SPEECH HON, J. S. GREEN, OF MISSOURI, IN FAVOR OF THE ADMISSION OF KANSAS THE LECOMPTOX CONSTITUTION. DELIVERSB J^f THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, MARCH 23, 1858. ■^' WASKlN^GTONi tfEINTED BY LEMUEL TOWER?, SPEECH OF HOX. J. S. GREEX, OF 3I1SS01UI, IS FAVOR OF TllK ADMISSION OF KANSAS INTO THE UNION UNDER THE LECOMPTOi^ CONSTITUTION. OELIYEKED IX THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, MAKCH 23, 1S5S. Mr. Prss-ident-: The Committee ou Tevritories examined the subject that >*7as submitted to th-em, having before them the constitution of the State f>f Kansas and all tli^ fae-ts connected with its formation. The result of that examination has l)eeu reported to the Senate and the country. The major- ity of th-e comraittee deemed it proper to select me t'O make that presenta- tion to the Seaate. In consequence of that fact, it bow devolves \i\yon me to review tlte arguments that have been presented against that report, and against the positions of the friends of this measui'e, and to reply to them as biiefly as I well can. I need not undertake to magnify the importance of this subject. I could not do so. It extends in its effects and consequences to the vital interests of the Republic Nothing could strike a mo».e fatal Mow at what ought to be the permanent inteiests of all sections of the Union, than the i'.nproper decision of tlie siibject now under considerntion. The Senator from Michig;au, (Mr. Sihjart,) with a flourish of trampets unusual with hini, said Uiat the friends of the Kansas measure had been driven from all tlteir positions. With due deference t'O him,, I must be pei- niitted to remark that I am not conscious of any friend of tiiis bi^l being <]riven fiom its support; or of any position taken in the repor|, of the com- mi^.tee being s'-irrecdei-ed or abandoned ; nor am I conscious of any suc- cessful answer to any single position taken in that report. If we have been driven fioui any one, I would like to have tliat one pointed out. General charges, general assertions, and general allegations will not do for the Sen- ate of tiie United States. They will not do for a court of justice of the iowest grade. They v;ill nut eveUvlo Kpon the stump, or at the hustings. We must come to specific facts — to the true questions that have to be decided; and not undertake to prejudice the one side or the other by making broad, general, uusup|x)rted assertions. So it is with the Senator from Illinois, (Mr. Douglas.) He says that the principlecf the Kansas bill was, that the people should be left perfectly free to decide all domestic questions for themselves in their own way; and then assumes that such freedom of action has not been accorded to them. ^Is I have previously remarked, before we can arrive at a safe and just con- ciuaion we mast take all material facts and trace tfiem trp in tliefr proper connection; and if, in siTcb connection, we cannot agree in the deductions or in the conclusions, that variance in opinion will be an honorable differ- ence between honorable Senators. For my part, I see no cause and have heard no reason to Justify-a sound logician in changing one single position. The principles opoa which the report is based remain tmshalcen. Bat one single point of the report was called in question by the Senator from llli- Dois. What point in it was even controverted by the Senator from Michi- gan ? What principle enunciated in it has been called in qi^estion by any Senator on the opposite side ? It is true, exception was taken \y ^he honorable Senator from Vermont (Mr. Collameb) to the language. He said there were harsh expressions in it ; that the Opposition party in Kansas were characterized as " rebels," as " contnmacioua ;" as standing in a position of hostility to the Government. It does so characterize them ; and, if the facts presented in that report will not justify the accusations, it is a doty to take them back. Each sin- gle charge, with regard to the character of the Opposition in Kansas, is sustained by official evidence presented in the repoit^ from which there is,, and can be, no escape. If the honorable Senator supposes it unparliament- ary or indecorous to make specific charges, upon evidence presented, in a State paper, to remain npon the parliamentary records of the country, I remark that the speech of his colleagae from the same State of Vermont, (Mr, Foot,) which also becomes a part of the parliamentary history of this country, has more of abBse^ more of denunciation, more of harsh epithet, than can be found in any speech^ or in any paper, presented on the subject from this side of the Chamber, Wiih what propriety, therefore, shall one representative of a State complain of the expressions of opponents, whilst tolerating, in his colleague, the use of language' so extraordinarily harsh aa to have taken the whole Senate by surprise ? I say, farther, that that was the only exception taken by the honorable Senator to the report. The Senator from New Hampshire (Mr, Ciark) desired an explanation in regard to one expression in it ; which explanatioii was at once given, and is borne out by the context in the report, and leaves no possible chance for misconstruction. With what justice, therefore, shaB we be taunted with having been driven to the wall ; with having beea driven from our position ; with having been vanquished in all the debate and in all the investigation had before the Senate and the country ? Sucb is not the case, as I understand it. But the Senator from Michigan says, that althortgh it is true that the convention adopted this constitution, yet that adoption is not evidence that it embodies the will of the people of Kansas. There seems to be a sort of oneness in the moulding of expressions by the Opposition — " embodying the will of the people!" — as if mutually adopted by agreement among the Opposition, I will make no issue upon that point. There is not a Sena- tor, Ror a member of the House, nor a citizen of the Union, but what says that all constitutions oupkt to embody the wiil of the majority. How that fact is 10 be ascertained — what legal steps can be pursvied for its ascertain- ment, consistent with order, peace, ai>d constitutional government — h another question ; but that we ougl)t to take the proper steps, Ihe legal steps, to ascertain the will of the people, is a conceded fact. It is imagined by some, and Ibelieve by the Senator from Michigan, that the best mode of ascertainiBg the will of the people is by a submission to a vote of the people; and lie refenod to the vote on the 4th of January as affording the clearest and most conclusive evidence that the people of that Territory dis- approved the constitution. He also brought, as evidence of that assertion, what he says is a direct vote of the people; and he also referred to a mass meetincc, held at Leavenworth, consisting of delegates claiming to represent, by voluntary action, a vast raajurity (as he says) of the people of the Ter- ritory. How, I ask, can he undertake to give the sense of the people from the mere action of a meeting at Leavenwoithi Why rely on a single meeting to ascertain public opinion, if we are to reject as unreliable the opinion of a legal convention, legally elected at a public election, and thus representing the opinions of the people in a legal sense? Those who could get up a meeting, without law, without system, without order, tlu'ough their delegates to a self-constituted assembly at Leavenworth, can be relied upon to represent the people and speak their will, according to his argu- ment; but when the legally chosen, the legally appointed delegates, elected by the people at the ballot-box, speak, it is not to be received as evidence of the will of the )>eopIe ! The irregular and the irresponsible, this body is told, can be relied upon ; the regular, legal, and the responsible, should be rejected as unreliable ! Are the friends of the constitution to be vanquished by reasoning and by facts like these? Mr. Piesident, as I piopose to notice the several objections urged by the Senator from Illinois, and others, my train of remark will be rather de- sultory. The Senator from Illinois takes the position, that, although there was a submission of the slave article of the constitution on the 21st of December, yet it was an unfair submission. I have, on several occasions, corrected Senators in their quotation of the constitution on this subject. This is the last time that I shall ever correct them upon it. They all have, including the Senator from Illinois, uniformly represented this to have been the mode of voting ; that no man could vote for or against slavery on the 21st of December until he first voted /or the constitution. Such is not the fact. There is no such provision in the schedule — none in the constitution. There was but one single question submitted. The complaint has been often made, by these same Senators, that there was no submission of the whole constitution ; yet they now say that it was submitted, and unfairly submitted, because each man was compelled to vote for the constitution before he could vote upon the other subject, I answered that objection in the first remarks I ever submitted to the Senate on this subject. I took the ground, and it has never yet been successfully answered, that there was but one question submitted by the convention — not for the constitution as one question, and slavery or no slavery another question ; but the one single question of " slavery or no slavery." It will be observed that the form of the ballot which each voter had to make use of was not for the constitution and slavery, or /or the constitution and no slavery. No such ballot as that was proposed — none whatever. What then ? Why, the question of sla- very was submitted. How was slavery to be protected ? How was it to be guarantied in the constitution. It was already inserted in the constitu- tion. The eople, acting through their convention, either to submit or not to sul>mit the constitution ; that the Congress of the United States has no constitutional light t.^ stop and demand of them to submit it; that, if such demand shoidil be made, it would be a violation of duty, a violation of constitutional right, and that we who did it would be setting an example never set by our predecessors in office, and, I trust, never will be set by those who are to come after us. It is said, however, with a great deal of ingenuity, by the Senator from Vermont, that it is true the people, by convention, can act ; but, in order to make it binding and conclusive action, they must have legal authority to act; that the action of the people of Kansas, not being predicated upon an enabling ait, is mere voluntary action, and not, therefore, legal action — not binding u}>on those who do not choose to act. The Senator from Illi- nois shadows forth about the same idea in his first speech. It is this : " So far as the act of the Territorial Legislature of Kansas calling this convention was concerned, I have always been under the impression that it was fair and just in its provisions. I have .always thought the people should have gone together en masse and voted for delegates, so that the voice expressed by the convention would have been the unquestioned voice of the people of Kansas. I have always thoiight that those who staid away from that election stood in their own wrong, and should have gone and voted, and should have furnished their names to be piit on tiie regis- tered list, so as to be voters. I have always held that it was their own fault that they did not tltus go and vote; but yet, if they chose, they had a right to stay away." There seems to be in this a little contradiction. If they did wrong when they staid away, then it was their duty to have voted ; and hence those who did vote did right. He further says : "They had a right to say that that convention, although not an unlawful assem- blage, is not a legal convention to make a government ; and hence we are under no obligation to go and express our opinion about it. They had a right to say, if they chose, ' we will stay away until we see the constitution they shall frame, the petition they shall send to Congress ; and, when they submit it to us for ratification, we will vote for it if we like it, or vote it down if we do not like it.' I say they liad a right to do either, tliough I thought, and think 3'et, as good citizens, they ought to l)ave gone and voted; but that was their business, and not mine." The Seuator from Vermont proclaims the same idea that there was no legality attached to it; and drew a distinction, which I think my honorable colleague completely answered — that there was a difference between a legal proceeding and a proceeding by authority. What he meant by legal was, that it was not prohibited by law, and therefore not unlawful. 1 think I can adduce a little authority to show that this was a legal pi'oceeding. The authority that I propose to present consists, first, iu the report repre- sented by the Senator from Illinois in 1856, in which he makes his cele- brated argument upon the power of Congress over the Territories. He deduces the power that Congress has under the Constitution to legislate for the Territory, or over the Territory, from that clause which says : " New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union." Without conceding the ccrrectnesa of his source of power, I will proceed to show what he thought had been accomplished by the establishment of a territorial government. He uses this language- on page 4:. "Hence, before the power can be safely exercised, the right of Congress to organ- ize Territories, hy instituting temporary governments, must be traced directly t-o some provision of the Constitution conferring the autiiorit}' in express terms, or as a means necessary and proper to carry into effect some one or more of the powei'S which are specifically deleg:ited. Is not the organization of a Territory eminently necessary and proper as a means of enabling tlie people thereof to form and mould their local and domestic institutions, and establish a State government under the authority of the Constitution, preparatory to its admission into the Union." 9 His idea, as sTiadowdl forth in this vcpoit, and not only sha(iowed forth, but expressed in vor}' exphcit lanojuat^e, is, that the exercise of tlyJ power to establish a temporary iactice of the Government. It is equally well known that all these terri- torial governments are in the law expressly stated to be for the purpose of j>reparing tliens for admission into the Union. They are all said to be temporary. The express word is employed even in the Kansas act — a temporary government for Kansas iu the territorial form. So of Nebraska — a temporary government in the territorial form. Now, if it be a " teinporar)-" gos'-ernment, if it be to enable them to pre- pare for admission into the Union, if it be as a means to enable Congress to execute the [)ower to admit a State, as he argues in his report, then it is all that an enablinq act could ]x)ssibly be. But whether that be so or not, I proceed upon a broad principle of equity, which is this; the uniform practice of the Government has been to admit Territori_'S as States; and dtizens of any of the old States, North, East, South, or elsewhere, going and settling in a new Territory established during the past practice of the Government, looking at the past action of Congress, have a right, growing out of the common practice, to expect the organization of a State govern- ment, when they obtain the requisite strength. The common practice to so admit tht;m is an inducement to them to settle there; and not to concede to them what has been uniformly conceded to all others, without exception, would be a fraud upon the people who settle in the Territory. It would be a bre;w_'h of the common law which has grown up. Now, as Congress has not been uniform in granting enabling acts, as Congress has heretofore said an enabliRg act is not a ne<.-ess:iry jirerequisite, as the pi-actice of the Government has been uniformly to admit them as States at the proper time, he who settles there has a rif/ht, under that practice, to expect that that common-law practice shall be adhered to and carried out in good faith — more especially when settling in the Terntory acquired from France by the Louisiana treaty, which specially stipulated that it should be done. ' But, independent of all that, there was a government in Kansas, clothed with govi-rnmental power, subject only to the Constitution of tlie United States, which contemplated llieir admission into the bosom of the old family. That government was a teiritorial government. It has been said that it was a usuri>ed government; that it was established by fraud and vio- lence; that external power from the State of Missouri went over there and forced it upon thetn, all of which I pass by as unworthy of notice. Whether true or untrue, it was a government dc facto. It was a government wield- ing the power of the territorial authority. It was a government authcrrized, under the organic act, to do all that any other government, under that act, could have done. California was under a kind of military government, ostjibliehed under General Rilej^ and the Senator from Illinois, with great ingenuity, and great plausibility, (and I am willing to adopt it for the pur- [:>oses of the arguraeut,) in his report predicates the right of tlie State of 10 California to admission into the Union on these points : First, tliat there •was a government de facto there, and that, acting through this de facto government, the people had establshed a State government, and asked ad- mission into the Union. Such is the history of the case. He employs this language : " It also appears, from the proclaniatiun of General Eiley, acting Governor, to the people of California, dated June 3, 1849, that the government de facto was consti- tuted as follows: ************ " On the 3d of April, 1S49 President Taylor appointed Thomas Butler King agent, for the purpose of conveyiiig important, instructions to oiir military and naval com- manders who were intrusted with the administration of the civil government de facto in California." Thus predicating his whole argument on the double idea that the people had acted, and acted tlnough a government de facto. Had you not a gov- ernment de facto, as regular, as legal, as just, in the case of Kansas, as you had in California, even if you admit that in its origination frauds were committed, force resorted to, and exteina! aid brought to bear? Now, sir, here is a governtnenl de facto. They proceeded to call a convention. So in Kansas; there wms a government de facto, and they proceeded to call a convention. The Senator from Vermont says, however, that it is not a legality. Let us see what the Senator from Illinois says upon that subject; for I love to answer one of my oponents with the language of another. The Senator from Illinois, speaking of the action in California, says: "But there is not an irregularity in the case of California which has not occured and been Avaived in the admission of some new State into the Union. If the Senator will point to me any irregularity in the case of California, 1 will point him to a corresponding one in the case of some other State which has been received into the Union." » * * * "I hold that the people of California had a right to do what they have done ; yea, that they had a moral, political, and legal right to do all they have done." — Appendix to Globe, 1850, page 1523. So that the action of the people of California, being subordinate to the government de facto, was a legal action. The action of the people of Kan- sas, being through the constituted authorities, and a government de facto, was clearly legal action. This, like other complaints which have been gotten up since the first day of December, seenis to be an afterthought. Read the Springfield speech of the honorable Senator from Illinois. Would he have spoken in such terms as he did with reference to the expected action in Kansas if he had looked upon it as a mere farce — that people could have stayed away if they pleased ? Did he say so then ? I desire to read it. It has been lead frequently. I wish to incorporate it in the proper connection as it beai's on the proposition I am discussing. I ask my friend from Indiana to read it for me. Mr. Bright read as follows : "Of the Kansas question but little need be said at the present time. You are familiar with the history of the question, and my connection with it. Swbsequent reflection has strengthened and confirmed my convictions in the soundness of the principles and the correctness of the course I have felt it my duty to pursue upon that subject. Kansas is about to speak for herself through her delegates assembled in convention to form a constitution, preparatory to her admission into the Union on an equal footing with the original States. Peace and prosperity now prev.iil throughout her borders. The law under which delegates are about to be elected is belicN-ed to be just and fair in all its objects and provisions. There is every reason to hope and believe that the law will be fairly interpreted and impartially executed, so as to insure to every bona fide inhabitant the free and quiet exercise of the elec- tive franchise. 11 *'If any portion of tlio inhny)itiuits, nctin^; under the ftilvice of political lenders in distant States, shsU elioose to nbseiit themselves from the polls, and withhold their vote?, with a view of leiivinsi the free-State Demoernts in n minority, and thus fc- ourina; a jiro-slaveiy constitution in opposition to the wisiics of u nuijorit.y of the people living under it, let the rejionsilnlity rest on those who, for partisan purposes, will gaerifiee the pi inciplcs they profess to cherish and promote. Upon them and upon the political pxirty for whose benefit and under the direction of whose leaders they act, let the blame (>e visited of fastening upon the peo|>le of a new State, institu- tions repugnant to their feelings and in violation of their wishes. The oi-ganic act secures to the }>eople of Knnsjis the sole and exclusive rii;ht of forming and regu- lating their domestic institutions to suit themselves, subject to no other limitation than that which the Constitution of the United States imposes. The Democratic party is determined to see the great fundamontal principles of the organic act carried out in good faith. The present election law in Kansas is acknowledged to be fair and just — the rights of the voters are clearly detiiied-.-and the exercise of those rights will be ofticiently and scrvipulously protected. 1 Fence, if the majority of the people of Kansas desire to have it a free State, (and we are told by the Re- publican party that nine-tenths of the people of that Territory are free-State men,) there is no obstacle in the way of bringing Kansa.s into the Union as a free State, bj the votes and voice of her own people, and in conformitj' with the great principles of the Kansas-Nebraska act; provided all the free-State men will go to the polls and vote their principles in accor(lance with their professions. If such is not the result, let the consequence be visited upon the heads of those whose policy it is to produce .strife, aaarchy, and bloodshed in Kansas, that their party may profit by slavery agitation in the Northern Stat^js of this Union. That the Democrats in Kansas will perform their duty, fearlessly and nobly, according to the principles they cherish, I • have no doubt; and that the struggle will be such as will gladden the heart, and i»trength\.ni the hopes of every friend of the Union, I have entire confidence." Mr. CrKEEN. Now, sir, I liave had that speech read because in the con- nection I am now speaking it shovv.s he then regarded it as a proceeding (hat Would bo binding;, perfectly obligatory, and was anticipating that some <.»{' the contumacious would stay away and not vote, alleging at the same time that they would be equally bound as tliough they had appeared at the polls and vt)tcd. That shows that he regarded it as a legal proceeding. That speech was made on the r2t.h of June, tlirea days before the election held nnaratory to their admission into the Union ; that it was with this view, as stated by the Senator from Illinois, that the organic act of the 7'erritory was first passed to enable them to prepare for admission under the clause of the Constitution, whi(di says that Cong.iess may admit new States. It then r<:'^ults that the voice of the peojde, fairly expressed, de- manded a change of government from that of a territorial to tliat of a Slate. There was no jnetence of fraud at tliat time ; no pretence of any invasion from Missouri, or from the Camanches of the West; no pretence of im- proper influences ; all was admitted to be lair, regular, just, and proper. The first step in the proceeding, then, is a legal step of tlie people in the exercise of their power. Ah, aays the Senator from Vermont, they will hai'e lio power until Congress enables theiu to come into the Union, 12 Mr. CoLLAMER. I did not say thnt they had not power. They had the power to meet and petition, and all that, Mr. Green. Did you not say that they had no power? Mr. CoLLAMER. Not authoritative. Mr. Green. I understand the Senator. He spote of their political rights, because there is a difference between a mere physical act and a moral and political right. They have a physical ability to gather in mass meeting, and utter expressions, if they have the powe;- of articulation, and physical power to draw up a petition and present it to Congress. Mr. Collamer. And a political right. Mr. Green. And a political right to present it. But what political right have they to form a State government at any time? Never till Con- gress says so? He shakes his head. Can they do it before? Can they do this before Congress passes a provision giving them power to do so? Mr. Collamer. They may meet, form a constitution, and pi'esent a petition to Congress with the constitution for admission under it; but it is for Congress to say whether they will admit them in their discretion. Mr. Green. There is no difficulty about this subject when we come to a proper understanding. The admission of a State is one thing; the form- ation of a State anothei-. Congress cannot form a State. Congress, there- fore, cannot give power to the people to form a State ; for they cannot confer a power they do not possess. If, then, there ever is a power in a Territory to form a State, from whom is it derived? Not from any sister States, because they cannot create another State ; not from the Federal Government, because it cannot create a State. Then, from whom is de- rived the power to create a State ? From Heaven ; that is the source of the power. An enabling act was given to the people by Him, and Him only. It has been held by the wisest statesmen in this Government that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are the inalienable rights of man ; and that to secure these, rights, governments are instituted, deriving their just powers — from whom? From Congress ? From a sister State ? From an enabling act? No; but deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, and whenever the consent of the governed is given, the just power has been conferred, and they (the governed) are the people of the Territory. They cannot, however, force themselves into the Union. That Territory belongs to all the States, and Congress is the administrator of it. The people of the Territory cannot appropriate the public lands to them- selves. They cannot oust the rightful jurisdiction of the Federal Govern- ment. Therefore, an assent, either by admission or otherwise, must be given by Congress before the indej>eudence, the sovereignty of the State becomes complete; but the power to form a government is an original in- herent power which they may of right exercise when their numbers justify. If they may thus exercise it; if it be an original power; if it be an in- herent power ; if it be an inalienable power ; then it is a legal power. True, they cannot establish a government that would abrogate the Federal power. They cannot be brought into collisiou with Congress, because as the ownership of the Territory is in the States, and jurisdiction over it is in Congress, the assent of Congress must be had either before the formation, or after the formation of the State government, and the one is as regular as the other ; as the past history of the Government proyes. 13 In tlie uext step of this proceeding, (for that territorial gjovernment has been indorsed by Congress and all the authorities of this Ciovenim^'nt,) tho Territorial Loaiishiturc passed the convention act — that one of which the Senator from Illinois spoke, when he said it was just and fair in al! its pro- visions. It provideeople were disfranchised, when there is not one word of truth in it NoA', if we desire to investigate, according to the facts, and present the facts to the country, why do we not speak of the people ? Did you want unpopulated counties represented in convention ? I thought it was the people whose rights you talked about protecting, and not the barren hills and wastes, the prairies and the swamps. They have no voice in it, and ought not to have any. They are the creatures for the use of man, and not the masters ; they are to be used by man, and are given for his accommo- dation and benefit. All of the nineteen counties that had any inhabitants at all were attached to other counties, except two or three, and from them the registry officer was driven off. This is established by abundant evidence. In all of them only one thousand four hundred and twenty-three votes were given at the 4th of January election under a qualification of voters which would not have permitted them to vote for the delegates to the con- vention. The qualification for those who should vote for delegates to the convention was, that they should be citizens of the United States, and residents of the Territory on the 15th day of March. The qualification of those who voted on the 4th of January was, that they should then be in- habitants of the place. Now, if, with this broader latitude, with this free license for people to come in, through the influence of the emigrant aid societies, with all the machinery of importation, they could at this later period only manufacture one thousand four hundred and twenty-three votes, when there was no restraint of law as to the number polled, how many could that same locality have polled with the quali6cation required under the convention act on the 15th day of June preceding? lam assured, by good authority, not over five hundred. So that it dwindles into mere insignificance. But, whether large or small, whether great or little, it resulted from their own acts, as is proven by the testimony of Secretary Stanton and others. Then the convention is elected. It legally assembles. It performs its work. The people adopt the constitution finally, as they had a right to do, in pursuance of the principles incorporated into the organic act, as Senator Douglas, in his own language, asserts they were to settle these questions for themselves, by represenatives chosen for that purpose. Not by a direct vote of the people; not by a subsequent submission to a popular vote; but, 14 tlioiipli lie attributed tLat idea of Presideut BucLanan to his aLsence from the United States, as a fuudamental error, still his own report says they are to settle it by their representatives, ehosea for that purpose. Just in that way the people of Kansas did settle all questions pertaining to their domestic institutions, except the question of slavery ; and that question ■was submitted to a subse^r^uent vote of the people oa the 21st of De- cember. What is arrayed against all this? What imputation is made agaiusfe this proceeding? What is to lessen the force of it? W'hy, says the Sen- ator from Vermont, (Mr. Foot,) theie were bro^ken pledges; they had a right to stay away and not vote ; they had assurances from the President, assurances from Governor Walker, assurances from Governor Stanton, and pledges from the candidates, that the constitution, when framed, should be submitted to them for ratification or rejection. I called upon the Senator at the time, and requested him to favor me with the evidence of his asser- tion. He did not have time to produce it then, but I suppose he will, if he can, at a more convenient season. The Senator from Vermont (Mr. Collameb) went ofi' and hunted up a little item, and brought it up heye for his colleague, but that does not even reach the case. I know, and the cuuntry knows, that Governor Walker preferred that the constitution should be submitted ; but Goveinor Walker never did assume to pledge to the people that it should be submitted. Mark the difference. Governor Wal- ker says to them, if the convention does not submit the constitution, I promise you I will oppose its admission ; but that very assertion shows that he understood the couventioa were not bound to do it, for it implied a doubt whether they should submit it or not. Do you tell me that amounts to an assurance that the constitution should be submitted ? There is noth- ing like it on the record ; and when gentlemen make the assertion, they make it without any evidence upon which to found it. Even Governor Walker, with his strong proclivities to invite the action of emigrant aid societies to rush out a population to vote down the constitution or vote out slavery — even he, in his own zeal, never undertook to pledge to the people that it should be submitted to them for a vote. He preferred it, hs advocated it, he urged it; but he had no power to pledge that it should be submitted, and he never did. How is it with Governor Stanton? Governor Stanton, on the contrary, said expressly and explicitly that the distracting question of slavery ought to be submitted, and that was as a mere question of policy. Now the con- vention, I suppose, had more confidence in Governor Stanton than in Gov- ernor Walker, I presume so from their action ; for they acted on the sug- gestion of Governor Stanton, adopted the constitution finally in all its branches, and in all its parts, except the ailicle on tlie subject of slavery, ^ and that they submitted to a vote of the people. But neither Governor, nor Secretary, nor President, nor anybody else, had any right to dictate to the convention any part of their action, either in the form of the constitu- tion, or the mode of its adoption. The election took place on the 21st of December, and the character of that election is a great bone of contention, I can show, by Governor Wal- ker's own position, that the question which constituted the real matter of controversy was, shall there be slavery or no slavery ? Is there anything else in controversy before the Senate ? Is there anything else that stirs up the least feeling, even iu the Republican party, save and except this slavery 15 qne&tion 1 Not one particle. Eveiytliing else is liuutcd up witli eager anxiety merely as make-weights, as it seems to me ; but there is not one single valid objection pointed out. On the 21st of December, then, the question was submitted. To disfranchised counties, or to but nineteen counties? No; but submitted to every county in the State, submitted to every citizen of the State, whether he had been registered or whether he had not been registered. I liave before saiil that those who failed to regis- ter themselves committed a wrong in their own light. But the Senator from Vermont said that the argument reminded him of an anecdote of a boy who could not count the pig-s because one of them kept running about all the time. Now, if that pig had to give his name to be registered, and would not do it — what then ? How register him ? Mr. CoLLAMER. Count him. Mr. Green. But if the law says that lie should give his name to be registered, so that when he came up to vote it nnght be known whether he was entitled to do so or not, how could you ascertain his name -jvithout lie gave it? That is the cause of all the difficulty. Now, it is a fact not to be controverted, that they did refuse to be registered, and the imperfect registration was the result of their own wrong. But whether right or wrong, whether it was the fault of the officers or the fault of the people, when the great question was submitted, whether registered or unregistered, whether entered upon the poll-list or not entered upon the poll-list, all were allowed to come and vote. Why did they not do it ? It is said they an- ticipated fraud. Anticipated fraud 1 A majority anticipate that a mi- nority would whip them 1 It is not a part of the American character; nor do I believe that to have been the reason, nor does anybody here on either side believe it ; but if true, it amounts to no excuse. But, says the Senator from Illinois, why did they not submit the whole constitution ? He answers the question himself by saying the only reason given, was that it would be voted down. Who said so? Why, the Sen- ator from Illinois, and, I believe, the Senator from Michigan. Who else said so? Did the people of Kansas say so? Some one of that convention maj have said so ; but the convention itself, as a convention, never put its action on any such ground. To represent them as being influenced by such a consideration when you have not the slightest evidence, I say is neither legitimate nor logical. But assumptions have been made from the beginning of this discussion down to the present time; and no more gross assumptions have been made by any Senator, than by the distinguished Senator from Kentucky. Why, said he, this election was all very fair on its face, but gross frauds have been perpetrated. That Senator is a distinguished lawyer; he knows the force and weight of evidence; but if he referred to anything that would he re- ceived ji-s evidence before any justice of the peace in any county of his State, I should like to have it pointed out. Why, said he, both the Gov- ernors have given it fis their opinion that a large majority of the people of the Territory are against the constitution. Talking about legal proceedings, the Senate of the United States liaving a constitution, adopted according to law, brought before them, it is to be overruled, broken down by the opinion of two gentlemen who rode through the country! Why, sir, will a lawyer assert that to be evidence at all ? When did they give that evi- dence ? Since they fell out with the Administration, and joined the enemy. It is no evidence at all, and comes in a very questionable shape. 16 Again : tlie Senator from Illinois says this constitution does not meet the ■will of the people. Where is the evidence of that ? Why the Legislature elected in October passed resolutions protesting against its reception and admission. Does that prove tliat the constitution does not meet the will of the people of Kansas ? Does he not know that, when that Legislature was elected, the constitution had not been formed ? That Legislature was elected in October ; the convention had not then formed the constitution. Did they condemn it in advance? Did they reflect the will of their con- stituents ? The question had not been before the voters of the Territitory to say whether they approved that constitution or did not approve it; and, consequently, the Legislature elected could not possibly represent them and reflect their will on that subject. It is worse than idle, it is absolutely ridiculous, to say that the Legislature elected in October, before the consti- tution was formed, could express the will of the people on that constitution. The convention, chosen by the people to make the constitution, can better reflect the will of the people than the Legislature chosen for a different purpose. The people elected that convention to make a constitution. They had not then performed their work. They elected a certain set of men to go to the Territorial Legislature. Subsequent to that election the people's con- vention did form a constitution, and the Legislature undertook to pronounce judgment upon the work of the people's representatives. Does that afibrd any evidence that it would be condemned by the people? I cannot so un- derstand it; nor do I believe that any man who will turn his attention to it for one moment will believe it is entitled to any weight or consideration v/hatever. Even the Senator from Illinois, following the example of the distinguished Senator from Kentucky, says, "Ask the Governors what the will of the people there is." Is that to have any weight ? I submit, with due deference to the longer experience of the distinguished Senators, that the way to ascertain the people's will is not to ask their Governors what it is. Can you have the people's will except when collected in the form of law ? Will you look at a mob, guess at its size, and say that that overrides a legal vote ? You sanction that principle when you undertake to repudiate the action of this legal convention, because a Governor may have said he rode through the country and counted so many stumps and so many cabins, and he was inclined to think the majoiity was on that side. I trust such arguments will never be made here again. Moreover, the Governors were not chosen by the }>eople, vyhile the convention was, for the direct purpose of making the constitution, and their action is the best evidence of the peo- ple's will. The Legislature of the Territory was not chosen for the purpose of ex- pressing the will of the people on the constitution ; neither was the Gover- nor, who was appointed by Federal authority. But the great question, it is said, is, does the constitution embody the people's will ? Now, I come to the point which I have been incidentally noticing for some time. Their will is collected only through the forms of law. i3ut, says one Senator, we do not object to these forms of law, but we go for the equity of the case. Well, what is equity ? First, equity follows the law ; second, the rules of evidence in equity and law are the same If in law your evidence would not be admissible, neither will it be received in equity to ascertain the equity of this case. Flying reports, wild guesses, vis- ionary imaginations, are to be brought up to weigh down legal evidence, by 17 old experienced lawyers and statesmen. I am astonished at it. Tliere must be an impelling power beliind to rush them into error so gross, else it could never be done. Wliat that impelling influence is I know not. In the United States of America, distinguished for its endeavors to protect the peo- ple's rights, there has never been but one rule to collect the people's will — by a legal proceeding. The moment you depart from this rule, wdien you next have an election of President of the United Slates the ballots will be cast, the votes will be counted, the electors returned, and a wild cry will be raised outside of this Ca])itol — Governors A, B, C, or D will say that an immense majority of the people of the United States were opposed to the President. They will say he does not represent the piblic will ; that a majority are against him. I have already heard it said that Mr. Buchanan is a minority President, that Mr. Pierce was a minority President. Take one more step, incite the people in their freiisy to go one inch further under the example intimated here that you may guess at num- bers, and not lake the people's will in the forms of law, and you will have bristling bayonets and threatening cannon pointed at the walls of your Capitol to displace those legally elected to put in the mob and the candi- date of the mob. It is fraught with a danger that demands the most serious reflection. We should pause before we set an example so calamitous in its texidency. Does this constitution embody the people's will ? I«ay, yes; and when I answer, I predicate my answer upon that which cannot be controverted or gainsayed. When the Opposition answer, it is a loose, unsupported asser- tion. But the question, does it embody the people's will ? comes back with all its force, again and again. What is the test ? Were there disfranchised counties where members were not elected ? That does not af}cct it. There were but very faw people in them, and nearly all the people were regis- tered — all were, that desired it. You cannot compel a man to vote. You ought to give all the privilege of voting; and having the privilege, if they refuse to vote, the consequence must rest upon their own heads. Take the case of Iowa, to wdiich tlie Senator from Kentucky refeired Mr. Ckittenden. Not Iowa ; Wisconsin. Mr. Green. I thought it was Iowa to which the Senator referred. Mr. Crittendex. Xo, sir. Mr. Green. I think I am correct, and the Senator will see that I am correct in a moment. He was upon the point that a constitution was formed by them, and the boundaiy, or some other part, was not acceptable to Congress. Congress said to them, you may come in, if you conform your boundary to the northern boundary of the State of Missouri, and com- ply with certain conditions. The constitution went back to the State, and Congress never heard anything more of it; and I will tell you why. The people voted it down. Congress undertook to change the boundary which the people had inserted in the first constitution, and to prescribe terms to the^ii. They voted down the ])roposition which Congress made to them, and subsequently formed a new constitution ; but when they did come into the Union, what was the evidence that it embodied the people's will ? Mr. Harlan. Will the Senator allow me a moment ? Mr. Green. Certainly. 18 Mr. Harlan. Congress prescribed no new boundary to Iowa, as the Senator will see by examining tbe act. Mr, Green. It prescribed some conditions wliicli they repudiated. How •was the second constitution received ? By a submission to the people. What was the vote upon that? Now you want clear, unmistakable evi- dence that the constitution embodies the people's will. In the case of Iowa, over nine thousand four hundred and fifty voted for the constitution, and nine thousand and sixty voted against the constitution, and three counties ■were disfranchised. If the votes of those three counties had been brought in, and counted in the negative, they would have overturned that majority. Yet you see the forms of law were observed. One of those counties, which seems to be lather remarkable, was named Buchanan ; not a vote was re- ceived from it. There were two other counties from which not a vote was received ; but yet it was their own negligence. The law afforded them the opportunity, and if they did not avail themselves of that opportunity, they were bound by the decision of those who went to the polls and voted. So in Kansas; so in California; so in every instance. I believe there never has been a vote taken in the United States in which every man participated who was entitled. Take the case of the recent amendments to the constitution in the State of Pennsylvania. I am informed by the Senator from that State that they can poll about fi^e hundred thousand votes in the State. Last year they adopted some amendments to their constitution, less than one hundred and forty thousand voting. The highest vote that any amendment received was one hundred and sixteen or one hundred and eighteen thousand. Yet it was^ the will of the people — the legally expressed will. Those who do not think it proper to come forward and exercise the I'ights which are ex- tended to them, are bound by the decision that is made. Deal with Kansas on the same principle; extend to her the same rule of action, and you will be estopped from finding any foul t or making any complaint. ' But every time they hear this word estopped, a cold shudder seems to run over these Republican Senators. Estopped ! They say that is the lav/yer's plea. I trust we are not opposed to law and order. I trust we will ever act on the legal rules established by centuries of experience, by enlightened human reason, as best calculated and designed to protect the rights of the people. On those we ever act ; and when we depart from them, we will be not only at sea without rudder and without compass, but we will be in a terrific storm diiyiug us upon the rocks of destruction. But one of the great and important points — it looms up with great mag- nificence in the Opposition here — is the vote on the 4th of January. After the constitution had been finally adopted, and was complete, on the 21st day of December, after the work of the convention had been consummated, a Legislature meets — not appointed for that purpose, not selected for that purpose, because when they were elected, in October, the constitution had not been formed — but in spite of that, without instruction from the people, without authority from the people, they undertake to defeat the will of the people by ordering a subsequent election. I would like to know if I could dare to ask that question, who gave instructions out there to get up that vote? Whence did the orders emanate ? Who sent them the advice? It makes no difference to me how it originated, its consequences (are just the same ; but, as a matter of curiosity, to go into and fill up the vacant spaces in the history of this strange transaction, I would like to know who issued 19 the orders. Had tli.it Lec;islature tlie power to order an olodion? Wliy, say Senators, it liad as iiiucli power over the subject of a constitution as had any preeediiirj Legishiture, I say they had not. I have before stated to you that the source of power was the people, not the Li'eople. What would any Senator think if he should hear it stated that in his own State the Legisla- ture had said, " we will see whether this is the constitution or not, and we will submit it to a vote of the people?" Suppose the constitution had been performing its functions for twenty years, yet that at once somebody, like the sentimental German mentioned by Mr. Webster, should say, "an idea strikes me ; let us see whether our constitution embodies the people's will ; and let us submit it to a vote of the people." When the Senator from Kentu'dvy holds forth the idea it strikes me with real astonishment. I had not learned in the same school. He uses this language: " Was it not of consequence, was it not of importance, to know tlie will of tlie people, whether tliey really did approve of this constitution which was about to be oflFereJ to Conjrress — a law which, when Congress puts its imprimatur on it by ad- mitting the State, is to be permanent? Would it be any harm to take tlie vote over and over atrain ? What objection could there be to it? You might have said, 'it is an unnecessary care of the ])eople's rights; you have had their decision once; there- fore, it is not necessary to have it again ;' but out of abundant care and abundant zeal you may choose to take it again and again, and ascertain whether there may be change or variation in the public opinion. Where is tiie man who can say aught against it if Do you object to it because it is taking too great care of public liberty ? paying too great respect to popular rights? J^'obody will take tiiat ground." According to this idea of the Senator, although a constitution may be fairly and finally adopted, yet we should adopt the jirinciple of saying there may be a change of opinion, and we will take the sense of the people again and again and again upon it. After Kentucky has adopted a consti- tution, and the people have lived under it for years, would it be in the power of any one all at once to say, " an idea strikes me ; I will see wbetber 20 this embodies the will of the people; let us take the vote again and again and again." You can with as much propriety do it in the one case as in the other. If that convention adopted a constitution at all, you could no more interfere with it than cuuld th'i Legislature of Kentucty interfere with their constitution hy saying, "we will ascertain again and again whether the people now approve of it." It is contraiy to the princi- ples of government. Take the case on the election of the smallest ofificer in the smallest municipality. Even in the election of a constable, could any one the next day after the election say, " let us try this over again, and see if there is any change ;" and the day after that say, " let us try it over and over again, in order to see if there ig any change in public opin- ion." I expect Colonel Fremont would like to have adopted the doctrine of the Senator from Kentucky, in order to try the presidential election over again. (Laughter.) I remember when I went to scliool and played at marbles, the boys used to cry "slips" on me, in order to try it over again. When a power has been exercised according to law, thei'e is no power to try it over again except by pursuing all the customary legal steps requisite to reach the same end. But to create doubt, to excite suspicion, to generate distrust, and make men afraid to do their duty, the Opposition insinuate and charge fraud. I have heard the cry of fraud so often, that I would almost think the old maxim had been adopted — I do not apply it to Senators — but a very dis- tinguishing man once sakl, a lie well stuck to and oft repeated was as good as the truth. Fraud ? What fraud atfecting either one of the elections relating to the adoption of this constitution ? I challenge any Senator to show it. What fraud ? Was there fraud when the people voted and said in an emphatic voice, we want a State government? It was not alleged. Was there fraud when the people of Kansas elected delegates, and sent them up to a convention to make a constitution? Neither has that been alleged. Was there fraud affecting the validity of the decision on the slavery question on the 21st of December? That is not alleged. It has been said by the Senator from Kentucky that some two thousand of the votes cast on that day are believed to be fraudulent votes. Suppose they were ; it leaves the question unaffected. The Senator from Georgia well answered that objection. But what is the evidence that there we?e any fraudulent votes? Why, says the Senator, the President of the Coun- cil, Mr. Babcock, and Mr. Deitzler, Speaker of the House of Representa- tives, both say they rode through the country, and did not see cabins enough to hold the people who voted. Look at the character of the evi- dence. Here are two men, called voluntarily — not in the performance of duty in obedience to law, without any jurisdiction over the subject — to see the fairness of the opening and counting of this vote; and they say there were six thousand seven hundred and ninety-five votes cast. They then volunteer a statement in regard to some of the votes. Who are they? Bitter enemies of the constitution — men who have been classed in the se- cret legion — men who have been arrayed against all government — men who have doubtless taken the secret oath reported here as being dicovered and brought to light, and embodied in this report by Senator Douglas — an oath by all means to accomplish their nefarious ends. That class of persons, standing out in rebellion, standing out in defiance of law, standing out in opposition to Federal authority as well as territorial authority, with a sworn purpose to defeat that State organization, with a sworn purpose to 21 dofoat that coiistitutioii, who have (akt^n an oath to proliiliit slavery — tliey are the witnesses eallocl upon by the honorable Senator from Kentucky. They volunteered a statement, and made a statement, not in tlie discharge erf' any official duty ; and the statement itself sliows that they knew nothing about that of wiiieli they spoke; for they say, we have been llircaigh those co^inties, and are satisfied tliere is not that number of peo]>le there. Why, Mr. I'lesident, it is a fact known to those fainiliar with the subject, Uiat in Jolinson eouiity there was a reservation of land for the Indians of about double the quantity to which they Were entitled under the treaty. It was discovered ; and citizens, before it was opened up to settlement by the o])erafion of tlie Department, went there, and made their locations all over it. They could not live on it, because it is ))roliibited under the res- ervation ; but it would ultimately be oj^eu to market. Those holding daims, could not inake permanent improvements, and perfect them, and ■were compelled to live in the small towns around, and watch their claims, until the reservation sholild be opened by the Department. That is the secret of this whole matter. Tliere was not fraud there. As Governor Walker has well said, there was no danger of Missourians undertaking to influence those elections ; there was no danger of Missouiians going over there, and voting. I have his evidence in this document to vindicate them from the charges that have been so unjustly heaped upon their heads. But was there no fraud at the election on the 4th of January ? Yes; tliere was. There can be no qusstion about that. They cast more votes than they had in the wliole Territory on the same day at the same voting at a hotly contested election. On the constitution there was no contest at all. Our side did not vote at all on that question ; the constitution being finally adopted. We stand upon our rights and we do not intend to be trifled with, said the Democratic party. I do not mean pro-slavery men only, for there are hundreds of men from the Northern States who are in favor of a State organization, and then, if subsequent events should show that they ought not to have slavery, to change the constitution, who will act shoulder to shoulder with us and do do it. Tbey said tlje constitution Injing finally adopted, we will not attend the polls. Hence these same peo- ple who could only poll for State officers, at a hotly contested election, six thousand two hundred and thirty-eight votes, at an election where there was no contest, polled ten thousand and sixty-four. What do you think of them? Why was this? There was no diflerence in the qualification which the voters should possess in order to exercise the elective franchise. What constituted the difference in numbers? This: at the one place they were watched, there was a contending ])arty arrayed against them ; in the otlier case they were not watched and ])ut in as many votes as they pleased. We know they are a class who are in the habit of making use of fictitious mimes; ^nd that is proved by Mr. Secretary Stanton. If a man will use a fictitious name for one purpose, as we have proved it on him, will he not do so again for another purpose ? It is also known that over four hundred came from Lawrence and voted at that day in Leavenworth. This is shown by the Lawrence vote. The vote at Leavenworth was four hundred larger than was their actual vote. The vote for State officers at Lawrence fell off" a correspoiuling number; and yet, on the vote on the constitution at Lawrence, they gave more votes than they ever gave in their lives before. They involve coutradiction ; they involve absurdities; and when we see their course, as portrayed by 22 Govornor Stanton and Governor Walkei', wc have a riglit to regard them as spurious. I care not, however, if they were the most legal imaginable; I care not if you prove them to be the bona fide citizens voting; it was voting on a subject previously decided, and I trust that this Congress will never set an exam])le which would induce the people to say : " we will call an election on a day not appointed by law, when a question has been finally decided, and we will then vote just as many votes as we please." It is well known that, if this principle was to be sanctioned, the subsequent election would always pi-evail. Knowing exactly how many votvs were previously cast, knowing what they had to work up to, they could of course manu- facture a majority, and thus lead to fraud, to violence, and bloodshed. The character of those persons may be pretty well understood from what I have quoted in the I'eport presented to the Senate; but, as still better evidence upon the same subject, I beg leave to have read an extract from a speech delivered in New York, June 11, 1856, by the very distinguished Senator from Illinois. The Clerk read as follows : "On the other hand, in Kansas you find that the New England Emigrant Aid Society, through pauperism, with a capital of $5,000,000, undertook to regulate the Territories fifteen hundred miles off, and to control their liherties, without respect fjo the rights, wishes, and interests of the people of the Territory. This foreign inter- fere nc^'e on tlie pai't of the Free-Soilers; tliis foreign interference by corporations from New England to regulate Western affairs, has created in Kansas what every man liad a right to suppose it would create — civil war, dissension, violence, and bloodshed. For every drop of blood that has been shed in the Territory of Kansas, the 'Black Republican' leaders are responsible. (Loud cheers.) It is a part of their line of policy to get up civil war there, and then make political capital out of the innocent blood shed by their tools and dupes, for the purpose of jjromoting their candidates in tlie Presidential election. What is their excuse for not obej'ing the law in Kansas? Tliey tell us that the laws enacted by tlie Territorial Legislature are barbarous and inhuman! " Out. of a volume of at least a thousand pages, containing innumerable enactments, applicable to every relation in life, and protecting every interest in society, yet out of that long list of laws reiatiTig to all the affairs of human concern, only two short enactments have been specified as being either unjust or ii-nproper. One of them relates to the question of slavery, and the other regulates the affairs of elec- tions. It is worthy of remark, and should never be forgotten, that under neither of those laws has any one case yet arisen — no one case has arisen under those two laws which are objected to as being improper. No case has ever arisen, no writ has ever been issued, no trial has ever been had, no act of violence has ever occurred, under either of these two obno.xioiis laws. Then, what excuse is there for that violence? Why, these men, tliese Abolitionists, these 'Black Piepublicans,' send out their agents thei'e to get up strife and bloodshed, to be copied into the Abolition papers here for political effect. Contributions are taken to buy Sharpe's rifles, and to send men out there to resist the law. " Preachers of the Gospel, instead of expounding the Holy Scriptures, convert the house of God into a recruiting office for brigands to go to Kansas to sr.ir up strife and civil war, in order that the Tribune, Times, Post, and other Abolition papers here may portray tlie horrors of the border ruffians. Tiiese men, sent out by your Beeehers, by your Sillinians, by your Theodore Parkers, by your Garrisons, go into Kansas, burn innocent people's houses; and when the court issues a writ against the house-burner, and when the sheriff goes to execute that writ, they shoot down the officers of the law ; screen the house-bui'ner from the penalty of the law, and pro- tect him in his violence, and then talk of the consequences and effects of the Nebraska bill. Every act of violence that has occurred in Kansas in resistance to the officers of the law, has been either house violence, murder, breach of the peace, or some other crime recognized r.s such in all civilized countries; but tlie 'Black Republicans' have protected tlie criminal in iiis lawless course." 23 Now, Ml. rivsidfiit, tliat is pivsontcd as evidence to show tlio cliuractor of tliosc who have <;ottcn iij) the opposition, who have maiiannl tlie opposition, wlio have eontiolieil the opposition. Senator Douo lass well jiortrayed them. "When the Senator from Kentucky says the hist expression of tlie people ought to ])revail, I must say to him that, with some qualification, it is correct. Tlie last h'gal expression on the subject, properly submitted to the people, on which they have a rii^-ht to vote, ouixlit to idvvail, anasshe may come." This was in 185G. Tn 1858 the jTactical (lucstion is proscntc-J. In 1856 it was wroiitj to oj)j)ose the admissioii of a State on account of its toler- ating shivorv. In 1858 that question conies befoi-e the Senate of the United States, and every Republican opposes it, for, as he lias before said, their creed is to oppose that admission ; and he, for other considerations, not on account of slavery, cooperates in the work. Without his aid, his lead, his guidance, in this Chamber, and his friends in the other House, Kansas would have been a young sister of the (yonfederaey many weeks ago ; and that very work which lie emocrac3-, he aids them in carrying out — not for the same motive and reason that tliey have, but in practical results it is all the same thing. As the Senator from New York {Mr. Skwakd) announced to us, the real question is, shall any more States ever be admitted ? The real ques- tion for the South is not the permanejit existence of slavery in Kansas ; that is but the John Doe and Kieliard Roe of tlic case. The South, of necessity, as well as the North, with the enterprise and energy of the American character, will need expansion. It must have expansion. If penned in with a Chinese wall applied only to the blacks, with the privi- lege of exit to the whites, when the country becomes over populated, the disparity will become greater and greater between the two races, and insur- rection, civil war, and extermination will be the natural consequences. This you seek to hasten ; this the Republican party of the United Statjcct. Suppose the return?' wt-iv to he made in eii^dit days. Wore they or were they not? I do not know, nor does the Senator from New York. Suppose they were not made in eight days : iloes that atiect the legality of this constitution al'ter it has ln-eome a linaHty, after it has been adopted and beeomc an ^■^itirety ! Could it arteet any vote in this Chamber? While the Senator from Xew York was asking me this (piestion, the momentary pause 1 made brought to my mind another subject, upon which I must say a few words. It is this : it has been alleged on the other side of the Cluunber that the submission of the seventh article of the constitu- tion, including the slave clause, was iiot a fair submission. The people could have voted out slavery, if they had a majority, and chose to come forward ; yet they say, if they had voted it out, slavery would still have been retained in Kansas as perfectly as if that article had been retained. The able and distinguished Senator from JX'laware, (Mr. Bayaud,) so completely and so triumphantly answered that objection that 1 should do wrong to undertake to improve it. I cannot do it ; it is not susceptible of imj^rovement ; it is conclusive and unanswerable. But there is one poiut growing out of the same idea that I must notice ; and that is, that point upon which the Senator from Illinois dwelt so long when he spoke of the right of property being older than the Constitution, and he held that declaration up to animadvert upon. lie contended that it was a fallacy ; and because the Washington Union published that fal- lacy, therefore he would not vote for the editor for a certain office. I do not complain of his action on that le are not limited, and cannot be limited. How can you get them together? 1 answer, just as they always do get together. TJiey instruct their Legislature to provide a rule of uniform action to enable them legallv to come together. It may be called revolution if you choose, but when "the people come together en masse, or by representatives under the sanction of law, they are in the exercise of their original rights untrammelled by con- stitutions, unrestraine