the delegates to the respective counties in districts, as above set forth, from which a registry had been reported. The apportionment was as follows:

From this it will be seen that twenty-one out of the thirty-four organized counties were embraced in the apportionment; and the journals of the convention (Exhibit No. 4) show that all these were represented in that body. From the same proclamation it will be seen that five election districts, embracing thirteen counties, were left out of the apportionment. These were, as will appear from what has been stated, the 13th district, being Franklin county; the 14th, including Weller, Breckinridge, Wise, and Madison; the 15th, Butler and Coffee; the 17th, Anderson county; and the 19th, Woodson, Wilson, Greenwood, Godfry, and Hunter.

Of these thirteen counties nine had but a small population in them. This (apart from the statement of Mr. Calhoun and other reliable information) clearly appears from the returns of the election on the 4th January last, the official announcement of which is filed with the papers of this report. From that it will be seen that not a vote was returned as having been cast in that election in seven of these thirteen counties about the disfranchisement of which so much complaint has been made. These seven counties are Weller, Wise, Butler, Wilson, Godfrey, Greenwood, and Hunter. Nor was there a vote at that election in either of the three unorganized counties of Washington, Clay, and Dickinson.

In two of the thirteen counties stated above-to wit: Madison and Woodson-there were but 90 votes cast-40 in the former and 50 in the latter; and but 1,135 in the four remaining-to wit: Franklin, 304; Breckinridge, 191; Coffee, 453; and Anderson, 177; so that if the election of the 4th January should be received as evidence of anything, it would prove nothing more conclusively than that the clamor about the disfranchisement of half the people, or even a considerable portion of the people of the Territory, is utterly groundless, and resorted to only as a pretext for the want of something more solid. This pretext becomes the more glaring when the cause of there being no registry in these four counties of Franklin, Breckinridge, Anderson and Coffee is understood. This is fully explained not only by the

statement of Mr. Calhoun alluded to, but by the deposition of George Wilson, to be found in Senate Document No. 52, at this session. From these and other notorious facts, the real and true cause of a failure of registry of voters in these counties, and a consequent failure of representation being apportioned to them in the convention, too clearly appears to need much explanation. The parties in whose behalf the cry of disfranchisement is now raised, prevented the registry themselves. Since the organization of that Territory, there has been in it a class of men whose avowed object was to oppose and overthrow all legal authority. They went there with this purpose. Their object was to set up an imperium in imperio. In the language of the President, they have been in a "state of rebellion" against the legally constituted authorities from the beginning. This is fully established by numerous reports of Governors Shannon, Geary, and Walker, and Secretary Stanton. They were, to a certain extent, the emissaries of those who denounced the Kansas bill when it passed as a great "wrong" and an "outrage," and who were resolved to defeat its peaceful operation.

To show the groundlessness of the first clamor, as well as the last, we might here inquire what was the wrong or outrage of that bill? Was it a great wrong or outrage to permit the people of New York, Massachusetts, or other States of the north, as well as the people of the south going into a new Territory, the common property of all, to be as free as they were at their native homes, and in forming new States to enjoy the same rights which their fathers did in the formation of all our present State constitutions and governments? This is just what that bill did on the main question of controversy in Kansas-nothing more-nothing less. But, rather than see this great principle of right, justice and equality carried out, this class of men went to that Territory to defeat it at every hazard. Setting themselves up in defiance of law from the beginning, they now denounce a constitution made by those who conformed to law as "a fraud," "a cheat," and "a swindle." But the more ultra of the same party elsewhere have long since said much worse things of the Constitution of the United States. This class of malcontents in Kansas are organized in a party having the control of some of the counties. They refused to recognize the validity of the law requiring the registry to be made. They opposed its execution both by withholding their own names in some instances, and in others by driving the officers whose duty it was to make it, from the country, with threats to take the life of any who should attempt it. This was particularly the case in Anderson and Franklin counties. If, then, these counties were unrepresented in the convention, their disfranchisement was the work of their own people. Another significant fact to be noticed from the registry and apportionment together with the official report of the 4th January, is this: that the five counties, to wit, Leavenworth, Atchison, Douglas, Doniphan, and Jefferson, at that election cast an aggregate vote of 5,118, which is a majority of the whole vote. reported to have been cast throughout the entire Territory against the constitution. And yet all these counties were registered and represented in the convention. They had thirty-six of the sixty

delegates of which that body was composed. Now, if it be true that the opponents of the constitution are so largely in the majority in those counties, and are so violent in their opposition, as they are represented to be, why did they not elect men to the convention who would have formed a constitution more to their liking? These counties alone, by the registry, had within four votes of twothirds of the convention, and could have made just such a constitution as would have been most agreeable to their people. If they refused to act at the proper time, why do they complain now? If others, conforming to the law, went into the convention and formed a constitution to suit themselves, was it not their fair, just, and legal right to do it? These complaints come too late, even if they come from orderly, law-abiding citizens. As well might the thousands who abstained from the polls or threw away their votes, at the last presidential election, now come forward and claim that the present administration is illegal, and should be set aside, because the inaugurated Chief Magistrate did not receive a majority of all the legal voters of the United States, as for these people now to complain of the result of their own laches or illegal acts, or to seek to remedy it by any such irregular proceeding as the vote taken on the 4th January against the constitution, after it had been legally adopted.

But the inquiry is made whether the constitution is acceptable and satisfactory to a majority of the legal voters of Kansas. This is a matter the committee could not ascertain and report upon with certainty without polling every legal voter in the Territory; and if they had gone there and taken the vote themselves for and against the constitution, perhaps the majority might have varied from one side to the other, by death, emigration, or change of opinion, before their report could have been made. That course of investigation is wholly impracticable. The only proper mode of pursuing the legitimate inquiry before Congress, in the judgment of the committee, is to ascertain whether the constitution imbodies the legally and fairly expressed will of those who by their acts acknowledge themselves to be bona fide citizens and constituent elements of the society or political community to be organized in a State within its jurisdiction. Those who by their acts show themselves not to be bona fide citizens, but mala fide residents, and even self-acknowledged outlaws by their open hostility to all civil authority, should not be considered or taken in the count. convention that formed the constitution was as fairly constituted as could be with the view of allowing every bona fide citizen in Kansas entitled to vote to have a free opportunity to be heard in its formation. This Mr. Stanton said; this Governor Walker said; this Judge Doug las said; this also abundantly appears from the facts and evidence now submitted. The only correct test of the will of a majority of the bona fide voters of Kansas upon the subject of their constitution is that of the ballot-box, and such an expression of their will as has een there given at the proper time and place, in conformity to law. by this test a majority of them is certainly in favor of it. The maority of those going to the polls when the election of delegates, with full and plenary power took place, was largely in favor of those who made the constitution; and when the direct question on the slavery

The

clause was submitted on the 21st December, the like majority was overwhelmingly in favor of it. On the 4th January, in the election of State officers under the constitution, it is well known that both paties joined in a vigorous contest for the organization of the State under it. Upwards of 12,000 voters participated in that election. That vote shows most clearly that the constitution is not only acceptable, but has been accepted by at least four-fifths of the voters of the Territory, though it may not be entirely satisfactory to all of them.

As to the alleged frauds on the 4th January for State officers under the constitution, the committee have not deemed it pertinent or proper for them to enter into any investigation. They are matters to be inquired into and tried by other tribunals, as all frauds in other State elections are. This House can have no jurisdiction over them in any way; no more than they have over the frauds, if any, in the States of New York, Indiana, Illinois, or any other State in elections for State officers. Should Kansas be admitted, and the seat of the member returned to this House be contested on the ground of alleged frauds, then this House would be the proper tribunal to decide that question. There will be other legitimate tribunals to decide all others.

Upon a review, then, of all these facts, and a survey of the whole field here presented as a question of public policy, looking not only to the present and future welfare of the people of Kansas, but to the peace and harmony of the whole Union, the committee, in conclusion, express their entire agreement with the President in his recommendation of the immediate admission of the State.

That a large number of the States would look upon her rejection, under all the circumstances, with extreme sensitiveness, if not alarm, cannot be denied or doubted. This is natural. When they see that no new State has ever presented herself for admission with a constitution formed and adopted with greater regularity and more strictly in conformity to law; when they remember the irregularities that were waived on the admission of California, whose constitution was formed without any legal authority; when they see the irregularities in the case of Minnesota now applying, which will doubtless be waived; when they feel and know that no valid or well founded objection can be made to the constitution of Kansas, either in its substance or manner of adoption, except that it recognizes slavery so long as the sovereign State may choose to allow it; when they know that the fiat has gone forth by that party which mainly urges these unusual objections, that no State whose constitution recognizes slavery shall ever hereafter be admitted into the Union, and that the rejection of Kansas would increase and inflame that factious, sectional, and unconstitutional spirit-is it not natural that they should come to the conclusion that the real secret of its rejection is this bare recognition of an institution which forms the basis of their civil society? Is it not natural that this act would strongly tend to produce distrust towards the common government, by awakening a conviction that a determination is fixed by the majority never to allow another member of the federal family to enter the Union with institutions similar to theirs? Will not her rejection tend to weaken the bonds which hold the States together? These are grave questions, involving in their solution the destinies of

the future. The committee barely allude to them; they are suggestive enough of themselves without comment or enlargement. But the committee urge their calm and dispassionate consideration, especially as it is believed by them the peace, quiet, welfare, and prosperity of Kansas herself will be promoted by her admission, as well as the general harmony of all the States. If it be true that a majority of the people of Kansas are opposed to the institution of slavery, as now recognized by her constitution, what easier mode could be adopted for them to rid themselves of it than to allow them to take charge of this with all other matters of internal policy, clothed with the exercise of all powers belonging to them as a sovereign State of the Union? There is nothing now in their constitution more objectionable on this point than is to be found in their organic act and the Constitution of the United States, under which they must continue so long as they remain in a territorial condition. The argument that Congress, by the admission, will be forcing any institution whatever upon an unwilling people, is as gratuitous as it is groundless, even if a majority there be opposed to slavery. For by the Constitution of the United States slavery is as much forced upon them as by the constitution of Kansas. This Congress cannot prevent, and this will continue to be the case until it is removed, if ever, by the sovereign power of the State.

The committee, therefore, report the following resolution:

Resolved, That Kansas ought to be admitted as a State into the Union under the Lecompton constitution on an equal footing with the other States, as recommended by the President.

Resolved, That the message of the President concerning the constitution framed at Lecompton, in the Territory of Kansas, by a convention of delegates thereof, and the papers accompanping the same, be referred to a select committee of fifteen, to be appointed by the Speaker; that said committee be instructed to inquire into all the facts connected with the formation of said constitution, and the laws under which the same was originated, and into all such facts and proceedings as have transpired since the formation of said constitution having relation to the question, or propriety of the admission of said Territory into the Union under said constitution, and whether the same is acceptable and satisfactory to a majority of the legal voters of Kansas; and that said committee have power to send for persons and papers.