provided all the free-State men will go to the polls and vote their principles in accordance with their professions. If such is not the result, let the consequences be visited upon the heads of those whose policy it is to produce strife, anarchy, and bloodshed in Kansas, that their party may profit by slavery agitation in the northern Stats of this Union."

In this speech there is not the slightest allusion whatever to a subsequent ratification of the constitution to be formed before it would. have validity; not the slightest reference to any such construction of the Kansas-Nebraska act. The language is: "Kansas is about to speak for herself through her delegates assembled in convention to form a constitution." It was in the choice of these delegates that the responsibility was to rest upon those who, for partisan purposes, under the control of leaders in distant States, should absent themselves from the polls. That was the time their voice was to be legally heard in the formation of a State constitution; and if they chose to be silent, then they were to be silent ever afterward. They would have nobody to blame but themselves.

It is true that Gov. Walker, while plainly telling the people that the convention would have full power to make a constitution without submitting it, also told them that, in his judgment, the entire constitution. to be framed by them ought to be submitted to the decision of the people, and that if it were not, in his judgment Congress would not, and ought not to, admit the State under it. In this he differed widely from Mr. Stanton, and in making the declaration he greatly transcended his rightful power. He undertook to prescribe for Congress the exercise of a right they do not possess under the constitution of the United States. When a new State presents a constitution for admission Congress has no more power to inquire into the manner of its adoption than the matter of its substance. The matter cannot be inquired into further than to see that it is republican in form; and the mode and manner of its adoption cannot be inquired into only so far as to see that it has been formed in such way as the people have legally established for themselves. The doctrine of Governor Walker would be utterly subversive of all State rights and State sovereignty; for one of the unquestionable attributes of sovereignty is the absolute right to select its own mode of giving expression to its own will.

If, then, upon general principles, as well as from established usage, it clearly appears that the validity of a constitution does not necessarily depend upon its having received a popular ratification, is there anything in the Kansas bill that varies this case from former precedents? On this point Governor Walker says "these rights" (that is, the right of having the constitution as a whole submitted to a popular vote) "I have ever regarded as fully secured to the people of 'all the Territories' in adopting their State constitutions by the Kansas-Nebraska bill. Such is the construction of this Kansas act by its distinguished author, not only in his late most able argument, but by addresses made and published by him long antecedent to that date, showing that this sovereign power of the people in acting upon a State constitution is not confined to the question of slavery, but includes all other subjects in such an instrument. Indeed, I believe the KansasNebraska bill would have violated the rights of sovereignty reserved

to the people of each State by the federal Constitution, if it had deprived them, or Congress should now deprive them, of the right of voting for or against their State constitution."

What part or clause of the Kansas act gave Governor Walker the idea that it secured not only to the people of that Territory, but "all other Territories," the rights he mentions, this committee are utterly at a loss to imagine. If there is a word or sentence in it which imbodies any such security they have been unable to discover it; and if the distinguished senator from Illinois, who is thus styled the author of that bill, ever gave any such construction to it, antecedent to his "late" speech, this committee are not aware of it. If any such construction was put upon any part of it during its discussion in Congress in 1854, or afterward, or during the canvass of 1856, by that senator, or any person else, this committee are equally unaware of it. On the contrary, they have good evidence that no such construction was then or afterward, or up to the 12th June last, put upon it by the senator who is called its author. In the speech made by him on that day he certainly put no such construction on the bill. During the last Congress the same senator reported a bill, though he was not the author of it, providing for the call of a convention in Kansas to form a State constitution for admission in the Union. That bill made no provision for the submission of the work of the convention to a decision of the people. That was known as the Toombs bill. It passed the Senate, and received the vote of the senator from Illinois. In giving that vote, Governor Walker may believe that the senator "violated the rights of sovereignty reserved to the people of each State by the federal Constitution," but he can hardly affirm that by it the senator gave that construction to the Kansas bill which the governor says he had so repeatedly given before his late speech. Indeed, the record of that senator shows that he did not deem it necessary, under the Kansas-Nebraska bill, to submit even the slavery question to a decision of the people. The language of the Kansas bill, as first reported by Senator Douglas, on this subject was in these words:

"All the questions appertaining to slavery in the Territory and in the new States to be formed therefrom are to be left to the decision of the people residing therein, through their appropriate representatives."

This shows that he then thought that the act of sovereignty, in determining this question on the formation of a constitution, could be performed by the people, through the "intermediate body" of " representatives," as fully and completely as if done by themselves. The words finally adopted on this point in the bill, after declaring the restriction of 1820 null and void, were as follows:

"It being the true intent and meaning of this act 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."

If any inference is to be drawn from this change of phraseology, it is that the object aimed at by it was to leave even the slavery question to be settled, as all others had been before, by the people, in their own way, in conformity to law and the Constitution of the United States. If they chose to do it by representatives, the power was given them so

to do it; if they chose to do it by general popular vote, the power was given them to do it in that way. Congress was to abstain from all interference or intervention with or over their own way or manner of doing it, so that it was legally done under the Constitution of the United States.

The difficulty with Governor Walker seems to be, that they have chosen a way of their own different from the one that he would have had them to adopt. He wished them to decide that as well as other questions in his way; they preferred their own way to his. To correct this disobedient proceeding on their part, he seems to be willing now to shed the "last drop of his life's blood."

As before stated, the Lecompton convention did submit the slavery question to a popular vote. This was a matter entirely discretionary with themselves. In doing it, they were doubtless actuated by the most patriotic motives. This was the origin of all the strife in the Territory. This was the subject which Mr. Stanton had stated with so much confidence would "in some way" be submitted to a direct vote of the people. On the submission, every bona fide citizen in the Territory entitled to the elective franchise had a full and perfect right to vote upon it. If any abstained from voting, the fault was their own. They have no just cause to complain of Congress for admitting the State under a constitution with a clause which they do not like when they had a fair opportunity to vote it down, if they really have, as they pretend, a majority in the Territory. The official vote on the ratification, when so submitted, as will be seen by Exhibit No. 6, was as follows:

Constitution, with slavery...
Constitution, without slavery.

6,226

569

Making an aggregate of 6,795 voting on the question, and a majority of 5,657 for the constitution as now presented. This is certainly a very large majority of those joining in the election, if not a majority of all the voters in the Territory, in favor of the constitution as it is now before Congress; and according to the doctrine of Governor Walker, in his inaugural address, "those who abstain from the exercise of the right of suffrage authorized those who did vote to act for them, and the absentees are as much bound under the law as if all had participated in the election." If this view be correct, then no constitution ever came up with a stronger endorsement by popular vote, and every objection to its validity on the ground of its wanting even this sanction is utterly without foundation.

Another objection of the same class is, that no enabling act was passed by Congress, or in other words, that the legislature of Kansas did not have the legal right to call the convention that formed the constitution. This objection is equally untenable both on principle and authority. The power to call a convention to form a State constitution is clearly within the "rightful subjects" of legislation granted in the organic act. But even without that the precedents are numerous where conventions have been called without such a grant. Out of the eighteen new States heretofore admitted nearly half of them have come in under constitutions formed without any direct authority

of Congress. Amongst these may be named Tennessee, Michigan, Iowa, Texas, Arkansas, Kentucky, Florida, and California. In addition to this, it may be added that the most prominent of those who now urge this objection are estopped by their own declarations and admissions. Governor Walker, for instance, in his inaugural address in relation to the right of the territorial legislature to call a convention uses this language:

"But it is said that the convention is not legally called, and that the election will be not freely and fairly conducted. The territorial legislature is the power ordained for this purpose by the Congress of the United States, and in opposing it you resist the authority of the general government."

And again he says:

“The territorial legislature, then, in assembling this convention, were fully sustained by the act of Congress."

Mr. Stanton expresses similar sentiments in that part of his inaugural address before quoted, Judge Douglas, in his Springfield speech, also quoted, does not intimate that he then thought there was any necessity for an enabling act. Moreover, his position on the admission of California is well known. In that case a constitution had been sent up formed by a convention called together without the slightest pretext of legal authority, either from Congress or any territorial organization. A proclamation of a military commander was the sole foundation for it, and yet upon that occasion Judge Douglas said:

"I hold that the people of California had a right to do what they have done; yea, they had a moral, political, and legal right to do all they have done."

How any person could maintain the legality of the proceedings in the California case and deny them in Kansas, or hold that an enabling act by Congress was necessary in the Kansas case when it was not necessary in California, is incomprehensible to this committee. They dismiss this point without further remark.

num

But other objections of a different class and character have been started. These relate to the fairness of the election of delegates to the constitutional convention. On this head it is said that quite ber of counties, 19 in all, making more than half of the counties in the Territory, were disfranchised by the law of the 19th February, 1857, and were wholly unrepresented in theconvention. By the statutes of Kansas, as all can see by reference, there are 37 counties laid out with names and boundaries in the Territory. Three of these-to wit: Washington, Clay, and Dickinson-were omitted in the act of the 19th February creating districts for the election of delegates. They lie in the extreme western frontier of the Territory, as will be seen by the map, and exist mainly in law and on paper. They seem to be destitute of population, without officers or civil organization. The 34 organized counties were all embraced in the act, as will be seen in the 19th section. By that section they are arranged into election districts, as fellows:

14th 66

15th

16th ""

17th 66

18th ""

19th (6

Calhoun county.

Marshall county.

Riley and Pottawatomie counties.
Johnson county.

Douglas county.

Shawnee, Richardson, and Davis counties.

Lykins county.

Franklin county.

Weller, Breckinridge, Wise, and Madison counties
Butler and Coffee counties.

Lynn county.

Anderson county.

Bourbon, McGee, Dorn, and Allen counties.

Woodson, Wilson, Godfry, Greenwood, and Hunter counties.

The object of the law, as all its details plainly show, was to have as fair an election as possible. The registry of voters as required was made and returned for these districts as follows, as will be seen by Mr. Stanton's proclamation: (Exhibit No. 3.)

Upon this return of registration, showing 9,251 voters, (which, upon all reasonable probabilities, must have been within one or two thousand of all the legal voters at that time in the Territory,) the acting governor, as will be seen from the same exhibit, made an apportionment of representation, according to the provisions of the act. This was done by dividing the whole number of voters (9,251) by 60, the number of delegates constituting the convention, and apportioning