SPEECH 
 
 OF 
 
 HON. JACOB COLLAMER, OF VERMONTJ 
 
 ON 
 
 AFTAIES IN KATs^SAS. 
 
 DELIVERED IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, APRIL (3 AND 4, 1356- 
 
 — / 
 
 WASttlNGtON: 
 PRINTED AT THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE OFFICfi 
 
 T Ado3 
 989 d 
 
h6: 
 
 M 
 
 \ 
 
AFFAIRS IN KANSAS. 
 
 Tuesday, ^pril 3, 1856. 
 
 The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, having un- 
 der consideration the bill to authorize the people of tlie 
 Territory of Kansas to form a constitution and State gov- 
 ernment, preparatory to their admission into tlie Union 
 when they have the requisite population — 
 
 Mr. COLLAMER said: Mr. President, I re- 
 member thata few years since there was published 
 in Virginia, a work called ' ' New Views of the Con- 
 stitution. " It struck me as being a very extraor- 
 dinary title. "New Views of the Constitution" — 
 that is, views which those who made the Consti- 
 tution never entertained; otherwise they would 
 not be new. Euf, sir, my surprise at that title has 
 gradually passed away. I cannot but have ob- 
 served, and I think all gentlemen must have ob- 
 served, that there seems to be a very great desire 
 on this subject, as on most others, on the part of 
 some men in the community, to gratify a very in- 
 ordinate curiosity, and to express and manifest a 
 great deal of ingenuity in getting up new vietcsof 
 the Constitution. The very fact that they are 
 new should be sufficient, in my estimation, to 
 condemn them. We want no new views of the 
 Constitution. To ascertain what were the ori- 
 ginal views of its framers is a proper subject of 
 investigation. We should resort to all the lights 
 which we can obtain in the history of our polit- 
 ical experience and legislation. We should en- 
 deavor to travel under the influence of those lights 
 so as to arrive at a correct conclusion in regard 
 to constitutional questions. 
 
 It is known to men of legal experience, that 
 there is such a thing as what is called cotempo- 
 raneous construction; and we not only know its 
 existence, but many have experienced great ad- 
 vantage from its use. When any degree of am- 
 biguity exists in reference to the construction of 
 any paper, contract, law, or statute — whether in 
 private life or in relation to public affairs, and 
 especially when it is a paper of long standing, 
 much light may frequently be obtained by ascer- 
 taining what was the construction at the time 
 when it was written — what course of conduct wae 
 
 followed by the parties immediately on the incep- 
 tion of the contract, immediately ori the making 
 of the paper, immediately on the promulgation 
 of the law. If we can ascertain from the light 
 derived from their conduct and their action how 
 they understood it, we consider ourselves as 
 having made one step in the progress of truth. 
 
 I hardly know of any one oranch of our Con- 
 stitution where I consider cotemporaneous con- 
 struction so important as in regard to the subject 
 of slavery, and especially in relation to the rights 
 and interests of tlioso States who claim and hold 
 slaves. To them cotemporaneous construction 
 is, I think, a matter of the deepest importance. 
 They are the part of the United States which, I 
 think, would derive on this subject the least pos- 
 sible advantage from new views of the Constitu- 
 tion. 
 
 I have made this last remark for a reason which 
 I will state. If a man were to take our Consti- 
 tution, and should close the volume of our history, 
 and should obliterate our legislation, and read 
 that book without these lights, I think he would 
 come to the conclusion that there never wag 
 such a thing as slavery in the country. There is 
 nothing in the instrument that would lead him to 
 dream of its existence. I know that it is some- 
 what difficult to ascertain how much we should 
 learn from the reading of any particular paper or 
 book, without the lights of experience around us. 
 It is as difficult, perhaps, as for a man now to 
 determine how much he would know in relation 
 to the moral attributes of the Deity if he had not 
 the light of revelation around him. The truth is 
 he has that light around him, and it is difficult 
 for him to judge how much he would be able to 
 discover if he had it not. We have the lights of 
 our experience; we have the lessons of our 
 political history; and it is difficult for us to read 
 the Constitution without those lights. Still I 
 think it would be practicable to a considerable 
 extent. 
 
 There are only three places in the Constitution 
 in which, as we now understand the subject, 
 slavery is alluded to at all. In the second section 
 
of the first article of the Constitution it is provided 
 tlmt— 
 
 " Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned 
 among the several States which may be included witliin 
 this Union, aceordiiip; to tlieir respective ninnbers, v.'liieh 
 sh ill be determined by addiiif; to tlie whole iiiiinber of free 
 persons, includi;i!r I hose bound to service for a term of years, 
 and exciudijig Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other 
 persons." 
 
 Let a man, with a perfect knowledge of the 
 English language, read that clause without the 
 lessons of our history and li'gisiation, and I ask 
 in ail candor — though he miglit be a highly in- 
 telligent man — what would he think about it? He 
 Avould say, " three fifths of all other persons ! I 
 nm stumbled at what they did mean; what other 
 persons could there be? you have included all free 
 people, and excluded all Indians, and who else 
 could there be? " Remember he has not history 
 to go to. I ask any man on earth how would lie 
 answer that question ? It cannot be answered. 
 
 The next place whore it is supposed the subject 
 is alluded to a little obliquely, and by circumlo- 
 cution, is this provision; 
 
 " The migration or importation of such persons as any 
 of the (States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall 
 not be prohibited by Congress prior to the ycarlSOS." 
 
 If a man should read that clause alone, would 
 he ever think that it alluded to slaves or slavery? 
 Is there any intimation in it which would make' a 
 man dream of any such thing? Ctirtainly not. 
 All he could conclude fromit would be,thatsome 
 States wished to encourage foreign immigration, 
 and some did not; that some wished to fill up their 
 territory, and some did not; and, therefore, they 
 regulated it for the time being, by providipg that 
 eacli State should do as it pleased. That is all 
 that evidently could be inferred from the reading 
 of this clause. 
 
 The third place in which it is alh.ided to is the 
 provision, that "no persrjnheld to service or labor, 
 b)' the laws of one Suite under the laws thereof, 
 escaping into another, shall, in consequence of 
 any law or regulation therein, be discharged from 
 such service or labor, but shall be delivered up." 
 Try the same experiment again; read it from the 
 light of that clause alone, and would anybody 
 dream of the existence of slavery? iXever; never. 
 
 I presume, IVIr. President, that other gentle- 
 men, like myself, iiave, in the course of the pres- 
 ent session, received somewhat of a large pam- 
 phlet, or volume, in which the subject is taken 
 up and discussed. It is, in fact, an abolition 
 paper. It is a long argument founded on the 
 position, that, if you read the provisions of the 
 Constitution, they do not recognize slavery at 
 all; that it is a charter of liberty, and therefore 
 the existence of slavery is unconstitutional every- 
 where in the Union. That argument is drawn 
 from the reading of the Constitution from its own 
 mere light, without any possible reflection from 
 otiier quarters. 
 
 iVow, Mr. President, how do we arrive at the 
 true meaning of all these provisions? How will 
 those gentlemen who claim the right to hold 
 slaves in the States under the Constitution get at 
 that riglit, guarantied to them, as thoy say, by 
 the Constitution ? Where is it in the Constitu- 
 tijOii? It certainly is not there. But the moment 
 
 I we open the volume of our political history, the 
 j moment we read the lessons of our own legisla- 
 j tion cotemporaneous with and springing out of 
 the Constitution, wo at once get light on all these 
 three branches. What is it? You find in rela- 
 tion to the first Ijranch that, when Representatives 
 were apportioned by the first Congress after a 
 census was taken, the apportionment was made 
 by counting amongst these " three fifths of all 
 other persons" — slaves. They apportioned them 
 ; in that mode, and have done so ever since. This 
 gives us light as to what is meant by " three 
 fifths of all other persons." 
 
 Again, when we come to the clause in regard 
 to the migration or importation of certain persons, 
 what do we learn? We learn that Congress, as 
 soon as 1808. arrived, prohibited absolutely and 
 everywhere the importation of slaves. That was 
 the thitig which the Constitution meant they 
 should not do until 1808. They passed a law 
 immediately before that year, to come into effect 
 In 1808; but they did not do it until that time in 
 relation to the country at large. Why not? Read 
 the clause of the Constitution providing that the 
 migration and importations of pe'rsons whom the 
 States existing may think proper to admit, shall 
 not be prohibited until 1808. We .see from the 
 light of that history, from the effect of that legis- 
 lation, what these words meant. The " persons" 
 there mentioned, whose migration was not to be 
 proliibited, were slaves. 
 
 Again, if you go to the clause which says, that 
 persons bound to service by the laws of one 
 State, and who escape into another Stale, shall 
 not by any law therein be released from that ser- 
 vice, we should not know anything about what 
 that meant; but we find as early as 1793 a law of 
 Congress to carry that provision into effect^ and 
 under thiit law slaves were reclaimed. I'hat, 
 then, was the thing intended, and from it we 
 obtain liglit. 
 
 Mr. BUTLER. They did not use the word 
 "slaves." 
 
 Mr. COLLAMER. I do not know that they 
 usid the word "slaves;" but, if we look at the 
 history of it and its effect, we find that it was to 
 recapture slaves, and the illustrations of history 
 show that is exactly what they understood it to 
 mean. 
 
 I do not wish to enter into a controversy with 
 those who say that this cotemjioraiieous construc- 
 tion is a clear view of what the Constitution meant 
 — I think it is. I do not think it leaves any doubt. 
 The meaning of the three provisions which I 
 have mentioned is, in my opinion, illustrated 
 by this cotemj)oraneous, practical construction, 
 given to them at that time and continued to this 
 day. I think there is no doubt about the mean- 
 ing of them; but, I say it requires that cotem- 
 poraneous construction and needs that light in 
 order to settle the question. 
 
 It is true, then, that practical, cotemporaneous 
 construction is of very great importance, and 
 especially in regard to the construction of the 
 Coiislituiion in relation to slavery. It would be 
 well, therefore, to be acquainted with it when we 
 undertake to legislate or talk about the poweraof 
 Congress over the subject. 
 
5 
 
 Now I propose to sliowand insist, though not 
 at groat length, that, by the practical, cotempora- 
 neous construction of the Constitution, Congress 
 has power over slavery in the Territories, without 
 State limits. Congress has never submitted the 
 question of freedom or slavery to the people of 
 the Territories in any form, to be there operated 
 upon, wliijo they were Territories. The people of 
 n Territory in the forming of a State government 
 must, of course, have the power to form their 
 State constitution like any other State in the 
 Union, as they please, so that it be republican in 
 form, in order to be on an equality with other 
 States. Tlii.s is quite obvious. It needs no argu- 
 ment. That is not what I am talking about. I am 
 speaking as to the prohibition, or the existence, 
 or regulation of slavery within a Territory while 
 it remains a Territory. I say Congress has never, 
 until now, permitted that question to be agitated, 
 or discussed, or regulated in the Territories them- 
 selves; and therefore I insist that the present at- 
 tempt is a ueAv experiment, and the very fact that 
 it is a new experiment is to mc an almost insu- 
 perable objection to it. 
 
 In the next place, I think it appears, from the 
 history of legislation and the exercise of power 
 on the subject of slavery within the Territories 
 by the General Government, that Congress has 
 regulated it in this way: Where slavery did not 
 exist to any considerable or appreciable extent, 
 Congri>ss, by general or particular laws, has in 
 those Territories prohibited it from time to time; 
 and in those Territories where slavery was exist- 
 ing, and where it was found to exist. Congress 
 in li'gislating for them did not do anything that 
 would justify us in saying that they repudiated 
 the exercise of power; but the institution being 
 there, and being used by the people who had gone 
 there, and this being a fair evidence of its'ftdapt- 
 iveness to tlieir use. Congress have suffered it to 
 remain, making various provisions for its regula- 
 tion. 
 
 I think that is the lesson which we derive from 
 our legislation. Congress did exercise power 
 over and in relation to the subject from the origin 
 of the Constitution. From this I conclude they 
 had the power. It is shown by the cotempora- 
 neous exposition of the Constitution, and by the 
 action of Congress ever since. Whatever new 
 views of the Constitution may be gotten up now, 
 I carr> not how ingenious and plausible they may 
 be, if they in effect so co)istrue the power of Con- 
 gress over the Territories, or derive it from such 
 sources as to eviscerate it and deprive Congress 
 of the possession of this power which has bean 
 so often exercised, all I can say is, that it is 
 entirely new, and, therefore, unfounded, being 
 inconsistent with tlie lessons of experience. 
 
 It is hardly necessary, in order to show what I 
 have been thus stating in general terms, to go 
 very carefully into particulars in relation to the 
 northern part of the United States. Before the 
 Constitution was adopted, we all know that there 
 was an ordinance extending over all the territory 
 northwest of the Ohio river, prohibiting slavery. 
 We are told by the President, in his annual mes- 
 sage, that when the Constitution of the United 
 States was adopted it superseded and repealed 
 
 the provisions of that ordinance. He deduces 
 that conclusion in this way: Inasmuch as the 
 Constitution gave power to Congress to admit 
 new States on the same footing with the original 
 States, if that ordinance contained anything for- 
 bidding slavery, it was inconsistent with that pro- 
 vision, and therefore was superseded and repealed 
 by it. I do not agree to that sort of constitutional 
 law at all; but that is what we are informed by 
 the President. But suppose, for the sake of 
 the argument, we treat the matter in that light. 
 Then, I will call the attention of gentlemen to the 
 history of legislation in regard to the Northwest 
 Territory, though it has been so well done by the 
 Senator from Iowa, [Mr. Harlan,] that it is not 
 necessary for me to do so. 
 
 In the admission of Ohio as a State, Congress 
 declared that they should form their constitution 
 consistently with the ordinance. In forming the 
 Territories of Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and 
 Wisconsin, included within the original North- 
 west Territory, in every instance the legislation 
 of Congress expressly reenacted the whole ordi- 
 nance, and spread it over these Territories from 
 time to time, step by step. As fast as Territories 
 were formed, just so fast the principle of prohibi- 
 tion kept on, pari passu. It went over the Missis- 
 sippi, and reached Minnesota and Iowa, and 
 crossed the Rocky Mountains to Oregon. In all 
 these instances the same legislation — prohibition 
 of slavery where it did not exist — was proceeded 
 with by Congress. It is not necessary to pai'- 
 ticularize these acts any further. But let us go 
 South, and see how it stands there. 
 
 Mr. President, there is perhaps no better settled 
 principle of law than that the power to regulate 
 includes the power to control. When power is 
 granted to regulate a subject, it always includes 
 the exercise of full discretion by the body which 
 possesses the power. For this reason it has been 
 held that the power to regulate commerce, con- 
 ferred upon Congress by the Constitution, includes 
 the power to lay a perpetual embargo. The em- 
 bargo which was laid during our dilTiculties witji 
 England preceding the last war, had no limita- 
 tion. In that case the question arose; and our 
 courts decided that the power to regulate com- 
 merce included the power entirely to prohiliit it, 
 without limitation of time. The power conferred 
 by the Constitution to regulate trade v/ith the 
 Indian tribes is a power to prohibit trade with 
 those Indian tribes; and it has been exercised 
 very often. The same principle has been fre- 
 quently decided by the Supreme Court of the Uni- 
 ted States in many different forms, where the 
 application of the principle has arisen. 
 
 I desire now to speak in relation to the exercise 
 of power by the Congress of the United States over 
 the subject of slavery in the Southern Territories. 
 I wish to call attention to the action in those cases 
 where slavery existed at the time when the terri- 
 torial goverimient was extended over the Terri- 
 tories. The first to which I refer is the case of 
 the Territory of Tennessee. In the conveyance 
 by North Carolina to the United States of the 
 Territory now composing the State of Tennessee, 
 the authority of the United States was limited 
 and controlled so as to prevent the prohibition 
 
or abolition of slavery. In the case alluded to 
 by the Senator from Georgia, [Mr. Toombs,] of 
 the Missis.sippi Territory, in 1798, a somewliat 
 similar statu of things existed. That was a region 
 of country over which Georgia had .some claim. 
 She had made grants of land there — the celebrated 
 Yazoo grant among the number. Her inhabitants 
 had settled there. A law was passed by Con- 
 gress in 179S, for tiie appointment of commis- 
 sioners to settle with Georgia as to her claims 
 with the United States over this Territory, and 
 in the same act provision was made for the organ- 
 ization of a territorial government. The com- 
 missioners went on and made the arrangement. 
 Georgia quit-claimed to the United States all her 
 rights, and inserted in herdeed of cession a clause 
 that tlie United States should not abolish slavery 
 in the Territory — the same provision which was 
 made in the North Carolina deed of cession. This 
 was done after the act of Congress was passed; 
 but the existence of slavery in the Territory was 
 well-known. Part of it came from Florida, also 
 a slave-holding region. 
 
 Now let us see whether or not the act of 1798 
 in regard to the Mississippi Territory adopted the 
 so-called principle of non-intervention. Recollect, 
 sir, that at that time Congress had under the 
 Constitution no power to prohibit the migration 
 of such persons us the tlien existing States might 
 think proper to admit until 1808. But in that 
 law of 1798 there was an express provision pro- 
 hibiting the importation of slaves by the inhabit- 
 ants of the Territory. They were composed of 
 settlers from Georgia, under the grants of that 
 State and the old inhaljitants of Florida, a portion 
 of which came to us from Great Britain under the 
 treaty of 1783. These people were there with 
 their slaves. The people, when a part of the 
 Territory was under the jurisdiction of Georgia, 
 had the same power to import slaves which the 
 remainder of Georgia possessed. The moment 
 the cession was made, however, those people were 
 deprived of that power by an act of Congress 
 passed as early as 1798. 
 
 I come, now, to the case of Louisiana. In 1803 
 we acquired Louisiana from France; and in 1804 
 the first legislation of Congress was enacted in 
 regard to it, constituting it into a Territory, called 
 Orleans Territory. Tnis was before the date of 
 the ojieration of the provision of the Con.stitution 
 allowing Congress to prevent the migration of 
 certain persons into the existing States; but in the 
 act of 1804 we find three leading provisions on 
 the subject of slavery, regulating, and thereby 
 exercising power over it, in the Territory. In the 
 first jilace, Congress prohibited the bringing of 
 slaves into that Territory from anyplace, unless 
 they came with families as settlers. In the next 
 place, Congnss prohibited the importation of 
 slaves into that Territory from beyond the limits 
 of the United States. The third feature in tliat 
 act, to which any one who reads it camiot but be 
 particularly attracted, is, that no slaves should be 
 taken there with settler.s as membm's of families, 
 or ill any other way, if they had been imported 
 into the United States since 1798. It was declared 
 that slaves brought in in violation of either of 
 tliese provisions should be free, and that those 
 
 taking them into the Territory should be subjected 
 to heavy penalties. At first, on looking at the act, 
 I did not see why Congress fixed the date of 1798; 
 but, on a little reflection, I perceived very well 
 what the object was. Congress, in the Territo- 
 ries where they had power, had prohil)ited the 
 importation of slaves. It was done in 1798, in 
 the Mississippi Territory, as before stated. Thus 
 Congress had expressed their views in regard to 
 the subject. The States were at liberty to do as 
 they pleased up to 1808; but in 1804, in legislating 
 for the Territory of Orleans, Congress expressly 
 said: " AVe told you, as early as 1798, that where 
 we had power no more slaves should be imported 
 from abroad. Now, if you have imported slaves 
 into your States since that time, you shall not 
 take them into this Territory, over which we have 
 jurisdiction." 
 
 This was the legi.slation of Congress, and can 
 any man of candor tell me that it was non-inter- 
 vention? It certainly is not. It is the exercise 
 of full power over the subject by the enactment 
 of jiractical and important legislation in regard to 
 slavery in the Territories of the United States 
 where that institution existed. From this legis- 
 lation I deduce this conclusion — that Congress 
 claimed to have, and did exercise, full power to 
 make provision on the subject of slavery, where 
 slavery existed at the time when Congress legis- 
 lated in regard to them. Congress did not think 
 proper to prohibit it in those cases, but they ex- 
 ercised complete jurisdiction over the subject by 
 regulating it. In reference to those portions of 
 the country where there were no slaves. Congress, 
 in the exercise of its power, dominion and sov- 
 ereignty over territory without the limits of any 
 particular State, legislated on the subject of 
 slavery from time to time as, in their discretion, 
 they thought proper; that is, by utterly prohibit- 
 ing it. 
 
 This system of legislation continued uninter- 
 ruptedly for many years. The Missouri compro- 
 mise of 1820 was a part and parcel of the same 
 system. There was much agitation on the sub- 
 ject at that time; but finally the difKeulty was 
 setth;d by admitting Missouri as a slaveholding 
 State, and declaring that, in all the territory north 
 and west of it, above the line of 30° 30', where 
 slavery did not in fact exist — in a region whicli 
 was then a wilderness (where Kansas and Ne- 
 braska are now situated) — there should be no 
 slavery. This was the exercise of precisely the 
 same power on which I have been connnenting. 
 It was in the repeal of this compromise in 1854, 
 and permitting the people of Kansas to establish 
 slavery therein while it remained a Territory, 
 and so pre)iaring the way for a slave State consti- 
 tution, that the great v/rcnig to the free States and 
 cause of freedom consists. 
 
 By the exercise of this course of legislation, from 
 
 time to time, things went on quietly am! jieacefully 
 
 until 1854. Most of the Territories thus formed 
 
 by Congr(^ss have been admitted into the Union 
 
 as Slates, without any trouble; they have made 
 
 their State constitutions as tliey have thought 
 
 '; proper, always, however, in conformity to their 
 
 I territorial condition as to slavery, and Congress 
 
 ! has received them into the Union. There has 
 
always been peace; there has never been any 
 trouble in regard to these Territories where Con- 
 gress prohibited slavery. When they came to 
 form their State constitutions, there was never 
 any trouble or distress as to the extent of liberty 
 which they were allowed. In those Territories 
 where Congress found slavery existing and per- 
 mitted it to continue, and regulated it, there was 
 no trouble whatever when they came to make 
 their constitutions, resulting from the previous 
 exercise of power by Congress over this subject. 
 It is indeed true, as we should expect, that the 
 Slate constitutions have always been for freedom 
 or slavery, as the condition of the Territory pre- 
 pared it for. 
 
 Now, however, in modern times, there are new 
 views of the Constitulion. I have not the time, if 
 I had the physical ability, to reproduce them all 
 here, and show that they are new. The very 
 fact that they are broached at this late day for 
 the first time is, in my judgment, enough to 
 show their baselessness. Especially is this the 
 case when a doctrine is broached which, carried 
 to its legitimate result, declares fifty years of 
 unquestioned legislation by Congress to be uncon- 
 stitutional and void. It must be wrong, because 
 you thereby undertake to obliterate and to quench 
 all that light which is so important to us, as I 
 have already remarked, in construing the Consti- 
 tution on this great topic. I have observed in 
 the Kansas-Nebraska law, amongst other features 
 which it seems to me are new views on the Con- 
 stitution, a provision for the extension of the 
 Constitution by statute of the United States over 
 the Territory of Kansas. What, sir, extend the 
 Constitution of the United States over aTerritory 
 by an act of Congress ! What an anomaly ! I 
 was surprised when I saw it; and I have carefully 
 looked over every territorial act passed by Con- 
 gress since the foundation of the Government, 
 and I have been unable to find in any one of 
 them, previous to 1850, such a provision. I do 
 not know to what it is intended to lead, but I 
 think it my duty to call attention to its strange- 
 ness and novelty. It seems to me that it must 
 have some ulterior purjoose which I cannot dis- 
 cover. It may perhaps be used hereafter as a 
 precedent to sustain some other new doctrine, 
 and a principle may be extracted from it which 
 those who adopted it did not think of, as has 
 been done in many cases, and especially in this 
 very law in regard to the compromise of 1850. 
 
 Has Congress power to spread its authority 
 over a country not within its geograph.ical juris- 
 diction ? Was the Constitution ever adopted by 
 law, which must necessarily grow out of the Con- 
 stitution itself? Can you extend the Constitution 
 over a Territory by an act of Congress? If you 
 can, you have but to repeal your act of Congress, 
 and your Constitution does not extend there. 
 Sir, our jurisdiction over country is never ac- 
 quired by an act of legislation; it must be preexist- 
 ing. Legislation can extend only over country 
 wliich you already have within your jurisdiction. 
 Congress has no power over territory within its 
 jurisdiction except that which the Constitution 
 confers. All their power is derived from the 
 Constitution — but to what country? Of course 
 
 to country within their jurisdiction, and none 
 other. 
 
 If we are to adopt this doctrine, there is no 
 Constitution of the United States now in opera- 
 tion in Missouri, or Ohio, or Michigan. They 
 never adopted the Constitution of the United 
 States. The old States adopted it in convention. 
 If you call the State which I have the honor, in 
 part, to represent, a new State, it did adopt the 
 Constitution. We assembled, as the old States 
 did, in convention, and adopted the Constitution 
 of the United States, and so, I believe, did Ken- 
 tucky, which was admitted into the Union in the 
 same year; but in regard to all that territory be- 
 yond the Mississippi and north of the Ohio, there 
 IS not one State formed out of it which ever adopted 
 the United States Constitution jpy a convention, 
 and no act of a State Legislature could do it; and 
 I undertake to say there is not one of them over 
 which it has been spread by act of Congress. 
 Then how is our Constitution operative there ? 
 I will tell you. 
 
 Mr. President, I would always much rather 
 cite higher authority than my own ipse dixit on 
 any subject, and especially when that authority 
 lies at my hand. In this case I think there is 
 conclusive authority to which I can refer. We 
 know that in an early period of our history the 
 power of annexing foreign territory to the Union 
 was much agitated. We know that when Lou- 
 isiana was acquired, Mr. Jeiferson was of the 
 opinion that it was beyond the power of the Gov- 
 ernment; and he proposed an amendment of the 
 Constitution for the purpose of securing that 
 which was then regarded as a very great and 
 necessary acquisition. Mr. Jefferson was over- 
 ruled, however. Congress did not agree with him 
 in opinion; the nation did not so think. Although 
 I have heard some reasons, which I think ex- 
 ceedingly lame, given in regard to this point, I 
 believe we now have light enough, derived from 
 that source of legal intelligence, the Supreme 
 Court of the United States. If you will examine 
 the decision in Canter's case, you will find the 
 whole doctrine fully stated. 
 
 Florida was acquired by treaty in the same 
 manner as Louisiana, and our laws — not our 
 Constitution — were extended over it by act of 
 Congress. Goods were seized in Florida, under 
 our revenue laws, which brought the question 
 before the Supreme Court. On that occasion the 
 counsel, in the extremity of their defenses, were 
 driven to insist, among other things, that the 
 acquisition of Florida was beyond the constitu- 
 tional power of the Government; and they cited 
 Mr. Jefferson's views in relation to the Louisiana 
 case to show that there was no such power in the 
 Goverimientjand that therefore the United Slates 
 had no such jurisdiction over Florida, and that, 
 hence, the act of Congress extending our laws 
 over that territory was inoperative and void. 
 
 I speak of this case from recollection, and' I 
 may not, perhaps, do justice to all the points in 
 that case, but one is sufficient for my present pur- 
 pose. Chief Justice Marshall, in delivering the 
 ojiinion of the court, stated in substance, tliat the 
 power of acquiring foreign territory v/as an inci- 
 dentof sovereignty, and that the power to make 
 
 /' 
 
8 
 
 ■war implies the right of conquest. When a 
 Govcriinicnt comes to make a treaty after a war, 
 it may do so on either of two well-known princi- 
 ples; that of the uti possidetis or the status quo ante 
 helium. If on the former principle, provi.sion is 
 made that eacii nation shall hold and jios.scss what 
 it then has. Tliat is the exercise of the treaty- 
 making power, and hence the court said the 
 acquisition of fiireign territory was within the 
 treaty -making power of Government, ex necessi- 
 tate rei, arising from sovereignty. When in the 
 exercise of that power foreign territory is an- 
 nexed to the United States — which is a mere 
 political question — Congress acquired jurisdic- 
 tion over it. The moment foreign territory is 
 annexed to the United States, it is within the 
 jurisdiction of Congress, and the Constitution 
 extends over it. The Constitution is the creator 
 of that very government which has brought it 
 within its jurisdiction, and the law-making power 
 spreads over it by its being within its jurisdic- 
 tion; and it is the spreading of that Constitution 
 over the territory by its acquisition which gives 
 Congress the power to legislate for it. 
 
 This is the way in which the Constitution ex- 
 ists in Florida, Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri, 
 Iowa, Minnesota, California, and Oregon — not 
 by an act of Congress, for that would be legis- 
 lating over a country in regard to which you 
 could not legislate; which would itself be a par- 
 adox. 
 
 I say, then, that when the report of the major- 
 ity of the Committee on Territories undertakes 
 to derive the power of Congress, in relation to tlie 
 Territories, entirely from the authority granted by 
 the Constitution to admit new States, and treats it 
 as an incident of that power for the purpose of 
 breeding the Territory into a State, and admitting 
 it into the Union, it undertakes to derive it from 
 quite too limited a source. I acknowledge that 
 tile doctrine is a new one. It is a neto viciv of 
 the Constitution ; and, if that fact recommends if, 
 I am free to admit that it is well iecommend<Hl; 
 but it does not commend itself to my acceptance. 
 I object to it, in the first place, because it eviscer- 
 ates the power of Congress to do those very acts 
 of legislation which they have done for half a 
 century without question. 
 
 The majority report says, in substance, that 
 we caimot legislate in regard to the subject of 
 slavery in the Territories, because it is not 
 necessary to breed them as States. If the power 
 is derived from that source, how are we to regard 
 the long line of precedents which I have enumer- 
 ated ? Such a doctrine would utterly deprive 
 Congress of any power to legislate for a Territory 
 until it was large enough to form a State. I thinK 
 I have heard, during various Administrations of 
 this Government, the suggestion made that we 
 ought to acquin' a naval "station in the Mediter- 
 ranean, periiaps at Port Mahon, or some other 
 place, and also in the West Indies. If such a station 
 should be acquired, what power could Congress 
 have over it? We surely should not prop*ose to 
 make it into a State; but, according to this new 
 reading of the Constitution, we could not legislate 
 for it at all for that very reason. This ground 
 "will not answer; it is quite too narrow. There 
 
 is another branch of the Constitution which ^ives 
 Congress power to legislate over forts, light- 
 houses, and arsenals; butit is expressly confined 
 to those cases where the title to the sites is 
 acquired from the States; it does not relate to 
 foreign territory. 
 
 I deduce, from the provisions of the Constitution 
 and from the legislation to which I have referred, 
 that Congress has sovereignty over all territory 
 within the jurisdiction and limits of the United 
 States, not included within any particular State. 
 I say there are no limitations to that sovereignty, 
 except what are found in the Constitution itself. 
 I know this is not a Government of unlimited 
 powers. It cannot prevent trial by jury; it can- 
 not abolish t]\o haJjeas corpus; it cannot do a variety 
 I of things which are forbidden to it. For this 
 ! reason; if we acquire a territory from a foreign 
 I Government, which is an absolute or limited mon- 
 [archy, we have not the same powers over it 
 which that Government possessed, but we are 
 limited by the Constitution. I say, that the legis- 
 i lation which I have cited shows that Congress 
 have exercised this power 
 
 Mr. GEYER. I wish to understand the Sena- 
 tor's proposition. Is it that Congress have sov- 
 ereignty over the territory of the United States? 
 Mr. COLLAMER. I say the jurisdiction of 
 the United States and the power of Congress over 
 a Territory are identical. When I say the sover- 
 eignty is in Congress, I mean the United States, 
 including the whole powers of Government, ex- 
 ecutive, legislative, and judicial. I mean that this 
 organized Government, as created by the Consti- 
 tution, has sovereignty over the Territories. 
 
 Mr. GEYER. Do I understand the honorable 
 Senator as saying that all the sovereignty of the 
 United States has been delegated to some one of 
 the departments of the Government? 
 
 Mr. COLLAMER. No, sir, I do not say 
 that it is delegated to any one department; but I 
 say that the Government of the United States, 
 like any other Government where its functions 
 are divided into two or three differentdepartmonts, 
 makes a unit which may be regarded as a whole. 
 It is a whole government taken together, with the 
 combined powers which its different functionaries 
 possess. Taken in the aggregate, they make the 
 United States Government, and that is the Gov- 
 ernment which I say has sovereignty over the 
 Territory beyond the limits of any particular 
 State; and I say further, that this sovereignty is 
 to be exercised by the Congress of the United 
 States as the legislative d(^partment of the Gov- 
 ernment. 1 contend that, in legislating for the 
 Territories, the Government of the United States 
 never parts with this sovereignty. The territo- 
 rial governments are mere municipal corporations 
 entirely within the control of Congress. I do not 
 wish here to cite authorities which 1 have cited 
 in the minority report.- I have there referred to 
 the opini(m of Attorney General Butler, in the 
 case of Arkansas, where he stated that Congress 
 had power to repeal, or alter, or modify the laws 
 which a territorial government miglit make. 
 This was said by him in relation to a Territory 
 in regard to which there had been no reservation 
 in the organic act of power to Congress to revise 
 
9 
 
 its laws. The power arises from the existence 
 of sovereignty over the Territories. 
 
 Why, sir, what is that which gentlemen call 
 the organic law of the Territories ? It is their 
 constitution, and so is every charter which is 
 granted to any corporation its constitution. Has 
 not the power which makes the constitution the 
 rigiit to alter, change, or abolish it, if it pleases? 
 Congress made a constitution for this Territory, 
 and that same constitution-making power has the 
 right to limit, alter, control, or modify it. Con- 
 gross takes care of the Territory, and it is the 
 duty of Congress to look after its interests. I 
 view the Territory of Kansas in the same light as 
 all other Territories, and I say that the power of 
 this Government over it is as unlimited as it was 
 before the organic act was passed. We may 
 control, limit, or amend that act as we please. All 
 the arguments which ingenious gentlemen may 
 present as to the doctrine of estoppel have nothing 
 to do with the question of the power of Congress, 
 in my estimation. We are told that, because the 
 Legislature of the Territory has done certain 
 things, we are estopped from touching its pro- 
 ceedings. We are told that, because the Governor 
 has done particular acts, we are estopped from 
 inquiring into them. We are told that we are 
 estopped from inquiring into the fraud, violence, 
 and usurpation committed in the Territory of Kan- 
 sas. I deny it. I say that doctrine has nothing to do 
 with our power. But, sir, the more gentlemen talk 
 about the doctrine of estoppel, and the more proof 
 they bring forward to show that the people of the 
 Territory cannot have justice anywhere else, the 
 more imperative is the demand on us, and the 
 greater the occasion for our interference. 
 
 I desire now to call attention to the new ex- 
 periment which was set on foot by the Kan- 
 sas-Nebraska act. Let us inquire wherein the 
 newness of that experiment consisted. In what 
 was it? It was not merely in that provis- 
 ion of the organic law which declared the Mis- 
 souri compromise inoperative and void. It ap- 
 pears to me that, in the organic act and in the 
 report of the majority, there is a constant con- 
 founding of the power to prohibit slavery in a 
 Territory, and the power of the people, when 
 they come to form a State constitution, to pro- 
 vide for freedom or slavery as they please. These 
 are two distinct propositions. If the only pur- 
 pose was to allow the people, when they come 
 to form a State, to have freedom or slavery as 
 they choose, I say that was sufficiently provided 
 for in the first section of the act in relation to 
 Kansas. The first eighteen sections of the or- 
 ganic law relate to Nebraska, and that portion of 
 it which refers to Kansas commences with the 
 nineteenth section. In that section it was pro- 
 vided, "when admitted as a State or States, the 
 said Territory, or any portion of the same, shall 
 be received into the Union with or without sla- 
 very as their constitution may prescribe at the 
 time of their admission." This was an express 
 grant of power by itself, and nothing more was 
 needed if it was intended to give the people full 
 liberty in forming their State constitution. If it 
 could be said that the Missouri compromise, 
 which forbade the existence of slavery in terri- 
 * 
 
 as 
 
 tory north of 36° 30', could be so construed _„ 
 to prevent the people from forming a constitution 
 admitting slavery if they choose — which I deny 
 — this was sufficient to accomplish that object. 
 It was the last law on the subject, and any pre- 
 viously existing law inconsistent with it was 
 thereby pro tanto repealed. This was all that 
 was necessary to enable the people to form a 
 State constitution providing as they pleased in re- 
 gard to slavery. The provision contained in the 
 organic act in regard to the repeal of the Missouri 
 compromise was perfectly useless for any pur- 
 pose whatever connected with the formation of a 
 State constitution, and yet it is constantly talked 
 about as if it was necessary to enable the people 
 to form their State constitution as they pleased. 
 It was totally useless for such a purpose. Let 
 me read the clause: 
 
 "That the Constitution, and all the laws of th« United 
 States which are not locally inapplicable, shall have the 
 same force and effect within the said Territory of Kansas as 
 elsewhere within the United States, except the eighth sec- 
 tion of the act preparatory to the admission of Missouri into 
 the Union, approved March 6, 1820, which, being incon- 
 sistent with the principle of non-intervention by Confess 
 with slavery in the States and Territories, as recognized by 
 the legislation of 1850, coiinnonly called the compromise 
 measures, is hereby declared inoperative and void; it being 
 the true intent and meaning of this act not to legislate 
 slavery into any Territory or State, nor to exclude itlhere- 
 from, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form 
 and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, 
 subject only to the Constitution of the United States : Pro- 
 vided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to 
 revive or put ui force any law or regulation which may have 
 existed prior to the act of 6th March, 1820, either protect- 
 ing, estaldishing, prohibiting, or abolishing slavery." 
 
 There are a great man)^ words here employed, 
 sayingalmost the same thing over and over again, 
 and containing in the body of the enactment the 
 reasons for it, which reasons are entirely inapph- 
 cable, and can have no force in regard to the law 
 one way or the other. What does it all mean > 
 If it means anything, and I take it that it does, it 
 must mean, as I suppose it will be insisted to 
 mean, that while this was a Territory, anterior to 
 and independent of the formation of a State con- 
 stitution, the people should, in the mean time, 
 have the power to adopt or reject slavery as they 
 pleased. This is the fair meaning and import of 
 the provision. If it does not mean this there is 
 some duplicity involved in it, calculated, perhaps 
 intended, to mislead. Certain I am, sir, that the 
 very honorable and distinguished Senator from 
 Michigan [Mr. Cass] has held that slavery can- 
 not go into a Territory without a local law being 
 passed to authorize its existence. I appeal to the 
 Senator if that is not so. 
 
 Mr. CASS. I believe it. It is my opinion at 
 this day. 
 
 Mr. COLLAMER. If the gentleman says 
 that, I will undertake to prove to'^him, from some 
 laws which exist in Kansas, that if a man dared 
 repeat that sentiment in that country he might 
 be condemned to hard labor as a felon. 
 
 Mr. CASS. It is a question which the Supreme 
 Court can decide. 
 
 Mr. COLLAMER. I do not know how it will 
 be decided. The Senator now says that he un- 
 derstands it as I read it, and he agrees that slavery 
 cannot exist there until a law shall be passed by 
 
10 
 
 the Legislature to introduce it. Well, sir, a law- 
 has l)pen passed by what is claimed to bo the 
 Legislalurc, thatif any man shall dare to say that 
 people have not a right to liold slaves there in the 
 absence of law, he shall be liable to imiirisonment 
 for two years and punishment at hard lalior. 
 
 What, sir, is the experiment of the Kansas- 
 Nebraska act, of which I have spoken ? It is the 
 experiment, instead of leaving slavery prohibited 
 l)y the Missouri compromise, of leaving the ques- 
 tion to the people of the Territory to discuss, to 
 agitate, to legislate about it from time to time, and 
 to make elections dependent on the (juestion of 
 slavery in the Territory, while remaining a Terri- 
 tory. I am sensibK> that tliere are men in some 
 parts of the United States who say that this is not 
 the meaning, but I cannot stop to argue the point. 
 This is clearly the provision, taking the fair im- 
 port of the language. The report of the majority 
 of the committee so regards it. That report 
 asserts that the people of the Territory cannot 
 exercise any powers, except those which they 
 derive through their organic act. Well, sir, the 
 organic act is the creature of Congress. The 
 report says that Congress can only legislate for 
 Territories in order to breed them up for States, 
 but not on slavery, as that is not necessary for 
 that purpose. Then, I sliould like to know how 
 Congress obtained power to give these people 
 authority to legislate on the subject of slavery. 
 Can Congress grant a legislative power it does 
 not possess? It is not for me to answer. 
 
 Mr. President, I oljject to this experiment in 
 the first place, because it is an experiment. It is 
 a departure from all the lessons of our political 
 history. Indeed, I believe the Senator from 
 Michigan rather congratulated the Senate at the 
 lime of the passage of the bill, that they had 
 adopted a new principle, and I presume he views 
 it so. I do not wish to give it a name. Some 
 call it squatter sovereignty, and some popular 
 fiovereignty; but it was understood to be a new 
 experiment altogether. 1 object to it because 
 it is a new experiment, and I think the ex])eri- 
 ence under it has had no tendency to convince 
 any candid man that the experiment is doing the 
 least good. It was a new course, struck out for 
 the first time; and what recommended it least to 
 me was, that CoJigress had heretofore legislated in 
 regard to slavery in all tlie Territories, and not 
 left it to the Territory. It appeared, however, 
 that there were quarrels in Congress in regard to 
 the subject. New views and old views were pre- 
 sented, so that Congress had some difficulty in 
 agreeing. What then did they do? They re- 
 pealed the compromise which prohibited slavery, 
 and turned the whole question to what is some- 
 times called an inchoate state — to the Territory 
 — to the municipal corporation on the plains of 
 the Missouri. Congress repealed the law for 
 liberty there, of thirty years' standing, and thus 
 got rid of this troublesome question by turning 
 it over to that people. That did not commend 
 itself much to me. 
 
 I object to it for another reason, because 1 con- 
 sider It a breach of two compromises. I know 
 that the word " compromise" is now not unfre- 
 quently used in a bad sense; but I do not mean 
 
 to use it in any such sense. I am not aware of 
 any country in the world which has more need 
 of the possession of such a power. Sir, we have 
 great political problems in our hands yet to be 
 solved in this Government, and it may need a 
 great deal of conciliation, of forbearance, and of 
 compromise, if you please, to dispose of them. 
 I shall be sorry to see the word rejected from our 
 political vocabulary. 
 
 Sir, 1 come from a part of the United State.-? 
 where the people say, " You must understand, 
 in the first place, that you are to sustain this 
 Union at all events." They also tell me that the 
 success of the great political experiment of self- 
 government, for the great cause of humanity for 
 the world and for all time, is now to be solved in 
 this country. What is it? Whether mankind 
 is competent to self-government. How can we 
 expect to succeed with it? Certainly by enlight- 
 ening and elevating, in every condition and in 
 every respect, those who are to carry out this 
 experiment — the voters of the land. With this 
 great mission in our hands, the body of our votens 
 must be a people better fed, better housed, better 
 clothed, belter instructed, and elevated in their 
 social condition, above any other people on this 
 earth. We are " a peculiar people, zealous of 
 good works." 
 
 We mustdo this with ourlaboring community, 
 because that laboring community constitutes the 
 great mass of our voters, and the policy of the 
 Government must be shaped with a view to place 
 them in the elevated position to which I have 
 alluded. There is a large part, a very respectable, 
 part, claiming to be an ( qual part — practically in 
 this Government they ar<! a great deal more than 
 equal — where the laborers are not placed in this 
 position — slaves. The question is, how can you 
 shape the policy of the Government to elevate the 
 condition of those laborers and enlighten them, 
 without injuring the sal'ety of the people among 
 whom they live. It is a troul)lesome problem. 
 Gentlemen may scout it as involving apparent 
 inconsistencies, but it is a grc^at problem, for us. 
 It needs the assistance of all sides in its solution. 
 It reminds me of the good old lady who, some- 
 what advanced in age, wished to have a Bible so 
 small that she could carry it to church in her 
 pocket. And yet it must have the largest kind 
 of print, because she could not see very well. I 
 do not perceive how it is possible to get the largest 
 kind of print into the smallest sized Bible; and it 
 is diificult for me to see how we are to solve tho 
 problem which I have stated, involving the incon- 
 sistencies to which I have alluded, and preserve 
 the Union, and yet make no compromise. 
 
 Sir, I think the experiment of dissolving the 
 Missouri compromise and the compromise of 
 1850, was a very mistaken one. Can any gentle- 
 man suppose that the people who sustained the 
 action of Congress in adopting the compromise 
 of 1850, expected that the action of 1854 would be 
 claimed to result as a consequence from it? It is 
 impossible. That compromise was based on the 
 principle that everything was to remain in statu 
 quo. The people said we will agree to the com- 
 promise of 1850, if that will settle the whole ques- 
 tion of slavery in regard to the Territories. In 
 
11 
 
 1854, however, it was contended that because in 
 the Utah and New Mexico bills of 1850, it was 
 provided that those Territories, when admitted | 
 as States, should come in with or without slavery, j 
 we were required to repeal the Missouri compro- 
 mise which prohibited slavery, and not only to 
 do that but to go farther, and to invest the people 
 of Kansas not merely with the power of forming 
 a State constitvition, but the power of legislating 
 in regard to slavery, and admitting it while they 
 should remain a Territory. In 1850 Mr. Clay 
 said: "I never will vote, and no earthly power 
 will ever make me vote, to spread slavery over 
 territory where it does not exist." Yet by your 
 legislation of 1854, you say, that in supporting 
 the compromise of 1850, Mr. Clay announced a 
 principle which repealed the Missouri compro- 
 mise by which the liberty of which he spoke 
 existed in the Territories. I need not dwell longer 
 on this point. 
 
 The repeal of the Missouri compromise cer- 
 tainly was not necessary to secure freedom. If 
 )>reserved, Kansas would have been settled with- 
 out slaves, and such a people never have and 
 never would form a State constitution allowing 
 slavery. It was for this reason the slaveholders 
 desired its repeal; and this repeal and granting 
 power to admit slavery by the Territory while 
 It remained such, is our matter of complaint. 
 
 When this experiment was put on foot what 
 must have been expected as likely to happen 
 under it? It invited all people to go and settle in 
 the Territory, and to fix, by the power of num- 
 bers, the question of slavery. Such exertions 
 were invited by the law. I shall not review the 
 lengthy comments of the report of the majority 
 upon the operations of the emigrant aid society. 
 I consider that the scolding about tlie emigrant 
 aid society, is for the purpose of diverting public 
 attention from the violence and the usurpation 
 which have taken place in Kansas, by Missouri 
 invasion. I say that when this law was passed, 
 and the experiment was set on foot, every man 
 who desired to go to Kansas for the purpose of 
 makmg it a free State, had not only the right, but 
 it was his duty to go there, if his circumstances 
 would permit — if his conscience convinced him 
 that free institutions were best for that Territory. 
 So with a man in the slaveholding States: if he 
 desired to make Kansas a slave State, it was his 
 privilege and his duty, his moral duty, if you 
 please, to go there for that purpose. Can it be 
 said that when a man has a legal right to do a 
 thing, and a moral right to do it, and desires to 
 do it, it is morally wrong for any one to help him 
 to do it ? It is a paradox. Every man had an un- 
 doubted right to go there and endeavor to take 
 part in the action of the people in settling this 
 question. I have before me extracts from news- 
 papers in South Carolina, Mississippi, and else- 
 where, showing that efforts are making in the 
 southern States, and have been attempted in some 
 of their Legislatures, to induce people to go there, 
 and going much further than the emigrant aid 
 society. What did that society do ? It never 
 furnished any people with arms or rifles. The 
 Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Butler] I 
 know intimated, if he did not directly assert, that 
 
 they did. I spoke to him afterwards on the sub- 
 ject. I told him it was not true that the society 
 ever sent any arms to Kansas. He said that 
 people told him so, and I suppose he heard it 
 from sources in which he placed confidence. 
 Probably he understands the matter better now. 
 I say there never was a Sharpe's rifle in the Ter- 
 ritory until months afuT the election for the Legis- 
 lature. 
 
 Mr. BUTLER,. 1 know the honorable Senator 
 would not wish anything to go into the debates 
 which would be a perversion of history. 
 
 Mr. COLLAMER. Certainly not. 
 
 Mr. BUTLER. I cannot undertake to par- 
 ticularize the time when Sharpe's rifles were sent 
 to Kansas; but, it has bi;en my opinion, that there 
 were what lawyers call " latent ambiguities "long 
 before there was an open development of them. 
 I saw a statement in a newspaper — I do not know 
 how truly — that a box marked " carpenters' 
 tools" was sent out, and upon being opened in 
 St. Louis it was found to be filled with Sharpe's 
 rifles. 
 
 Mr. COLLAMER. But that was since the 
 time of whicli I have Ijcen speaki)ig, and the emi- 
 grant aid society had nothing to do with it. I 
 confine myself to the action of that society, as 
 stated in the majority report. That report states 
 exactly what the society did. All that they did, 
 they did openly and publicly. The majority re- 
 port says they advised people by their regula- 
 tions, that those who wished to go to Kansas, 
 and to settle there, would be aided by the society, 
 because by going in large numbers they could 
 obtain tickets much cheaper. They also pro- 
 posed to buy lands, and build school-houses and 
 mills, and boarding-houses, for the accommoda- 
 tion of the new settlements. The report does 
 not state anything more, and they did nothing 
 more. Was there anything unlawful in this .' 
 I know they were induced to do it with the view 
 that settlers, when there, should vote for a free 
 State; but I do not know that they were catechised 
 about it. I have before me a document headed 
 " articles of agreement between Jesse De Bruhl, 
 of Columbia, South Carolina, of the one part, 
 and the undersigned persons, desirous to emi- 
 grate, under his care and direction, to the Terri- 
 tory of Kansas, of the other part," in which it is 
 provided : 
 
 " And the undersigned persons, desiring to emigrate in 
 company with tlie said Jesse De Binhl,and under his care, 
 agree to place themselves under his command as their leader 
 and captain, and strictly to obey him as tucli ; and to remain 
 under his direction and command for twelve months from 
 the day of leaving Columbia, if, from the fund above-men- 
 tioned, he should be able to provide for their subsistence 
 so long, or otlierwise for such length of time as he may be 
 able to provide for tlieir subsistence. And they agree, and 
 solemnly bind themselves, under his command, to remain 
 in such part of the Territory of Kansas as he may designate, 
 and never to absent themselves to a greater distance from 
 him than will allow them to be summoned by him, and to 
 assemble in a body within twenty-four hours after he may 
 issue his summons." 
 
 Mr. EVANS. Who is the commander alluded 
 to? 
 , Mr. COLLAMER. Mr. De Hruhl. 
 
 Mr EVANS. Nobody ever joined him at all. 
 
 Mr. COLLAMER. There was an advertise- 
 
12 
 
 ment inviting people to join him. I do not know 
 whether they have done it or not. I find in the 
 Charleston (Smiih Carolina) News of the 27tli 
 Mai-ch, this paragraph: 
 
 '•The Kansas Association of (-li;irleston fonvardoil its 
 iccoml corps of emigrants b> railroad tliis uioriiiii','. at seven 
 o'clock. It is composed of a fine body of>piriti-(l and active 
 young men. nanihi-riiis; twenty-eiglit, wlio go witli a firm 
 purpose to advance by industry tlsidr private fortmiRs, and 
 to maintain by their manliness as citi/.t^ns, law and order, 
 and southern "riijhts, in Kansas. Tliey proceed under tin- 
 business charse of Mr. F. G. Palmer, a practical civil engi- 
 neer. They embrace a number of mechanics and artisans. 
 Not a douht can be entertained that they will well represent 
 South Carolina. Their equipment has cost llie association 
 a considerable amount, a portion of which has yet to be met 
 by voluntary contributions.'' 
 
 Mr. EVANS. That had nothing to do with 
 De Bruhl's proposal. 
 
 Mr. COLLAMER. I am aware of that; I was 
 reading from another publication. 
 
 Mr.'BUTLER. Let us be right as we go on. 
 I am sure the Senator from Vermont is disposed 
 to l)e rijht. 
 
 Mr. COLLAMER. Certainly. 
 
 Mr. BUTLER. Mr. De Bruhl did make an 
 advertisement of the kind to which the Senator 
 alludes, but advertisement is not equal to perform- 
 ance. The young gentlemen who have gone from 
 South Carolina did not, as my colleague has well 
 suggested, go under De Bruhl's advertisement, 
 but 0)1 their own hook. They went, not with a 
 uniform weapon, Sharpe's rifles, but each one 
 taking his own iin]ilements. Some of the wealthi- 
 est families are going there to buy land. 
 
 Mr. COLLAMER. And they will turn free- 
 State men when they get there. 
 
 Mr. BUTLER. I will make this prediction, 
 that, if one of these gentlemen settles there with 
 twenty Free-Soilers around him, in five years they 
 will be exactly the opposite way. 
 
 Mr. COLLAMER. You do not mean that 
 there is any dishonesty in their views ? 
 
 Mr. BUTLER. No, sir; but they would in- 
 vite you to their houses, and you would be on the 
 best terms in the world. 
 
 Mr. COLL AM ER. No doubt of it, on as good 
 terms as we are here with each other. I read from 
 Mr. De Bruhl's advertisement which the gentle-' 
 men say was never carried into effect; but I also! 
 read from the Charleston News, that " The Kan- , 
 sas association of Charleston forwarded its second 
 corps of emigrants, "(fee. That shows that there ' 
 rs an association existing there. It shows that | 
 they have sent one battalion after another as they \ 
 can get them ready. Who has any objection to { i 
 it.> 1 do not mention it as being in the least de- ; 
 gree reprehensible, or as calling for any censure 1 1 
 in the world. No doubt these emigrants who go : : 
 there go for the purpose of settling, and are high- , \ 
 minded men . I did not cite the fact with the view , ' 
 of censuring anybody, but merely to show that, I 
 in the South as well as in the North, persons were 
 assisted to go to Kansas — for what purpose .' To 
 advance the one side or the other of this great 
 question. It is something that commends itself 
 to the acceptance of everybody in the United 
 States. Tl|ey have done it and they will do ft. 
 Lectures abnut the impropriety of helping a man 
 ha.s a moral right to do, are 
 
 to do that which !> 
 
 entirely misplaced, and will never amount to 
 
 anything. 
 
 Again: The operations of the emigrant aid 
 society have nothing whatever to do with the 
 question before Congress. That question is, 
 whether the settlers and inhabitants have been 
 injured and abused in such a manner as to call for 
 redress at our hands. If so, it is our duty, as we 
 have the power, to correct it. Suppose it should 
 turn out that some of the inhabitants have been 
 aided there by a society, even, as some think, 
 improperly, are they not settlers there.' Does 
 the fact of their having been aided to go there by 
 somebody whose purposes you do not like, just- 
 ify violence upon them by people from Missouri? 
 Not at all. The President of the United States 
 says, expressly, that, though he censures the acts 
 of the emigrant aid society, they formed no justi- 
 fications for the proceedings taken against them. 
 Then why talk about it.' The subject of discus- 
 sion is the proceedings of the people of Missouri 
 in relation to Kansas, and to that I now propose 
 to address myself. 
 
 It is insisted by the honorable Senator from 
 Illinois, [Mr. Douglas,] chairman of the Com- 
 mittee on Territories, in his speech, that in point 
 of fact, the invasion which was made in the Ter- 
 ritory of Kansas at the period of the election in 
 March, 1855, was confined to seven representa- 
 tive districts, entitled to nine members of the 
 Legislative Assembly. Because I stated in my 
 minority report, as I say now, that I think the 
 invasion extended to all, or very nearly all of the 
 Territory, he called on me for some sort of proof 
 of the assertion. Sir, 1 never had any power to 
 send for persons and papers, nor had the commit- 
 tee. Gentlemen who make reports, must make 
 them on the best information which they have. 
 There are many things stated in the majority re- 
 port as matters of fact, of which I have never seen 
 any evidence, but suppose they were so stated 
 because the majority of the committee, from the 
 information which they had, deemed them to be 
 facts. On my information, I have made the 
 statements contained in the minority report. 
 
 The Senator from Illinois admits that there 
 was an invasion in seven districts. It seems to 
 me that that concession is an end to tiie question. 
 The Legislative Assembly was only entitled to 
 twenty-six members in all. Is it possible that any 
 gentleman is prepared to say that a Li'gi.=jlature 
 mayadmit men without any title, who have been 
 elected by force and violence, to the extent of 
 more than one third of the whole numlser, pro- 
 vided a majority were legally elected .' Mr. Pres- 
 ident, one third of a legislative body is a con- 
 trolling power in any Legislature. There was 
 an armed invasion of the Territory of Kansas 
 on the 30th of March last; and it is admitted 
 that the invaders, in seven districts, cho.se nine 
 of the representatives by force and fraud. That 
 being an acknowledged fact, and the Legislature 
 having admitted those nine men — more than one 
 third of the whole number — we are told it did not 
 vitiate the whole proceeding! As I have said, 
 the admission of such a number as that into this, 
 or any other legislative body, is a controlling 
 power. By their action in regard to this number, 
 
18 
 
 they got the power to override the veto of 
 the Governor. The law organizing the Territory 
 reserved to the Governor a veto power for the 
 security of the people; and, by admitting this 
 number of men who, it is, in substance, acknowl- 
 edged, were illegally elected, they entirely de- 
 prived him of all power. 
 
 It seems to me that the very granting of this 
 fact is an end of the question. It is to be remem- 
 bered that all the members elected by the invaders, 
 even in the seven districts, were granted their 
 seats, and this the Senator in no way censures. 
 Now, who ever before heard of a burglar being 
 defended on the ground that he did not take as 
 many goods as is charged against him; and that, 
 as he did not, he shall and ought to retain as his 
 own the amount he did take. I do not mean 
 to be understood, however, as in any measure 
 taking back my statement that the invasion ex- 
 tended to the whole Territory. The Senator 
 from Illinois has asked me to produce proof; and 
 I am perfectly willing on this, as on all other 
 occasions, to render a reason " for the faith that 
 is in me, "and to tell why I entertain and express 
 this view. The proof of the extent of the violence, 
 of course, rests in the proof of the violence itself. 
 The proof of the extent of the violence consists 
 in proving its existence. You cannot prove its 
 extent independently of proving its existence. 
 We cannot separate the two. There are proofs j 
 of violence; and those proofs show not merely | 
 that it existed, but that it extended through tJie | 
 whole Territory. I desire to call attention to ! 
 some things, which make me think that it ex- j 
 tended beyond the seven districts. j 
 
 In the first place the invasion is a matter of I 
 history, which no man can rise here in his place \ 
 and dispute. The Senator from Illinois does not | 
 dispute it. In the next place we must consider 
 the object of the invasion. It was perfectly under- j 
 stood that men went into Kansas from Missouri I 
 in great numbers, into different parts of the Ter- j 
 ritory — for what purpose.'' Undoubtedly for the ; 
 purpose of voting. They succeeded by force in j 
 voting, and then returned home. I 
 
 I am not in the habit of thinking that bodies 
 of men, holding respectable positions in society, 
 ever assemble together in this country, in con- 
 siderable numbers, for any great purpose, and ; 
 publish falsehoods to the world. Let us see ; 
 what was said on the ground iti relation to this 1 
 matter. If gentlemen will turn to the proceed- j 
 ings of the people of Kansas, whenever they did j 
 assemble, it will be found that they declared in all ; 
 their public meetings what they considered to be j 
 the extent of the invasion. There was a meeting ! 
 at Topeka, in September, held in pursuance of a ! 
 call made by a meeting which took place at Law- | 
 rence in August. At the Topeka meeting it was ' 
 declared : 
 
 " Whereas, thP. Constitution of the United States guaran- 
 ties to the people of this llcpiiblic the right of assenibMnf; ; 
 together in a peaceful manner for the common good, to • 
 ' estabhsh justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for 
 the common defense, promote the geii<;ral vvxdfan:, and ^ 
 secure the blessings of liberty to themselves and their pos- ; 
 terity ;' and v:hcrcas, the citizens of Kansas Territory were j 
 prevented from electing members ofa Legislative Assembly, j 
 in pursuance of the proclamation of Governor Reeder, on 
 
 the 30th of March last, by invading forces from foreign 
 States coming into the Territory, and forcing upon the 
 people a Le;;islatnro of non-residents and others, inimical 
 1^ the interests of the people of Kansas Territory," &.c. 
 
 The same thing was asserted in all their other 
 meetings, and jjublished to the world. Of what 
 were these people complaining? They complained 
 that persons from Missouri came over into their 
 Territory, and elected, not a part of the Legis- 
 lature, leaving the settlers to elect a majority — 
 but that the whole Legislature, the entire body, 
 was created by the invaders. I do not believe 
 that this people, as a body, would publish to the 
 world that which was a lie, and which they knew 
 was a falsehood. Remember that their statement 
 was made in the presence of the conununity 
 where the transaction took place. 
 
 Again, the majority of the committee, in their 
 report, say that they have not been able to obtain 
 definite and satisfactory information in regard to 
 it; " but from the most reliable sources of inform- 
 ation accessible to your committee, including 
 various papers, documents, and statements fur- 
 nished us by Messrs. Whitfield and Reeder, 
 claimants of the Delegate's seat in Congress for 
 Kansas Territory, it would seem that the facts 
 are substantially as follows." It must naturally 
 be inferred from this, that the committee relied 
 upon thestateinentsof Mr. Reeder and Mr. Whit- 
 field. Mr. Reeder 's statements were made not 
 merely to me and to the committee personally, 
 but they have been reduced to writing and pre- 
 sented to the Committee of Elections in the 
 House of Representatives. They are in print. 
 In his printed statement he slates particularly 
 where the violence extended; he specifies the dis- 
 tricts covering many more than the seven where 
 the elections were contested. He expressly offers 
 to prove everything that he alleges. If his state- 
 ments are reliable — and it must be remembered 
 that he obtained his information on the ground — 
 they clearly show that the invasion extended to 
 a large part of the Territory beyond the seven 
 districts. 
 
 In the next place, why did people froiii Mis- 
 souri go over into Kansas on that occasion.? 
 Does not the fact of their having gone there to 
 interfere with the election show that they under- 
 stood that, if the people of Kansas were let alone, 
 they would choose a free-State Legislature ? Cer- 
 tainly. If they did not think so, there was no 
 occasion for their going over. Then they went 
 there, and conducted thatinvasitati for the purpose 
 of making a Legislature that would be in favor 
 of a slaveholding State. Why should they go 
 there to elect a minority of the Legislature .' 
 What good would it do them to elect men in seven 
 districts? Was that the business on which they 
 went? Was that their errand? Clearly not. That 
 surely was not the purpose with which they went. 
 How, then, can any man say that these people 
 stopped short of their purpose ? Sir, the inhab- 
 itants then in the Territory had no power to stop 
 thein. Whether they were sent by emigrant aid 
 societies or not, they were utterly defenseless. 
 There was nothing to prevent the invaders from 
 doing as they pleased. I say, they went for the 
 purpose of forming a Legislature to suit ihein, 
 
14 
 
 and wc liave no reason to doubt tlicit tlu^y accom- 
 plished their purpose. This would be the natural 
 inference; but I think there ia direct proof of it. 
 In a Missouri paper, printed directly on the bor- 
 der— 7" Tln' Squatter Sovereign" — of the lat of 
 April, 18.').'), a few days after the election, there 
 was this statement: 
 
 '•' iNDKi'ENnENCF, March 31, 18jo. 
 "Several Imndred ciiiiffraiUs fioni K;in.-;is h.-ive just en 
 tered our city. Tlioy were proceeded by tlio VVestport and 
 Independence liras:^ hands. They came in at the west side 
 of till' public square, and |)roceedcd enlircly around it, the 
 bands cheering us willi fine music, anrl the emigrants with 
 good n"vvs. Immediately rollowing tlu' bands were about 
 two hundred horsemen in regular order ; Ibllowing these 
 were one hundred and fiily wa'^ons, carriajtes, &c. They 1 
 gave repeated cheers tor Kansas and Afissouri. They report 
 that not an anti slavery man will be in the Legislature of I 
 Kansas. We have made a clean sweep." I 
 
 These men went to Kansas for the purpose of: 
 making: a slave-State Lcgi-slature. Nothing inter- j 
 fered with them to prevent their doing it. They 
 did all that they wished to do. They came liome 
 declaring that they had made a " clean sweep." | 
 Now what right has any man to say that their I 
 action was confined to seven districts? I 
 
 By the organic law of this Ti rritory it was pro- j 
 vided that Uie Secretary of the Territory should 
 keep a record of all the executive proceedings, of, 
 the action and correspondence of the Governor, ! 
 and should report it to the President once in six 
 months — in January and July of each year. 
 When the Committee on Territories undertook 
 the investigation of this subject, application was 
 made to the President for those papers. They j 
 had not then all been received, but such as had ! 
 arrived were sent to the committee. Since that 
 time others have been received which Jiave been 
 communicated by the President to the House of 
 Representatives, and they are printed in the book 
 before inc. This is not a book got up for the 
 occasion. It consists of ininutes, records, inade 
 by the secretary of the Territory uiion the spot, 
 from time to time, of the Governor's action. 
 Amongst these records is the Governor's proc- 
 lamation, ordering the election of March 30, 
 1855. He proceeded in the first place to have a 
 census of tlie Territory taken. There being no 
 existing political divisions, it was his duty to 
 divide the Territory into districts. He appointed 
 persons to take the census which was returned 
 to him in February. That census contained 
 the returns of the number of inhabitants and of 
 voters. The cimsus was taken to enable him to 
 district the Territory and make a distribution of 
 members of the Legislature. The Legislative ' 
 A.ssembly was by law to consist of twenty-six 
 members, and the Council of thirteen members. ' 
 On receiving the census returns, he proceedi d to 
 divide the Territory into council and representa- 
 tive districts, distriliuting representatives among 
 them according to their numbers. He issued a 
 proclamation setting forth the districts, describing-; 
 the apportionment of the representatives, appoint- 1 
 ing judges to superintend the election, naining 
 them. He provided in his proclamation that, if j 
 these judges neglected or refused to attend, the' 
 TOters could appoint others. He provided the 
 oath that they should take. It provided, among j 
 Other things, that, if they did not know that a man ' 
 
 who offered to vote was a resident of the Territory , 
 they should ascertain that fact by his own oatJi. 
 He prescribed the form of the returns: and fur- 
 ther provided, that if any election was contested 
 it must be done l)y filing a protest with the Gov- 
 ernor within five days after the election. 
 
 I believe I have now stated the outline of the Gov- 
 ernor's proclamation. We have before us, in the 
 book to which I have alluded, the election returns 
 which were made. Wchavchia judgment upon 
 those returns in each case. The Senator from 
 Illinois seemed to suppose that those returns were 
 made by the men appointed liy the Governor to 
 hold the election, and he deduced an argument 
 from that fact. The fact is not so. In a large 
 number of the districts — not merely in the sevim, 
 where there was a contest or protests — returns 
 were made by other men than those Avhom the 
 Governor appointed — by men whom the voters 
 selected; and, therefore, no argument can be 
 drawn from the returns having been made by 
 judges appointed by the Governor. Ii will not be 
 expected that in all the districts the exact con- 
 dition of things can be shown, because the in- 
 vaders came in armed, and the inhabitants were 
 scattered, frightened, intimidated, thrust away, 
 and they did not enter a protest in season. In 
 consequence of this condition of things, in some 
 cases beyond the seven districts where there was 
 a contest or protest, it is manifestthat the returns 
 on their face showed fraud, and yet they were 
 not set aside. 
 
 I desire to call attention to some of these re- 
 turns, and I wish it to be understood that I speak 
 of returns in districts never contested before the 
 Governor or Legislature. The first thing which 
 strikes the mind on looking at them is, that when 
 the returns are compared with the census there 
 is a great disparity in numbers, not only in the 
 seven districts which were contested, but in other 
 districts which were not contested. 
 
 The Senator from Illinois said the invasion was 
 confined to the districts directly on the liorder, 
 and did not extend into the interior, because the 
 Missourians came back the same day. 1 know 
 that one division of them came back on the same 
 day; but not all of them. I will take the case of 
 the fifth council district directly on the Missouri 
 line. It was entitled to two councilors and four 
 representatives — a large district for that region. 
 According to the census taken in February, it 
 contained four hundred and forty-two voters. 
 From the returns, it appears that in that district 
 eight hundred and fifty-five votes were cast. In 
 February, the census showed four hundred and 
 forty-two voters there; Init in March there were 
 eight hundred and fifty-five votes returned as 
 cast. 
 
 Mr. FOOT. And that was not one of the seven 
 districts. 
 
 Mr. COLLAMER. No, sir; it was not one of 
 the seven districts which was contested. I \w\\\ 
 not say that there was no protest. I am informed, 
 and verily believe — I will state it with all caution, 
 and according to the chancery form — that there 
 was a protest'filed, but it was too late. The people 
 were getting up a protest and securing testimony 
 to support U; but the man who rode with it in 
 
15 
 
 that new country to the seat of government 
 arrived too late. He got there at one o'clock at 
 night, instead of twelve o'clock — when the time 
 had expired and the certificate had been given. 
 
 In the seventh council district, which was en- 
 titled to one councilor and two representatives, 
 the census showed two hundred and forty-seven 
 voters, and four hundred and eighty-six votes were 
 returned as having been cast. The ninth council 
 district had two hundred and eight voters, and 
 four hundred and seventeen votes were cast. 
 
 In the tenth council district, according to the 
 census, there were four hundred and eighty-six 
 voters, and twelve hundred and six votes were 
 returned as having been cast. It is true that the 
 returns of some of the representative districts in- 
 cluded within this council district were set aside, 
 but the council returns were not set aside. I wish 
 to call attention to what was said by the judges 
 appointed by the Governor in that district. H. 
 B. Corey, J. B. Ross, and J. Atkinson, were 
 named in the Governor's proclamation as being 
 judges of the tenth representative district, which 
 was part of the tenth council district; and in re- 
 gard to them I find this record in the executive 
 minutes : 
 
 " Oaths of H. B. Corey, J. B. Ross, and J. Atkinson, 
 judges, accoidiiiK to form prescribed. Itetiirn of saiiii; 
 judges, stalinjr that, havinK been sworn, Ihcy proceeded to 
 open said election and received votes ; but that a vast num- 
 ber of citizens from Missouri assembled on the ground lor 
 tlie purpose of illejial voting, who surrounded tlie window 
 and olistructcd tlie citizens of the Territorj' from depositing 
 their voti-s, and caused many of the said legal voters to leave 
 without voting; and that tin? said judges, in consequence 
 of the detemiination of citizens of Missouri to vole, and no 
 voters from said district voting, or offering to vote, Uieylet't 
 tlie ground." 
 
 Thereupon, the Missourians went on, appoint- 
 ed their own judges, who made out the returns, 
 and stated that two hundred and forty-two votes 
 were cast. 
 
 Mr. PUGH. Was that election set aside? 
 
 Mr. COLLAMER. No, sir; it was not one 
 of the seven districts where there was a contest 
 and protest. 
 
 Mr. PUGH. I understood the Senator to say 
 that the lljfresentative election was set aside. 
 
 Mr, COLLAMER. No, sir; the tenth council 
 district was made up of two different representa- 
 tive districts — one a large one, entitled to two 
 member*, and the other entitled to only one mem- 
 ber. There was a protest in relation to the rep- 
 resentative district entitled to two members, and 
 the Governor set the returns aside; but in this 
 ■district, where two hundred and forty-two were 
 returned as having been cast, that number elected 
 the representative in that representative district, 
 and also secured the election of councilors for the 
 whole teiuh council district. At this election, 
 which was carried by violence, as appears by the 
 statement of the judges who were driven off the 
 ground, and who gave up the polls to the Alissou- 
 fians, not only did the representative keep his seat 
 because there was no protest, but the vote which 
 elected him elected the councilors for that whole 
 •council district. 
 
 Now I produce the proof. I produce these 
 papers made at the time, showing the condition 
 4)f things Lliere. Perhaps there may still be some 
 
 doubt about it, but I do not see where a hook can 
 be found to hang a doubt upon. 
 
 [Here the honorable Senator yielded for an 
 adjournment, the usual hour of adjournment 
 having arrived.] 
 
 Friday, Jpril 4, 1856. 
 
 The Senate having resumed the consideration 
 of the same subject — ■ 
 
 Mr. COLLAMER said: Mr. President, at the 
 time of the adjournment yesterday 1 was proceed- 
 ing to show the reasons which induced me to be- 
 lieve that the invasion from the people of Missouri 
 on the Territory of Kansas, on the occasion of the 
 election of INIarch, 1855, for members of the Legis- 
 lature, extended to other parts of the Territory, 
 besides the seven districts where the returns were 
 set aside. I have shown from the returns, if they 
 are to be believed, that such was the fact; I have 
 read some of them for that purpose. To be sure, 
 it cannot be expected that the returns on their 
 face would show it; but in a great number of 
 those districts, where there was no protest, where 
 they were not set aside by the Governor, outside 
 and beyond the seven contested districts, the 
 great disparity between the returns of voters, by 
 the census, and the vote cast, is such as to con- 
 vince us that the vote must have been cast by the 
 invaders. I alluded particularly to the case of 
 the 5th district electing four Representatives, 
 which was directly on the line, on the Missouri 
 border, where alone, as the Senator from Illinois 
 says, the invasion extended. I have shown how 
 the voting was done there. I have shown that in 
 the 10th represe)Uative district, where the return.s 
 were not set aside, the votes were certainly, if 
 we can believe any of the testimony, cast by 
 people from abroad. This is fully stated by the 
 return of the judges I have already read. 
 
 The Territory was divided into districts for the 
 purpose of taking the census. These districts 
 are called election districts. The council and rep- 
 resentative districts are composed of the electioti 
 districts as described in the Governor's procla- 
 mation. I have alluded to the returns of the fifth 
 district. I wish it understood that this 5th elec- 
 tion district is on the line. 
 
 Mr. GEYER. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. COLLAMER. This district was entitled 
 to two councilors and four representatives. The 
 census returns show that there were four hun- 
 dred and forty-two legal voters, and eight hun- 
 dred and fifty-five votes were cast. I showed the 
 great disparity which existed in the seventh coun- 
 cil district which was entitled to two representa- 
 tives, and the ninth district, between the election 
 returns and the census. 
 
 I wish now to recapitulate for a moment. I 
 think the invasion extended to all or most of the 
 Territory, because, as I have said, such are the 
 statements of the people on the ground in their 
 public resolutions and meetings. In the second 
 place, I think so because the statement of the 
 Governor, as made to the House of Representa- 
 tives in writing, to which I alluded yesterday, so 
 alleged. In the third place, I say so because the 
 invasion or incursion — if that be a softer term — 
 
16 
 
 was for the purpose, and only for the purpose, of 
 making a Lpf^islafiiro, entertaining their own 
 views, and betraying a consciousness that unless 
 they interfered, the people would elect one of a 
 different kind. They went for that purpose. 
 There is no reasonalile probability to suppose 
 that they confined their afforts to a minority of 
 the Legislature; they went to make the Legislature. 
 There is no reason to suppose they confined 
 themselves to electing nine representatives out of 
 twenty-six. In the next place, I say so, Ijecause 
 they stated that they had done the work fully, 
 and had made a "clean sweep." This view is 
 confirmed by the statement which I have read of 
 the election judges of the tenth district, appointed 
 by the Governor, who stated on oath that the 
 violence was such that the residents of the dis- 
 trict went away and left it to the invaders, who 
 appointed their own judges and made their own 
 returns. This part of the council district, being 
 the tenth representative district, was entitled to 
 one representative, who was thus elected. That 
 was a case never protested against. This is a 
 statement made by the judges who were on the 
 ground at the time. 
 
 The Senator from Illinois contended that the 
 invasion was confined to the border. Now, I wish 
 to call attention for a few moments to the returns 
 which have been made, so that we may see what 
 truth there is in that statement. I will take one 
 of the returns for the purpose of illustration. The 
 eleventh election district was a part of the ninth 
 representative district. 
 
 I' Mr. GEYER. The eleventh and twelfth election 
 districts formed the ninth representative district. 
 
 Mr. COLLAMER. Thiseleventh election dis- 
 trict is Marysville, and we find by the returns 
 that there were three hundred and thirty-one votes 
 cast — three hundred and twenty-eight of which 
 were east for Marshall, as representative. In 
 relation to that, I wish to read a protest of citizens 
 of that place. 
 
 Mr. GEYER. Mr. Marshall was one of the 
 judges of the election. 
 
 Mr. COLLAMER. That may be; I do not 
 know whether it is so or not. I read the docu- 
 ment as it is; 1 have not turned to the proclama- 
 tion to see whether he was a judge or not; it is 
 immaterial: 
 
 " Protest of M. F. Oonwny and ten otliers, claiming to be 
 fjualifiod voteis of tlie Territory, aRaiiist tlie election of 
 John Donaldson and Thomas J. Alar.shall, coniplainins that 
 upwards of three liundred votes were given by non-residents 
 Of the Territory at the Marj-sville precinct, and that the 
 ballots received at the said precinct were opened and read 
 by the judges before they were deposited in the ballot box ; 
 logetUer wiili the oath of M. F. Conway in support thereof, 
 with the allidavit of Cole MeCrea, that upwards of two 
 hundred non n -idents of the Territory past west on the 
 Leavenworlh :v.ul I!i|..y road, Wednesday and Thursday 
 next precedin;; the election, declaring that they intended to 
 vote at Die Mnrysville precinct, and then return to their 
 residence in Missouri ; and that on the foliowinfr Sunday;and 
 Monday he saw tnany of the same persons returning towards 
 MisKouririver, some of whom stated in the presence of their 
 anpociates that they had voted and done the thing upright." 
 
 This was set aside by the Governor, and he 
 decided the election on the votes cast in the 
 twelfth election district, of that representative 
 district. But the Assembly held this Marysville 
 election to be all right. 
 
 The eleventh and twelfth election districts made 
 up this ninth representative district. The number 
 of voters in the eleventh district, (Marysville,) 
 when the census was taken in February, was 
 twenty-four, and the returns of the election show 
 that there was cast three hundred and eleven 
 votes ! I will here say to the gentleman from 
 Missouri [Mr. Geyer] that I am informed, from 
 such sources as I believe, that Mr. Atchison was 
 present at Marysville at the voting. If so, he 
 will be able to tell all about it. I do not mean to 
 say that he voted. I do not think he voted at all; 
 but he was present and there were three hundred 
 and thirty-one votes cast. 
 
 Mr. GEYER. I will ask at this stage of the 
 discussion, what authority the Senator has for 
 saying that General Atchison was there.' 
 
 Mr. COLLAMER. In the first place, I say it 
 on the authority of depositions which were shown 
 to me by Governor Reeder, which were needed 
 for the purpose of examination in Kansas, and 
 they were carried back. I cannot give the names 
 now, but I have them at my room. In the next 
 place, Mr. Robinson, said to be Governor of 
 Kansas, informed me that it was so. I think Mr. 
 Pomeroy, also, informed me that General Atchi- 
 son was there; and Mr. Lane also infortned me of 
 the same fact. Now, the gentleman has my author- 
 ity for the statement. I believe it, because I have 
 seen all these gentlemen, and I think it is pretty 
 competent testimony. 1 did not refer to it with 
 a view to make any remarks about General 
 Atchison. I inade the statement with perfect 
 frankness, for if these things are not so, there is 
 a means of contradicting them, but I have no idea 
 that Mr. Atchison will say that the statement is 
 not true. 
 
 It appears, then, in a district where there were 
 twenty-four voters, it is returned in the record 
 that there were cast three hundred and thirty-one 
 votes! Now, where is Marysville, where this 
 occurred .'' It is one hundred miles from the Mis- 
 souri line, in the interior. Then the incursion 
 did extend to the interior. Nor can it by possi- 
 bility be said these three hundred and thirty-one 
 votes were cast by people residing in wBIt district 
 who were in favor of electing an Assembly of 
 such a character, because we perceive there were 
 but twenty-four voters who lived there at all. 
 
 I have thus undertaken to show that tke idea of 
 the incursion being confined to the border, merely, 
 is not well founded. The proof shows tliat it did 
 extend to the interior. If there is any truth in 
 the record made and returned at the time by the 
 proper officers, such was its character. The tes- 
 timony and tiie protest which I have read, show 
 that such was its character. The Governor be- 
 lieved it to be so, and set it aside. All this is 
 clear, if we can believe that there is any verity in 
 the record; and yet the Legislature said this was 
 all good enough, and they admitted that man to- 
 his seat. 
 
 The seven districts where the elections were set 
 aside by the Governor, were entitled to nine rep- 
 resentatives; anditisacknowledged thatthe inva- 
 sion extended to those districts. The nine who 
 were thus illegally chosen by the invaders were 
 admitted to seats by the so-called Legislature. 
 
17 
 
 By the return of the judges of the tenth represent- 
 ative district, which I read yesterday, it appeared 
 that the judges were driven from the polls; and 
 yet the man there said to be elected was admitted 
 to a seat. In the fifth election district, directly 
 on the border, four representatives were returned. 
 There were only about four hundred legal voters 
 there at the time of the census, in February; but 
 there were nearly nine hundred votes cast in 
 March. There was no protest entered in relation 
 to that district, for a reason which I have already 
 explained; one was attempted,butit did not reach 
 the Governor in season. 
 
 Then in these cases there were fifteen members 
 of the Legislative Assembly, more than one half 
 of the whole number, illegally elected by the 
 people not belonging to the Territory. I think I 
 have shown by the records and testimony which 
 I have presented, that the majority of that Legis- 
 lature was elected by an incursion of people from 
 Missouri. I dislike ever to have occasion to use 
 terms of reproach. I avoid them whenever 1 can. 
 When I use the word " incursion," I mean the 
 coming in of people from Missouri by violence 
 and force. I shall use no bad names. 
 
 But, Mr. President, it is said, that because the 
 Legislature admitted those men who were im- 
 properly elected, it is all well enough, and we 
 ought not to inquire into it. The idea that if a 
 body of men were mere usurpers in the beginning, 
 their own act could legitimate themselves, is to 
 me one of the most preposterous things that ever 
 was advanced. In order, however, to judge with 
 some degree of fairness in regard to the action of 
 these men, I desire for a moment to direct the 
 attention of the Senate to the character of the 
 elections now called good enough, and which they 
 decided to be good. 
 
 Here I beg leave to remark, that when we show 
 that a thousand votes were cast at a " place where 
 there were only four hundred voters, it is not fair 
 to say that that shows the extremity of the case; 
 because it is to be borne in mind, as the facts I 
 think are, that the resident voters when this in- 
 cusion was made withdrew and left the ground. 
 I have rea^^fVie affidavits of some of the election 
 judges, stating that they left the ground, and that 
 the legal voters went away. When, therefore, we 
 showthata thousand votes were cast where there 
 were only Tour hundred voters, it cannot be said 
 that that" shows the extent of the fraud. The 
 fact is, that most of the votes which were cast at 
 the election of the 30th of March were cast by 
 people from Missouri, and they should be counted 
 as Missouri votes. I desire, however, to state 
 the facts in regard to the elections which the 
 Legislature held to be good. 
 
 The first election district being entitled to three 
 representatives, had. according to the census, 
 three hundred and sixty-nine voters ; but one 
 thousand and forty-four votes were returned as 
 cast there. Let us see what the judges of elec- 
 tion and persons on the ground said : At page 
 30 ofthe document to which I alluded yesterday — 
 the executive proceedings of the Territory fur- 
 nished by the President to the House of Repre- 
 sentatives — I find a protest of Samuel F. Tappan 
 and twenty others: 
 
 " Protest of Samuel F. Tappan and twenty others, claim- 
 ing to be residents oC the first election district, to declare 
 void, to set aside the returns and election in said district 
 or that certificates be given to Joel K. Goodin and S. N. 
 Wood tor council, and to John Hutcliinson, E. D. Ladd, 
 and P. P. Fowler, for the reason tliat six or seven hundrsd 
 armed men encamped in the vicinity ofthe polls on the 29th 
 and 30th of March, collected around said polls, and kept 
 them in their possession on the day of tlie election til! late 
 in the afternoon, and who left the district during the after- 
 noon and the ensuing day. Said persons were strangers, 
 believed to come from the State of Missouri. Citizens of 
 tlie district were threatened with violence and prevented 
 from votins- Affidavit by all the signers, together witli 
 affidavits of Harrison Nichols, Edwin Bond, David Congee, 
 N. B. Blanton, and Sanuiel Jones, tending to prove threats, 
 violence, and non-resident voting." 
 
 There is also in relation to the same district, 
 this protest by the judges of election appointed 
 by the Governor: 
 
 "Protest of Perry Fuller and E. W. Moore, judges ap- 
 pointed to hold the election, and twenty nine other persons 
 claiming to be resident«— complaining that the said election 
 was opened by unauthorized ji^es at eight o'clock a. in., 
 and at a place difl'erent from that prescribed in the proclam- 
 ation, and that non-residents surrounded the polls with fire- 
 arms and voted indiscrintinately. Affidavit of Perry Fuller 
 andE. W. Moore." 
 
 This State of facts, proved by the affidavits of 
 the judges and of persons on the spot, shows that 
 the people of the district did not vote, so that the 
 one thousand and forty-four votes, .which were 
 there cast, were cast by people from abroad. Still 
 the Legislature, when the case was presented to 
 them, said, " This election is well enough; " and 
 the persons returned were permitted to hold their 
 seats. 
 
 The third representative district, which was 
 composed of parts of two election districts, had, 
 according to the proclamation, two hundred and 
 twelve voters; but there were three hundred and 
 forty-one votes cast; I will read the statement 
 made by the judges in relation to that election: 
 
 "Report of Harrison Benson and Nathaniel Ramsay, 
 
 underoath, that thoy entered upon theirduties as judges of 
 
 '< election, and polled some few votes, when they were driven 
 
 I from the room by a company of armed men from the State 
 
 ! of Missouri, who threatened their lives, and commenced to 
 
 destroy the house and beat in the door, demanding tlie right 
 
 to vote without swearing to their place of residence; tliat 
 
 : having made their escape with the poll-books and certifi- 
 
 ; cates,' they were followed by said persons, and tlie said 
 
 \ papers taken by forc(^ 
 
 " Protest of A. B. Woodward and nineteen otlier persons, 
 claiming to be citizens of said district, against the election 
 in said district of A. McDonald, O. H. Brown, and G. W. 
 Ward, for the reason that several hundred men from the 
 State of Missouri presented themselves to vote at said elec- 
 tion, and upon being required by the judges to swear to their 
 place of residence, they threati^ied to take the lives ofthe 
 judges and tear down the house, and prepared to demolish 
 the house. One of said judges ran out ofthe house with 
 the ballot box, and the other two were driven from the 
 ground; that the citizens of the district then left, and the 
 persons from Missouri procee<led to elect other judges and 
 hold an election ; with aflndavit of J. E. Archibald and G. 
 W. Umburger, with an additional affidavit of Joseph M. 
 Nace, tendiiigto prove violence and threats of death to any 
 voter swearing to his residence, and that he was dragged by 
 force from the window and prevented from voting." 
 
 j This is the statement made by the judges ap- 
 pointed by the Governor to conduct the election; 
 and yet the Legislature said, "all this is well 
 enough," and the rnen returned as elected were 
 permitted to hold their seats. 
 
 I will not fatigue the Senate by reading similar 
 facts in i-egard to other districts, for I have read 
 
18 
 
 enough to show what was the character of the 
 elections with which the so-called Legislature 
 was satisfied: and I have read enough to show, 
 if we can lieiievi; any of the testimony furnished i 
 Vy the proper authorities, that these elections j 
 were made by peo))lc from abroad, and that the ! 
 resident voters did not vote. 
 
 This proves that the iavaf?ion from Missouri i 
 extended beyond the seven districts where there ' 
 was a contest, and went so far as to choose a ma- ■ 
 jority of the whole Lejjislature. Having shown , 
 this, I wish now to call attention to another point. | 
 According to the census taken in February there j 
 were in the whole Territory, in all its districts, ; 
 two thousand nine hundred and five voters. I ; 
 have taken the returns of the votes said to have 
 been cast on the 30th of March, and I have foot- i 
 cd tlicm all up. It must be remembered that, '• 
 when these votes were cast, the real residents 
 took no part, or, at any rate, a very limited jsart, . 
 in the transaction. In some cases, as I have j 
 shown, the i>eoplc of the Territory went away. | 
 How many of them voted I know not; but there 
 is no reason, according to the papers before us, 
 to believe that one third of them voted at that 
 election. Notwitlistanding these facts, according 
 to my footing up of the returns, there were six j 
 thousand two hundred and ninety-eight votes 
 cast. In February, when the census was taken, 
 there were two thousand nine hundred and five [ 
 voters in the whole Terriloiy — less than three ! 
 thousand, and yet, in March, over six thousand j 
 votes were cast. You cannot deduct the three [ 
 thousand from the six thousand, and say that j 
 the remainder shows the extent of the voters 
 from abroad, because we have no reason to be- : 
 lieve that more than one third of the real inhab- i 
 itants voted on that occasion. Then there were j 
 more than five thousand votes cast by people j 
 from Missouri; and they spread themselves, as ; 
 it appears, over the whole Territory, and in every 
 district, exci'pt, perhaps, one. There may be some j 
 very small precincts to which they did .not go;! 
 but, (clearly, they went to the great body of the 
 districts and precincts. 
 
 The settlement of the Territory went on with 
 great rapidity in the season of 1855. It was the 
 second year m the progress of the settlements. 
 The accessions during the year were undoubtedly 
 very great. The Senate, some time since, (;alh;d 
 upon the President of the United States for doc- 
 uments in relation to Kansas, and also asked f"or 
 information as to the present population of the 
 Territory. He sent us a letter from Mr. Cal- 
 houn, surveyor general of the Territory, giving 
 an estimate of the number of inhabitants. Flow 
 does he arrive at it ? In October, 1855, there wer(; 
 two elections for a Delegate in Congress from that 
 Territoi-y. One was on the day which the Ter- 
 ritorial Legislature had fixed; and, on that occa- 
 casion, Mr. Whitfield was elected. Very fvw 
 of the free State people voted at that time. They 
 had fixed on another day for electing a Delegate, 
 mainly on the ground that they did not wish to 
 ■ be understood as agreeing to the validity of the 
 Territorial Legislature. On the day which they 
 fixed for an election Mr. Reeder was chosen. I 
 presume the voters at each election did not inter- 
 
 fere with the others. I never ascertained whether, 
 at Mr. Whllfuld's election, there were any votes 
 given for anybody else, but I take it that, if there 
 were any, they were very few in number. 
 
 Mr. TOOMHS. There were thirty-nine votes 
 givi;n for Reeder at that election. 
 
 Mr. COLLAMER. It was a mere nominal 
 amount. Mr. Calhoun undertakes to estimate 
 the popidation of the Territory froni the mani- 
 festations of those elections in October last. It 
 will be observed that this was after the season 
 for emigration had passed away — seven months 
 after the election of March. About the period 
 of that election, or soon afterwards, navigation 
 ofiened and emigration rushed into the Territory. 
 With all the accessions which wer(! made during 
 tlie summer, Mr. Calhoun computes the popula- 
 tion, in Ocloijer, as deduced from the votes cast 
 at the Delegate elections in that month, at al)OUt 
 twenty-five thousand. When the census was 
 taken in February, the whole population was 
 eight thousand six hundred and one. If his state- 
 ment is to be relied upon, by Octobi-r it had in- 
 creased two hundred per cent. 
 
 It is furth(?r to i)0 borne in mind, as Mr. Cal- 
 houn states in hisletter, that the friends of Messrs. 
 Whitfield and Reeder charged fraud on each other 
 in their respective elections in October. At Whit- 
 field's election, it was insist(;d that a considerable 
 body of people came from Alissouri and voted; 
 and it was also charged that, inasmuch as Reed- 
 er's election was held without the sanction of 
 law, people could vote two or three times with 
 impunity, and they did it. Mr. Calhoun gives 
 these statements as charges, but ho does notun-, 
 dertake to pass upon their truth. Still, the whole 
 number of votes cast for both Whitfield and 
 Reeder in October was only about six thousand. 
 When the pojiulation of the Territory had in- 
 creased from eight thousand in March, to twenty- 
 five thousand in October, the^y could not cast more 
 than six thousand votes, andin that numbermany 
 uiilawl'ul ones are su|>posed to be included. We 
 find that, as early as March, 1855, when they had 
 only one third of thai population, there was cast 
 six thousand two hundred and ninet5'*^iglit votes. 
 Where did the additional votes come from ? As 
 the returns show they were dispersed all over 
 the Territory. We find them at one district one 
 hundred miles in the interior, at otltt'rs, on the 
 border, and at various places throughout the whole 
 Territory. Where did they come from? What 
 did they come for? What did they do there? 
 What did they themselves say they had done? 
 What do the election returns show that they did j 
 
 The majority refiort states the proceedings of 
 a meeting held at Leavenworth during the pjist 
 fall for the purpose, as its address stated, of dis- 
 abusing thepublicof the wrong impnssions which 
 they had received in regard to affairs in Kansas. 
 To use a common phrase, it was a white-wash- 
 ing meeting, at which the Governor, the judges, 
 and other territorial officers, were the principal 
 movers. Did that meeting deny this incursion, 
 this invasion, this usurpation ? Did it apologize 
 for it? Did it limit it to a small part of the Ter- 
 ritory ? It says not one word upon the subject. 
 This had been the great point of complaint Thu 
 
19 
 
 statements made in regard to it had been sueh as 
 to make the ears of the community tingle. This 
 meeting never attempted any sort of explanation, 
 excuse, or denial of the fact. It never attempted 
 to disabuse the public mind on that subject. 
 
 A great deal is said by the people of Missouri 
 and in the majority report and elsewhere, that 
 there were many free-State men in Kansas who 
 had been sent there by the emigrant aid socie- 
 ties — that there was an unnatui-al emigration 
 prompted by those societies. I think that is 
 without foundation . Most of the free-State people 
 who were in Kansas went from the western 
 States, not from New England. I have no par- 
 ticular proof of this fact, and I do not wish to 
 speak without proof, and, therefore, I shall not 
 comment upon it. It seems, however, that the 
 people of Missouri thought their interests, in 
 regard to slavery, were such that they could 
 not allow the territorial election in Kansas to 
 be conducted by the settlers. They had to go 
 there as they viewed it. They did go. They 
 went, as I have said before, undoubtedly for the 
 purpose of making the election different from what 
 it would have been if they had not gone. If this 
 was not the case, they could not have supposed 
 it necessary for them to go at all. What was 
 the trouble ? The difficulty was that a great mim- 
 ber of free-State people had gone there, sufficient, 
 not only to insure a free State, but to secure a 
 majority of the Territorial Legislature. When 
 we look at the returns of the election, however, 
 what do we find? But one single free-State rep- 
 resentative was returned as elected in the whole 
 Territory! Taking all the districts, all the pre- 
 cincts, all the voting places, but a single free 
 State man was returned to the Legislature. 
 
 There having been an invasion which extended 
 to nearly the whole Territory, and secured the 
 Legislature, the question arises whether their 
 action could be in any way sanctified or legiti- 
 mated by what subsequently occurred. I need 
 not argue such a question. To my mind it is too 
 plain to need an argument. If men — the major- 
 ity of the Assembly — were illegally elected, as I 
 have endeavored to prove, surely they cannot, by 
 their own act, make themselves legiiimate. They 
 could not, by any resolutions which they might 
 pass, make themselves legitimate, when the foun- 
 dation of their action was usurpation. But it 
 may be asked, why did not the people protest? 
 I have shown why they did not protest to the 
 Governor, and that was the only place where 
 they knew that they could protest. They did it 
 in some cases, and in others their protests did not 
 arrive in season. Some were so scattered that 
 they could not do it at all. It is said that they 
 might have protested when the Legislature assem- 
 ble-d. Let me ask gentlemen how was tliat Legis- 
 lature composed ? What redress was to be ex- 
 pected there ? What a mockery to go there at 
 all! 
 
 Besides, the people never had an opportunity 
 to protest before the Legislature. They assem- 
 bled on the second day of July. It is said that, 
 on the day when they assembled, they passed a 
 resolution offering to receive protests against the 
 sitting members. It is true that they did pass 
 
 such a resolution. It must be remembered , how- 
 ever, that they were sitting at Pawnee City — far 
 in the interior — a place where they said they could 
 not get accommodation for themselves. How long 
 did they wait for people to present any protests 
 under that resolution? On the second day after- 
 wards they passed on the whole question. 
 
 What was the real object of that resolution ? 
 If it was for the purpose of receiving protests 
 from the people, some notice should have been 
 given to the people; but they had no notice of it. 
 The true purpose is obvious from the result. 
 There had been an election which the Governor 
 set aside in seven districts, and in these cases he 
 ordered a second election. Members had taken 
 their seats with certificates under that new elec- 
 tion. The object of asking for protests was to 
 set aside those men elected at the second election, 
 and they did turn out every one of them on the 
 ground that the Governor had no business to set 
 aside the returns given at the first election. What 
 did they do next? They admitted tlie nine rep- 
 resentatives whom I understand it is now con- 
 ceded were chosen in this violent and illegal 
 manner. We know how they were elected. I 
 have shown you how a large majority of them 
 were elected. How could their own acts make 
 themselves legal ? 
 
 I do not desire to use any language of violence 
 in relation to this matter; but when the mind is 
 convinced that a wrong, an outrage has been 
 committed, it is exceedingly difficult to speak 
 of it with entire equanimity of temper and with 
 weighed words. To my mind, if there be any 
 truth in the view which I have taken, this trans- 
 action deserves to be regarded as the most unjus- 
 tifiable atrocity ever committed in abuse of the 
 forms of law. In the argument which I have 
 presented, I have submitted.official papers to prove 
 my position. I have alluded to the returns made 
 at the time, and my argument is based on them. 
 It may be, however, that there has been some 
 exaggeration in the reports afloat in the world 
 upon the question. This is probable, for there 
 is hardly a subject of much agitation when it is 
 not the case. I do not see, however, how such 
 reports could destroy the character of the testi- 
 mony which I have presented. 
 
 The Legislature being thus composed, what 
 were its acts? What were the nature and char- 
 acter of its proceedings? I have no desire un- 
 necessarily to consume time, but there are two 
 or three laws passed by the Legislature to which 
 I must call the attention of the Senate. They 
 passed a law fixing the condition of election, and 
 they provided that if any man, on being required 
 to do so, would not take an oath to support and 
 maintain the fugitive slave law, he should not be 
 entitled to vote. This I call the law of disfran- 
 chisement. 
 
 I shall enter upon no discussion of the merits 
 of the fugitive slave laws of 1793 and 1850. I 
 shall reserve any remarks which I might feel dis- 
 posed to make on that point, to a suitable and 
 proper occasion. This is a new example in the 
 history of legislation in many of its aspects. In 
 tlie first place, it is an undertaking, on the part 
 of a Territorial Legislature, to affix penalties and 
 
20 
 
 consequences to a law of the United States which 
 that law has iifver prescribed. When a man is 
 guilty of breaclies of that law, the act itself pre- 
 sciilies the piinisliment to which he is liable — 
 heavy fines, and, perhaps, imprisonment. Now, 
 by what authority can a State, much le.'^s a Ter- 
 ritory, take upon itself, by its own legislation, 
 to add to the extent of penalties which Congress 
 has provided.' Congress has not declared that 
 if a man breaks that law he should be disfran- 
 chised as a citizen, and prevented from voting. 
 Not only has it not passed, but it never can pass 
 such a provision. Yet this so-called Legislature 
 of Kansas Territory, in utter excess of power, 
 by an abuse of authority, undertook to make such 
 legislation as this. 
 
 It has other aspects worse than that which I 
 have just presented. I have spoken of the power 
 of affixing penalties to a breach of the law; but 
 this legislation goes further and says that, though 
 a man never proposed to break the law, if he 
 dots not tali,e an oath to sustain it, and do what- 
 ever it may require in the future, he shall be dis- 
 franchised. You might as well compel a man to 
 swear to support the revenue laws, or any other 
 laws, before allowing him to vote. We know 
 why this particular law was selected. Sir, this 
 is a shibboleth. 
 
 Why was tliis selected as the shibboleth ? We 
 know the reason. There are many gentlemen, 
 in some parts of the country, who believe that 
 the fugitive slave law is hardly constitutional. 
 Gentlemen who are friends of that law may not 
 look at this view, but I can assure them that gen- 
 tlemen of great intellectual and legal powers so 
 consider it. Vast proportions of the people of 
 our country entertain great doubts as to its con- 
 stitutionality. There are duties prescribed in it 
 which are repulsive to many men. For instance, 
 a commissioner is authorized to appoint any man 
 whom he pleases, as an officer to execute his 
 warrant, and seize persons alleged to be fugitive 
 slaves. Sir, is it possible that if a commissioner 
 should choose to appoint the venerable Senator 
 from Michigan, and give him his warrant to go 
 and seize a slave, he would pledge himself under 
 an oath to do so.' Would he be willing to take 
 an oath himself, or to require his fello\v-m(;n to 
 take an oath that they would do it.' No, sir. 
 
 This particular statute M'as selected, because it 
 was a law in the nature of a political test, to some 
 extent. They might just as well have taken any 
 other political test, if they could find one which 
 ran across the field and separated the parties of 
 the country. It was invented for this jmrpose. It 
 was a political shil)boleth. It may be a pleasant 
 thing to a man, for the time being, to have all 
 the people of the United States sworn to support 
 his platform, and not be allowed to vote unless 
 they do so; but there are few reflecting men who 
 would be willing to announce such a prmciple. If 
 a man adopts this principle to-day, when he is in 
 the majority, there is no knowing where he may 
 be placed the next day. What would be said if 
 it were undertaken to jirovide that before a man 
 should vote he must take an oath to support the 
 resolutions of 1798.' Let us go further, and sup- 
 pose it were proposed to swear him to support 
 
 the last American platform, or to support the 
 forthcoming Republican platform when it shall 
 get out, what would be thouglit of it? Sir, the 
 whole thing is preposterous in all its forms. It is 
 an abuse of legislative power which is absolutely 
 intolerable. What is to be its effect .' We know- 
 very well the effect which it was designed to have. 
 
 There is another law passed by this Legisla- 
 ture to which I shall refer. I shall not quote it 
 in detail, but it provides substantially that if any 
 man shall put forth the sentiment that persons 
 have not the right to hold slaves, although there 
 is no law in the Territory authorizing it, he shall 
 be subject to the penalties and punishment. 
 What does that mean .' It incorporates into their 
 law the doctrine that the right to hold slaves 
 there is antecedent and paramount to, and inde- 
 pendent of, any law of the Territory. I read yes- 
 terday the language of the Kansas-Nebraska act, 
 providing, expressly, that slavery was not legis- 
 lated in or out of the Territory, and leaving it to 
 the people to regulate it as they please. Under 
 this enactment, what would be the first question 
 which the people would naturally ask, when they 
 came to talk about this great subject which has 
 been carefully, in studied and guarded language, 
 left to them for settlement? Suppose I had gone 
 into that Territory as a farmer to settle, and the 
 honorable gentleman from Missouri had settled 
 there as a lawyer. Seeing that it was my duty 
 to take a part in the settlement of the question of 
 slavery, which was left to the people of the Ter- 
 ritory, I would of course first desire to know 
 what the existing law was. It would be neces- 
 sary to know this in order to see what law it was 
 necessary to make. Suppose I should go to the 
 honorable gentleman from Missouri as a lawyer, 
 and gravely ])ut to him the question, " can a man 
 hold slaves in this Territory withoutalawauthor- 
 izing it." As a lawyer, he is sworn to support 
 the laws of the Territory. He says to me " I 
 will say nothing about it. " I respond " I want 
 your opinion as a lawyer, and I am willing to pay 
 for it. He reads to me the language of a certain 
 statute of the Territory, providing that if he 
 should express a certain opinion he would be 
 liable to severe penalties. 
 
 What would you give for a lawyer's opinion 
 with a halter about his neck? The object, the 
 purpose, the clear intent and meaning of this 
 statute was to say to the people, " you shall not 
 debate this question," a question which lies in 
 limine, the first one which ought to be settled in 
 order to arrive at a proper conclusion in regard to 
 the point submitt(>d to the decision of the people. 
 The former territorial law to which I alluded, I 
 called the law of disfranchisement. This I cull 
 the gag law. 
 
 Another statute has been passed by this so- 
 called Legislature which it is equally important for 
 us to notice, because we are looking for what we 
 ought to do. It is provided that every man may 
 vote at any future election who is a resident at 
 the time — no length of residence is fixed — pro- 
 vided he has paid a tax in tlie Territory. We 
 are told that this is a cautious and guarded elec- 
 tion law. How so ? If a man goes over from 
 Missouri, and takes up a residence of an hour, 
 
21 
 
 and pays a tax, he may vote. It is provided that 
 the sheriff shall attend at the polls at every elec- 
 tion, with his book, and receive the poll-tax from 
 every man who tenders it, and shall give him a 
 receipt. A man ma}'' come from Missouri an hour 
 before and say, " I have paid my tax; here is my 
 receipt, and 1 am a resident," and then he would 
 have a right to vote. 
 
 Can any lyan on earth possibly avoid perceiv- 
 ing the purpose of this provision? It was enacted 
 for the purpose of allowing persons to come over 
 from Missouri and control the elections in Kan- 
 sas, when and as often as they please. 
 
 I shall not go through other objectional features 
 in the territorial laws, depriving the people of 
 the power of electing their officers, appointing 
 them by the Legislature, and deferring their elec- 
 tion for long periods. I shall not allude to these 
 matters, because I wish to keep the three laws to 
 which I have referred, perfectly in view. 
 
 Now, Mr. President, in what a condition do 
 these enactments leave the people of the Terri- 
 tory? We can all see their purpose. It is to 
 drive out every man who entertains the opinion 
 that Kansas ought to be a free Territory, and a 
 free State; or, if he cannot be driven out, to sub- 
 ject him entirely to the influence of persons in 
 Missouri. The people are bound hand and foot. 
 They are subjugated, as much so as the Romans 
 were when the Samnites had them in the Caudine 
 forks. The J' were subjugated; they passed under 
 the yoke, and history says they were stripped of 
 all birt one garment. This is the condition in 
 which these people are left. > They call upon us 
 to correct this violence and usurpation, and to re- 
 move these tyrannical laws from them. They are 
 told that they can go on and correct all this in the 
 next election 
 
 Is it possible that they are to be treated with 
 such a species of mockery? It is like tying a 
 man, head and foot in a net, and throwing him 
 out to the world, and telling him to help himself. 
 Make an election! " Why, I cannot pronounce 
 your shibboleth." Make an election about the 
 subject of slavery! "You would not let me 
 agitate it. You would not even let me compare 
 notes with my neighbor in relation to our notions 
 about it." Sir, how is it possible for these peo- 
 ple to make an election ? They cannot pronounce 
 your shibboleth; they are not permitted to discuss 
 the subject about which an election is to be held. 
 The provisions of the election law of the Terri- 
 tory, to which I have alluded, would enable Mis- 
 sourians now, without violence, according to the 
 forms of law, to go into the Territory and outvote 
 the inhabitants at their pleasure. 
 
 Then, there is no measure of redress in the 
 idea of leaving it to the people to be settled by 
 another election. If they capnot be relieved in 
 that way, can they not be allowed hereafter to 
 make a constitution and State government for 
 themselves ? But will not that be an election ? 
 Must they not choose delegates to the convention 
 to make that constitution ? Will it not be subject 
 to the same difficulties? They must choose those 
 men under these very laws. The bill before the 
 Senate provides that, when they shall have a pop- 
 ulation of ninety-three thousand, they may pro- 
 
 ceed to form a convention and make a State con- 
 stitution to be presented to Congress. Who is 
 to elect del(>gates to that convention? You are 
 brought back again to tlie same condition of 
 things. You throw them into the same position 
 in which they are now". You require them to 
 make bricks without straw. You oblige them to 
 make an election when the existing laws will not 
 permit them to have a free election. 
 
 The people of Kansas thus conditioned desired 
 to obtain some relief. Where were they to look 
 for it? Surely, not in the administration of the 
 laws to which I have alluded by a court. A court 
 cannot lielp the statute; it must carry it out. 
 Could they look for redress to the Executive of 
 the United States ? The President tells us plainly 
 that he has no power to correct usurpation. It 
 would, however, seem to me that, when the Presi- 
 dent was informed of the acts of the people of Mis- 
 souri, and which he calls in his message "illegal 
 and reprehensible," if he found the Executive 
 without the power to redress, as he intimates, he 
 should have presented the same to Congress, rec- 
 ommending the proper measures for redress. He 
 does no such thing. He distinctly tells us there 
 is no relief to be had from him, and that those 
 laws, such as I have described them, will be car- 
 ried into execution by the whole military power 
 of this nation. We are told by the Senator from 
 Illinois, that not only the people of Kansas who 
 have been subdued will be trod upon, but that 
 those of us who make objection to it will be sub- 
 dued. He says, "We mean to subdue you." 
 Perhaps, it may be so. This manifesto is, in 
 substance, this: All you who would sustain and 
 restore the Missouri compromise; all who are op- 
 posed to the extension of slavery into free terri- 
 tory; all who will not approve of the subjugation 
 of freemen by force, that slavery may succeed, 
 and thus the relative weight of the slave States 
 be made, though a decided minority, forever par- 
 amount in this Government, are to be subdued. 
 I know very well that there is power in the Gov- 
 ernment of the United States to crush out the 
 people of Kansas. I know that justice may be 
 denied where it ought to be granted. If that be 
 so, it will be but the beginning of the end. No 
 quiet and peaceful results can flow from such a 
 course. The sentiment of liberty and justice of 
 the people of this country cannot be subdued. 
 Party may succeed for a time, but the final tri- 
 umph of truth and justice is certain. 
 
 But, sir, what did the people of Kansas en- 
 deavor to do? They could get no relief from the 
 courts or the Pi-esident, and what did they do? 
 They presumed to assemble together and to dis- 
 cuss the matter in various meetings. Finally they 
 appointed delegates to form a State constitution 
 to be presented to Congress. The majority of the 
 committee say that these proceedings have been 
 taken by the people for rebellious and treasonable 
 purposes, and not with a view to present the con- 
 stitution here. Indeed, I think the Senator from 
 Illinois said that it would be news to them, de- 
 rived from the minority report, that such was the 
 purpose which they entertained. He says their 
 purpose was treason against the United States. I 
 differ entirely with the Senator about that matter. 
 
22 
 
 1 take the ground that tliey did all this for the 
 purpose of forming a coDstitutioii to he presented 
 to Congress for its action. I do not wish to be 
 undrrstood as denying that a large body of the 
 people have considered that the laws of the Ter- 
 ritorial Legislature, the fruits of usurpation and 
 violence, had no legal binding force; but that was 
 not the purpose for wiiieh they assembled and 
 made a constitution. How in candor are we to 
 get at the purpos(,'S of a body of men ? 1 am aware 
 that there is in the world a sort of morbid species 
 of adventurous credulity in men w-ho refuse to 
 follow the open, beaten track of truth, and prefm- 
 resorting to the improbabilities of circumstances 
 as a better and a safer ground of duty. Such moi 
 in the ordinary walks of life always si^e a great 
 deal further into a millstone than anybody else. 
 If they agree with you, they never do for the 
 reason which you give. Theyahvay.s havea wiser 
 reason. Perhaps, sir, you have heard the story 
 of the old Dutchman, wlio said that ahorse could 
 draw more down hill than up, and it stood to 
 reason, because he could get a better foot-hold 
 then. [Laughter.] He could not be satisfied that 
 it was by the attraction of gravitation. 
 
 I say that in this I'-ase the character of the ma- 
 jority report is much like this. The plain and 
 beaten track of candor, it seems to me, is always 
 to judge of the purposes of jieople as they avow 
 .them and present them. When we talk of the 
 doctrines of a party, or the creed or faith of a re- 
 ligious sect, wo take their own version, and not 
 a perversion. Now let us see what the people 
 of Kansas state to be tiioir ol^ject. The first 
 meeting which they held was before the legis- 
 lative session terminated, while that body was 
 yet sitting. A notice was issued signi-d " Many 
 Citizens," calling for a meeting of the people with- 
 out regard to party distinctions, to be huld at 
 Lawrence on the 15th of August, to discuss their 
 situation. Now let us see what tlie people of 
 Lawrence said about their purposes. Among 
 their proceedings I find this resolution: 
 
 " Be it resolved, Tliat we, tlic people of Knnsas Trrritoiy, 
 in iua.-;s iiiectiii!; .isr-iMiihlid, i.ii-.-;pi;clivc of piirty di.-^tiiic- 
 tioiis, jiitiueiieed liya eoiiimoa Meef!;r.iiy, and >;i-i;ally desir- 
 ous of proiiioting ihc roiiiinon ["ood. do lii;rel)y call upon 
 iiiul rcqiic!!-! all lioiw fuic citini'ii.s of tvansas Tuniiory, of 
 whatever political vlfws or prc'dili;('lio;)r!, to coii.-;iilt to- 
 gi'llier ill tlieir icspoctive election districts, and, in mass 
 conviintion or otlierwLsr, clecltliief didegalos for each rep- 
 resentative of tlie Legi.-lalive Assenilily, by proclamation 
 of Governor lieeder of date Idth of ]>faicli, i<iX>; said del- 
 egates to assemble in eonveiition at the town of 'J'opeka, on 
 the lytli day of September, l{<ri."), tlieii and tliere to con- 
 sider and deterniine upon all siibjcots ol public interest, 
 and partienlarly upon tlial liaviiig ri'ferenee t.) the speedy 
 fonnaticni of a State constitution, with an inlentiou of an 
 immediate application to be admitted as a State into the 
 Union oi'tlie United States of America." 
 
 Here their purposes are clearly stated. They 
 called a meeting to assemble at Tojieka, on the 
 19th of September, to consider whether it was 
 not best to form a State constitution, wath a view 
 to ajiplication to Congress for admission into the 
 Union. That is distinctly printed in their pub- 
 lished proceedings. Now, what would be the 
 natural course of investigation.' I take it that it 
 would be to look at the action of the meeting of 
 the lOthof September, which the Lawrence meet- 
 
 ing called. I take it that the natural way is not 
 to run off into collateral and party meetings, held 
 in the mean time, but to go to the meeting which 
 this one called, and see what was there said. The 
 people met at Topeka on the 19th of September, 
 and what did they say there.' 
 
 Before I go further on this point, perhaps it 
 may be proper to inquire what had the people a 
 right to do in order to obtain redress? Had they 
 a right to form a State constitution.' I know 
 there ai-e many cases where there has been in the 
 first place an enabling act of Congress to author- 
 iz(! the people of the Territory to form a State con- 
 stitution, but there are many cases where the Ter- 
 ritories have formed State constitutions without 
 any law of Congress authorizing it. Could the fact, 
 that the Territorial Legislature called a constitu- 
 tional convention, give it any additional validity.' 
 I say it is in the nature of things beyond their 
 power to do anything to create a government 
 paramount to themselves. So said Attorney 
 General JButler, when consulted by President Van 
 Burcn in relation to the Arkansas case. He 
 stated, that if a Territorial Legislature passed such 
 a law it would be utterly void. 
 
 Now, what has been the course in regard to 
 the formation of State constitutions by Terri- 
 tories.' The first Territory which we ever had, 
 Tennessee, formed a State constitution without 
 the authority of a previous act of Congress. They 
 organized a government, chose Senators, sent 
 their constitution with their Senators, who. pre- 
 sented it, and were admitted. The State of 
 Arkansas formed i^s constitution without any 
 enabling act of Congress. Michigan, Florida, 
 and Iowa, formed their constitutions in the same 
 way. I do not allude to California, because I 
 am confining myself to those case's where terri- 
 torial governments existed by authority of Con- 
 gress. 
 
 Attorney General Butler said, in the j^rkansas 
 case,that the people, under the clause of the United 
 States Constitution allowing them to assemble for 
 redress of grievances, may form a State consti- 
 tution, and organize a government, so far as is 
 necessary to ciioose agents to represent them 
 here. What did these people do ? By virtue of 
 the call made by the Lawrence meeting, there 
 was a convention held at Topeka on the 19th of 
 September. Did they propose to proceed against 
 the action of Congress.'' Let us see what they 
 say: 
 
 " Whereas the Constitution of the United States guar- 
 anties to the people of this llipublir the right of assembling 
 together in a peaci'able manner for the coniinon good, to 
 'establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for 
 the coinmoM defense, promote the g(?neral welfare, and 
 Kccuri; the blessings of liberly to tlK'uiselvi's and their pos- 
 terity ;■ and whereas the citizens of Kansas 'I'erritory were 
 prevented from electing members of a Legislative Assembly, 
 in pursuance of the ptoclaination of Governor Reeder, on 
 the ;Wlh of March last, by invading forces from foreign 
 States coining into the Territory and forcing upon the people 
 a Legislature of iion-resideuts and others, inimical to tiie 
 interests of th(; pc'ople of Kansas Territory, defeating the 
 object of the organic aet, in consequence of which the ter- 
 rilcnial goveniment became a perfect liuiure, and the people 
 were left without any legal government, niiLil their patience 
 has become exhausted, and ' endurance ceases to be a 
 virtue ;' and they are compelled to resort to the only remedy 
 left — that of I'oiniing a government for themselves; there- 
 fore, 
 
2S 
 
 " Resnltcd hy the people of ICinsos Territory, m d''Iegale 
 coitvciitioii asscmhlerf, Tli;it iiti election shall lie held in the 
 several election preeincts oi' this Tenitor}", on the second 
 Tuesday ol' October next, under the re^iulations and restric- 
 tions liereinarter iiiijiosed. for luenibers ol" a conveiiliou to 
 I'orni a constitution, adopt a hirt'ol' ri'ilUs for the people of 
 Kansas, and take all needlui measures for orjanizina a 
 State {rovernnierit preparatory to the admission of Kansas 
 into the Union as a State."' 
 
 Tliey then go on to appoint a committee to 
 issue a proclamation providins; rules and regula- 
 tions for conducting the election, and sending 
 delegates to the convention; and they further 
 
 "Resolved, That on tlie adoption of a ennstiintion for 
 the State of Kansas, the president of the convention shall 
 transmit an authenticated copy thereof to tlic President of 
 the United States, to the President of the Senate, and to 
 the Speaker of the House of Representatives; lo each 
 member of Congress, and to the Governor of each of the 
 several States in the Union ; and adopt such other measures 
 as will secure to the people of Kansas the rights and privi- 
 Ie;;es of a sovereign State."' 
 
 It is difficult to see how men's purposes could 
 be more distinctly expressed. The committee 
 thus appointed issued a proclamation to the peo- 
 ple, calling on them to make an election. I will 
 read from it; 
 
 " To the legal voters of Kansas : 
 
 " Whereas the territorial government as nov/ constituted 
 for Kansas has proved a failure — si[natter sovereignty under 
 its workings a niiserahle delusion, in proof of which it is 
 only necessary lo refer to our past history and onr present 
 deplorable conditiini — oiu' ballot-boxes have been taken i)os- 
 session of by bands of armed men from foreign States — our 
 people forcibly driven therefrom — persons attempting to be 
 foiste(J upon us as members ot' a so called hegisjature, un- 
 acquauited with our wants, and hostile to onr lie^t interests 
 — some of thern never residents of our Territory — misnamed 
 laws passed, and now altcmpted to be enforced by tlie aid 
 of citizens of foreign States of the most ojipressive, tyran- 
 nical, and insulting character — the right of suffrage taken 
 from us — debarred from the privilege of a voice in the 
 election of even the most in:ignif)eaat otflcers — the right 
 of free speech stifled— the muzzlijig of thepre.:s attempted ; 
 and whereas longer forbearance with such oppression 
 and tyranny has ceased to be a virtue; and wliereas the 
 people of this country have heretofore e.xereised the right 
 of changing their form of government when it became 
 oppressive, and have at all times conceded this rigid to the 
 people of this and all other governments ; and whereas a 
 territorial form of government is unknown to tlie (.Constitu- 
 tion, and is the mere creature of necessity awaiting the 
 action of the people ; and whereas the debasing character 
 of the slavery which now involves us impels to action, and 
 leaves us as the only legal and peaceful alternative the im- 
 mediate tfttiblishmentof a State government ; an<l whi.'reas 
 the organic act fails in pointing out the course to be adopti-d 
 in an emergency like ours : Therefore you are re(|U<sted to 
 meet at your several precincts in said Territory, hereinafter 
 mcnti(nied, on the secondTuesday of October next, it being 
 the ninth d;'.yof said month, and then and there cast your 
 ballots for members of a convention, to meet at Tojiekaon 
 the fonrtli Tuesday of October next, to foriii a constitution, 
 adopt a bill of rights for the people of Kansas, and take all 
 needful measures for organizing a State government pre- 
 paratory to the admission of Kansas into the Union as a 
 State." ' 
 
 It then goes on to fix the election precincts, 
 and name the judges, and concludes thus : 
 
 " The plan proposed in the proclamation to govern you 
 in th(! eh'ction, has been adopted after mature deliberatnin, 
 and, if adhered to by you, will result in establishing in 
 Kans.is an independent government, that will be admitted 
 into onr beloved Union as a sovereign State, securing to 
 our people the liberty they have herelofore enjoyed, and 
 which has been so ruthlessly wrested from them by rcck- 
 icss invaders." 
 
 In pursuance of this proclamation, the people 
 
 elected d(^legates to a convention, which met in 
 October, and formed a State constitution. They 
 did form a constitution, and they have organized 
 a government under it. They chose a Legisla- 
 ture, which ek'Cted Senators. Their constitution 
 has been sent here, and whs presented by the 
 honorable Senator from Michigati. 
 
 Now, I desire to knriw whtit there is in this 
 whole proceeding to call for any severe animad- 
 version.' Is there to be found anything in it dif" 
 fering from Avhat repeated precedents had author- 
 \7.ed them to do .' Is there any intimation in any 
 part of this line of proceedings, which I have 
 gone through with, of a design to commit treason 
 against the Government of the United States .> 
 What is treason.' Nothing more, and nothing 
 less, than waging war against the United States. 
 The statute of Edward, defining treason, was the 
 basis for our constitutional provision on the sub- 
 ject, and it expressly cojifines it to making war 
 upon the Government. Has there been any idea 
 of their making M'ar against the United States.' 
 Even the idea of resistance to a United Sttjtes offi- 
 cr-r has never been entertained by the people of 
 Kansas. 
 
 It is true, that they spoke of and treated the 
 Legislative Assembly, elected by peojile of Mis- 
 souri, as a usurpation, and its acts, as a nullity, 
 or worse, to which there was due from them no 
 obligation of obedience; but, I insist that such 
 a view, and such a disobedience was, and would 
 be, no treason, no waging war against the Utiited 
 States. 
 
 1 come no^v, Mr. President, to examine the 
 majority reijorl. I cannot take tinv^ to go through 
 it with particularity in all its parts, but I desire to 
 view a few of its leading features. In the first 
 place, I wish to inquire as to the character which 
 It presents in regard to the invasion. I venture 
 to say there is no man on earth who would take 
 this report and read it carefully, who could ever 
 dream that there ever was such a thing in e:^ist- 
 ence. It is confessed by the Senator from Illinois 
 on the floor; but in the report nothing is confessed 
 or intimated. There is such a thing as insinua- 
 tion, I know — that is not exactly suppression. 
 By insinuation, I mean the intimating of that 
 which truth will not permit us to assert, or evad- 
 ing that which truth will not permit us to denv. 
 The invasion is not denied in the majoi-ity report, 
 nor is it asserted there. It is cast entirely in the 
 shade. It says that there have been fals^ stories 
 told iji Missouri. 
 
 Mr. DOUGLAS. Will the Senator allow me 
 to interrupt him for a moment.' 
 
 Mr. COLLAMER. Certainly, sir. 
 
 Mr. DOUGLAS. The Senator has remarked 
 that it has been several times admitted on the 
 floor that seven districts were carriid by invasion. 
 I beg leave to state to him that no such thing is 
 admitted. My position was that nobody there 
 at the time ever pretended that there was an inv*- 
 sion except in seven districts. That tliere was 
 one at all, was the point in disputi'. 
 
 Mr. COLLAMER. The speech will sneak for 
 itself. 
 
 Mr. DOUGLAS. Of course; but 1 wish to 
 have it fairly stated. 
 
24 
 
 Mr. COLLAMER. To confine it to seven 
 districts is-.to acknowledg-e tluit it extended to 
 seven. That is a j)roposition which is capabli; 
 of being understood without an argument. I sui>- 
 pose tliat an invasion could not be confined to a 
 place to which it never extended. What does 
 the report of the majority say in relation to it: 
 
 " Exapijoratcd accnuntsdl'tiiP large iiuml)ei- of oniigiant.s 
 on tlifir wiiv uiidor tlie auspices of the emigrant ai.i com- 
 panies witli a view of coiitrolliiii; the election lor nieinhers 
 of the Territorial Legislature, wliicli was to talic place on 
 the 30th of Marcli, Id'io, were pulilislied and circulated. 
 These accounts liciuf; republislied and believed in .Missouri, 
 wlierc the excitement had already been intiamed to a fear- 
 ful intensity, induced a corresponding effort to send at least 
 an equal iiunilier to counteract tlie apprehended result of 
 this new importation. Your eonunittee have not been able 
 to obtain detiuite and satisfactory information in rej;ard to 
 the alleged irregularities in condueiiiig the election, and the 
 number of illegal votes on the 30tli id' March ; but, from the 
 nio.st reliable sources of information accessible to your com- 
 mittee, including various papers, documents, and state- 
 ments, kindly furnished by .Messrs. Whittield and Keeder, 
 rival claimants of the Delegate's scat in Congress for Ransas 
 Territory, it would .seem that the facts are substantially as 
 follows." 
 
 What facts follow.' It goes on to state that a 
 proclamation was issued by the Governor, that 
 he set aside the returns in seven districts, and is- 
 sued orders for another election, which was held. 
 ]l states that the Assembly met on the 2d of July 
 at the place fixed by the Governor; that they ap- 
 pointed a joint committee to wait on the Governor; 
 that he received them and sent his message in due 
 form; and then, 
 
 " On the first day of the session, and immediately after 
 the organization of the House was effected, the following 
 resolution was adopted : 
 
 •' ' Resoli'cd, That all persons who may desire to contest 
 the seats of any persons now holding certificates of election 
 as nuMnbers of this House, may present their protests to the 
 committee on credentials, and that notice thereof shall be 
 given to the persons holding such cerliticates.' " 
 
 That was on the 2d of July, the first day of 
 the session; but on the 4th of July the legislative 
 committee made their report, saying, that as to 
 fifteen seats, there was no ca«test, and as to the 
 others, they took the statute for their guide — 1 
 think the expres.sion is that they considered it 
 the polar star — and they decided that the second 
 election, which the Governor ordered, was of no 
 consequence; and they admitted everybody who 
 received majorities at tlie first election. The ma- 
 jority report then goes on to state that, in regard 
 to those whose seats were not contested, there 
 never was any protest or any allegation of any 
 irregularity or fraud at the time. The facts which 
 I have stated are a sufficient answer to that asser- 
 tion. 
 
 Now, what would be understood by any man 
 who took up the statement of the report and read 
 it by itself, never before having heard of the 
 transaction.'' Would he suppose there was any 
 invasion at all.' He would undi^rstand, from read- 
 ing the report, that there had been some stories 
 #bout violence, but that the Legislature examined 
 the subject and decided that there was no foun- 
 dation "for them. I ask any gentleman, is that a 
 true picture of the tran.saction.' Docs the report 
 tell us anything about the invasion beiiig made 
 anywhere, confined to any part, or extending to 
 any part of the Territory.' JN'ot a word of it. Bv 
 
 making this statement in regard to the proceed- 
 ings of the Governor and Legislature, it is at- 
 tempted to be proved that the Legislature was all 
 right, and that its acts cannot be inquired into. 
 
 The next feature in the majority report, to 
 v/hich I call attention, is in regard to the laws 
 passed by the Territorial Legislature. Does it 
 give them? Not one of them. The Senator from 
 Illinois, in his speech, to be sure, speaks of certain 
 laws wliich were objected to, but he says there 
 never was any attempt to put them into execution, 
 and it was not on account of them that violence 
 afterwards arose. It is evident, then, that he 
 considers that these laws are regarded as objec- 
 tionable. Docs his report give them.' Does it 
 deny them.' No. What is the story told about 
 them .' The report says that there was a meeting 
 holdon at Leavenworth which stated the facts 
 about them. Who composed that meeting.' The 
 report says that it was without respect to party. 
 I am not informed on that point, and I shall say 
 pothing about it; but the meeting was composed 
 of the officials of the Territory. The report, 
 instead of givitig the objectionable laws, or stating 
 what tlie y are, or giving any account of them, says 
 what that meeting stated them to be. The report 
 says that in that meeting Avere officers who were 
 to execute the laws, and, therefore, it is sufficient 
 to give their views of them. The moinent you 
 examine the resolutions and statements of that 
 meeting, you find that, in stating the election law 
 to which I have alluded, they do not give its true 
 character. They say that complaint has been 
 made about a poll tax, but that there is no such 
 requirement. I have shown you that there is. 
 The act of the Legislature ]n-ovided for the pay- 
 ing of taxes on election day by persons who were 
 then in the Territory. The address of this meet- 
 ing denies that the people are bound to swear to 
 enforce the fugitive slave law, but admits that 
 they are comi)rlled to do it, if their votes are 
 challenged, and they are called upon to do it. Is 
 not this escaping from the plain provision .' 
 
 Instead of attempting to deny the existence of 
 these laws, or to tell what they are, or to assert 
 what they are, this is merely an attempt to escape 
 by undertaking to say what somebody else said 
 about them. That I call an insinuation. 
 
 The next point in the majority report to which 
 I allude is the statement in relation to the course 
 which the people of Kansas took to endeavor to 
 ol)tain some redress. What is the story al)out 
 that .' Instead of taking the proceedings of the 
 Lawrence meeting, which I have staled in my 
 minority report, and then the meeting at Topeka 
 which the Lawrence meeting called, and tlien the 
 statements made by that meeting itself as to its 
 purjjoses, which I have read, what does the re- 
 port do.' It first states the Lawrence meeting; 
 and what next.' Does it go through the line of 
 the meetings as they were called.' Not at all. It 
 immediately takes a diversion from that path, and 
 goes off toacertain meetingholdenat Big Springs. 
 There was a party meeting at Big Springs. I 
 know there was, because its proceedings are 
 bound up in the saine pamphlet with the Topeka 
 meeting, which the gentleman says he knew I 
 had. Certainly I had, and I gave him a copy. 
 
25 
 
 The copies are all alike I suppose. The report 
 goes off from the Lawrence meeting. Instead of 
 going to the meeting called by the one held at 
 Lawrence, in which they state their purposes, it 
 diverges from that, and goes off to the Big Springs 
 meeting. I do not know that a single man who 
 was in the party meeting at Big Springs was in 
 the meetings at Lawrence and Topeka. 
 
 Now, is it fair, is it right to attempt to give 
 character to this straight, direct line of proceed- 
 ings by the people, by going off to a political 
 farty meeting, and giving aversion of what it did.' 
 t is true that the Big Springs meeting, among 
 other proceedings, approved the call of the Tope- 
 ka convention; but who asked them for any ap- 
 froval of it.' Their approval made no difference, 
 think no gentleman here would be willing to 
 say that, when he calls a course of meetings of his 
 own political party to set out their purposes, any 
 character can be given to those meetings or their 
 proceedings by side-bar assemblages who say 
 they approve of them? Certainly not. Now, 
 what meeting was it which called the constitu- 
 tional convention .' The meeting at Topeka, of 
 the 19th of September. They state their pur- 
 poses, which I have read. The proceedings of 
 that meeting which called the convention are not 
 given at all in the majority report. It states that 
 there was such a meeting, but their proceedings 
 are not given. The very proceedings^which de- 
 clared their purposes, and which I have set out 
 in the minority report, are not there. I do not 
 use the word "suppressed." 
 
 Mr. DOUGLAS. No; because it would not 
 be true if you did. I will show you that it is in 
 the report. 
 
 Mr. COLLAMER. I have not seen it. 
 
 Mr. DOUGLAS. If you read the report you 
 will see it. 
 
 Mr. COLLAMER. The proceedings of the 
 meeting of September 19.' 
 
 Mr. DOUGLAS. The majority report sets out 
 in full the preamlile to the resolutions of the meet- 
 ing. It then states that they passed resolutions 
 calling a convention to meet at Topeka. AVere you 
 speaking of the Lawrence or Topeka meeting? 
 
 Mr. COLLAMER. I was speaking of the 
 Topeka meeting of the 19th of September. 
 
 Mr. DOUGLAS. I have stated what they did 
 on the 19th of September; I have not put in the 
 report the whole pamphlet. 
 
 Mr. COLLAMER. There is the point. 
 
 Mr. DOUGLAS. On that point I wish to be 
 distinctly understood. I have not set out the 
 whole proceedings, or the speeches in those 
 meetings in full; but they are precisely in this 
 order: first, the meeting at Lawrence; second, 
 at Big Springs, which .indorses the Lawrence 
 movement; third, the meeting at Topeka on the 
 19th of September, called by those two meetings; 
 fourth, the convention at Topeka, which formed 
 the constitution. I will give the reason why I 
 stated them in that order. I met the Senator 
 from Vermont at his room by agreement, and we 
 there came to an understanding that that was the 
 order of proceedings in wlvch the constitutional 
 convention was gotten up. If there is a misstate- 
 ment in the report in regard to them, it is the 
 
 Senator's fault, because he agreed to that arrange- 
 ment at the time. I have the memorandum on 
 which it is written, taken in his room. It is 
 his agreement, and )iever has been departed from 
 since. The facts are distinctly and truly stated 
 ia the i-eport, as I will show when the gentleman 
 gets through. 
 
 I Mr. COLLAMER. Will the Senator show 
 j me at what page of the report the proceedings of 
 i the Topeka meeting of the 19th of September 
 i are given ? 
 
 Mr. DOUGLAS. It is in the regular order. 
 Mr. COLLAMER. At what page ? 
 Mr. DOUGLAS. At pages 31 and 32, where 
 this statement is to be found: 
 
 " In pui:iuanceol'fhe rocoiiimeiidation ofthft mass meet- 
 ing held at (jawreiiei! on tlie 14tli of August, and imtorsed 
 by tlie convention held at the \i\<£ Springs on the 5th and 
 6th of September, a convention was lield at Topeka on the 
 19th and Suth ol' September, at which it was determined to 
 liohl another convention at the same place on tiie fourth 
 Tuesday of October, for the ])urpnse of forming a constitu- 
 tion ami State fjovernment; and to this end sueh proceed- 
 ings were had as were deemed necessary for giving the 
 notices, conducting the election of delegates, making the 
 returns, and assembling the convention. With regard to 
 the regularity of these proceedings, your committee see no 
 necessity for further criticism than is to be found in the fact 
 that it was the movement of a political party instead of the 
 whole body of the peojile of Kansas, conducted without the 
 sanction of law, and in defiance of the constituted authori- 
 ties, for the avowed purpose of overthrowing the territorial 
 government established by Congress." 
 
 Mr. COLLAMER. That is exactly as I un- 
 derstand it. 
 
 Mr. DOUGLAS. You are very unfortunate in 
 stating how you do understand it. 
 
 Mr. COLLAMER. I said that the proceed- 
 ings of the meeting at Topeka, of the 19th of 
 September, which called the convention to form 
 the constitution, were not given. I say now, 
 they are not given. That was the meeting which 
 called the constitutional convention. That was 
 the meeting which stated the purposes of the 
 movement. I have read to you their statement 
 of their purposes, wherein twice in the resolu- 
 tions, and twice in the proclamation of their 
 committee, they said expressly the design was 
 to form a constitution, and presenting it for ad- 
 mission into the United States; four times over 
 that is stated in those proceedings. Neither one 
 of those statements is given in the report. The 
 committee state that such a meeting was holden 
 at Topeka, on the 19th of September, as called 
 by the Lawrence meeting, which the Big Springs 
 convention said they approved. The report states 
 that such proceedings were taken by that meet- 
 ing in Topeka, of the 19th of September, as to 
 call a constitutional convention. But what is the 
 point ? It is whether or not their purposes were 
 revolutionary — whether their object was violence, 
 or the formation of a constitution to be present- 
 ed to Congress for admission. That is the point. 
 Now, sir, what does this report say? The per- 
 sons concerned in the Topeka meeting, of Sep- 
 tember ]9th, declared their purpose, I believe 
 four times, but certainly three, to be that, and 
 that only, namely: to form a constitution, with a 
 view to present it to Congress for admission. 
 What does the report which the gentleman has 
 read say of the proceedings of that meeting? 
 
26 
 
 " I n puisiiancn of the recommendation of the mass meet 
 ing held at Lawreiiee on the 14th of August, and indorsed 
 by tlie convention lield at the Big Springs on the 5th and fitli 
 of Septeniher, a convention waslield at Topekaonthe 19th 
 and yOtti of Siptcniher, at uliich it was determined to hold 
 another convention at the same place on tlie fourth Tuesday 
 of October, for tlie purpose of forming a constitution and 
 State government ; and to this end such proceedings were 
 had as were deemed necessary for giving the notices, coti- 
 ducling the election of delegates, making tlic returns, and 
 assembling the convention." 
 
 This is all tho notice which the report takes of 
 that mectina;; and then it goes on to say, in regard 
 to their purposes: 
 
 " With regard to the regularity of these proceedings, your 
 committee see no necessity for further criticism than is to 
 be found in the fact that it was the movement of a political 
 party instead of the whole body of the peo|)lc of Kansas, 
 conducted without tlie sanction of law, and in defiance of 
 the constituted autliorities, forthe avowed purpose of over- 
 tlirovving the territorial government established by Con- 
 gress." 
 
 This is what is stated to have been the pur- 
 poses of the meeting; but what arc they when we 
 examine them ? A mere call for a convention to 
 form a constitution for admission into the United 
 States Government to be presented to Congress. 
 What the Senator says about the order in which 
 these were to come is true; but the difficulty is, 
 that they have not come in; that is the trouble. 
 To be sure, it was distinctly understood between 
 the Senator and myself, that the order of the 
 proceedings in point of date was, first the Law- 
 rence meeting, then the first Topeka meeting, and 
 next theTopeka constitutional convention. That 
 was the order of their dates. 
 
 Mr. DOUGLAS. I wish to be understood as 
 to the matter of fact. I stated, that the order 
 agreed upon was, first, the Lawrence meeting; 
 next, the Big Springs convention, which indorsed 
 the Lawrence meeting. I stated in the report the 
 fact, which the Senator pointed out to me, that a 
 resolution of the Big Springs convention in- 
 dorsed the Lawrence meeting. He pointed out 
 to me that the Big Springs meeting was the 
 second step. 
 
 Mr. COLLAMER. Second in point of time. 
 
 Mr. DOUGLAS. That was the second step 
 in the movement for a State government. The 
 third was the meeting at Topeka of September 
 19th. It was in the second meeting — the one at 
 Big Springs — that they avowed their purpose to 
 put at defiance the authorities of the United 
 States, and to resist to a bloody issue. Tliat is 
 the fact, I think. 
 
 Mr. COLLAxVIER. I understand what I am 
 about. I am not misstating. I will give the truth 
 in relation to that transaction. I noticed that, in 
 the message of the Presidentof the United States, 
 it was said that the whole movement was b)^ a 
 party, i read these proceedings, and I did not 
 view it in that light. I supposed that those who 
 presented it in that light had taken it up as be- 
 ginning with the Big Springs convention. Now, 
 that was a party meeting. Havingluoked through 
 the papers, and seeing the matter in a dillerent 
 light, I called the attention of the gentleman to 
 the order of the dates. The first meeting was 
 that at Lawrence, which was not a party meet- 
 ing. That Lawrence meeting did not call the Big 
 Springs meeting, which was a party one. That 
 
 Lawrence meeting called the Topeka convention 
 of the 19th of September, without respect to 
 party, and stated their purposes to be to form a 
 State government for the admission of Kansas 
 into the Union. Now, when \ called the gentle- 
 man's attention to the order of the dates of these 
 events, I did it for the purpose of having them 
 appcarin their order. From my investigation into 
 the true character of the transaction, I did not con- 
 sider it a party movement; and I think I shall be 
 borne out in this by the papers. I do not com- 
 plain of the gentleman for bringing in the Big 
 Springs meeting. It is true I did not pttt it in 
 my minority report, and I will state why I did 
 not. It was not in the line of proceeding at all. 
 It was a collateral side meeting of a party. It is 
 true they approved of the call luade for the meet- 
 ing at Topeka; but nobody asked them for that; 
 and it made no difference. I did not think it 
 right to undertake to give character to the pro- 
 ceedings of the Topeka convention by that side 
 meeting, and therefore did not think it proper to 
 put it in. 
 
 Whatis the course of the majority report? After 
 mentioning the Lawrence meeting, it goes on to 
 the Big Springs party meeting, and extracts their 
 violent proceedings, if you please so to call them, 
 with a resolution approving of the call; and what 
 next? They then call up the Kansas League, a 
 secret military association. Oh, it is terrible! 
 Awful oaths! The book containing them is ex- 
 hibited as having been got out of a man's mouth. 
 Monsh'um horrendum, informe, ingens, cui lumen 
 adeinptum! We are to be frightened with it. What 
 connection had that with this business? I know 
 the report of the committee half intimates that 
 the Big Springs side meeting had some connection 
 with that league; but it appears by the paper that 
 it existed long before. It does not appear that 
 any man in the Big Springs convention indorsed 
 it. It is true they passed resolutions inviting 
 people to form volunteer companies; but there was 
 no intimation about the Kansas League. The 
 connection between them is undertaken to be 
 extracted out of the fact that the Big Springs meet- 
 ing recommended the formation of volunteer com- 
 panies. That had no connection with the Big 
 Springs meeting; and even if it had, it had nothing 
 to do with this line of proceedings. The difficulty 
 is, that the proceedings of the meeting at Topeka, 
 wiiich called the constitutional convention and set 
 forth their purposes fully, are not presented in 
 the report. Their meetings are represented as 
 having been party meetings, and their purpose 
 violence, although tliey had declared their purpose 
 fully, completely, and repeatt;dly. 
 
 Such is the course assigned to the proceedings 
 of these people by the majority report. There 
 are other things in the report of a similar char- 
 acter; as, for instance, the allusions to the emi- 
 grant aid society. It is not alleged that the aid 
 society have used or advised any force or vio- 
 lence; but the inference is left to be drawn. 
 There are a variety of other things alluded to of 
 a similar character, not material to the great lead- 
 ing features of the case. I say, therefore, that, 
 as a fair representation and true picture of the 
 leading features of the case, tlic majority report 
 
27 
 
 falls aitogethcr short of it. Indeed, I cannot but 
 say, from what I ♦lave already shown, that as a 
 picture, reproducing; a true impression, there is 
 not one single lineament which is not either dis- 
 torted in the drawing or discolored in the shade. 
 
 Mr. President, in the speech of the honorable 
 Senator from Illinois, he advanced the idea that 
 my minority report countenances violence. 1 can 
 see how such an impression is produced on the 
 gentleman's mind. I think it arises from read- 
 ing a part, and not the whole together. I do not 
 mean to be understood as saying that I think he 
 meant to pervert it. I do not believe it. I do 
 not like to say such things. To charge inten- 
 tional suppression, to my mind, implies wrong 
 intentions. I do not really think the gentleman 
 meant to use it in any bad sense of that kind; 
 but I cannot see how it is that he can charge me 
 with suppression in not inserting the proceedings 
 of the Big Springs convention, to give character 
 to a line of proceedings with which they had no 
 connection. 
 
 But he says my report countenances violence. 
 How so.' If it be read with any degree of candor 
 and fairness, it will be seen that it endeavors to 
 show what it was to be expected would be the 
 action of societies and individuals who should 
 enlist in this experiment — what experiment? The 
 experiment which Congress had put on foot. I 
 say that, if they enlisted in it for the purpose of 
 legal voting and legal settlement, it was praise- 
 worthy. Finally, after all, I said that if this ex- 
 periment — the experiment which the Government 
 had put on foot — I repeat it, and have repeated it 
 a great many times here, and quite too often — 
 unavoidably resulted in violence, it was the vice 
 of a mistaken law. Is not that a mere truism ? 
 Is that justifying violence .' But the Senator 
 seems to intimate that if the people from the free 
 States had reason to expect there would be vio- 
 lence, they should not have gone there ! I deny 
 it. If a grant is made, if you please, to the hon- 
 orable Senator and myself of a great tract of land 
 — the benefit to inure to whichever of us shall 
 cultivate the most of it in two years — is he not to 
 be permitted to enter on it with his workmen, 
 because he knows me to be a pugnacious fellow, 
 who will fight with him } If he does apprehend 
 that, it does not foreclose him from going on and 
 making his improvements. If the people did 
 apprehend violence, it was no reason why they 
 should not enter on a fair enterprise; but they had 
 no particular reason to apprehend it — none is 
 shown and none is known. If there can be ex- 
 tracted, by fair reading, out of my report, any- 
 thing to countenance violence, it must be ex- 
 tracted through a very distorted alembic; it is 
 extracting poison from the most harmless herbs. 
 
 Mr. President, I will now pass to the ultimate 
 point of the case, and the last which I wish to 
 dwell upon, and that is, what shall Congress do? 
 I have no desire to multijily words in regard to 
 what we have the power to do. I have, in the 
 progress of my remarks, stated my views ujion 
 that subject. I think we have sovereign power. 
 We have the right to repeal the whole of their 
 laws, or any one of them — to legislate for the Ter- 
 ritory as much as we please. Now, what ought 
 
 to be done? It is perfectly obvious that it is no 
 sort of use to leave that people as they are, with 
 any hope or expectation of amendment. I have 
 stated my reason for that position. They are 
 bound hand and foot, and no good can result from 
 leaving things to them under the operation of the 
 Kansas law. Is it true, as the gentleman seems, 
 towards the close of his speech, to argue, that I 
 have, in eftect, made an argument against the 
 law organizing the Territory of Kansas? Really, 
 it is something of a discovery that I am opposed 
 to the Kansas bill ! I think it would rather as- 
 tonish my people to learn that it was a new dis- 
 covery; but so, indeed, it has been stated. Well, 
 what if it is so? The experiment has been put 
 on foot there, and has been carried on. We see 
 how; we see its character. Does the result, thus 
 far, commend it to our approval ? Is it best to 
 persist in it? Is it desirable to persist in it, and 
 to put the President in the position of sending the 
 army to dragoon these people, and ride over them 
 rough-shod, for the purpose of continuing this 
 vassalage which usurpation has produced? Is 
 that Democracy? Is thatgood, safe, prudent, kind 
 counsel? Would it be likely to produce good 
 efl'ects in the result? No good can be efi'ected in 
 that way. There must be something done now; 
 what is to be done? 
 
 In my view — though perhaps it would be im- 
 practicable of accomplishment — it is best to aban- 
 don the whole experiment, for various reasons 
 already given in the progress of my remarks. I 
 think it was ill-advised; I think it was inconsid- 
 erate; I think it was a breach of faith; I think it 
 will never produce quiet; I think the people of 
 the free States will never be reconciled to it. 
 Then we had better abandon it altogether. Sir, 
 the passage of the Kansas and Nebraska bill had 
 an effect on the public mind which gentlemen 
 perhaps can slightly realize. I know there are 
 few gentlemen from slaveholding States who are 
 present to hear what I have to say; but there are 
 some things which I must say, whether they hear 
 me or not. When that bill was pending before 
 Congress, gentlemen of the Democratic party, as 
 well as of the Whig, of high position in the 
 North, who had been in Congress and in various 
 departments of the Government — who liad asso- 
 ciated with gentlemen from the South for a long 
 time, said: "The South are a highly chivalric 
 people; and it is utterly impossible that thoy will 
 agree to pass the bill and destroy the Missouri 
 compromise." That compromise was produced 
 by southern gentlemen, with the aid of some 
 northern votes. It was said: "It is a contract 
 of their own making; they will never break it." 
 
 But it has been done; and excuses are rendered 
 for it. What ai'e they, or what are the leading 
 ones ? They seem to me to be excuses unworthy 
 of the intelligence of the sources from which they 
 come, and much less worthy of being satisfactory 
 to those to whom they are addressed. The first 
 is, that the compromise was nothing but a statute, 
 wliich could be repealed. Certainly it could be 
 repealed. Sir, plighted faith is relied on when 
 there is no other securitj'. After the slaveholding 
 part of the coinmunity had had Missouri, Arkan- 
 sas, and all south of that line, disposed of in tlieir 
 
28 
 
 own way, aiid had made them into slaveholding^ 
 States, we did not find our security in the statute 
 mer(>ly. I admit, we were notweil satisfied with 
 it at all; hut the only part of it with which we 
 were satisfiiMl was, that slavery should not extend 
 north of 3fi° '30'. We did not find our security 
 for this in the fact that it could not be repealed. 
 We founded our security in a confidence in the 
 high intelliicence and honor of those who liad 
 made th(' contract. 
 
 Another excuse is, that we would not extend 
 it. That is to me stran!}:e. Two of us own a 
 farm together, and we divide it by a certain line. 
 By-and-liy we buy another farm. On what rea- 
 son can it then be demanded of one or the other 
 that he should divide that other farm by the same 
 line.' None in the world; but because he refuses 
 to do it, can that furnish any reason for breaking^ 
 up the divisir)ii which was made of the first farm 
 after the owner of one half had disposed of his 
 part.' Surely not. It is not an excuse worthy 
 to be receivrd. 
 
 Another one, I understand, is this: It is said 
 we never were satisfied with it; the people of the 
 northern States never were satisfied with that 
 compromise. Well, sir, we never were dissatis- 
 fied with that part which you are trying to break 
 up. Our dissatisfaction was with the other part 
 of the compromise of which you have and hold 
 the benefit. It seems to me a .strange thing that 
 such an excuse can be made. I presume every 
 gentleman, in his early reading, has become 
 acquainted with that story in the Vicar of Wake- 
 field, in which it is related how Moses went and 
 sold the Vicar's horse in the market to a fellow 
 who put off upoii him a quantityof mock spectacles 
 in shagreen cases, which hi- brought home in his 
 bosom, and showed triumphantly. It is not likely 
 that the Vicar was viM-y well satisfied with the 
 trade which Moses liad made, nor with the man's 
 having cheated him; but I have never heard that 
 the man after he had used up his horse, came back 
 saying that he wanted the green spectacles, be- 
 cause the Vicar never liked the bargain. 
 
 In this case, then; was a reliance and confidonce 
 in the high integrity of southern genthmen — their 
 chivalry if you pbase to call it so. At the North, 
 one would .say to another, " never will this com- 
 promise be repealed; it will never be suifered to 
 be repealed by those gentlemen. We know them. 
 They may have points of character arising from 
 their social condition with which we are not alto- 
 gether pleased, but they are highly honorable 
 gentlemen; we have confidence in them; it will 
 not bo repealed." When at last this reliance 
 misgave theia — when they found that they had 
 leaned upon a reed which pierced them, it went 
 down like cold iron to the hearts of our people. 
 
 Southern gentlemen may consider it a matter 
 of very little consequence how they are estimated 
 in the free States; probably they'do; but I can 
 as.surc them that this nation attaches something 
 more of importance to it. Mutual confidence in 
 public men is one of the great safeguards for the 
 continuance of our Union. A monil revolution 
 always precedes one of another kind; and the 
 giving up of that confidence with many of our 
 countrymen and many of our fellow-men is like 
 
 the giving up of the glvost. Gentlemen may have 
 possibly noticed the letter of e^-Governor Hunt, 
 of New York, in which he said that the South 
 would, by a returning sense of justice, correct 
 this matter. AV'ill you correct vt.' May it be 
 expected .' It may be done; but I am sorry to say 
 that I have very little hope that it will be. 
 
 There is another thing on which I will make a 
 remark. It seems that both in seascm, and out 
 of season, pains are taken to insist that all of us 
 who desire that there should not be a spread of 
 slavery into a country already free, who do not 
 desire a propagation of i1^ and an enlargement 
 of its borders, are, or ought to be, Abolitionists. 
 It is said that we are Abolitionists as far as we 
 go, and that, in point of fact, it is all one thing — 
 we are all Abolitionists and Black Republicans. 
 Mr. President, I do not speak of this point be- 
 cause it moves anything like indignation in me. 
 It does not excite the least feeling in the world; 
 but I M'ould ask those gentlemen what they expect 
 to gain, if they succeed in causing that belief.' 
 What is Abolitionism.' How do we understand 
 it? There are two classes of Al^olitionists, as 
 they exist with us, and probably elsewhere. One 
 class hold that the United States Constitution 
 gives a guarantee and countenance to slavery, and 
 that, therefore, as their saying is, it is a " league 
 with infamy," and should be liroken up, and the 
 Union under it destroyed. What is the other 
 branch of them.' The other party hold that, as 
 the Constitution does not mention " slavery" 
 anywhere, it is a charter of freedom, and, there- 
 fore, should be preserved, and used for the pur- 
 pose of overcoming slavery everywhere. There 
 are the two branches; that is Aliolitionism. 
 
 Now, sir, those with whom I act hold that 
 slavery is a local institution existing by the law 
 of the country where it is; that it cannot go 
 anywhere unless the laws go with it; that by 
 the terms of the Constitution it is left to the ac- 
 tion of the States, where it exists. We have no 
 disposition, cither directly or indirectly, in any 
 way, to use the powers of Congress under the 
 Constitution in order, in any manner, to affect it 
 where it exists. That is our position. Because 
 we do not desire to extend it we are called Ab- 
 olitionists. Suppose wc weri^ made to believe it. 
 Suppose that all of us who are now called by dif- 
 ferent names — names of reproach, too, such as 
 Black Republicans, and some sort of Americans 
 — were made to believe, and the world was made 
 1 to believe, that we were Aljolilionists — who would 
 1 be the gainer by it.' Who would be benefited by 
 jit.' 
 
 I cannot but call to mind a lesson from our 
 political history on this subject. When the Par- 
 1 liament of Great Britain were about to pass their 
 first stamp act, which was afterwards repealed 
 1 and another one passed. Dr. FVanklin was the 
 ! agent for two colonies, Massachusetts and Penn- 
 sylvania, then residing in London. Our colonies 
 ; kept agents in London, who were something like 
 ; the Delegates of our Territories here. Though 
 I they did not have .seats in Parliament, they were 
 ! consulted in regard to the matters of the colonies. 
 I Dr. Franklin was called before a conunittee, and 
 ' examined in relation to tliat law, and he was 
 
29 
 
 asked his opinion as to whether the people of 
 this country would submit to it cheerfully, or 
 whether they would oppose it? Dr. Franklin 
 t<ild them that he thoui;ht they would not submit 
 cheerfully, and he did not know whether they 
 would submit at all. This was, I think, in 1764, 
 the yijar after the treaty with France. They 
 asked him what the difficulty was? He replied: 
 " The people of the colonies acknowledge alle- 
 giance to the British Crown, and not only do 
 they acknowledge that allegiance, but they are a 
 very loyal people to that Crown. They hold 
 then* charters from it; they are attached to it as 
 a Protestant Crown; they are attached to it in 
 every way; but the people of the colonies do not 
 hold that same obligation to the British Parlia- 
 ment. We consider that you have no right, in 
 any form, to tax us where we are not repre- 
 sented." They said to Dr. Franklin: " There is 
 notliing in that distinction; the laws we pass are 
 the King's laws; opposition to the Parliament is 
 opposition to the Crown; infidelity to the Parlia- 
 ment is infidelity to the Crown. The acts of 
 the Parliament as approved are the acts of the 
 Crown." " Well," said Dr. Franklin, " I have 
 no desire to argue that question with the com- 
 mittee; our people thi)ik otherwise; but all I can 
 say is, perhaps you can convince them that there 
 is no difference; and, if you do, I think they will 
 oppose the law altogether, a)id the Crown too." 
 Sir, they persisted. Within three or four years 
 afterwards they passed that law; they put it to 
 the people of America; they insisted that oppo- 
 sition to their laws was opposition and rebellion 
 to the Crown. How did they succeed in making 
 them believe it? Read your Declaration of Inde- 
 pendence, and what does it say? It charges, 
 over and over, these very acts of the British Par- 
 liament as the acts of the Throne — the acts of 
 the King, and says that they are the acts wliicli 
 define a tyrant. They had got to believe it 
 then. They asserted it, and we know the con- 
 sequences. 
 
 Now, sir, I do not know but that it may be 
 made to be believed by us all, that we are all 
 Abolitionists in the sense, if you please, which I 
 have defined, and as understood everywhere; but 
 suppose it should be believed, what would be the 
 consequence ? It is not necessary for me to 
 
 answer. I do not see how any gain would come 
 to the cause of the slaveholders, or the slavehold- 
 ing^part of the United States — and when I use this 
 term I do not mean it in any reproachful sense. 
 I do not see how an advantage could come to 
 them. It may be a matter of taste. It seems 
 that they have succeeded in making the people of 
 Europe understand that we have a Republican 
 black presiding in our House of Representatives 
 — a Black Republican. It may be, that it would 
 elevate the position and estimation of this nation 
 to have it understood in Europe, that blacks be- 
 come presiding officers. Perhaps it will be best 
 to pursue it until we have a President that is 
 black; but that is a matter of taste. Still, sir, it 
 is part and parcel of the same proceedings, and 
 gentlemen must pursue their own course about it; 
 but it seems to me all this will not do any good. 
 Something should be done to restore quiet; and 
 if you could return to the condition of things be- 
 fore the act of 1854, I cannot but believe Uiat a 
 large body of my hearers, and members of the 
 Senate from all parts of the country, would be 
 glad that it had been continued so. If so, the 
 evil can be corrected still. However, I will dwell 
 no longer on that point. 
 
 Gentlemen will have perceived, I think, by this 
 time, all the reasons which I can urge, why at 
 any rate those laws — which they call such — of 
 the Legislature which assembled in Kansas, 
 should in some way or other be corrected; and 
 we undoubtedly have the power to do it. There 
 is one other course, and that is the one which is 
 presented. May we not admit them under their 
 constitution as they have formed it? The ad- 
 mission of a Slate must always rest in the dis- 
 cretion of Congress. Tiiis is the quietest way 
 to settle this difficulty. Nobody has then to take 
 back anything; no steps must thun be retraced. 
 It undoubtedly will result in quiet; it will be an 
 end of controversy on the subject; and 1 do not 
 see that gentlemen have any reason to believe that 
 persistence in doing otherwise will be likely to 
 produce any good at all. But, sir, I am not pre- 
 pared at this moment to go at length into my 
 reasons for believing as I do, that the best, the 
 shortest, and the most quiet way is to admit that 
 people with their constitution , and end the trouble. 
 I will detain the Senate no longer. 
 

V 
 
 imm^^ see 910 
 
 ssaaoNoo jo Aawaan