to vole against his own bill. 
 
 Call the provision by what name you will, you caimot escape the responsibility of having 
 suppressed a material provision of the supreme law, which was formed at Topeka for the 
 government of the proposed State of Kansas. The criminality of the act is not extenuated 
 by the fa.ct that the provision thus suppressed was one which you dare not attempt to justify. 
 All these attempts at evasion and equivocation are calculated to raise the presumption that 
 the act of suppression was premeditated and fraudulent on the part of those who felt an 
 interest in concealing from the public a provision which they were not willing to defend, at 
 the same time tliat they were endeavoring to put it in force and give it vitality, by admitting 
 Kansas with the Topeka constitution. 
 
 I have a right to call on those who brought tlie constitution here to produce the provision 
 which has been suppressed. We have a right to know whether any other ))rovisions, in- 
 structing the legislature to pass particular laws, have been suppressed. It is not an unusual 
 thing, in making a constitution, to submit particular clauses or provisions to tlie people 
 separately. When we adopted tiie new constitution in Illinois in 1847, two provisions were 
 thus submitted to the decision of the people, and both adopted — the one like this in Kansas 
 to exclude negroes from tiie State, and the other to impose a tax for the payment of the 
 State debt, wliich should be irrepealable so long as any portion of the debt should remain 
 unpaid. 
 
 These provisions, like the one in Kansas, when adopted, became perpetual insi ructions to 
 the legislature, and hence are held to be essential parts of the constitution, or supreme law 
 of the land Tiiey can no more he erased or suppressed than any other or every other part 
 of the constitution. No member of the legislature is at liberty to violate or disregard either 
 of these instructions, as the senator from New York now calls them, than he is to violate or 
 disregard every other portion of the constitution. I am informed that the new constitution 
 of New York contains severaJ provisions or instructions wliich wore submitted and adopted 
 by the people separately. I do not know how the fact is ; the senator from New York will 
 correct me if I am in error upon that point. Will the senator from New York contend that 
 he has a right to evade or suppress those provisions in the constitution of his own State, 
 upon the plea that they were adopted by the people separately, and intended as perpetual 
 instructions to the legislature.' 
 
 This excuse will not be satisfactory to any fair-minded man. The p otext is too flimsy to 
 deceive anybody. The fact can no longer be conooaled, that an imjjerfect and incomplete 
 copy of the constitution of the State of Kansas (so called) has been palm( d off on the 
 Senate ; that a material portion of it has bcii suppressed — a portion .-o material and vital 
 that the champions of the Topeka movement dare not defend it, and hence hav-' an interest 
 in suppressing it. I call upon them to produce the original document w ithout \nj mutila- 
 tions. Let us have it complete as it came from the hands of those who made il. We have 
 been imposed upon sufficiently by garbled and nuililatfni papers, [..et there be an end of 
 this system of fraud. Let the truth, and the whole truth, be laid before the Senate and the 
 country, and let our action be based on the ficts as they really and truly exist 
 
 Mr. W.\DE. I do not propose to detain the Senate long, but I certainly cannot sit here 
 and permit any senator to look me in the face and talk to onr side of the chamber as having 
 suppressed papers. It is an imputation of motives which should not i)e permitted in the 
 Senate. 
 
 First of all, the senator from Illinois assumes to know a great deal more about the consti- 
 tution of Kansas than those who made it; and he asks for proof I demand the proof from 
 the senator from Illinois. On wkat does he found the statement that such a clause was incor- 
 
13 
 
 porated into the constitution of Kansas? Where is his evidence of it? They who helped to 
 make it are liere to negative all that he says upon that subject; and it hangs upon his ipse 
 dixit merely, unsupported by any proof whateA^er. Standing upon that frail foundation, he 
 turns round and charges that one side of this chamber has suppressed something for the pur- 
 pose of committing a fraud on the Senate. 
 
 Mr. DOUGLAS. Does the senator from Ohio say that there is any man here claiming 
 to be an honest man, or a decent man, v/ho denies that the convention which framed the con- 
 stitution of Kansas submitted a separate provision to keep negroes out, which was to have 
 the force of instruction binding on the legislature, and that that was adopted by the people 
 of Kansas ? Is that denied ? 
 
 Mr. WADE. Mr. President, it is perfectly well known on what I found my statement, 
 and the gentleman shall not evade the issue in that way. I demand the proof of you, sir, 
 for what you state. On what authority, and on what evidence do you charge that there ever 
 was such a clause in the constitution of Kansas? You have heard from a senator on this 
 floor that Mr. Lane has stated that there is no such thing. 
 
 Mr. DOUGLAS. I will state my evidence. In the first place, I have talked with Gov- 
 ernor Reader, and he told me so. In the next place, I have talked with General Whitfield, 
 and he told me so. Ih the ne.xt place, I spoke to Colonel Lane on the subject the other night 
 at my house, and he told me so. In the next place, I charged it on the senator from New 
 York the other day, and he admitted ths fiict. In the next place, no man ever did deny it 
 before, and the senator from Ohio now will not deny that such a separate provision was sub- 
 mitted and adopted as instruction to the legislature, whether you call it constitution or ordi- 
 nance; that there was such a provision submitted separately, to be voted on by the people, 
 and that if a majority was in its favor, and the constitution was adopted, it should become 
 binding on the legislature, the senator from Ohio will not now deny. Will he? 
 
 Mr. WADE. Mr. President, the explanotion is a very long and a very roundabout one. 
 The senator says he has conversed with a great many people; but that is very loose evidence 
 to prove what a constitution contains. He says the constitution of Kansas provides so and 
 so, and he has talked witii divers gentlemen whose character he stands here to impeach. In 
 one breath he says he does not believe a word they say, and accuses them, peihaps, of per- 
 jury; but in the next breath he comes forward and says that their testimon}^ is sutScient to 
 establish a clause in the constitution. 
 
 Mr. DOUGLAS. I hardly ever knew a judge to refuse to receive the plea of guilty from 
 a murderer or a thief when he asks to enter it. 
 
 Mr. JONES, of Tennessee. Mr. President, I do not propose to take any part in this de- 
 bate, but I think I can correct the position which was assumed by the senator from New 
 Hampshire. He changes the tactics of this fight a little by assuming that we are not called 
 upon to-day to receive the memorial coming from the self-styled legislature of Kansas, but 
 that we are simply to act on the reception of the memorial of an individual citizen who feels 
 himself aggrieved by the action of the Senate. If this were the real position of the question, 
 I might possibly vote to receive his memorial; but there is no such separation between the 
 two as the senator from New Hampshire assumes. They are presented as parts of the same 
 thing; and if you receive the one you necessarily receive the other. If you receive the 
 petition of Mr. Lane you not only receive the memorial which was withdrawn and sent out 
 of the Senate the other day, but you receive another paper, which he is pleased to term the 
 original; and from which the document presented to the senator from Michigan purports to 
 be an extract or an identical copy. Let me read from Mr. Lane's memorial : 
 
 " Herewith, and as part of this memorial, is appended the original draft, authenticated, of 
 the memorial referred to, as reported by the chairman of the committee, Mr Hutchinson; 
 adopted by the general assembly; referred to the committee on revision; entrusted to your 
 memorialist, and from which the revised copy which was submitted to your honorable body 
 was prepared." 
 
 No man can doubt for a single moment that the original is a part of this memorial. The 
 memorialist states it in terms. He says " herewith, and asj art of this memorial, is appended 
 the original draft," whicii I now hold in my hand. Then what becomes of the other draft, 
 which he says is a fair transcript of the original, being a part of his memorial? You have to 
 receive that if you receive his. He says : 
 
 " With this explanation and exhibit, which your memorialist trusts will be satisfactory, he, 
 on behalf of the provisional legislative bodies of Kansas, prays you to receive again the me- 
 morial with whicli he is charged by tiiem, being the one which was submitted by General 
 Cass, and grant the prayer therein expressed, to admit Kansas into the Union with her pre- 
 sent constitution, on an equal footing with the other States." 
 
 Now, I submit to the senator from New Hampshire himself, and to every man, if we re- 
 ceive the one paper, do we not receive the others at the same time? He sets it out here, and 
 prays you to receive it. He says the original is part of his memorial. He sends the trans- 
 cript, and asks you to receive it, and grant the prayer therein contained. If you receive the 
 one I think you are bound to receive all. 
 
 Mr. TOUCF^Y. Mr. President, I think that the device which is resorted to in order to in- 
 troduce aaain the petition which was rejected on Thursday last, is not the least extraordi- 
 nary thing that has been done in reference to this subject. A memorial was presented which, 
 by an almost unanimous vote of the Senate, was virtually rejected; and after that vote of the 
 
M 
 
 Senate tfie memorial was withdrawn by the honorable senator who presented it. Now, if I 
 understand, a private gentleman has made a written request that we shall receive that memorial 
 and o-rant its prayer. Supjiose this device should succeed, and a memorial sliould be presented 
 here to-day, and rejected unanimously, and any gentleman to-morrow, outside, should pre- 
 sent a written request to the Senate that it would receive that memorial and giant its prayer. 
 According to the argument on the other side of the house the Senate is bound to receive it. 
 If it is received and referred to the committee, what is the question before the committee .' Is 
 it whether that memorial shall be received ? It is a part of the petition now presented. It is 
 a pai't of the prayer of that petition that Kansas may be admitted as a free State. 
 
 Why, sir, it is a mere evasion of the decision of the Senate by an almost unanimous vote. 
 What does Colonel Lane ask the Senate to do ? Is it anything more or less than to grant the 
 prayer of his petition, the substance of which is, that, upon re3eiving this pretended memorial 
 from the so called State of Kansas, we shall admit Kansas as a free State? It is not the me- 
 morial of the State of Kansas, or of the Territory of Kansas. If it were, I should be entirely 
 opposed to it, because it assumes that Kansas is a Slate, and is ready to be admitted into the 
 Union, when the fact is not so. 
 
 Sir, senators on the otiier side of the chamber feel oppressed by this question. When the 
 so called constitution of Kansas is presented here, they say it is a provisional constitution. 
 On looking at it, however, you find there is not a syllable in it making it a provisional con- 
 stitution. On its face it purports to be adopted by the people of the State of Kansas. The 
 convention ordered it to be submitted to the people, and they say it has been submitted to the 
 people and adopted by them. They ordered the pretended legislature elected under it t» 
 assemble on a particular day. They did assemble. Now, I say, that when gentlemen on the 
 other side of the chamber contend that this is a provisional constitution, it is the r own lan- 
 guage only. The instrument itsell is absolute and purports to overturn the existing govern- 
 ment. It is in defiance of the law of Congress ; in defiance of the constituted authorities of 
 the Territory ; and upon its face is insurrection and rebellion ag-ainst the existing govern- 
 ment. I should on that ground object entirely to this petition ; but as to treating it as the 
 petition of Colonel Lane, that he may ask that the memorial which we have rejected may be 
 received and its prayer granted, I say, it would be a mere evasion of the decision which the 
 Senate made on Thursday, when the question was fully considered. 
 
 Mr. WILSON said a separate proposition was submitted to the people of Kansas, whether 
 free negroes ought to be admitted into the State or not; but if adopted, it was not to be a 
 part of the constitution, but was to operate as instructions to the first legislature. He was 
 opposed to such a provision in any State. We consider it anti-democratic, unchristian, and 
 inhuman, a violation of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United 
 States. He said he and his friends were against the extension of slaver}'^, but not in favor of 
 interfering with it in the States. He complained of the use of the terms black republican 
 and abolitionist. Mr. Wilson said he should vote for the reception of the memorial. It 
 was imperfectly drawn, because the legislature at Topeka were in haste, and they authorized 
 Colonel Lane to revise and modify it, and he had done so; and that was the whole case. He 
 was proud that the men who stood by Andrew Jackson and the doctrines proclaimed in the 
 Senate on the Michigan question by Silas Wright, by James Buchanan, and by the chiefs of 
 the democracy, are now acting with him in regard to Kansas. He referred to the statement 
 in some of the papers that General Atchison had demanded of Mr. Douglas to introduce a 
 clause into the Nebraska bill repealing the Missouri restriction. He alluded, also, to the 
 remark of Mr. Douglas about " subduing us." He said his friends might be voted down but 
 not subdued ; they would live to fight another day. 
 
 Mr. DOUGLAS. 
 
 " He wiio fights and runs away 
 May live to fight another day." 
 
 Mr. WILSON. We shall not run away to live; we shall live to run away. He proceeded 
 to boast of the progress of abolitionism within the last quarter of a century, and predicted 
 that his friends would yet have a majority in the Senate, in 'the House, and would elect one 
 of their class to the Presidency. ^ ,, , 
 
 Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I regret that the senator from JNLTSsachusetts (Mr. 
 Wilson) should so far have forgotten wliat was due to the proprieties of the Senate, as to have 
 quoted a vile slander from the columns of a filthy newspaper, published in New York, whose 
 editor is known only as a disgrace to humanity for his mendacity and blackguardism, and 
 becomes responsible for it by its repetition here He has represented me as having said, in 
 debate, to those who difler with me on the other side of the chamber, " we will subdue you;" 
 in tlie sense that we were going to subdue by force all opponents who dilTered with us in 
 opinion on the slavery question. Every man here knows, and the published debate shows, 
 that I was speaking of tiie rebellion in Kansas, and the attempts to put the Constitution and 
 laws at defiance, when I said we will reduce you to subjection to the Constitution and laws. 
 That is what I said then, and what I am prepared to repeat here and everywhere, now and 
 at nil times If there is any disposition to taki; issue on what I did say, let those who choose 
 to try the experiment commit the overt acts of treason or rebellion, and I say to them now, 
 we will reduce you to subjection to the Copstitution and laws. I was vindicating the great 
 principles to which my life has been devoted — that th« Constitution must be respected and 
 
15 
 
 obeyed in all its parts, as the supreme law of the land ; that the supremacy of the laws must 
 be maintained ; that treason must be rebuked, and rebellion crushed, and all lawless men 
 subdued and reduced into subjection to the Constitution and laws. This is what I did say. 
 No man who heard me has any excuse to represent me otherwise. 
 
 I am aware that wiiat I did say on that occasion, as what I do and say from day to day, 
 is purposel}' misrepresented and sent abroad' to be repeated in all the abolition papers for 
 partisan advantage. The author of that falsehood has published what purports to be an ab- 
 stract of the bill which 1 reported from the Committee on Territories to enable the people of 
 Kansas to form a constitution and State government when they have the requisite popula- 
 tion, which abstract contains a falsehood in every line, with no one provision of the bill truly 
 stated. I am not in the habit of noticing these misrepresentations, and should not do so now 
 but for the fact that tiiey are repeated by a senator in my presence. I wish senators would 
 quote me as I speak, and not as their organs elsewhere may choose to report me. 
 
 The senator complains that I designate those composing the party with which he acts, 
 Black Republicans. I will tell the gentleman why I used the term. It is necessary to have 
 some distinguishing name for political parties. Some years ago, when I first came into pub- 
 lic life, there was a National Republican party in the country, and my first political speeches 
 were in opposition to the National Republicans. In the course of events new questions 
 came up, and that title was changed to the name of Whig. Since the dismemberment of 
 the Whig party, that portion of its adherents who have abandoned its principles and become 
 Abolitionists, have formed a coalition or fusion with all the other isms of the day, under the 
 name of the " Republic.'vn Party." They no longer claim to be national men, and hence 
 drop the word " national" as a prefix to the name Republican. 
 
 There was a good reason for omitting the word " national" as a part of their name. The 
 old national republican party, of which Clay and Webster were the distinguished leaders, 
 held tiiat the Constitution was the supreme law of the republic, and should be obeyed as 
 such with equal fidelity in all its provisions. They proclaimed and advocated national prin- 
 ciples upon the subject of banks, finance, revenue, public lands, and upon all questions of a 
 public nature. They proclaimed -their principles alike in the north and the south, in the 
 east and the west, wherever the Constitution reigned; whether their measures were expedi- 
 ent it is not now necessary to inquire; it is sufficient to show that their creed was national 
 and uniform. This new republican party has abandoned the creed as well as the name of the 
 old one, so far as it relates to its nationality. The new creed abjures and ignores every ques- 
 tion which has for its object the welfare and happiness of the white man — every question 
 which does not propose to put the negro on an equality with the white man, politically and 
 socially. It is a purely sectional party, with a platform which cannot cross the Ohio river, 
 and a creed which inevitably brings the north and the south — the free and slave States — into 
 iostile collision. What are the objects to which they stand pledged ? 
 
 First, no more slave States. 
 
 Second, the repeal of the fugitive slave law. 
 
 Third, the abolition of the slave trade between the States. 
 
 Fourth, the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia. 
 
 Fifth, the restoration of the Missouri compromise. 
 
 Sixth, no more territory to be acquired unless slavery is first prohibited. , 
 
 Every plank in their platform rests on a black basis — every clause relates to the negro— 
 and hence consistency requires that the word " black" should be substituted for the word 
 "national," in the name of this new " republican party." I wish to call things by their 
 right names — the name should be significant of the nature and object of the organization. 
 For these reasons the whole country seem, by common consent, to recognize the propriety of 
 calling this new party the " black republican party." 
 
 Mr. WILSON. I hope the senator will allow me to interrupt him. 
 
 Mr. DOUGLAS. Certainly. 
 
 Mr. WILSON. The senator says our principles are sectional, and that none of us dare 
 advocate them in portions of the Union — in the slave States. I will say to the senator that 
 last Friday evening I addressed a large meeting in the city hall, in Wilmington, Delaware, 
 with the city hall p°acked and crowded, and the doctrines of the republican party were laid 
 down fairly and squarely, and generally assented to. We claim that our principles are 
 national, and we shall advocate tliem in every section of this Union. 
 
 Mr. DOUGLAS. I trust we shall find in the south that they will avow them as explicitly 
 and boldly as they do in the north. There is no question but that I have stated their plat- 
 form truly, as laid down when they organized their party. The senator says now there shall 
 be no dodging of the issue ; that the question shall be met boldly and fairly. I trust it will 
 thus be met. ° I am in favor of coining directly to the issue. The Nebraska bill contains, in 
 substance, a negative on each and all of their propositions. It affirms the equality of the 
 States. It declares the right of each State to come into the Union, with or without slavery, 
 as it pleases, in opposition'^to their doctrine of "no more slave States." It declares the prin- 
 ciple of non-intervention. It incorporites the principle of the fugitive slave law in tlte act. 
 It declares, in substance, the negative of each of their issues. Where their issues are not 
 embraced in the Nebraska bill, we accept the negative of them. We want to see them come 
 to the very points in dispute ; and when you tell us that there shall be no wavering on 
 your part, give us some proof of it by your acts. By the fusion or coalition of abolitionism, 
 
16 
 
 freesoilism, and know-notliingism, under the name of anti-Nebraskaism in the northern 
 States, 3'oii have formed this black repubhcan party. No man knows belter the nature and the 
 extent of the fusion and coahtion between northern know-notliingismand frcesoil and aboli- 
 tionism, than the senator from Massachusetts. He has enjoyed all its advantages and honors, 
 and incurred all its responsibilities. It was that amalgamation which brouglit him into this 
 chamber, and carried an anti-Nebraska majority into the House of Representatives. 
 
 It has been a matter of boast to-day, that you have increased the other side of the chamber 
 and thinned this a little. In every case it was tlie result of a coalition between abolitionism 
 and northern know-nolhingism that supplied the recruits of which you now boast. In the 
 House of Representatives, where you got a majority on pledges to repeal the fugitive slave 
 law, have you a man there who has dared to bring forward a bill to redeem the pledge ? You 
 promised to restore the Missouri compromise ; have you a man there with courage to bring 
 forward a bill to redeem the pledge ? You promised that you would prohibit slavery in the 
 District of Columbia ; where is your bill to redeem the pledge ? You promised to abolish the 
 slave trade between the States ; where is the bill to redeem that pledge t 
 
 I told you the other day that rumor said you had determined that it was not safe, in view 
 of the presidential election, to hazard these issues by redeeming your pledges and carrying 
 out your principles. I have received no answer on that point. It suits your policy better to 
 talk about dodging issues than it does to pass your bills to redeem your pledges. You have 
 the affirmative. Bring forward your measures. We accept your issues. You have got 
 your organization You have got your speaker, who is both a freesoiler and a know-nothing, 
 and thus represents your party exactly. If he is not now a know-nothing, he certainly was 
 one when he was elected. Perhaps you change names so often that I may not be correct in 
 the name ; but it is well known that he made the first know-nothing speech ever made in the 
 House of Representatives. You have got committees of your own appointing. Why not 
 bring forward your measures ? 
 
 Mr. WADE. If the gentleman will allow me, I will say that I believe there is a bill now 
 
 fending in the other House to apply the Jefferson proviso to the territory south of 36° SO*. 
 n due season you will see one after another of our measures as fast as you will want to take 
 them. 
 
 Mr. DOUGLAS. Is that what you call redeeming your pledges.' Your pledge was to re- 
 store the Missouri compromise line, which did not prohibit slavery south of 36° 30' : but the 
 way you redeem your pledge is by bringing forward a bill to do precisely what you said you 
 would not do, and omit to do precisely what you said you would do. Is that the way to re- 
 deem your pledges ? A prohibition of slavery south of the line is a violation of your com- 
 promise. You bring that proposition in lieu of the redemption of your pledge until after the 
 election. I ask you to bring forward your bills to redeem your pledges. If the Missouri 
 compromise was a sacred compact, as you have asserted — if its repeal was a violation of a 
 compact, and if faith and honor require that it should be restored, bring forward your bill to 
 restore it. 
 
 Mr. President, I do not intend to prolong this debate. I wish to bring these gentlemen to 
 the test. When they taunt us with being cut down, one by one, gradually but certainly 
 diminishing until we shall have been swept away, all we ask of you is to bring your men up 
 to the line ; stand up to your principles ; redeem your pledges You need not trouble your- 
 selves about finding a man as the standard-bearer on our side, who is not thoroughly com- 
 mitted to our creed on all points. You need not fear that our candidate will not stand firmly 
 and immovably upon the Nebraska bill. You need not have any fear that he will not take 
 issue with you on every one of the points which you tender — " no more slave States," *' the 
 repeal of the fugitive slave law," " the abolition of the slave trade between tiie States," and 
 " the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia." Upon each and all of them you need 
 have no fear that our candidate will not stand firmly, immovably and unequivocally, upon 
 the democratic platform. 
 
 Give us a man for your standard-bearer who is in like manner identified with your side of 
 each of these issues. Do not take a man uncommitted, with the hope of getting votes from 
 both sides, and then cheating somebody. Why point to the deserters from the democratic 
 ranks who have become vour leaders, as evidence that you are democrats? You might as 
 well talk of the Christianity of Omer Pasha because he was a Christian before he apostatized 
 and turned Turis. By this pretension you confess that you are in the wrong. You claim as 
 a merit that the deserters from our ranks to yours were once as pure and patriotic as we now 
 are. I wisli to understand the precise position Does the merit consist in the fact tliat you 
 were once democrats? Or does it consist in the fact that you have since betrayed your party 
 and your principles? Is it the democrac)' which you once had, but have since lost, or is it 
 the desertion, wiiicli constitutes your high claims to popular favor? It seems, even now, 
 that you are more proud of what you once were than what you now are. 
 
 Tliat is the argument. I was in iiopos tiiat you had faith enough in the justice of your own 
 cause and consciousness of its strength and inherent truth, to be able to stand upon that, and 
 to make it a matter of pride and boast, as the senator from New York did the other day, 
 when he said he was an abolitionist. Tho senator, however, gave us an illustration which, 
 perhaps, may be satisfiictory to him, hut I aiii afraid will not be entirely so to all the members 
 of his party. He reminded us that, while it took Christianity three centuries to be recognized 
 by the princes of Europe, and while he argued that abolitionism was as certain to triumph as 
 
17 
 
 Christianity, yet this was but the first century of abolitionism. Allow me to tell the senator 
 from New York, that he disappointed the expectations of some of iiis followers, when he 
 intimated to them tiiat they must wait two hundred years longer before they triumphed and 
 got possession of thespoils ofgovernment. [Laughter.] Ifth'senator is aimingatthe reputation 
 of being a martyr to his cause, I think he is adopting the proper course; and when I am sure 
 it is only at the honorsof martyrdom that he is aiming, I shall be better reconciled to his position. 
 Altliouirh I have no ambition to be considered a martyr, I have respect for those who cherish 
 such a hope: and I wish all these modern martyrs to remember that it is a fundamental prin- 
 ciple of martyrdom, that no man shall seek his reward until two hundred years after his 
 death ! [Laughter.] 
 
 In that sense tlie senator from New York did not object to be called an abolitionist. He 
 was looking to tiie honors of martydom, and fancying to himself how much he should enjoy 
 them at the time when they should be thrown upon him; but the senator from Massachusetts 
 seems to claim that they are to reap their reward now. I like that mode of fighting better. 
 
 Let us have a fair issue now — an issue on principles and on men. Let there be no endea- 
 vor to cover up the main issues under the irregularities which may have occurred at the 
 election in Kansas. Let there be no equivocation upon the plea of disturbances of a tempo- 
 rary character that may have arisen here and there ; but give us an issue on the great undying 
 principles involved in the contest — the equality of the States — the right of self-government 
 everywhere under the Constitution — the right of each State to come into the Union, with 
 slavery or without it, as it pleases — the right of the citizens of each State holding slaves to 
 insist upon the return of fugitives, in obedience to the Constitution — the right of every nnan to 
 enjoy every piivilege, and insist upon the fulfilment of every obligation conferred or imposed 
 by the Constitution. 
 
 Again, let us have no equivocation in meeting the issue, whether a clause in the constitu- 
 of a new State, directing the legislature to pass a particular law, is to be called a constitutional 
 provision, or by some other name. The senator from Massachusetts tells us (following the 
 lead of the senator from New York the other day) that he is opposed to that clause which 
 declares that a free negro shall never go into the new State of Kansas. He does not deny but 
 that there was a provision submitted for decision at the time when the constitution was 
 adopted, whether negroes should be admitted to ^o there or not, and it was decided in the 
 negative by those who voted at that election. He does not deny, therefore, but that that 
 clause becomes a part of the constitution of Kansas in the event that Kansas is admitted with 
 the Topeka constitution. But, he says, that clause is a barbarous provision, and he would 
 like to know my opinion of it. I gave my opinion the other day. I stated that Illinois had 
 a similar clause in her constitution ; she had a right to put it there; it was our business, and 
 not yours; and if Massachusetts does not like it let her do as she pleases within her own limits^ 
 so that she does not violate the Constitution of the United States. We do not believe in the 
 equality of the negro, socially or politically, with the white man. You may practice it, but 
 do not try to force the negro on an equality with us in our State Our people are a white 
 people; our State is a white State; and we mean to preserve the race pure, without any mixture 
 with the negro. If you wish your blood and that of the African mingled in the same channel, 
 we trust that you will keep at a respectful distance from us, and not try to force that on us as 
 one of your domestic institutions. [Laughter, and applause in the galleries.] 
 
 Now, sir, I am willing that the people of Kansas shall decide that question for themselves,, 
 as they will have a right to do when they form their constitution. I hold that it is their right 
 to do as they please, so that they do not violate tlie Constitution of the United States, and to 
 come into the Union with such a constitution as they please. You say no. You say it is your 
 right and duty, under the Constitution of the United States, to inspect the constitution of 
 Kansas; and if you find slavery there, or any other obnoxious provision which creates an 
 inequality between the negro and the white man, you will vote to exclude such State. 
 
 When 3'ou look into the constitution of Kansas, you find a provision standing as a per- 
 petual instruction to the legislature, in all time to come, -commanding that le;:islature never 
 to allow the negro to tread the soil, or breathe the air of Kansas. By your doctrine, you 
 are responsible for it. Abandon j'our abolition notions that you are to fix the local and 
 domestic institutions of a new State, instead of leaving it to the people to do so, and you 
 will have no difficulty. Hence I say, give us a fair issue in this campaign that shall settle 
 the question forever between the true principles of the Constitution — the equality of the 
 States, the right of each State to manage its own aftairs — non-interference with slavery on 
 the one side, and slavery agitation and foreign interference on the other. We are not aiming 
 at a triumph on immaterial side issues. What we want is, to bury abolitionism, with all its 
 allies, in a coiinnon grave at this election, and thereby restore peace and quiet and good order 
 to a constitution-loving people. That is tlie kind of issue which we desire you to give us — 
 an open one on principle, with men identified witii the platforms. 
 
 The senator from Massachusetts has referred 1o that stale abolition libel that Senator 
 Atchison said he had given me twenty-four hours to say whether I would bring in the Ne- 
 braska bill, or resign to him the chairmanship of the Committee on Territories. That is a 
 vile abolition libel. General Atchison has on more than ore occasion denounced it as a 
 libel. I tims brand it here as being without a shadow of truth You know, Mr. President, 
 (referring to Mr. Bright, in the chair,) that that bill was prepared before any southern man 
 was consulted, and that vou, together with another nortliwestern senator, were the first who- 
 i 
 
IS 
 
 were consulted on tlie subject. Then, after you had indorsed it, as I take pleasure in saying 
 you did, promptly and fearlessly, we consulted our southern friends. I trust, therefore, 
 that I have put an end to that foul slander, invented for partisan and malicious purposes, 
 and which lias heen repeated so kften and so wide spread over the whole country. 
 
 The senator from Georgia (Mr Toombs) has been representei as being the author of the 
 bill, and the man who dragooned me into bringing forward that bill. The New York 
 Evening Post, whi'h tlie senator from Massacliusetts (Mr. Wilson) quotes with so much 
 admiration, lias said a liundred times that " Mr. Toombs, of Georgia, was the man that 
 stood over Mr. Douglas, and forced him to bring it in," when tlie senator from Georgia 
 knows that, up to that time, he had never planted his foot in the Senate, and did not arrive 
 in the city until after the bill was prepared and introduced- 
 
 Mr. TOOMBS. That is true. 
 
 Mr. DOUGLAS. He was not here, and never set eyes on me nor I on him, nor exchanged 
 a word with me, directly or indirectly, until tlie thing was done, and he came here to engage 
 in fighting the great battle. So it is with these other things. I have failed to notice them 
 before, for the reason that I had such a contempt for this sj'stem of making side issues. 
 Heretofore I have not noticed such charges; but when they are thrust in my face in the 
 Senate, I feel it to be my duty to repel them, on the supposition that they have acquired 
 dignity enough hy being repeated here to justify me in noticing them. I am not in the habit 
 of noticing the many misrepresentations and assaults which are made on me. i am willing 
 to trust my character and reputation on the result of the great principles involved, and upon 
 the judgment that shall be pronounced on them when passion shall have passed 'away, and 
 the sober reason of the country shall have returned. 
 
 Mr. WILSON, in reply, read what purported to be a report of a speech of General Atchi- 
 son, in the " Parkville Luminary," in which he was reported as speaking harshly of Messrs. 
 Bell and Houston, 
 
 Mr. RUSK. The senator has made a declaration in regard to my colleague which, in his 
 absence, I desire to correct He says that General Atchison made a speech, in which he de- 
 nounced my colleague. That is amistake. There was a false or erroneous report ina news- 
 paper, purporting to be what General Atchison had said, that did reflect on my colleague and 
 the senator from Tennessee. General Atchison, as soon as he saw the erroneous report of 
 his speech, wrote a letter promptly correcting it, and stated what he did say, in which there 
 was no denunciation of the senator from Tennessee, (Mr. Bell,) orof my colleague. 1 have 
 known Gen. Atchison for a longtime, and I am sure he would not state what was not true. He 
 told me that he made no such charges against them; he had previously sent me a paper con- 
 taining the correction of the errors in the false report of his speech, made by some one no 
 doubt for the purpose of raising mischief. The senator from Massachusetts has fallen into 
 another error, wliich I may as well correct now. He says that, at the session of 1853, Gen. 
 Atchison came into this body, and directed that the first Nebraska bill should be defeated. 
 He represents all of us here as having obeyed this great chieftain. His statement is incorrect. 
 On the contrary. General Atchison supported and sustained that bill. I had almost a per- 
 sonal quarrel with him and the senator from Illinois in regard to it. I opposed that bill for 
 various reasons, which will be found spread on the records at the time. I asked that the bill 
 should not be taken up when I was absent. It came here at the last hours of the session of 
 18.53, while I was out on a committee of conference. I asked the senator from Illinois and 
 General Atchison not to allow the bill to be taken up in my absence. I came back from a 
 committee of conference, and found the hill under discussion. 
 
 Mr. DOUGLAS The discussion was on a motion to take it up. The bill was not taken 
 up in the Senate. 
 
 Mr. RUSK. I believe the senator is correct. I felt indignant; and I charged both the 
 senator from Illinois and General Atchison with acting in bad faith towards me; strong words 
 passed belweeen us; but I found I was in error; both had acted fairly towards me in tlie mat- 
 ter. To show General Atchison's. position I will appeal to the record. I will read it to the 
 senator from Mussachusetts, so that he may correct his recollection on the subject. At page 
 321, of the Senate journal for the second session of the thirty-second Congress, this will be 
 found : 
 
 " On motion by Mr. Douglas that the Senate proceed to consider the bill (H. R No. 3.53) 
 to organize the Territory of Nebraska — 
 
 " A motion was made by Mr. Borland that it lie on tlie table ; and it was determined in 
 •the afFirmative — yeas 23, nays 17. 
 
 "On motion by Mr. Wiclleu, the yeas and nays being desired by one-fifth of the Senate 
 present, those who voted in tlie affirmative are : 
 
 " Messrs. Adams, Bayard, Bell, Borland, * * * Houston, * » » Rusk. *■ » * 
 
 " Those who voted in the negative are : 
 
 " Messrs. Atchison, Bright, Cooper, Dodge, of Wisconsin, Dodge, of Iowa, Douglas," &c. 
 
 I merely wished to correct the senator from Massachusetts. 
 
 Mr. WILSON spoke of his willingness to meet the issue on the Kansas question, and 
 said : 
 
 The honorable senator wishes the issue distinctly made. He will have the issue as distinct 
 as he can desire. We will make our own platform. We do not allow that senator to make 
 it for us, or define it for us. We sliall make it for ourselves ; and, as he says, we will nomi- 
 
19 
 
 nate a candidate committed, fully committed, to its doctrines. If we fail, we will cheerfully 
 submit ; if we triumph, we shall embrace in our policy the whole country, and guard the 
 rights of every section of our common country. Threats have been thrown out that, if the 
 " black republicans " triumjjh in 1856, the Union will be dissolved. Sir, we heard these idle 
 threats when the election ol Sjieaker was pendirij in the other House ; but, when the contest 
 closeil by tlie election of the "black republican" from Massacliusetts, his chivalrous competi- 
 tor from South Carolina, claimed the honor of escorting him to the chair. Sir, you cannot 
 kick out of the Union the men who utter these impotent threats. They know the words of 
 the brilliant Sheridan are true, that — 
 
 " Out of oppression is squeezed retribution ; " 
 that " wherever the heel of oppression is raised, trodden misery springs up and glares around 
 for vengeance." They know that they live in a section of this Union where there are nearly 
 four millions of an oppressed race ; that there is not a mother in the south who would not 
 clasp her babe closer to her bosom if she believed this Union would be dissolved. The men 
 who fling out these idle threats know that they sleep peacefully at night because the Union 
 does stand, and they have the power of this government to protect them. 
 
 Mr. STUART. Mr. President, nominally, the Senate is engaged in the consideration of 
 one of the most important questions which was ever addressed to it in tlie exercise of its 
 duties — that is, the question of receiving a petition. Upon that question I have settled con- 
 victions, undisturbed, I think, by any argument that can be addressed to me ; and they are 
 simply these : that if a petition comes from anybody, addressed in respectful terms, in rela- 
 tion to a subject which is or can be under discussion in the Senate, 1 will receive it, and treat 
 it with all proper respect. Applying that doctrine to this case, if any man, or any set of 
 men, in the Territory of Kansas, representing themselves as they choose, should address a 
 petition to this body of the character I have just described, my vote would be to receive it,, 
 to give it its appropriate reference, and to endeavor to pass upon it a respectful and sound 
 judgment. But, Mr. President, it is obvious that this is what I denominated it when I rose, 
 but the nominal question before the Senate. 
 
 Five hours and more I have sat here to-day, in the vain hope that this great question 
 would be brought to an issue ; but the memorial has not even been read at your desk. 
 
 Now, Mr. President, is any man so blind as not to see the reason of this movement.'' Is 
 any man so blind as not to see its consequences.' This subject occupied all day on Thursday 
 last. It was discussed in every point of view ; and what was the result ? Why, sir, an illus- 
 tration of the suggestion of the honorable senator from Massachusetts, who has just taken his 
 seat, that — 
 
 " He who fights and runs away. 
 May live to fight another day ! " 
 
 But three votes were found sustaining the position that was taken, and the vote of that 
 honorable senator was not among the number. Therefore, he lives to fight another day. 
 [Laughter.] Now, what in fact is the question.' 
 
 Mr. SUMNER. I hope tiie senator will allow me to interrupt him. 
 
 Mr. STUART. Certainly. 
 
 Mr. SUMNER. I do not observe my colleague in his seat at this moment, and therefore 
 I reply for him that he was absent from the city on that day. 
 
 Mr. STUART. I watched that proceeding ; it is not a new one. If 1 speak somewhat- 
 strongly I hope I shall be excused, for I belong to that portion of the Senate who desire to 
 do business. What is the history of to day .' I wish it recorded so that the people of the 
 United States may look at it when they choose. There has not been an opportunity to offer 
 a memorial or to make a report. The special orders which involve the interests of the 
 country have been postponed — for what? To be enlightened on tiie right of petition.' To- 
 investigate the subject that is presented to the Senate in the memorial now asked to be 
 received.' Not at all ; but to endeavor to do what the senator from Massachusetts says his- 
 party are going to do — to seize the reins of government. Yes, sir ; this delicate subject, 
 upon which the people in various sections of the Union are so sensitive ; this one which 
 ought to be abjured from consideration at any and at all times, except when it demands 
 serious and respectful legislation, is thrust in here and seized with the avidity with which 
 hungry hounds seize a carcass — for what purpose.' That certain gentlemen may raise into 
 power because of their sj'mpathy for the black man .' None of it. Because of a desire to 
 interfere with slavery in the State.-i.' That is denied. Is it to secure quiet m Kansas.' It is 
 the last object desired. What then, sir? Why, the Senate of the United States is turned 
 into a theatre, exciting applause from the galleries, that a party may ride into power ; and 
 that, too, by making a bantling of the most delicate subject that exists under our insti- 
 tutions. 
 
 At proper times, upon proper occasions, before the peojile, in elementary moetinqjs, I have 
 sometimes discussed this question ; I expect to do it again — never, sir, to raise the hydra- 
 headed form of agitation. This question I have not discussed in the Senate of the United 
 States ; I will discuss it, whenever there shall be a legitimate subject for discussion before us, 
 to the extent of my ability ; but that discussion shall be for peace, for harmony. If I were 
 clothed with the power to sprend over the Territory of Kansas the mantle of peace, and 
 quiet, and harmony, until it should react on the State.<! of this Union, 1 would consider 
 
20 
 
 -prouder day than to occupy a position in the While House. He who has no aspirations 
 above the paltry feeling of power, and is willing to attain that power by hazarding the 
 interests of thirty millions of free people, has an ambition that I desire not to imitate. 
 
 Sir, is not the iiistory of this day one whicii ought to arrest the attention of the Senate 
 and of tlie country.' Every senator was ready to give his vote on this question within five 
 minutes after it was presented. But we have had a biography of Colonel Lane; we have 
 had the history of the cam'paigns in which he has been engaged, both political and warlike, 
 in the country; we have had everything here except a vote on tiie question. It is — not 
 humiliating, because that would be a term which would be improper -to use in the Senate; 
 but it grieves me to see the business of the country — that business which demands action — 
 thrust aside, day after day, that the wheel may turn and this old subject be drawn into tiie 
 arena to be kicked and cuffed for five or si.x long hours. What good can grow out of it.' 
 None. Is any expected.' None. Is any desired.' I am afraid not, sir — I am afraid not. 
 I would rather see a remark made years ago by my distinguidied colleague have full force 
 here, and throughout this country, that the subject to which the honorable senator from 
 Massachusetts referred, tlie dissolution of this Union, should be an unspeakable phrase. I 
 would join heartily in that other remark of his, and I would ask that every man should 
 cling to the Constitution as the wrecked mariner to the last plank, v/hen night and the tem- 
 pest surround him. Sir, if there be a man tliat can utter, against north or south, a senti- 
 ment even indicating that that section cannot be kicked out of the Union, I beg liim to 
 reserve that sentiment for some place otlier than the Senate of the United States. 
 
 Mr. WILSON. Will the senator from Michigan allow me to ask him a question.' 
 
 Mr. STUART. Certainly. 
 
 Mr. WILSON. Did the senator understand that I said that the south could not be kicked 
 out of the Union .' 
 
 Mr. STUART. I did. 
 
 Mr. WELLER and others. Certainly. 
 
 Mr. WILSON. I made no such declaration. I said that those gentlemen who made the 
 threats to which I alluded could not be kicked out of the Union; that men who threatened 
 that they would dissolve the Union if a certain party should obtain power, could not be 
 kicked out of the Union. I believe we shall never have any trouble about kicking any sec- 
 tion or State out of this Union. 
 
 Mr. STUART. I cannot consent to repeat all the language which the senator used on 
 that subject. So far as he has repeated it, he is correct ; but he cannot forget that he con- 
 nected with it certain other remarks which gave it a locality. But, sir, I repeat what I said 
 before, I care not to what section of the country it is addressed, or to what man in any sec- 
 tion of the Union, I am happy to believe that the people are for maintaining it in its integrity, 
 and if they are ever driven from their position, it will be by accidental!)' placing men in 
 position who say things and do things so tantalizing as to drive others jnad. 
 
 Now, Mr. President, I am anxious to get rid of this suliject. I am desirous that the legis- 
 lation of the country shall proceed, and I will join with my fellow senators here in any 
 amount of labor to facilitate the legislation of the country; and, if the Senate believe it will 
 answer their purpose as well, I should like to move to lay this whole subject on the table. 
 
 Mr. CLAYTON and others. Certainly ; we will agree to that. 
 
 Mr. STUART. I think it will essentially carry out our views, and in it we shall say that 
 by taking this bantling away from here on Thursday last, and giving it a new shape without 
 its living long enough to get any feathers on it, has not at all helped the question ; that it is 
 no such subject as this individual has a right here to present. I move, therefore, to lay the 
 motion to receive the petition on the table. 
 
 The PRESIDENT. That motion is in order. 
 
 Mr. II.\RLAN addressed the chair. 
 
 The PRESIDENT. The question is not debatable. 
 
 Mr. SUMNER. I call for the yeas and nays. 
 
 The yeas and nays were ordered; and being taken resulted — yeas 30, nays 11 ; as follows : 
 
 YEAS — Messrs. Adams, Allen, Benjamin, Biggs, Bigler, Bright, Brown, Butler, Cass, 
 Clayton, Dodge, Douglas, Evans, Fitzpatrick, Hunter, Iverson, James, Jones of Iowa, Jones 
 of Tennessee, Pugh, Reid, Rusk, Sebastian, Slidell, Stuart, Toombs, Toucey, Weller, 
 Wright, and Yulee— 30. 
 
 N.\YS — Messrs. Collamer, Durkee, Foot, Hale, Hamlin, Harlan, Seward, Sumner, Trum- 
 '•bull, Wade, and Wilson — 11. 
 
 So the motion to receive the petition was ordered to lie on the table. 
 
21 
 
 From the Washington Union of April 2C. 
 THE DOUGLAS AND LANE COURESPONDENCE. 
 
 The false rumors which liave bewi put afloat in regard to an alleged correspondence be- 
 tween Colonel Lane and Judge Douglas in relation to the debate on tlie spurious Kansas 
 momorial, have induced several of Judge Douglas' friends to ask his consent to give the cor- 
 respondence publicity. The letters will be found in our paper this morning ; and we risk 
 nothing in saying that Judge Douglas' letter places Colonel Lane in a worse predicament 
 even than he was in before. We observe, by the New York Times which reached us last 
 night, that Colonel Lane has published a card in that paper of yesterday, in which he intro- 
 duces his own letter to Judge Douglas, with the e.xception of the concluding sentence, but 
 fails to accompany it with Judge Douglas' reply, tie undertakes to give the points of Judge 
 Douglas' reply, but he does it so imperfectly that it i's grossly unjust. Without dwelling on 
 the card of Colonel Lane, we deem it due to Judge Douglas to say, upon authority, tiiat the 
 statements that when Colonel Lane's letter was handed to Judge Douglas he ^^ asked xmtil 
 one o'clock to reply, whiek leas granted," and that " he then asked until four o'clock, and 
 afterwards until Monday," which were "cheerfully granted," are a total perversion and 
 misrepresentation of the facts. Judge Douglas asked no time to reply, and none was granted. 
 When Mr. "Watson called on Saturday and delivered Colonel Lane's letter Judge Douglas 
 had company, and he informed Mr. Watson that he would be ready to reply in an hour or 
 two, which would be one o'clock. Mr. Watson said lie would be engaged for several hours, 
 and probably until four o'clock Judge Douglas then fixed four o'clock for his replj'. After 
 his company left he read the letter, and found that it would take more time than until four 
 o'clock to make such a reply as his judgment dictated as proper. He immediately requested 
 Colonel Orr to see Mr. Watson, and notify him that his reply would be made on Monday 
 morning. Colonel Orr, not finding Mr. Watson, left a note for him giving the notice. 
 These are substantially the facts, and they show how grossly Colonel Lane has perverted and 
 misstated them : 
 
 CORRESPONDENCE. 
 
 House of Rkpiiesentatives, J3pril 25, 1856. 
 
 Sir : You will please publisli the enclosed correspondence. The letter of Judge Douglas 
 to Hon. C. K. Watson «;is delivered by me to him on Monday last. After reading it, Mr. 
 Watson said to me, verbiilly, that he was not aware, when he delivered Colonel Lane's note, 
 that it could be construeil as hostile in its character, and that it was his determination not to 
 prosecute further the i-oriospondence. 
 
 It is due to Mr. Waison to say that his manner and conversation in relation to this matter 
 have been courteous luid friendly, holding that no rule or technicality should induce him to 
 do anything that iiis judoment could not approve. This met the api)roval of my own judg- 
 ment. 
 
 Verv respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 JOSEPH LANE. 
 
 Editor Union 
 
 Washivgton Citt, .,ipril 25, 1856. 
 
 De.\r Sn; : It has been announced in the newspapers that a hostile message had been sent 
 "to you by '^'olonel James H. Lane, of Ivansas 7'erritory, and your course in regard to that 
 matter has been most grossly misrepresented. VVe, as friends whom you consulted, and who 
 advised tiie course which you pursued on that occasion, request your permission to publish 
 the correspondence now in our hands, in order llu't ihc facts may be understood. 
 Very truly, your obedient servants, 
 
 R TOOMBS, 
 JOHN a. WELLER, 
 J. D. BRIGHT, 
 JAMES L. ORR, 
 JOSEPH LANE. 
 Hen. S. A. Douglas. 
 
 Washington, ^pril 25, 1856. 
 Gentlemen : In reply to your note of this date, I take pleasure in saying that you have 
 •my permission to make such disposition of the correspondence referred to as you may think 
 •the circumstances require. 
 
 Very truly your friend, S. A. DOUGLAS. 
 
 Messrs. R.Toombs, J. B. Weller, J. D. Bright, J. L. Orr, Joseph Lane. 
 
22 
 
 Washington, D. C, ^pril 18, 1856. 
 
 Sir : One day last week I placed in the hands of General Cass, with a request to lay it 
 before the Senate, the memorial of the genera! assembly of Kansas, praying for her admis- 
 sion into the Union as a sovereign State. I gave that direction to the memorial from the 
 fact that the convention which framed the constitution of Kansas, with great unanimity, had 
 before selected General Cass as the medium by which to present the constitution to the 
 Senate, deeming him, on account of seniority, the more proper person to introduce into the 
 new applicant. 
 
 On Thursday of that week t'-.at memorial was the subject of severe criticism, and in con- 
 nexion with it charges of the most grave character were preferred against me. 
 
 On Monday last in a paper read in your hearing and by yours, I frankly avowed myself 
 the reviser of that memorial ; stated distinctly that it was prepared under my direction, in 
 conformity with the authority vested in me; that no human being was consulted in the prepa- 
 ration of it, the instructions of my principals faithfully carried out : the explanation was as 
 full as the avowal was frank, nothing being withheld. After this, in connexion with the 
 memorial, you repeat the charge in a form much more objectionable than before. Believino-, 
 as I do, that neither the Constitution of the United States nor the rules of the Senate were 
 intended to justify or sanction so gross an attack upon the character of an American citizen, 
 I respectfully ask for such an explanation of 3'our language upon that occasion as will remove 
 all imputation upon the integrity of my action or motives in connexion with that memorial. 
 
 When you are reminded that although ] have a certificate of election to a seat in the body 
 of which you are a member, and so far your peer, yet I am not permitted to speak in my 
 own defence ; when you are reminded of the friendship, personal as well as political, which 
 has heretofore existed between us ; that I came here your friend confidently expecting to find 
 you on the Kansas application where you stood in '44 on the Texas question, in '50 on the 
 California question, in favor of recognizing the people's government, and extending over 
 American citizens the protecting arm of the general government, I feel confident you will, 
 without hesitation, tender the explanation requested, and thereby render a simple act of 
 justice toward one who has faithfully discharged his duty to his constituents in all the rela- 
 tions which have given rise to the existing controversy. 
 
 My friend, Hon. C. R. Watson, will deliver this to you and receive your answer. 
 Respectfully, 
 
 u o . r. J- H. LANE. 
 
 Hon Stephen A. Douglas, Washington city. 
 
 Saturday, .^;3ri/ 19, 1856. 
 
 Sir : I have e-^tamined the letter signed by your friend, James H. Lane, which you placed 
 m my hands to-day, and will now give you my reasons for responding to you as its bearer, 
 instead of him as its author. 
 
 The letter is so equivocal in terms, and portions of it so irreconcilable with other portions, 
 that It IS impossible to determine, with any certainty, whether it is intended as a hostile mes- 
 sage or a friendly note. It is true that the city is full of rumors that your friend. Colonel 
 Lane, intended to challenge me, and the letter-writers for -those newspapers in the eastern 
 cities most friendly to the revolutionary movements in Kansas and most hostile to myself not 
 only announced the fact some three or four days ago, but actually fixed the time when your 
 friend intended to send the hostile message. The object of your friend in causino- his inten- 
 tions to be made known to the world and published in the newspapers is not fo" me to ex- 
 plain, when he and every one must have known that the eff"ect would inevitably be to have 
 both parties arrested the moment he succeeded in making the public believe that he intended 
 to invite a hostile meeting. 
 
 • '"J'''f ^'^^'°""' Intelligencer of this morning I find a "Card," published by your friend, 
 in which he attempts to assail me personally, and to raise a question of veracity between us 
 upon a point in reference to whicii he admits, and affirmatively asserts, the truth of my state- 
 ment, but denies that he gave me or any other person a "shadow oC aulliorilii for making any 
 such statement." Having selected his tribunal and removed his complaint from the jurisdic- 
 tion to which public letter-writers in his confidence had declared he would bring it. and ap- 
 pealed to the public througli tiie columns of the newspaper press, he is at liberty to prosecute 
 It in that forum as long as he pleases. Since the publication of this "Card " in the news- 
 papers, your friend, in a letter of which you are the bearer, and in which you are desio-nated 
 as his friend to receive my answer, referring to the debate on Monday last in the United 
 St-itcs Senate on the fraudulent memorial of the spurious legislature of Kansas, makes the 
 following request of mo: " I respectfully ask for such an explanation of your language upon 
 that ocrasif.n as will remove all imputation upon the integrity of my action or' motives in 
 connexion with that memorial." 
 
 The reasons assigned for calling upon me to vindicate "the integrity of his action and 
 motives 111 connexion with that memorial" are, that "on Thursday of that week {the toeek 
 inevioiis to the debate of which he noiv complains) that memorial was the subject of severe 
 
23 
 
 criticism, and in connexion with it charges of the most guave character were pre- 
 ferred AGAINST ME," [jour fiicnd. Colonel Lane.] It is not pretended that I made tliose 
 charges against him in that debate. The published debate shows that " on Tiiursday of that 
 weeli" no less than three or four senators did denounce that memorial as " an impudent 
 forgery, attempted to be palmed otf upon the Senate of the United States, through the 
 hands of the venerable senator from Michigan ;" as " a paper whicli has readied the Senate 
 through fruud, wliicli has stamped upon it every mark of forgery ;" as "a forgery whicli 
 has been palmed off on the Senate ;" and various other denunciations of a like character, 
 all tending to stamp the memorial with fraud and forgery. T did not endorse these srave 
 charges, on the one hand, nor repel them, on the other, for the reason that while all the 
 facts then known to the Senate seemed to justify a strong suspicion, and, indeed, raise the 
 presumption, tiiat they were true, yet the circumstances were not sucli as to render it my 
 duty to do more than to reject tlie memorial upon the facts disclosed in the debate. In fact, 
 I followed the lead of tlie illustrious senator from Michigan, who presented the memorial 
 under the impression that it was a genuine paper b'' expressmg a willingness to vote for his 
 motion to print, as a matter of courtesy to liim, so long as it involved no other consideration 
 than the amount of money which the printing would cost. But when its reception and 
 printing become the test of a principle which was to recognize and sanction the revolutionary 
 proceedings in Kansas, 1 announced my purpose to vote against it for that reason. Subse- 
 quently sucii disclosures were made as to create doubts in the mind of General Cass in 
 respect to the autlienticity of the paper, and he, after an interview with Colonel Lane, from 
 whom he had received it, made the following announcement to the Senate, and voted for the 
 resolution rescinding the action of the Senate whereby tlie memorial was received and re- 
 ferred, and therefore witiidrew it. General Cass said : 
 
 "Within a few minutes I have had an interview with the gentleman who presented me 
 with the petition, and I am bound to say to the Senate, that I am not satisfied that this paper is 
 one which ought to be acted on by the Senate. This is all that it is necessary for me to say. I 
 shall vote for the resohitioii of the senator from Virginia.-" 
 
 After the ■' memorial " had been denounced by several senators as a fraud and a forgery, 
 and after General Cass had thus announced his purpose to vote for its rejection for the rea- 
 sons stated, Mr. Seward rose and said that he had just conversed with Colonel Lane upon 
 the subject, and he added : 
 
 " He tells me, and authorizes me to say, and requests me to say to the Senate, as I do in 
 his behalf, that before he left the State of Kansas he saw this paper, the same paper — he does 
 not say that it is the identical paper in chirography — but he saw the memorial of which this 
 is the substance and text signed by all tlie members of the provisional legislature of Kansas, 
 and th;it this is a true copy of that paper, as he had before stated to the honorable senator 
 from Michigan, and I suppose the original is within his reach and available. This is in no 
 substantial respect different." 
 
 Mr. Sewad also further said that " this statement is due to him ; and this statement is all 
 that I need say in justice to myself." 
 
 In reply to Mr. Seward a senator arose and said : 
 
 " I think, Mr. President, tliis debate will not be without its advantage to the country. We 
 are beginning now to get at the truth of this matter slowly, but it would seem securely. 
 
 " WherQ do we stand.' A paper has been presented here, palmed upon the senator from 
 Michigan, purporting to be a memorial from certain persons in Kansas, who claim to be the 
 senators and representatives of tlie State of Kansas. It is questioned ; its authenticity Is 
 doubted : it is denounced as a forgery and a fraud. We learn now that it reached the hon- 
 orable seintor from Michigan at the h;ind of one who is sent here as a senator from Kansas 
 We learn from the senator from New York th:it that paper, thus denounced on this floor as 
 a forger;, , and fraudulently done, came to the hands of the senator from Michigan by one of 
 those nieii who is sent here as a senator for tiio pseudo State of Kansas ; and vet there is no 
 man whoi.i I have heard who undertakes to vindicate him. There is no gentleman who 
 stands on this floor anrl =nys that tl)e man who brought the paper here is what he claims to 
 be — an honorable man — and that he brouglit a fair and honest paper. I do not understand 
 the senator from New York to do that. Where are the gentlemen who claim to be here 
 speaking for the oppressed people of Kansas.' Sir, noscitur sociis is a safe maxim — the man 
 is known by the company he keeps If it be true that the man is known by the company he 
 keeps, the company is known by the man v»ho helps them." 
 
 After further discussion of a similar character, the resolution of Mr. Mason was adopted 
 by a vote of thirty-two in the affirmative to three in the negative, by which the orders to 
 refer the fraudulent paper to the Committees on Territories and Printing were rescinded, and 
 the paper was tiien witiidrawn by General Cass and returned to Colonel Lane. 
 
 I have been thus minute in tracing the outline of the debate which occuirred on the first 
 presentation of this fraudulent memnriil in order to show tJiat I took no part in the discus- 
 sion whicii questioned the authenticity of the paper, or the conduct of Colonel Lane in con- 
 nexion with it. Yet it will be ob.served that, in the letter which you bore from Colonel Lane 
 to me, it is stated, ns the fir.st cause of grievance, that " on Thursday of that week that me- 
 
24 
 
 morial was the subject of severe criticism, and in connexion with it charges of a most srave 
 character arc preferred against me," [Colonel Lane.] (= "^ 
 
 We have seen what those charges were: Tliey wore no less than tiiat of fr^ud and 
 FORGERY ! These charges were made and repeated by several senators in the course of that 
 debate, and received the sanction of the Senate by a vote of 32 to 3 in the adoption of Mr 
 Mason s resolution. Your friend. Colonel Lane, rested under these cijarcres until the next 
 week, when he attempted to exculpate himself, not by calling on the senat1)rs who made the 
 charges for explanation, but by presenting a petition siirned by himself, with the oriirinal me- 
 morial made a part of it, praying that the pretended copy, which had been rejected on the 
 previous Thursday, might also be received, and inviting a comparison between the two. with 
 a view ot enabling the Senate to determine whether the one which the Senate had rejected 
 W'asacopyor a forgery. As the chairman of the committee having charge of territorial 
 attairs, It became my appropriate duty to institute tlie comparison which had been invited bv 
 Colonel Lane in his petition, and to give the Senate the result of mv investigation i found 
 that while the rejected copy purported to be authenticated by the signatures (all in one hand- 
 \ynting) of the members of both houses of that spurious legislature, the original, from which 
 It was pretended to have been copied, had no sisrnatures at all attached to it, and no authen- 
 tication whatever, except an evasive affidavit tiken that day before Judge McLean 1 also 
 found that the first three pages of the original were entirely suppressed in the pretended copv 
 I also found many other material omissions and suppressions, many interpolations and alter- 
 ations runnmg all through the paper, and changing its whole character, not onlv in form 
 but in substance and principle. I exposed these things to the Senate in plaia and urimeasured 
 terms, as it was my right and duty to do. I did not go out of my way to criminate or excul- 
 P''^^i'''r7..°"''- , '^''''^}. ""V^^ ^^"^ fraudulent paper as it came before me in the line of mv duty 
 and left the anthors of the iniquity free to pursue their own course. I .showed that the origi- 
 nal memorial which it is alleged was adopted by the spurious legislature of Kansas, w"as 
 based on the fundamental idea or principle that Congress had no power to establish govern- 
 ments for the Territories ; that the Kansas- Nebraska act was unconstitutional and void for 
 that reason ; that the people of the Territories owed no allegiance to the governments which 
 had been or should be established by Congress in the Territories ; and hence they had an in- 
 herent right to take the steps which they had taken to overthrow the territorial ffovernment 
 without the consent and in defiance of the authority of Congress. I also showed that in the 
 pretended copy all this had been suppressed since the issue was made up between the two 
 parties by the reports of the majority and minority of the Committee on Territories, and in 
 Jieu of It had been inserted an humble petition to Congress recognising its authority and 
 praying for Its interposition. In short, I showed and proved by a companion of the two pa- 
 pers that the pretended copy was not a copy in any sense of the word— that it was a spurious, 
 fraudulent paper ; in other words, that it was a base and impudent forgery. No senator did 
 no man in or out of the Senate can, vindicate the paper from this just condemnation The 
 severest judgment which I pronouBced on this transaction is contained in the following ex- 
 tracts from my speech, which I now repeat as the only explanation I have to make of the 
 matters to winch they refer : 
 
 ''I submit whether this does not make it a totally different document, affirmin<r entirely 
 ditterent princip es, in order to place their action in a totally different li-ht. The Kansas 
 legislature, in the original document, said they justified their acts because Congress had no 
 power over thern. The niemorial came in the other day recognising the power of Congress. 
 1 ask, them, if it is not a forgery thus to change the document in the most vitally in^nort- 
 ant point upon which the whole proceeding rests ? I do not say by whom the fofo-ery was 
 commit* n— I care not. The taint runs throu h this whole pfoceeding, and the^'afHdavit 
 does not cure or remedy It. " 
 
 Again: 
 
 "I can take up this memorial and show that, as I have exposed one heresy afler another 
 of their pretensions, they took the pen and ran through this memorial to get rid of the objec- 
 
 "It has been changed from time to time in material points, striking out and inserting, 
 until It has hardly a vistige of its original form. The very comparison which is here chal- 
 lenged hetwcen the pretended copy, presented the other day, and the original now proves 
 conclusively that such is the case. 1 then submit whether here was not evidence of the most 
 fflarmg fraud over attempted to be perpetrated upon a legislative body. Afler that fraud has 
 been once detected and exposed, the question is, whether a second one is to be perpetrated 
 upon us by taking the same spurious document and .attaching it to a memorial, and thus 
 dragging it into the Senate .'" 
 
 It should be borne in mind, that the first time this fraudulent paper was presented to the 
 Senate 1 pronounced no uidgment upon the question of its authenticity, or the means by 
 which It fomid Its way to the Secretary's table Other senators did denounce it as " a fraud 
 and impn.lrnt forgery. I remained silent on these points, not from any sympathy with the 
 pcrpetrator^- of the fraud, but from my profound respect for the feelings of the illustrious 
 senator from Michigan, whose confidence had been abused so far as to induce him to i.re^ent 
 It under the impression that it was an authentic memorial. When he discovered his mistake, 
 
25 
 
 I joined him in that vote of condeni'ialion which the Senate pronounced by 32 to 3 in the 
 adoption of Mr. Mason's resohition. 
 
 The next week Colonel Lane conies to the Senate, through Mr. Harlan, of Iowa, and pre- 
 sents a memorial, in which he asks and challenges a comparison of the two papers, with the 
 view of inducing the Senate to reverse the judgment which had been so emphatically pro- 
 nounced upon the conduct of the autliors of that fraud, at the same time avowing himself to 
 be the person who perpetrated the act. I did make the comparison in pursuance of the 
 request contained in his memorial, and stated the facts to the Senate as I found them to 
 e.xist, together with my opinions upon them. The Senate ratified those opinions in the rejec- 
 tion of the memorial by a vote of 30 to ] 1. 
 
 In the face of these facts, your friend, Colonel Lane, calls upon me " for such an explana- 
 tion of my language upon that occasion as will remove all imputation upon the integrity of 
 his action or motives in connexion with that memorial." My reply is, that there are no 
 facts within my knowledge which can " remove all imputation upon the integrity of his 
 action or motives in connexion with that memorial." 
 
 For the reasons which I have stated, I can have no correspondence with Colonel Lane, 
 and therefore address this note to you. 
 Your obedient servant, 
 
 S. A. DOUGLAS 
 
 Hon. C. R. Watson. 
 
 From the Union, April 19. 
 
 Mr. Dmiglas' hill for the admission of Kansas as a State. — Aholiticm 
 misrepresentations coi'rected. 
 
 Falsehood and misrepresentation are the order of the day amongst the opponents of the 
 Nebraska-Kansas law. This system, which has served so successfully in enabling the agi- 
 tators to keep the country in a continued state of excitement since the passage of that law, is 
 now resorted to and persisted in with undiminished impudence and pertinacity in regard to 
 the bill lately reported by Mr. Douglas, providing for the early admission of Kansas into the 
 Union as a State. Horace Greeley has located himself in Washington to " oversee " the 
 black republican forces, and to act as their " driver " on questions calling for the " crack of 
 his whip." He is faithfully seconded and supported in his humane undertaking by the 
 prompt counsels and co-operation of James Watson Webb and Francis P. Blair, who are 
 always ready to act as an advisory board. Day by day jNIr. Greeley issues his edicts by let- 
 ter and by telegraph, and thus entitles himself to be regarded as supreme dictator of black 
 republicandom. He was at his post when Mr. Douglas brought forward his report on the 
 Kansas question, accompanied by his bill " to authorize the people of Kansas Territory to 
 form a constitution and State government, preparatory to their admission in the Union when 
 they have the requisite population." He was equally prompt and vigilant when Mr. Douglas 
 opened the debate on the question, and when he explained in clear and explicit terms the 
 provisions of his bill. Faithful to the system of misrepresentation and falsehood, which has 
 marked the entire opposition to the Kansas measure, Mr. Greeley assailed the bill of Mr. 
 Douglas, and grossly falsified and perverted its provisions. He announced to his followers 
 that by the bill the question as to who are qualified voters in Kansas is left where the code 
 of laws enacted by the Missouri " border ruffians," assembled at Shawnee Mission, left it, 
 and, therefore, that, according to that code, an oath of obedience to the fugitive slave law, 
 and the production of certificate of the payment of a dollar as a tax, were conditions prece- 
 dent to the exercise of the elective franchise. At a subsequent day Mr. Douglas alluded to 
 this perversion of his bill and denounced it as its recklessness deserved. Mr. Greeley was 
 forced to make an apology, but in so lame and reluctant a manner that it was an aggravation 
 of his original offence. His excuse for his misrepresentation was tiiat he had not read the 
 bill, that he does not think it had been printed when he wrote the falsehood, and that he pre- 
 sumed upon the correctness of his statements from the supposition that the bill had adopted 
 the provisions of the Kansas code ! 
 
 As was to be expected, this lame apology had no other effect on the black republican corps 
 of organs, except it was to instigate tiiem to increased industry in giving currency to the 
 misrepresentation. The New York Evening Post, as late as the \b\.h instant, contained 
 nearly a column of comments on what it calls "the Douglas process" — which means the bill 
 before alluded to. Instead of avoiding the misrepresentation of Mr. Greeley, which Mr. 
 Douglas had publicly corrected and denounced, and which Mr. Greeley himself had half-way 
 admitted and apologized for, the Post repeats, in explicit terms, the same false statements, and 
 upon this misrepresentation bases its only objection to the bill. Before we proceed to nail 
 this falsehood, like base coin, to the counter, we quote the language in which it is repeated 
 by the Post, as follows : 
 
 " By the bill which he has introduced in the Senate, and which botti ho and the Senate 
 seem already to have forgotten, a new constitution is to be framed for Kansas as soon as the 
 
26 
 
 inhabitants of the Territory shall have reached a certain number — a constitution agreed upon 
 by delegates elected by the ' qualified voters ' of tlie Territory — and with this constitution 
 she is to be received into the Union. Who is to be regarded as a qualified voter is not ex- 
 pressed in the bill ; that question is left where the code of laws enacted by the lVlis?ourian» 
 assembled at Shawnee Mission left it. The qualifications of a voter, according to that code, 
 are, an oath of obedience to the fugitive slave law and the production of a certificate that a 
 dollar has been paid to an officer who holds his appointment from the spurious government 
 constituted at the Shawnee Mission. Be tlie person who offers to vote a resident or not, if 
 he submits to the test, and produces the certificate, he is to be admitted. If he have lived 
 in the Territory from the time it was organized, yet if he cannot conscientiously take the 
 test, he is excluded from voting. 
 
 " The free State party cannot, and will not, submit to a test of this kind, passed by a 
 legislature whose autliority they deny. The greater number, probably, could not conscien- 
 tiously take it. We could not, even if the legislature which enacted the test sat with a legal 
 and undisputed commission ; there are provisions in the fugitive slave lawwhich nothing 
 could induce us to obey. Mr. Douglas' process, therefore, shuts out from the elective fran- 
 chise all the free State residents of Kansas. Their places will be easily supplied if it be 
 thought necessary to import voters from Missouri, to give the semblance of a popular elec- 
 tion to the choice of delegates. A dollar will make a voter ; for a thousand dollars you may 
 have a tliousand voters fresh from Missouri; or, if that be too dear, the tax collector ap- 
 pointed by Stringfellow and his associates will, of course, make no scruple to grant the cer- 
 tificates gratuitously. After the constitution is framed, the same set of qualified voters, with 
 the same exclusion of the real residents, must adopt it, and Kansas will then be ready for 
 admission into the Union, 'i'his is what the Union calls Mr. Douglas' process. It is quite 
 worttiy of the framer of the Nebraska bill." 
 
 If the reader has any suspicion that we have dealt too harshly in denouncing the false 
 statements contained in the foregoing, we beg him to turn back and read the extract again, 
 and remember that it is a repetition in an enlarged form of a fabrication from the mint of 
 Horace Greeley, and that its circulation is persisted in under circumstances that give peculiar 
 aggravation to tiie offence. It will be observed that the only objection urged by the Post 
 against Mr. Douglas' bill is based upon the assertion tliat tlie (}ualifications of voters who 
 are to take tiie initiatory and preparatory steps for the early introduction of Kansas as a 
 State is not provided for in Mr. Douglas' bill, but is left to the code of laws passed by the 
 late Kansas legislature. If we remove this objection, black republicanism will stand un- 
 masked and without an excuse for further opposition to the bill. We proceed to do this 
 upon documentary proof, which, whilst it will expose thoroughly the misrepresentations of 
 the Post, will also fully vindicate the wisdom of the bill so grossly abused and falsified. 
 
 We begin with the opening remarks of Mr. Douglas in the Senate on the 20th of March, 
 when he sustained his majority report against the attacks of his colleague, Mr. Trumbull, 
 and replied to the minority report of Mr. Collamer. We quote as follows : 
 
 Mr. Dour;i..\s said : 
 
 Mr. Prksident: I will ask t.'ie indulgence of the Senate for such length of time as the 
 subject may require, provided my strength do not fiiil me, while I submit some views in vin- 
 dication of tlie majority report, and in answer to that of the minority of the Committee on 
 Territories upon the Kansas question. 
 
 In the first place, however, as we liave taken up for consideration tlie bill reported by the 
 Committee on Territories to authorize the people of that Territory to form a constitution and 
 State government, preparatory to admission into the Union, it is due to the subject that I 
 should give a brief exposition of the provisions and principles of the bill. 
 
 The first section provides that, whenever tlie Territory of Kansas shall contain 93,420 
 inhabitants, to be ascertained by a census taken in conformity with law, (that being the pre- 
 sent ratio for a member of Congress,) a convention may be called by the legislature of the 
 Territory to form a constitution and State government, preparatory to its admission into the 
 Union as a State. 
 
 The second section provides that the convention shall be composed of twice the number oi 
 delegates which each district in the proposed State has representatives in the territorial 
 legislature. At the election of those delegates it is proposed that all the white male inhab- 
 itants who shall have attained the age of twenty-one years, and who shall have resided six 
 months in the Territory, and three months in the district, may vote, provided they possess 
 the qualifications required i.y the organic act of the Territory. By examination of the pre- 
 cedents, I find that it has been usual to prescribe the qualifications of the voters in the acts 
 of Congress authorizing the people of the Territories to hold conventions and form constitu- 
 tions preparatory to their admission into the Union. 
 
 The several acts of Congress preparatory to the admission of the following States pre- 
 scribed a residence varying from three to twelve months as a condition of voting, to wit : 
 Illinois, six months; Indiana, twelve months; Oliio, twelve months; Mississippi, twelve 
 months; Missouri, three months; Louisiana, twelve months ; Alabama, three months. Most 
 of the other new States formed tlieir constiiulions under the authority of their territorial 
 legislatures, without the preliminary action of Congress. In preparing this bill I have 
 adojited the medium according to the precedents running through our whole territorial 
 
27 
 
 history — six inontlis' residence in the Territory, and three months in the district in which 
 the Vote may be given. 
 
 Tlic third and onl}' remaining section of the bill provides <or the usual grants of land to be 
 made to the State of Kansas on the same terms upon which tliey have been made to most ot 
 the other new States. 
 
 If there is anything objectionable in the details of the bill they will be open to amendment, 
 and I shall be ready to accept any amendment vvluch my judgment a])proves. 
 
 After reminding the reader that tliis speech was made more than a month ago, that more 
 thyn a hundred thousand copies in pamphlet form have been circulated, and after it lias been 
 the subject of comment throughout the country for several weeks before the Post penned its 
 misrepresentation of the bill, we proceed next to quote the two first sections of tlie bill itself, 
 which contain all that relates to the matter in hand. They are as follows ; 
 
 " A bill to authorize the people of the Territory of Kansas to form a constitution and State 
 
 "government, preparatory to their admission into the Union when they have the requisite 
 
 " population. 
 
 " Be it enacted by Ike Senate and House of Representatives of the United Stales of Jinierica in 
 ' Congress assembled, Tiiat whenjvcr it i^iinll ::nnear, by a census to be taken under the direc- 
 ' tion of the governor, by the authority of the legislature, that there shall be ninety-three 
 ' thousand four hundred and twenty inhabitants (that being the number required by the pre- 
 ' sent ratio of representation for a member of Congress) within the limits hereinafter de- 
 ' scribed in the Territory of Kansas, the legislature of said Territory shall be, and is hereby, 
 ' authorized to provide by law for the election of delegates by the people of said Territory, to 
 ' assemble in convention and form a constitution and State government, preparatory to their 
 ' admission into the Union on an equal footing with the original States in all respects what- 
 ' soever, by tiie name of the State of ]\!ansas, with the following boundaries, to wit : Be- 
 ' ginning on the western boundary of the State of Missouri where the thirty-seventh parallel 
 ' of north latitude crosses tlie same, thence west on said parallel to the one hundred and 
 ' third meridian of longitude, thence north on said meridian to the fortieth parallel of latitude, 
 ' thence east on said parallel of latitude to the western boundary of the State of Missouri, 
 ' thence southward with said boundary to the place of beginning. 
 
 "Sec 2. ^Ind be it further enacted, That the said convention shall be composed of dele- 
 ' gates from each representative district within the limits of the proposed State, and that 
 ' each district shall elect double the number of delegates to which it may be entitled to rep- 
 ' resentatives in the territorial legislature ; and that, at the said election of delegates, all 
 ' white male inhabitants who shall have arrived at the age of twenty-one years, and shall 
 ' have been actual residents in said l^erritory for the period of six months, and in the district 
 ' for the period of three months, next preceding the day of election, and wlio shall possess 
 'the other qualifications required by the organic act of the Territory, shall be entitled to 
 ' vote, and that none others shall be permitted to vote at said election." 
 
 It is seen from the bill itself that Mr. Douglas has not left the question as to who are 
 qualified voters to the code of laws passed by the Kansas legislature, but that he enumerates 
 and defines expressly that the voters must be white male inhabitants, of the ai'c of twenty- 
 one years, actual residents of the Territory for six months, and of the district for three 
 months, next preceding the day of election, ''and who shall possess the other qualifications 
 required by the organic act of the Territory." By the organic act of the Territory, all citizens, 
 whether native or naturalized, and all foreign born who have filed their application for natu- 
 ralization and taken the necessary oatiis under the naturalization laws, are qualified voters. 
 Not one word of reference is found in the bill to the code of laws passed by the Kansas legis- 
 lature ; no oath required to support the fugitive-slave law ; no payment of a dollar as a con- 
 dition ])recedent to qualification as a voter It is, therefore, clearly shown that the original 
 statement of Mr. Greeley was a bold and bald misrepresentation, and that its repetition by 
 the Post, under all the circumstances, is an aggravation of the offence. And now we ask, 
 with earnestness, what valid objection can even black repuiilicans have to the bill? It pro- 
 vides for the early admission of Kansas as a State, with a constitution to be adopted by f. 
 convention, to be chosen by voters whose qualifications are clearly defined, and it provides 
 for tiie immediate expulsion from Congress of any furtiier cause of sectional agitation. Mr. 
 Seward's substitute provides for the immediate admission of Kansas, with a constitution 
 adopted by an unofficial and revolutionary assembly, ciiosen by voters with no legally 
 prescribed qualifications, held in open defiance of the laws of the Territory, and ratified by 
 the irregular votes of a mere party, and that party in a state of rebellion. If a desire of 
 continued agitation for bad political purposes does not control the councils of the ojiponents 
 of Mr. Douglas' bill, we are unable to comprehend the motives which superinduce conduct 
 so unreasonable and criminal. 
 
28 
 
 Extracts from Mr. Douglas' reply to Mr. CoUamer, April 4, 1856. 
 
 Mr. President, I have said enough to bring back the points to the position in which I left 
 them m my former speech. I am not going to follow the senator from Vermont through all 
 his criticisms on the majority report. They are not of a character whicii call for a reply at 
 this time, nor would it be fair to detain the "Senate for tiiat purpose at this late hour. 
 
 The senator from Vermont has explained what he meant by the word " experiment " in 
 his minority report — the natural, and perhaps unavoidable, consequence of which would be 
 violence and bloodshed. He says he alluded to the experiment of the Nebraska bill, by 
 which the question of slavery was, for the first time in our history, left to the decision of the 
 people. What is the objection to leaving the decision of that, as well as all other local and 
 domestic questions, to the people who are immediately interested in it? 
 
 His objection is that it has a tendency to bring opposing elements and inflammable ma- 
 terials into collision from whicli violence may be apprehended. Does not the >aine objection 
 apply to all othsr questions which involve tlie inerests and excite the passions of men as well 
 as the question of slavery ? Does it not apply to the Maine liquor law, to railroad contro- 
 versies, to taxation, to schools, to the location of county seats, to the division of counties? in 
 short, does it not apply to all questions of legislation which affect the propert}' and enlist the 
 feelings and passions of the community ? If the objection be a valid one against the Nebraska 
 bill in respect to the slavery question, it applies in a greater or less degree to every other 
 subject of legislation in proportion as it affects the interests and feelings of the people. It is 
 an objection to the fundamental principles upon which all free governments rest, and which, 
 when admitted to be valid, drives us irresistibly to despotism. The argument is that the 
 people should not be permitted to vote upon a question involving their social and domestic 
 system-^, lest there might arise a diversity of opinion which might possibly degenerate into 
 quarrels and controversies, and terminate in violence! Hence, it would seem to follow, that 
 if the people were allowed any voice in making their own laws it should be confined to tliose 
 insignificant quesli(]ns in which they feel no interest, and in regard to whicli there could be 
 no probability of a diversity of opinion ! Precious boon — to allow the people to vote when 
 they feel no interest in the question, and deny them the privilege when they do, for fear they 
 will differ in opinion and become excited about it! This is " the experiment" — " the vice of 
 a mistaken law" — to which the senator from Vermont traces all the difliculties in Kansas! 
 He seems to be under the impression that this " experiment" is now introduced into our legis- 
 lation for the first time in respect to the slavery question by the Nebraska bill! He makes 
 the Nebraska acta far more important measure — one reflecting infinitely more credit upon its 
 author than I ever claimed for it ! I was under the impression that the same principle, or 
 experiment, as he jjrefers to call it, was involved and affirmed in the compromise measures of 
 1850, and incorporated into the platforms of the whig party and of the democratic party at 
 Baltimore in 1852, as a rule of action by which each party pledged itself to be governed in all 
 future controversies upon the slavery question. Did not the acts for the organization of the 
 Territories of Utah and New Mexico try the same '• experiment r" Were not those acts 
 based on tlie same principle? Did not those acts " leave the people perfectly free to form 
 and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of 
 the United States," with theguarantee that, when admitted into the Union, they should be 
 received " witli or without slavery," as their constitution should provide at the time of ad- 
 mission ? Did violence and bloodshed result as the natural, and perhaps unavoidable, conse- 
 quences of this experiment in 185U ? Have any such consequences lesulied from tlie same 
 experiment in Nebraska in 1854? If violence and bloodshed are the natural consequences ol 
 such an experiment, why have not the same causes produced like effects elsewhere as well as 
 in Kansas? I would like to have this inquiry answered by the senator from Vermont, or by 
 the senator from New York, (Mr. Seward,) who has endorsed his report and pledged him- 
 self to make good its positions. I will give Ihem the benefit of my answer now. There were na 
 Emigrant Aid Societies in 1850. There were no organized systems of foreign interference in 
 either of those Territories? The Emigrant Aid Societies have not extended their operations 
 to Nebraska ! The " experiment" of self-government — that " vice of a mistaken law" — has 
 had fair play in Nebraska ; hence notliing has occurred in that Territory to disturb the peace 
 and quiet of the inhabitants. On the contrary, in Kansas, where there has been organized 
 foreign interference — where the Emigrant Aid Societies concentrated all their efforts to con- 
 trol the domestic institutions and local legislation of tlie Territory — violence and bloodshed 
 have resulted as the natural consequence, not of the " vice of a mistaken law," but of their 
 experiment of foreign interference with the domestic concerns of a distant Territory ! 
 
 IJut the senator from Vermont has made one concession for which I return him my ac- 
 knowledgments. He admits that, by the Constitution of tiie United States, each State has 
 a right to decide the slavery question for itself, and that this right could have been exercised 
 by the people of Kansas when they should form a constitution, preparatory to their admis- 
 sion into the Union, even if the Nebraska bill had not repealed the Missouri compromise. I 
 thank hitn for this admission. I hope those witii whom he acts will endorse the proposition. 
 Then I would like to have Iiiin and them ex()lain what harm the repeal has done, and why 
 they desire to have it restored ? If Kansas could have become a slave State before as well as 
 now, what is the use of restoring the Missouri compromise? 
 
29 
 
 • 
 
 Mr. SEWARD. The honorable senator will excuse me for calling his attention to a mis- 
 apprehension under which he labors with regard to the remark of the senator from Vermont 
 who is now absent, which is the only reason why I interpose. 
 
 Mr. DOUGLAS. I yield the floor witii pleasure. 
 
 Mr. SEWARD I heard a large portion of the senator's speech, and I did not understand 
 him to say that a State would have the right to come into the Union with or without slavery^ 
 as her people pleased, if the compromise act had not been repealed. I understood him to say 
 that, after coming in, it would have the right to establish or prohibit slavery. 
 
 Mr. TOOMBS and several other senators. No, no. 
 
 Mr. DOUGLAS. On the contrar}^ he took the distinct ground that a State, when its 
 people assembled to form a constitution, preparatory to admission, had the right to come in 
 with or without slaver^', even under the Missouri compromise. 
 
 Mr. SEWARD. Idid not hear that. 
 
 Mr. DOU GLAS. My colleague came to the same conclusion the other day in his speech. 
 We seem to be making converts to the true doctrine. It is a sound constitutional principle. 
 If we get men to admit that a State has the right when she forms iier constitution either to 
 have slavery or not, to adopt or reject it, as she pleases, it is a pretty good step towards the 
 doctrine of the Nebraska bill. When that admission is made, I want to know what you all 
 mean when you talk about a breach of faith in the repeal of the Missouri compromise.' You 
 have all been in the habit of saying on the stump, and wherever else you had the opportu- 
 nity, that by the Nebraska bill we liad broken a covenant which dedicated Kansas and Ne- 
 braska to freedom " forever." We are now told that " forever" means " hereafter," and 
 lasts only until there are people enough to form a State, and that no partiular number is 
 required for that purpose. 
 
 The senator from Vermont attempts to ridicule the Nebraska bill because it contains a pro- 
 vision declaring the Constitution of the United States to be in force in the Territory. He 
 desires to know who ever doubted that such would be the case without that provision.' Who 
 was ever silly enough to suppose that the constitution could be extended by law over a Ter- 
 ritory which it did not reach without such law? I will answer his question. I will tell him 
 the man. It was no less a person than Daniel Webster — New England's great statesman, 
 whom she delighted to call the great expounder of the constitution. Senators who were then 
 members of this body have not forgotten, and will not soon forget, the debate between Mr. 
 Webster and Mr. Calhoun upon this very point, in which the former contended that the 
 Constitution of the United States did not extend over the Territories without an act of Con- 
 gress to that effect ; wliile, on the other hand, the great Carolinean insisted liiat the consti- 
 tution was coextensive with the limits and covered all the Territories pertaining to the 
 republic. Without endorsing the peculiar opinions of Mr. Webster on this point, Mr. Clay 
 did not hesitate, in deference to tiiem, to adopt, in the Compromise of 1850, the identical 
 provision which the senator from Vermont now attempts to ridicule, under the supposition 
 that I introduced it into the Nebraska act for the first time in our legislation. I copied the 
 provision from the compromise measures of 1850 for the same reasons vi^liich induced Mr. 
 Clay to adopt it, although it is but fair to say that I never did concur in the opinion of Mr. 
 Webster that the constitution did not apply to the Territories without an act of Congress 
 carrying it there. 
 
 Mr. President, 1 have a few words to say to the senator from New York [Mr. Seward] be- 
 fore I close my remarks. On the day I presented to the Senate the report of the Committee 
 on Territories, and immediately after the minority report was read at the Secretary's desk, 
 he rose and volunteered the pledge that he would make good every position affirmed by it. 
 As he has the floor for the next speech upon this question, he will be expected to redeem this 
 pledge, or acknowledge his inability to do so. One of these positions is, that the " experi- 
 ment" of allowing the people to settle the slavery question for themselves in Territories 
 preparatory to their admission into the Union was introduced into our legislation for the first 
 time in the history of this republic in the Kansas-Nebraska act ; and that, if violence re- 
 sulted from this experiment as a natural, and perhaps unavoidable, consequence, it was the 
 "vice of a mistaken law." I call on the senator from New York to sustain the truth of this 
 allegation. I desire him to answer specifically whether the compromise measures of 1850 
 did not leave the people of New Mexico and Utah perfectly free to decide tiie slavery ques- 
 tion for themselves, and guaranty their admission into the Union with or without slavery, as 
 their constitution should provide at the time of admission? I ask him if he did not oppose 
 the bills for the organization of those Territories at that time, for the reason that they did 
 not contain the Wilmot proviso, prohibiting slavery, and for the reason that they did contain 
 the guarantee that they should be admitted with or without slavery, as they should decide for 
 themselves? When he answers this question, I would like to have him explain at the same 
 time whether he did not stand pledged in 1852 to sustain the whig Baltimore platform, and to 
 support General Scott, standing on that platform " with the resolutions annexed," to use his 
 emphatic language ; and whether those resolutions did not bind General Scott, and the party 
 supporting him, to carry out in good faith the compromise measures of 1850 " m substance 
 and in principle?" I desire a direct answer on these points, in order that the Senate may 
 judge how far he redeems his pledge to make good the positions of the minority report. I 
 would like to have him explain the difference between the " experiment" of tlie compromise 
 measures of 1850 and of the Kansas-Nebraska act of 1854, in allowing the people to decide 
 
30 
 
 the slavery question lor tliemselves, and w^hother that principle in each case was equally the 
 '; vice of a mistaken law ?" If he shall answer that he did regard both measures in the same 
 light, 1 should be gratified it he will explain how it was that he united with the whitr party 
 in l8o-2 to sustain the " vice of that mistaken law, "and now calls upon all the odds and onds^ 
 fragments and portions, of parties and isms, to merge all differences on other points and 
 iorm a.Jusion with him on the isolated point of eradicating this " vice of a mistaken law" in 
 the name of freedom and humanity ? While he is portraying the beauties of ne<rro freedom 
 
 shall be a State, as long as water runs and grass grows, no negro, free or slave shall 
 live or breathe under that constitution. ' 
 
 Mr. SEWARD. Does the senator wish me to answer now? 
 Mr. DOUGLAS. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. SEWARD Then, my answer is, that, such being the constitutimi, he is wroncr in 
 his premises tliat I am desirous to admit the State of Kansas for the benefit of the neero.° It 
 must be for the benefit of the white man. 
 
 Mr. DOUGLAS. Am I to understand the senator that he has abandoned the cause of the 
 negro upon the ground that his freedom and equality are inconsistent with the rights of the 
 white man.? What has become of his professions of sympathy for the poor neoro? What 
 are we to think of the sincerity of his professions upon this subiect ' ° 
 
 Mr. SEWARD That is another thing. 
 
 Mr. DOUGLAS. That is the very thing. If all other considerations are to be made to 
 yield to the paramount object of prohibiting slavery in Kansas upon the ground that the 
 inequality which it imposes is unjust to the negro, will that injustice be removed by adopting 
 a constitution which in effect declares that the negro, whether free or slave, shall never 
 tread the soil, nor drink the water, nor breathe the air of Kansas? The senator from New 
 York admits tliat the constitution with which he proposes by his bill to admit Kansas con- 
 tains such a provision. Under the code of laws enacted by the territorial legislature of 
 Kansas, which the senator, in common with his party, professes to consider monstrous and 
 barbarous, a negro may go to Kansas and be protected in all his rights, so long as he obeys 
 the laws of the land. In order to get rid of those laws, the senator from New Y^ork proposes 
 to give effect to a constitutional provision which is designed to prevent the negro forever 
 from entering the State ! " 
 
 I should like to hear from the senator from Massachusetts on this point. I believe he took 
 particular pains a few years ago to arraign the State of Illinois for inserting a similar clause 
 m her constitution. 
 
 Mr. SUMNER. Never. 
 
 Mr. DOUGLAS. Well, perhaps it was his predecessor, [Mr. AVinthrop.] Upon reflec- 
 tion, I think It was. I recollect that it once became my duty to vindicate the right of my 
 own State to insert such a clause in her constitution against the assaults of a Massachusetts 
 senator. Had the present senator been here at that time, and found it necessary to have 
 spoken on the subject, is it assuming too much to venture the opinion that he would have 
 joined in that condemnation ? 
 
 Mr, SUMNER. I should condemn it, certainly. 
 
 Mr. DOUGLAS. Then, will the senator approve in the constitution of Kansas what he 
 condemns in tlie constitution of Illinois? 1 would like to hear the senator's response to this 
 mquiry. If such a provision was wrong in Illinois, is it right in Kansas? Had not the demo- 
 cratic State of Illinois as good a right to adopt such a provision as the free-soil party of 
 Kansas? Will the senator from Massachusetts vote for the bill introduced by the senator 
 from New York to admit Kansas, at a time when she has not one-third of the requisite popu- 
 lation, with such a constitution? 
 
 ^ I do not wish to be misunderstood on this point. I object to the admission of Kansas at 
 tills time, and under existing circumstances, on entirely different grounds. I affirm the right 
 of Illinois to put such a clause in her constitution. The people of Illinois had a right to^do 
 as they pleased on that subject. We tried slavery while a Territory, notwithstanding the 
 ordinance of 1787, until we found that in our climate and with our productions it was not 
 good for us to retain it, and for that reason we abolished and prohibited it. When we de- 
 cided that Illinois should be a free State we also determined that it should be a white State. 
 We did not believe in the equality of the negro with the white man, and hence were opposed 
 to a mixture of the races. The con.stitution of Illinois was made by white men for the 
 benefit of white men. The same principle of State rights and State equality which author- 
 ized Illinois to abolish slavery secured to each other State the privilege of retaining it if it 
 chose. The same principle which authorized Illinois to exclude the free negro allows each 
 other State to receive him if agreeable to her tastes and consistent with her interests. Wo 
 are perfectly content with tlie practical operation of this great principle, whicii teaches the 
 people of each separate community to mind their own business, and accord the same right to 
 their neighbors. Hence I should have no controversy with the senator from New York, or 
 his political associates, in regard to this particular clause in the Kansas constitution, did they 
 not ch.im tlie right, and insist that it is their duty, to e.-camino the provisions of the constitu- 
 
31 
 
 lion of each State applying for admission, and then either to admit or reject the application,, 
 according as they may approve or disapprove the constitution. It is on this ground that they 
 claim the right to mquire whether the constitution prohibits or protects slavery, and to vote for 
 a free State and against a slave State. It was on this ground that the northern States voted 
 against the admission of Missouri in 1821 — one year after the adoption of the Missouri Com- 
 promise — because the constitution had a similar provision against free negroes to the one 
 in the Kansas constitution. Hence I desire to learn from the senator from New York 
 whether he and his sympathizing associates do really approve of a constitutional provision 
 which shall deny to the negro forever, not merely the right to enjoy the same liberty accorded 
 to the white man, but also the right to live and breathe within the limits of the proposed State 
 of Kansas ? 
 
 Mr. SEWARD. Will the honorable senator allow me to answer now? 
 Mr. DOUGLAS. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. SEWARD. I need scarcely inform the honorable senator that I do not approve of 
 any such provision in any constitution in the world. I never did, and I never shall, vote to 
 approve or sanction in any constitution, or in any law, a provision which tends to keep any 
 man being, any member of the human family to which I belong, in a condition of degrada- 
 tion below the position which I occupy myself except for his own fault or crime. 
 
 Mr. DOUGLAS The senator does not approve of this provision, and never can, for the 
 reason that it does not put the negro on an equality witii himself! Then, will he vote for 
 admitting Kansas in this irregular manner, and without the requisite population, merely 
 because her constitution has a provision which keeps slaves from going into the Territory, 
 together with another clause " which tends to keep a man being a member of the human family 
 to which he belongs — in a condition of degradation below the position which he occupies 
 himself?" Yet, if he votes for his own bill to admit Kansas with the Topeka constitution, 
 according to his own doctrine he does vote to saction a provision to keep the negro out alto- 
 gether; he will not allow a negro to come in a condition either below him or above him! 
 Mr. SEWARD. You can take it either wa}' — above or below. 
 
 Mr. DOUGLAS. Yes ; he will exclude the negro absolutely if he is below or above him ! 
 He will insist upon having the negro upon a footing of entire and perfect equality with him- 
 self. Yet, if his bill passes, and Kansas is admitted with the constitution which has been 
 formed and presented here, all negroes, both free and slave, are forever prohibited from en- 
 tering the State of Kansas by the terms of the instrument. He cannot escape the responsi- 
 bility of this result on the plea that he does not vote directly to endorse and sanction the con- 
 stitution in all its parts ; for his doctrine, and the doctrine of his party, is that they not only 
 have the right, but that it is their duty, to examine the constitution in all its parts, and vote 
 for it or against it, according as they approve or disapprove of its provisions, and especially 
 those provisions which degrade the negro below the level of the white man. He must aban- 
 don all the principles to which his life has been devoted ; he must abandon the creed of the 
 party of which he is tlie acknowledged leader before he can vote for his own bill. The black 
 republican party was organized and founded on the fundamental principle of perfect and 
 entire equality of rights and privileges between the negro and the white man — an equality 
 secured and guaranteed by a law higher than the Constitution of the United States. In your 
 creed, as proclaimed to the world, you stand pledged again.st " the admission of anymore 
 slave States ;" 
 
 To repeal the fugitive slave law ; 
 To abolish the slave trade between the States ; 
 To prohibit slavery in the District of Columbie ; 
 To restore the prohibition on Kansas and Nebraska ; and 
 To acquire no more territory unless slavery shall be first prohibited. 
 
 This is your creed, authoritatively proclaimed. I trust there is to be no evading or dodging 
 the issue — no lowerinor of the flag. Let each party stand by its principles and the issues as 
 you have presented them and we have accepted them. Let us have a fair, bold fight before 
 the people, and then let the verdict be pronounced. 
 Mr. SEWARD. You will have it. 
 
 Mr. DOUGLAS. I rejoice in this assurance. I trust the senator will be able to bring his 
 troops up to the line, and to hold them there. I trust there is to be no lowering of the flag — 
 no abandonment or ciiange of the issues. There are rumors afloat that you are about to 
 strike your colors ; that you propose to surrender each one of these issues, not because you do 
 not profess to be right, but because you cannot succeed in the right; that you propose to throw 
 overboard all the bold men who distinguished themselves in your service in fighting the anti- 
 Nebraska fight, and to take a nev^ man, who, in consequence of not being committed to either 
 side, will be enabled to cheat somebody by getting votes from both sides ! Rumor says that 
 all your veteran generals who have received scars and wounds in the anti-Nebraska campaign 
 are now considered unfit to command, and are to he laid aside in order to take up some new 
 man who has not antagonized with the great principles of self-government and State equality. 
 Rumors says that, in pursuance of this line of policy, you dare not allow your committees in 
 the House of Representatives to bring in bills to redeem your -pledges and carry out your 
 principles ; that there is to be no bill passed in your fusion House to repeal the Kansas-Ne- 
 braska act — none to repeal the fugitive-slave law — none to abolish the slave trade between 
 the States — none to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia — none to redeem any one of 
 
32 
 
 your pledges, or carry out any one ot your principles, upon wliich.you secured a maiority in 
 the House by a fusion with northern know-uothinglsm. Rumor says that your committees 
 were arranged with the view ot keeping all these questions in the back ground until after the 
 presidential election, in order that the agitation may be reopened with belter prospects of 
 success when povver shall have been obtained under the auspices of a new man, who has not 
 been crippled in the great battle. Would it not be a curious spectacle to see this great anti- 
 Nebraska or black republican party— which, less than eighteen months ago, proclaimed a war 
 ot extcrimnation, in which no quarter was to be sranted or received, and no prisoners to be 
 taken-sk.rmishiiig to avoid a pitched battle, and get an opportunity to retreat from the face 
 ot those whom they determined to hang and burn and torture with all the refine ents of 
 cruelty which their vengeance could devise? Are the offices and patronage of government 
 so much iriore important to you than your principles that you feel it your duty to sacrifice 
 your creed, and the men identified With it, in order to get power? Are you prepared to 
 efecTion? ''^'^^ P°"'^^ '" '^^"^ ^°'" ^^""^ ^^^^ ^'^^^ ^'^^ compromit you in the presidential 
 
 Mr. WADE. We will whip you then. 
 
 Mr. DOUGLAS. That remains to be seen. We are prepared to give you a fair fi<rht on 
 the issues you have tendered and we accepted. Let the presidential contest be one of prin- 
 ciple alone ; let the principles involved be distinctly stated and boldly met, without any 
 attempts at concealment or equivocation ; let the result be a verdict of approval or disap- 
 proval so emphatic that it connot be misunderstood. One year ago you promised us a fair 
 ftght in the open field upon the principles of the Kansas-Nebraska act ! You then unfurled your 
 banner and bore it aloft in the hands of your own favorite and tried leaders, with your princi- 
 p es emblazoned upon it? Are you now preparing to lower your flag— to throw overboard 
 all your tried men who have rendered service in your cause— and issue a search warrant in 
 hopes ot finding a new man, who has not antagonized with anybody, and whose principles are 
 unknown, for the purpose of cheating somebody by getting votes from all sorts of men' Let 
 us have an open and a fair fight. [Applause in the galleries.] 
 
 vT^^ SJ!i^J.^" A The galleries will be cleared if these demonstrations are renewed. 
 
 Mi UOUtrLAb. I will not pursue the subject further. 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 016 094 470 5