Qass. 
 Book. 
 
 
KANSAS CONTESTED ELECTION. 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 OP 
 
 HON. JOHN HICKMAN, OF PA., 
 
 
 DELIVERED 
 
 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, MARCH 19, 1856. 
 
 Cl(winf; the debate on the Resolution reported by him from 
 the Committee of Eiections, authorizing the said com- 
 mittee to send for persons and papers in tlie Coutested- 
 
 ; Election case from the Territory of Kansas, 
 
 Mr. HICKMAN said: 
 
 Mr. Speaker: The infirm state- of my health 
 this morning leaves me little ground to hope that 
 I shall be able to address to this House the re- 
 marks I had intended to make; and nothing in- 
 duces me to occupy the floor at this time but the 
 connection of my name with the action of the 
 niEuority of the committee and their report. 
 
 I wish, sir, to preface what I have to say with 
 this single remark, that if sectional feeling, 
 usurping the scat of judgment, has entered into 
 the consideration of this question, either upon the 
 one side or the other, I regret it. It has no legit- 
 imate place here. As far as concerns myself, I 
 pretcr to keep my mind entirely dispossessed of 
 any such bias, and to examine the proposition as 
 it stands affected by legal principle, the demands 
 of justice, and the precedent practice of both 
 branches of Congress. 
 
 I know there is disloyalty in our country — 
 a disloyalty bordering closely upon treason — but 
 with that, at present, I have littlo to do. 1 
 leave it with the candid historian to give the im- 
 pressions of the present, or a future age, upon 
 the conduct of those implicated with it; with the 
 record which he nwst make up, I hope, in no 
 wise, to be involved. 
 
 It is a most singular fact, appearing throughout 
 this discussion, that the opponents of the resolu- 
 tion under consideration have been unable to har- 
 monize upon any common ground of resistance. 
 They have advanced no theory which they have 
 not speedily and unceremoniously demolished. 
 The positions assumed by the gentlemen from 
 Delaware [Mr. Cullen] and Georgia, [Mr. Ste- 
 phens,] although received by their friends with 
 many marks of high favor and appreciation, 
 were, upon the moment, successfully combated 
 and overthrown by the honorable gentleman from 
 Maryland, [Mr. Davis,] and he, at once, became 
 the laureled champion of their cause. They have 
 
 been utterly ruined by the raking fire from their 
 own batteries. Even the piece which the gentle- 
 man last alluded to, aimed with such unerring 
 certainty at his friends, was found charged with 
 such a powerful explosive, that, when he applied 
 the match, its recoil fairly prostrated him. Yes, 
 sir, those resisting in,vestigation are here now, 
 and in full f iew of the country, unable to give us 
 any ground upon which they are willing to stand 
 without faltering. They are as 
 
 " Puzzled as the Egypti.ins in their fog." 
 
 They wade a dead and stagnant pool; and 
 whenever they cast their net they draw forth but 
 a putrid carcase. If there be doubt with respect 
 to the law of the country by which the proposi- 
 tion before us is to be tfcsted, then I prefer to take 
 the advice given by the Macedonian philosopher 
 to the orator, and appeal to the universal law of 
 justice or equity. 
 
 There is a question here which must be decided 
 — one which cannot be evaded or overlooked. 
 It is a question of startling and overpowering im- 
 portance. And I regret to say that 1 believe there 
 are gentlemen here who have taken ground against 
 us, who, at no distant period, will repent the po- 
 sition they have assumed. I will give my reasons 
 for believing so in the course of my remarks. 
 
 We have received the memorial of Governor 
 Reeder on his own behalf, and on behalf of his 
 people, asserting that popular sovereignty in Kan- 
 sas has been overthrown: 
 
 " That tlie law under which said pretended election [that 
 of General Whitfield] washeld emanated from a Legislative 
 Assembly which the people and qualified voters of said Ter- 
 ritory protest and declare, throau'h your meniori.ilist, vvere 
 not elected by them, but imposed upon them by the force 
 of superior numbers of non-residents, who could pass no 
 law that would be binding on them, and whose election and 
 action should not be sanctioned or recognized by this House, 
 because they arc utterly inconsistent with the idea of re- 
 publican Government, and destructive of the plainest ajid 
 most undeniable civil and political rights." 
 
 We have received this memorial, and thereby 
 admitted that there is a question to be settled, 
 and that there are those represented here who 
 have the right to demand an inquiry. Further, 
 

 you have directed your committee to investigate 
 it. Will you now afford fcliem the means to per- 
 form the duty you have impos*! upon them; or 
 is this to be regarded as an idle and unmeaning 
 ceremony ? Are we to be met at every turn with 
 mala fides 7 
 
 Sir, it is a question of usurpation, and deeply 
 concerns (jvery American citizen. It involves 
 the right of self-government in every part of our 
 country — in the States aawell as in the Territories. 
 Can any Government of ours, independent or 
 subordinate, be subverted by force or fiaud with- 
 out the means being left us to correct the wrong? 
 Such is the naked question. Do the foundations 
 of republican Government rest, as we have here- 
 tofore supposed, upon a rock, or upon shifting 
 sand? As I look at it^no more important ques- 
 tion can engage the attention of the present Con- 
 gress, or the present age. I am instructed by the 
 gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Davis] to regard 
 Uie matter in this light; for I understand him to 
 assume substajUially the position, that if the Gov- 
 ernor of Kansas gave certificates of election to 
 persons not legally elected to its Legislature, they 
 are ipso facto s'- valid Legislature; or if the Presi- 
 dent of the Luited States recognized them, at any 
 period of time, as a Legislature,' there is no power 
 in our Governmeirt capable of deciding they 
 ^ve^e not a legal body. I shall be slow to believe 
 in this doctrine of the honorable gentleman. I 
 will never admit that there is a power behind the 
 State able to subvert it; or that the rights guar- 
 entied to the people of a Territory, by its organic 
 act, may be wickedly trampled down without 
 remedy. I should have much less confidence in 
 the virtue of self-government than I profess to 
 have, if I could admit that the sanction of a ter- 
 ritorial Executive, or that of the President of the 
 United States, given to acts of outrage, sanctified 
 them. The contest which we are called upon to 
 decide, as it presents itself to us, is of right under 
 the law with that of force above the law. 
 
 I take this occasion to warn gentlemen of the 
 South, lest they permit themselves to be led away 
 by anything shor4. of the" merits of the present 
 controversy. I warn them not to allow any other 
 considerations than those of right and justice to 
 enter into the determination of the issue. If I 
 am not a " law-loving," I am, at least, a " law- 
 abiding " man. I will stand by the law, and sup- 
 port and defend it whenever and wherever I may 
 see it in danger. I ask other gentlemen to be 
 equally loyal. Sir, we of the North have stood 
 by the compromises of 1850. We have been in- 
 voked to do so; it was right, and we did so. I 
 appeal to gentlemen now, not to set us an exam- 
 ple of insubordination — teaching us to disregard 
 the law. I tell you, that if you sow such seed in 
 the North, it will fall in good gi-ound, and bring 
 forth an hundred-fold. 
 
 I was oj)posed to the Kansas-Nebraska bill; if 
 I had been here I would have voted against it. I 
 •was opposed to it, because it violated and de- 
 stroyed a solemn and long-subsisting compact. I 
 was opposed to it, because it was predicated upon 
 a lie. I was opposed to it, because it violated the 
 pledges of the Democratic party of the nation. 1 
 was opposed to it because it falsified the plighted 
 faith of the chief Executive to the people. But it is 
 enouo;h for me to know that it has become a law; 
 I will abide by it. I will take it, as a wife is 
 
 taken, for better or for worse. I will vote against 
 a restoration of the Missouri comjiromise when- 
 ever such a proposition shall be IjriMight before 
 this House; and I will telLyou why 1 will do so. 
 I will do so for the reason that that compromise has 
 been, filched — basely and ignominiously filched- 
 away. It hasgoneinto the armsof the deliauohee. 
 It has been deflowered, dishonored, and you can- 
 !iot restore its sanctity or its purity. I will not 
 again take it to my arms; I will not receive it back 
 again, to be again polluted. I will look upon it 
 rather as a thing once loved, but now lost forever. 
 And, sir, I look for^l^^ard to the day — I may not 
 live to see it; nay, sir, I will not live to see it; it 
 is coming — when those who were instrumental 
 in the* perpetration of that act of wickedness 
 or folly will repent the deed in sackcloth and in 
 ashes. I ask that this prediction may be remem- 
 bered. 
 
 Sir, the supporters of that bill have proclaimed 
 to the nation that the Territories of the United 
 States are to constitute " a fair field," and that 
 there is to be " a free fight" there, between^the 
 North and the South, to decide whi'thcr slavery 
 or freedom shall rule them. If the energy, the 
 enterprise, the active modes of life, the available 
 capital, and the numbers of the North, shall not 
 be able to compete successfull}^ Avith their oppo- 
 sitcs in the South, and secure freedom to the Ter- 
 ritories, then I will adrnit that there is a vitality 
 and a power in slavery which we of. the North 
 have never dreamed of. In my opinion, the Rei>- 
 resentatives of the South in the Thirty -Third 
 Congress " have sown the fire, and they will 
 gather fire into their own garners." 
 
 The principle of " squatter" or "popular sov- 
 ereignty" underlies the act organizing the Terri- 
 tory of Kansas. It constitutes, we have been 
 taught to believe, its most prominent feature. It 
 was the main argument for the enactment proper, 
 as well as for the repeal of the compromise of 
 1820. "The true intent and meaning" of that 
 act is declared to be, " not to legislate sLavery into 
 any Territory or State, nor to exclude it therefrom, 
 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." 
 
 It will scarcely be denied, with the current 
 history of the legislation of 1854 so freshly in 
 our minds, that Congress professed to give sov- 
 ereignt)'-, or the right of self-government, to tho 
 settlers in Kansas. It was announced to the 
 people of the United States, that in emigrating to 
 Kansas this right would follow or welcome them 
 there. But I understana Jie gentleman from 
 Maryland [Mr. Davis] to contend that we cannot 
 inquire whether the people of Kansas have been 
 despoiled of thi.s right or not. If I do not mis- 
 conceive his views In this respect, he maintains 
 this position, though the fact of usui-pation be 
 clearly tnmspai-ent— though it be admitt(-d that 
 there has been a sheer robbery of the dearest 
 political immunities guarantied by Congress in 
 the organic act. indeed to give his argument the 
 weight he would wish it to have, he is forced to 
 declare, that there is no power to investigate a 
 case coming here circumstanced as the present 
 case, though sovereignty has been completely 
 crushed out. In plain words, he must contend 
 that wc arc bound to take any man professing to 
 
. rnpreseiit the Ten-itory, wlKithor selected under 
 the l4i\v, or in violation of ail law. 
 
 Sir, 1 enter my solemn protest against a doc- 
 trine so ruinous to, and subversive of, all rightful 
 government. It is such a jilea as anarchy and 
 wild disordei> would be likely to invoke in their 
 defense. It has no place in my mind or my heart. 
 I say, that, with the open grant of sovereignty 
 contained in the organic act, and witli tho repeated 
 proclamations of sovereignty made by those who 
 invoked the enactment, the people of the Terri» 
 tory ought to demtind it. I go further, and say, 
 if there be one man there who will not insist ipon 
 it to- the last of thought, of feeling, and of life, 
 he is not a true son, but a bastard. He is un- 
 worthy to tread American soil; he should flee 
 to the throne of the despot, and there, kneeling 
 to the dust, in the abjectness and turpitude of 
 his nature, utter hosannas to the rigor of tho 
 tyrant, the god of his idolatry, and swear eternal 
 fealty on the galling chains destined to bind him. 
 Such a being would be far more servile, and des- 
 titute of manhood, than the negro slave himself. 
 " If one 
 Exist who woiilil not aim I'or liberty, 
 lie lie, too. cursed living, and, when dead, 
 Liit liini be biiriod downwards, vvitli liis lace 
 Luuliing to hell, and o'er his coward grave 
 The hare skulk in her fornl !" 
 The earliest writers on elementary law declare 
 , that it is useless to bestow a right without giving, 
 at the same time, the means to enforce it. Does 
 Congresspossess the power to restore sovereignty 
 to the people of Kansas, if deprived of it in viola- 
 tion of law ? I am not willing to so far emascu- 
 late the supreme power in the land as to say they 
 have not. It would be saying, in elfect, that the 
 parent has no right to protect his child. I would 
 rather say, that the power to bestow rights, with- 
 out the poAverto secure them, isaweakness which 
 does not exist in the theory of our Government. 
 I contend that the power to maintain a right is 
 comnacnsurate and coexistent with the power to 
 bestow the right. 
 
 Let us be honest; let us be trile to ourselves, 
 as v/ell as to those whom we have induced, by 
 promises, to occupy our hitherto unsettled do- 
 main. Let us not give, these confiding pioneers 
 an excuse to denounce us in the language spoken 
 by Macbeth of the apparition: 
 
 'rAnd be tfiese juggling Heads no more believ'd, 
 That pilter with us in a double sense ; 
 That kii.p 'he word of promise to our ear, 
 And br.Mlc it to our hope." 
 
 Sir, I am bound to assuine it as a fact, if there 
 is a word of truth in tho Kansas act, or in its 
 supporters, that there is sovereignty in Kansas; 
 and if there be sovereignty there, that Congress 
 is bound to protect and defend' it from violence, 
 and to restore it when taken away. 
 
 Mr. Speaker, let us see what tlie contestant and 
 his constituents represent to us. They say there 
 has been an invasion from the State of Missouri; 
 that the invaders were armed and equipped; that 
 they seized upon the polls, and held them with a 
 strong hand; and in this way imposed a pretended 
 Legislature upon them. Let it be remembered — 
 let it go to the country — that this astounding 
 statement ha.s not been denied; that investigation 
 is not resisted because the allegationsaro not true; 
 but because v/e cannot investigate • 
 
 Mr. SMITH, of Virginia. What statement? 
 
 Mr. HICKMAN. I cannot yield to an inter- 
 ruption. 
 
 Air. SMITH.. You m.nde.a suitoment. 
 
 Mr. HICKMAN. I did make a stati>mcnt, 
 and the gentleman, if he wants to say anything, 
 can wait till I conclude. I say they virtually ad-, 
 mit an invasion of the Territory. 
 
 Mr. SMITH. The statement has boon utterly 
 and repeatedly denied. [Cries of "Order !"] 
 
 The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Vir- 
 ginia is not in order. 
 
 Mr. HICKMAN. I have not heard any gen- 
 tleman upon this floor saj;-, in plain terms, that 
 there has noi -been an invasion of Kansas. I 
 understood the honorable gentleman from Ala- 
 bama [Mr. Smith] to say that disorders were to 
 be expected in new Territories and border States; 
 and, because they are to.be expected, I presume 
 wc are to be asked to put up with them- in what- 
 ever shape they may come, or with whatever po- 
 tency they may manifest themselves. Of course 
 a denial of these assertions is not to be expected,' 
 as no one- here can presume that he is acquainted 
 with the facts. Bui, I observe, in a letter ad- 
 dressed by a .citizen of Missouri to the Missouri 
 Democrat, and published in that paper, that Mr. 
 Atchison is charged with having used the follow- 
 ing language, in a speech delivered by him at 
 Platte City, on February 4, 1856: 
 
 "Well, what next? WI13'. an election for members of 
 the Legislature to organize the Territory must be held. 
 What did I advise you to do then.' Why, meet them on 
 their own ground, and beat them at their own gante again ; 
 and, cold and inclement as the weather wa-;, I went over 
 with a company of men. My object in going was not to, 
 vote. I had no right to vot6, unless I had disfranchised 
 myself in 31issouri. I was not within two miles of a voting 
 place. My object in going was nol to vote, but to si'ttle a 
 difficult^.^twceii two of our cai;didates ; and the Aboli- 
 tionists of the North said, ami puldisludit nhroad, that ,itckia 
 son tras there with bowie knife and revolrer, mid by G — a* 
 'twas true. I never did go into that Territory — Incvcr intend 
 to go into that Territory, u'Uh,r>ut hein^ }>rej:arciJor allsach 
 kind of cattle. Well, v.'o bent them, and Governor Reader 
 gave certirtcates to a niajoritj' of all the members of both 
 houses." 
 
 This, as I read it, is something akin to an ad- 
 mission, on the part of Mr. Atchison, that there' 
 was a species of " armed inferveiition*' between; 
 the people and their rig.ht to elect a Legislature, ji 
 
 I will ndt venture to assert that these allegetf 
 outrages have been perpetrated; but, silting hei^e,; 
 I have a right to know whether tRey be true or' 
 not. I should consider myself faithless to my 
 office, if I did not seek to ascertain the truth. 
 Unwilling as I am to yield a ready credence to 
 such high charges, I am still sensible there are 
 tho;5e in this country who, if they could distill a 
 poison as potent as that of the fabled Upas tree, 
 would scatter desolation and death o\er evpry 
 terrestrial paradise. Especially would they be, 
 willing to' cast blight and barrenness over this' 
 blest heritage of freedom. Failing to ingraft 
 some favorite theory upon our institutions, they 
 would crush the'Union itself, and, with it, the 
 last hope of downtrod'dcn man. I fear not their- 
 maciiinations, for I cannot but believe that the 
 un.slecping eye of the nation's God' is upon them, 
 and that the Omnipoient word must .soon be ut- 
 tered, "Thus far shalt tliou go, and no further." 
 I have an abiding confidence that our country is 
 still to move onward in her path of greatness and 
 of glory; and that future inillions will exultingly 
 worship in the temple of liberty, when nothing 
 
shall remain of the actual or constructive traitor 
 but a deserted grave, and that retribution which 
 must await an enemy of his race. 
 
 The minority of the committee, in tljeir report, 
 and the sitting Delegate, in the paper he has iifcd, 
 resist the right of this House to investigate the 
 statements made by th* people of Kansas upon 
 three grounds: 
 
 1. That the seat of the sitthr^ Delegate can only 
 he contested by one who, if successful in removing 
 biin, u'oxdd be entitled to the seat. 
 
 2. That no inquiry can be made into the legality 
 qf the Kansas Legislature. 
 
 3. Jf that inquiry could be had, then the acts of 
 Governor Reeder frove its legaHtit. 
 
 I think I shall be able, Mr. Speaker, to satisfy 
 all candid and unprejudiced minds that there is 
 no soundness whatever in either of these points 
 thus made. I will examine them with as much 
 brevity as possible. 
 
 The first position assumed is, as I conceive, 
 entirely unsupported by legal analogies, the dic- 
 tates of reason, or the practice of this House. A 
 contestant is not to be regarded .in the light of a 
 plaintiff in court, for the reason that the determ- 
 ination of the question he raises concerns the 
 House itself as much, if not more, than it does 
 the contestant. The case is more akin to thai of 
 acourtinquiringinto its own constitution. When- 
 ever a doubt is raised as to the title of one of its 
 officers, or a challenge is made to the jurors , 
 returned to it, the court must stop to inquire into 
 the truth of the alleged facts; it must determine 
 whether its own parts are legally constituted. 
 This House is making up its own constituent 
 parts, and it will not admit a stranger. It is de- 
 ciding who are its members, and what title can 
 be made out by those claiming scats. S'o man 
 ievoid of title can sit here. This House, at least, 
 cannot be made up by usurpation. 
 
 lam able to speak from the record, and to assert, 
 in the most positive terms, that this House, in at 
 least seven different instances, has undertaken to 
 do that whiclv<we are now told it cannot do. In 
 tlie cases to which I make reference, the House, 
 of its own motion, without a contestant, instituted 
 inquiry into the titles of those who claimed seats. 
 They are as follows: David Baird, of Pennsyl- 
 vania; N. Hunter, Delegate from Mississippi; J. 
 P. Van Ness, of New York; Paul Fearing, dele- 
 gate frona the Northwest Territory; George Mum- 
 ford , of North Carolina; John Forsyth , of Georgia; 
 and John Lanman, of Connecticut. These cases 
 furnish, I think, a conclusive answer to the as- 
 sumption, that there must be a contestant showing 
 title before an investigation can be had. But I 
 will hot rest my answer here, as I think it may 
 be rendered still more conclusive. In the case 
 now before the House there is a contest, not 
 made by Governor lleeder alone, but by the 
 people of Kansas. It will scarcely be contended 
 that inhabitants of that Territory are not entitled 
 to be represented here. The organic act, I trust, 
 has not become so worthless as such a denial 
 would make it. They say General Whitfie'ld is 
 not their Delegate, and they demand a decision 
 whether he be so or not. I will now give to the 
 opjiosition eight cases wherein this House, upon 
 the request of citizens alone, has investigated 
 claims to seats. They are as follows: John Stan- 
 wick, of Pennsylvania; Joseph B. Varnum, of 
 
 Massachusetts; John Hoge, of Pennsylvania; M. 
 Leib, of Pennsylvania; P. B. Key, of Maryland; 
 John Bailey, of Massachusetts; John Sergeant, 
 of Pennsylvania; and Albert Gallatin, of Pennsyl- 
 vania. The House, indeed, could not have done 
 differently. They could not avoid that most 
 material inquiry, whether those claiming to be 
 members of their body were so or not ? If ever a 
 legal heresy emanated from a legal mind, the point 
 I have examined is one, and I leave it. 
 , The second ground assumed by our opponents 
 is an important one, and will require of me a 
 more careful consideration. It denies to us the 
 power to inquire into the legality of the Territo- 
 rial Legislature — in other words, it assumes that 
 we must regard every body of men as legislative, 
 which professes to be so. The minority of the 
 committee contend that an inquiry into the legal- 
 ity of a Legislature can only be made Ijy the judi- 
 ciary. As a general pi^position this is true; but 
 when applied to such a case as the present it ia 
 untrue, and the reason is manifest. A court can 
 only determine such aquestion in acase properly 
 before it; aiid a court has rto concern with con- 
 tests for seats in Congress. On the contrary, the 
 right to determine such questions is given by the 
 Constitution to a very different tribunal. The 
 language of the 5th section of the 1st article is, 
 " Each House shall be the judge of the elections, 
 returns, and qualifications of its own members." 
 The legitimate sphere of action of the different 
 departments of Government are clearly defined, 
 and we must not confound them. 
 
 But, sir, the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. 
 Davis] has taken a more bold and dangerous 
 ground. He has left all others far below him in 
 the wild daring of his flight. I understand him 
 to conicuA; first, that, as by the Kansas act " the 
 persons having the highest number of legal votes 
 shall be declared by the Governor to be duly 
 elected," the decision of that ofRcer is final— that 
 his certificate fixes the Legislature — even admit- 
 ting that they were not legally elected. I regard 
 any such notioii as this perfectly heterodox. It 
 cannot be, that the certificate is of greater value 
 than the legal votes, and overrides them. I would 
 rather contend that the legal votes were the foun- 
 dation of the title to the office, and the certificate 
 but ancillary. To conclude that the certificate 
 constitutes the foundation of title, would be^ to 
 assume that the Governor could make a Legis- 
 lature without votes. But Governor P^eeder as- 
 serts that he gave the certificates in ignorance of 
 the facts, and that the people were intimidated 
 from making comj^laint. If such was the case, 
 then, I reply, fraud or duress vitiates any and 
 every act. 
 
 Tlic second postulate of the gentleman from 
 Maryland is this: that, whenever there is a con- 
 test in a State or Territory as to the residence of 
 sovereignty, the President of the United States is 
 tojflecide the question. Simplified, his proposi- 
 tion stands thus: that is tlie supreme power in a 
 State or Territory which the Presidoit recognizes 
 as such. The President is bound by the Consti- 
 tution to " see that the laws are fiiithfully exe- 
 cuted;" and to cause laws to be executed it may 
 be necessary for him to decide betv/een rival Le- 
 gislatures wifich is the true one. This I do not 
 deny. I do deny, however, that he can decide 
 that question for Congress, or for cither House of 
 
Congress. He cannot make that provision of the 
 fundamental law, to which 1 have just referred, 
 paramount to the other yirovision of the same law, 
 that " each House shall be the judge of the elec- 
 tions, &c.,ofits own members." IJoth provisions 
 must exist in full and equal force. The sound 
 view, I take it, is this: that the President may- 
 decide for himself, wherever and whenever it may 
 become necessary for him to take action. So also 
 may Congress, or either House of Congress, in 
 like manner, decide for themselves whenever it 
 may become necessary for them to take action 
 upon any matter which makes that inquiry neces- 
 sary. What virtue would there be in the con- 
 stitutional grant of power to this House to judge 
 af the elections of its members, if the President 
 could collaterally and finally decide that an illegal 
 Legislature was a legal body, and, consequently, 
 tJiat its laws were vahd, and all elections held in 
 pursuance thereof binding ? This would be con- 
 centrating power in the hands of the Executive to 
 an alarming degree. It would be giving him the 
 power to subvert, by an easy process, not only 
 every State government, but the General Govern- 
 ment itself. 
 
 Botli positions I have been examining put a 
 Legislature de facto upon the same platform with 
 a Legislature de jure. They make proclamation 
 of the monstrous doctrine that you may originate 
 a bogus Legislature in a State, and if you can keep 
 it in existence long enough to pass an act pro- 
 viding for the election of Senators and Repre- 
 sentatives in Congress, by getting an executive 
 sanction to the usurpation, the Senators must be 
 admitj^ed in the other end of your Capitol, and the 
 Representatives in this. These positions, 1 repeat, 
 being subversive of all rightful government and 
 ell order, I must be pardoned for disagreeing with 
 the logic of the honorable gentleman. 
 
 Mr. Speaker, I am doubly supported in the 
 views I have just expressed. 
 
 In 1833, a question of contested election arose 
 In the Senate of the United States, between Pot- 
 ter and Robbing, from Rhode Island, both claim- 
 ing seats. The charter limited the term of service 
 of the Legislature to one year, and the body 
 "elected in May, 1831, " foi- the ensuing year," in 
 Janua.ry, 1832, passed an act by which they ex- 
 tended their term of office for a longer term, in 
 violation, as was alleged, of the charter; and still 
 lioldin^^ on to their functions in January, 1833, 
 they elected Mr. Robbins to the Senate for six 
 years from 4th March, 1833. 
 
 Before Mr. Robbins took his seat, another 
 Legislature was elected, who declared the act of 
 January, 1832, and the election of M^-. Robbins, 
 void, on the ground that the body who elected him 
 was not at the time a valid Legislature, and had 
 no right to act; and th.ereupon elected Mr. Potter. 
 
 Both parties claimed the seat, and majority and 
 minority reports were made, in both of which it 
 Was admitted in the clearest manner that thi; Le- 
 gislature who had elected Mr. Robbins was an 
 acting, de facto Legislature, in full possession of 
 all the legislative powers — unmolested in their en- 
 joyment — passing laws, and the only Legislature 
 in the State. And notwithstanding this, the in- 
 quiry was fully made and argued in both reporis, 
 whether it was or was not a valid Legislature; 
 and upon this point the case was made to turn. 
 The i-eport of the majority says: 
 
 "Was the body by which he was chossen a Senator the 
 Legislature of lUiode It^Iaiul, or was it merely an assemblage 
 ol' citizens witliout authority to pass laws?" fitc. 
 
 It is also stated " that this General Assembly 
 continued to perform all their fitnctions until the 
 end of the session of January, 1833." And yet 
 they add: 
 
 " It remains to be inquired, was this body so nssembled 
 the Legislature of Rhode Island ? The law by whieh they 
 continued to exercise the powers of legislation is said to be 
 repiignanl to the charter, and therefore void. If this be a 
 sound nl)joction, it at once annuls every part of tlioir pro- 
 ceeiliML's. and. as a necessary consequence, tliat of choosing 
 a Senator in Congress." 
 
 The minority report, drawn by Hon. Silas 
 Wright, presents the same aspects of the quee- 
 tion, viz: 1. The admission that the body was 
 the sole acting Legislature of the State, engaged 
 in the unmolested discharge of all their furfctions. 
 2. An inquiry into their title to the office; and 
 whether those functions were exercised rightfully 
 or wrongfully. Mr. Wright further says: 
 
 "The validity of the election of Mr. Robbins is contested 
 on the ground that the persons acting as the Governor, 
 Lieutenant Governor, and Senators of the State, and, as 
 such, voting for a Senator at the time Mr. Rolihins's elec- 
 tion was made, were elected on the first Wednesday in 
 May, 1831, for the ensuing year, and for no longer terra — 
 that the Legislature of the State had not tlie power to con- 
 tinue their official terms beyond tlie Uniits fixed in the char 
 ter, &c. 
 
 " On the other side, It is contended that, by the charter 
 itself, the offices, powers, and duties of those otficers do 
 not cease and determine unlil others are elected in their 
 places ; that the Legislature of Rhode Island have passed 
 many laws in contravention of the charter; that the prac- 
 tice of the government, as shown by its legislation, proves, 
 that the charter' has not been held to be the fundamental 
 law of the State, e.\cept as to certain specific grants ; and 
 that the act of January, 1832, does not conflict with those 
 grants, and is therefore valid in all its parts. " 
 
 Thus the question was fully, deliberately, and 
 solemnly raised, examined and passed upon in 
 the Senate of the United States, whether an act- 
 ing Legislature, in the full exercise of all the 
 proper functions, and recognized by the coordi- 
 nate branches had acquired their powers right- 
 fully or wrongfully — whether they were in office 
 by rightful title or by usurpation. 
 
 Again: I hold in my hand the decision of the 
 Supreme Court of the United States, delivered 
 by Chief Justice Taney in the case of Luther vs. 
 Borden, cl al., in 7 Howard, pp. 42, 45; and in 
 that decision I find the following doctrine laid 
 down: 
 
 " Under this article (that which guaranties to the States 
 a republican form of government) of tlie Constitutioi;, it 
 rests with Congressto decide what sovenimentistheestat)- 
 lislied one in a State ; for, as the United 'States guaranty 
 to each Slate a republican government. Congress must ne- 
 cessarily decide whatgoveriniieutis established in the State, 
 before it can determine wlicther it is republican or not; 
 and when the Senators and Representatives of a State arH 
 admitted into the councils of the Union, the authority of. 
 the govoriiiuent under which they are appointed, as well as 
 its republican character, is recognized by the proper con- 
 stitutional authority ; and its decision is binding on every 
 other Department of the G»iverninent, and could not be 
 questioned in a judicial tribunal. It is true that the contest 
 in this case did not last long enough to bring tlie matter to 
 tlii-; i<sue; and as no Senators or Representatives were 
 elected under the authority of the government of which 
 Mr. Dorr was the head. Congress was not called upon m 
 decide the controversy. Yet tiie right to decide is placed 
 tlicre and not in the courts." 
 
 <■■ Undoubtedly, if the President, in exercising this power, 
 shall fall into error, or invatle the rights of the people of the 
 State, it would be in the power of. Congress to apjily the 
 proper remedy. Hut the courts must adiainiiler tlic law as 
 tliey find it." 
 
6 
 
 I apprehend there will be little difficulty where 
 . there is no pnjudicc, with these cases before us, 
 in comins; to the conclusion that this House. is 
 without FLStrictioii in ihe exercise of its constitu- 
 tional right of investigating, the election, even of 
 Representatives from a sovereign Slate. If we 
 can test the validity of the Legislature of a State — 
 a sovereignty — where we have no power but that 
 which is. expressly delegated, dare yon deny the 
 right to inquire into the title of the Legislature of 
 a mere dependency? Let it not be forgotten that 
 the Territory of Kansas is "//ie properly" of the 
 United States, to idl intents and purposes, as fully 
 as my house is my property. Congress has the 
 power " to dispose" of it, and to ^^ make all needful 
 rules and regulalions respecting" it. The language 
 of the Constitution is: "Tlie Congress shall have 
 power to dispose of and make all needful rules 
 and regulations respecting the territory or o'ther 
 propel ty belonging to the United States-." We 
 may change, modify, or repeal the organic act 
 itself. Our rights over the territory of the United 
 States are most absolute, even to that of an um-e- 
 stricted disposal of it. With such unlimited con- 
 trol of our territory, would it not be strange, 
 indeed, if we could not determine whether a Del- 
 egate, professing to come from a Territory, is 
 sent here by the people of the Territory, or by an 
 invading army? Congress may destroy the legis- 
 lative body itself, and consequently their creations; 
 for it will not do to assert that the creature is 
 greater than the creator. 
 
 " 'Tis mad idolatry 
 To make the service greater than the god." 
 
 Let not what I have said of the powers of Con- 
 gress be considered inapplicable to the argument, 
 for it is to be remembered that this House is as 
 omnipotent within its prescribed circle of action 
 as Congress is within its defined limits. Icon- 
 clude this part of my argument wit?l the remark 
 that this House may judge of the election of its 
 members — not in one case — not in a particular { 
 class orcasos — ^but it) all cases which can possibly i 
 arise; not with limit, but without any restriction j 
 whatever. In the case of a Delegate it may push } 
 its inquiries back to the moment the organic act I 
 was signed. Any view which militates against J 
 this, wars against the Coiijjtilution, the human 
 understanding, and unwavering precedent. Such I 
 a vie\y is destructive of all sovereignty, both in i 
 State and Territory, and is sickly as consumption 
 — weak as fancy — impalpable as air — imponder- 
 able as light. 
 
 Mr. Speaker, I shall ' bestow but little time 
 upon the consideration of the third and last ob- 
 jection raised to the proposed investigation. It 
 IS urged, with seeming gravity at least, that Gov- 
 ernor Rceder, by appointing the judges of elec- 
 tion, giving certificates to seventeen out of twenty- 
 «4X of the Repri.'sentatives, and to ten out of thir- 
 toei) of the Council, and delivering messages to 
 the body convened at Pawnee, made those thus 
 convened there a legal body. I ri'ply that no act 
 of Governor Rceder could legalize an illegality. 
 The people of the Territory had }io control over 
 him or his acts, and he could do nothing which 
 would rob them of their rights. If, however. 
 Governor Reeder attempted to legalize an illegal 
 body, and to drown the self-government conferred 
 upon his people by the act organizing the Terri- 
 ■iovy, there is the greater reason why the people 
 
 should be allowed to discover that fact, and why 
 we should listen to them. The idea that under 
 a popular Government an officer, whom the peo- 
 ple can neither create nor control, can d( stroy 
 without redress a guarantied sovereignty, is mon- 
 strous in the extreme. It would drive us to this 
 paradoxical conclusion: fliat Congress made an 
 act, which made an officer, who did a thing, and 
 that the thing must bo ever-existent thereafter, 
 because greater than Congress. 
 
 Upon the material arguments embraced in the 
 report of the minority, as well as thev/ritten an- 
 j swer of General Whitfield, I have said all that I 
 have the strength to say. A single allusion further 
 to the latter paper, and I leave them. I allude to 
 the intimation, therein made, of the unfitness of [ 
 Governor Reeder for the pcsition of Governor of 
 the Territory. I am sori-y that the sitting Dele- 
 gate should have considered it necessary to his 
 case to give such an exhibition of his passion or 
 his spleen to this House. " ,,j 
 
 I am neither the defender nor apologist of Gov- 
 ernor Reeder; he requires neither. I am aware 
 that the President of the United States has made 
 an .effort — and that, too, of no ordinary charac- 
 ter — to stigmatize his appointee with dishonesty, 
 and to sink him as a politician and a man; but I 
 am also aware that no popular verdict has as yet 
 been rendered in accordance with the high excc- 
 cutive accusation. That verdict, thus invoked, 
 in my opinion will never be rendered. In point 
 of social position, moral worth, gentlemanlyhear- 
 ing, legal learning, and general mtelligence, hois, 
 not one whit below that of the President himself. 
 Of that present and e])hemeral importance which 
 power and place confer he cannot boast, but in 
 tl»is respect alone is his .standing inferior to that', 
 of his accuser. This is not the first instance, 
 however, in our history where a hasty and ill- 
 advised stroke from the hand of power has failed 
 to destroy the object at which it was aimed. The 
 Senate of the United States refused to ratify the 
 nomination of a Van Buren as Minister to tha 
 Court of St. James, butanindignantpeople placed 
 the seal of their reprobation upon the official act,' 
 and made him their chief. An arbitrary court, 
 imposed a vindictive fine upon the hero of New 
 Orleans: the popuk^r voice named him the head of 
 the greatest nation of the globe, and the Ameri- 
 can Congress restored the right of which he had 
 been deprived.. 
 
 The character of Governor Reeder is unafiTected 
 in his native State; whilst the recent action of tho 
 Democracy of that Slate has exhibited an unwill- 
 ingn( ss on their part to be further governed by 
 his denouncer, although solicited to be so. If 
 he is unfit for Govirnor of Kansas, then may it 
 truly be said that Pennsylvania has no son withia 
 her borders who may be esteemed worthy. 
 
 Mr. Speaker, seeing that we have a cl. ar right 
 to investigate the facts of the present case, there 
 is but a single question remaining. Shall we rely 
 upon books, papers, rumors — which are com- 
 pletely pantamorjihic — for our facts, or shall we 
 conduct our investigations with some respect to 
 decency and propriety? This is no time, and 
 this no case, inviting us " to change true rubs foB 
 odd inventions." If we are constrained to con- 
 duct them by the former means, we will be 
 launched into an inquiry as mysterious and im- 
 penetrable as tho Iron Mask. Let us not so far 
 
record a slander upon our judgments as to decide 
 •we will wander in a labyrinth of conjectures in 
 search of facts. The investigation must be con- 
 ducted by the production of legal evidence: the 
 importance of the question at issue demands it, 
 the state of the public mind demands it, and the 
 eanctity of our frame of government demands it. 
 
 Sir, I am not wedded to the resolution reported 
 by the committee. I have no feeliiig of pride 
 which can bind me to it. I am willing to give 
 my support to any proposition which will efiect- 
 cate the object I have in view. I have little faith 
 tliat a commission can be executed within the 
 Territory of Kansas. There are serious disor- 
 ders there, even at this moment, and an^ncreas- 
 ing tendency to a state of actual \Var. The recent 
 proclamation of the President of the United 
 States warns us of the danger of a fresh invasion 
 of the Territory. An attempt to execute a com- 
 mission there would necessarily bring the warring 
 elements in contact, and of itself produce disas- 
 ters. The proposition of the gentleman from 
 Indiana [Mr. Dunn] will allow the committee, 
 which it contemplates shall be raised, to sit outside 
 the Territory. Am I mistaken in this ? 
 
 Mr. DUNN. The object of my proposition is 
 to clothe the committee with power to go where 
 it would be convenientfor the witnesses to attend. 
 
 Mr. HICKMAN. So I understand it; and that 
 
 the committee will not be bound to sit within the 
 Territory, if found inconvenient, from any cause, 
 to do so. I will tlu'ii vote for it: 1 will not risk 
 a full investigation by standing on a sharp ]K)int. 
 I have not underestimated,^ Mr. Speaki:r, the 
 force of the opposition on this floor to any and 
 every measure having for its object the production 
 of facts. I know that a single vote may be of the 
 utmost importance, and I call upon those favoring 
 investigation not to sacrifice everything to a tri- 
 fling objection. Twenty-three centuries and a 
 half ago, Callimachus, standing on a mount over- 
 looking the plain of Marathon, by his single vote 
 decided the progress of human civilizat'ion by 
 agreeing to fight the Persians under Darius. Sir, 
 in my opinion, a single vote cast here to-day may 
 produce th.e most stupendous consequences. It 
 may decide whether this House of Congress is a 
 ' fair and impartial one, or whether it is reckless 
 and desperate. It may decide whether we will, 
 by the practice of equity, purchase a glorious 
 futui-e, or, by denying it, blacken our coming his- 
 tory. The massy pillars of this Republic, though 
 strong as human ingenuity could construct them, 
 may nevertheless be shaken — j'-ea, they may be 
 crushed: Let us ever be mindful that it is alike 
 our highest duty and our greatest interest to sup- 
 port them, as by their overthrow we would be 
 compelled to suffer a common ruin. 
 
 Printed at the Office of tlie Congressional Globe. 
 
Lb |\| 10