Newspaper Page Text
Lausas liters.—Fv*<cli t-f Hr. TtUuiil.—\*-• ^eigntyiu 1*4. We had no now theory on that
diraflon of the President. [ subject. We said: “Here is a law excluding ns
Remarks of Hon. Robert Toombs, of Georgia, in ! from the T-.-rritorh -: rc.-ea! it." After con-nit*-
the United States Senate, on Tuesday, tiie ‘id of
February, on the motion to refer the special
message of the President, communicating the
constitution of KauBas, to the Committee on
Territories:
Mr, President, but for the character of the as
sault -which the honorable senator from Illinois,
[Mr. Trumbull] has thought proper to make on
the message of the President of the United States,
I should have been content to let it go to tlib coun
try and vindicate itself; but on account of the na
ture of that assault, I deem it to be my duty to
express my hearty co-operation with the policy
which the message vindicates , and at the same
time to express my gratification at the signal abil
ity and power with which the great principles lying
at the bottom of that policy have been presented
to the American people by the Chief Magistrate
of the L'nicn.
He has proposed to the American Congress, as
becomes bis duty under the constitution, that the
Territory of Kansas be admitted to her place as
one of the sovereign States of the Union. His
policy is that it shall be done now. Upon the
point that Kansas ought to be admitted into the
Union, it seems that all the people of Kansas, and
all the representatives of the people of the United
States, iu both houses of Congress, for the last
three years, have agreed. Since 1856, there ap
pears to have been no question with any portion
of the inhabitants of Kansas that it was their de
sire to„come into the Union. A large portion, said
to be a majority by those gontlenn n who repre
sent what is kuow-u as the republican party, form
ed for themselves, nearly three years ago, a con
stitution known ns the Topeka constitution, aud
came here and asked for admission into the Union
under that instrument. A very considerable por
tion of both houses of Congress, a majority in the
other branch, a* I a large minority in this, voted
to admit Kansas into the Union under what was
known as the Topeka constitution. Another por
tion of the people of Kansas, acting under the
authority of the territorial government, and in
obedience to law, took no partin the action on the
Topeka constitution. Then the territorial legisla
ture submitted the question to all the people of
Kansas, whether they would come into the Union
or not, anda verv large majority of the then inhab
itants said they desired to come into the Union. In
e< nformity to their wishes, thus expressed, the ter
ritorial legislature called the Uecompton conven
tion. That convention met iu pursuance of this
set of the legislature, which had for its authority
the expressed w ill of the people ot Kansas at an
election where all had an opportunity of voting,
and where, as far as I am informed, no man com
plained that he had not a fair opportunity of vo
ting. Then, those of the people who were on the
side of law and order, on the side of the territo
rial government recognised by every department
of the government of the United States, said:
“We, too, desire admission into the Union.”
In 1850 this body seeing that this w as the de
sire of all parties in Kansas, the Topeka party
being before us with a constitution seeking ad
mission, and believing it to be illegal and not in
proper form to justify her admission into the Un
ion, other propositions were then made Irom vari
ous quarters. The Senator from New York, [Mr.
Seward,] acting in behalf of the friends of the
Topeka constitution, the senator from Illinois,
[Mr. Douglas, j probably other senators, and my
self, suggisted plans for doing that which it was
settled everybody in Kansas wanted us to do, and
everybody here was willing to do, if we could
agree on the mode of doing it. I say, therefore,
the admission of Kansas is conceded to be neces
sary, proper, and desirable, by all the people of
Kansas, and also by ail the representatives of the
sovereigns among whom sue desires to take her
place.
Then, I suppose, there can be no difficulty
about so much of the policy of the President as
recommends that Kansas shall be admitted into the
Union. Waiving all question as to the number of
ber people, for various and sufficient reasons, it is
admitted on all iiauds that it is proper to admit her
into the Union. The point of dispute is, how shall
she be admitted? The ’ President of the United
States says she ought to be admitted under the
Lecompton constitution. Why? Why ought she
to be admitted under that constitution rather than
under the Topeka constitution .’ The President
stales historical tacts, w hich no man can deny.
Those persons who framed the Topeka constitu
tion, for reasous which I do not pretend to say
were true or false, as I am simply giving the his
tory of the affair, said: “We we will trample un
der foot the territorial legislature and the sena
tor from Illinois, [Mr. Trumbull,] to-day, endor
ses aud defends their action for doing so: “We
wiil not recognise this government; we assume
that we are a majority of the people, and we claim,
propria rigore, by virtue of being a majority of
the people of the United States in the Ter
ritory of Kansas, that we can make our
own constitution not only without law, but against
law, and demand admission into the Union, even
against the existing government of the Territory.’’
That I deny ; that the President denies. There is
the issue, and it is a grave issue. It is an issue
lying at the very foundation of public liberty—
an issue that will survive this question, aud a
thousand such.
The President says Kansas ought to be admit
ted under the Lecompton constitution, because it
comes with legality; it comes clothed with the
dignity of representing the will of the majority,
legally expressed. That is the ground on which
be puts it. What, then, are the historical facts ?
The Topeka constitution is avowedly in opposition
to the existing government. Its supporters made
that declaration everywhere, and have boasted of
it until this moment. It is a pretended govern
ment, organised iu opposition to the territorial
government, which, as I before stated, Las been
recognised by the President, by his predecessor,
by both branches of the last Congress aud of this
Congress, by every department of legitimate gov
ernment, aud by a republican House of .Represen
tatives themselves; for at the last session of Con
gress both houses voted for the payment of the ter
ritorial legislature. I say the validity of the ter
ritorial legislature was recognised by the former
Executive, Mr. Pierce, and has been recognised by
the present Executive. It has been recognised by;
the Senate and House of Representatives. Every
department ot this government has recognised it,
except Topeka, if that be a department ot the gov
ernment. If parties be referred to iu this connex
ion, I say that it-has been recognised by the dem
ocratic parly, aud also by the republican party.
Every department of this government, aud all the
party organizations, have recognised the legality
of the territorial government; and if tney had not,
it could be well and easily maintained upon irre
fragable legal principles. No man. 1 suppose, de
nies our right to make a territorial government of
come sort. No man denies that we have made
such a government for Kansas, that we have had
governors, judges, marshals, aud constables there
that we have had a code of laws and been acting
under them, and have upheld them but too vigor
ously, according to the account of the senator
from Illinois. Such being the fact, the opposing
constitution is a rebellious constitution, made by
men in hostility to the laws of the laud, as the
President lias justly aud truthfully said.
The friends of the Topeka constitution stand
here to oppose the admission ot Kansas under the
Lecompton constitution ; and they tell us, in the
first place, that it violates theVundamental prin
ciples of toe Kansas-Neb/aska act. I have a few
words to say on that act. J know something of its
history and its object, but I shall take it only as
it is on the statute book. Its em-ruies have turn
ed its expounders. It is not to be supposed that
they have expounded rightly that which has al
ways met their opposition. Four years ago there
was a great clamor laised when we attempted lo
pass that act, although it was based upon princi
ples which have been affirmed by every branch of
this government; affirmed by the executive, by
the legislative, and by the judicial departments,
and sanctioned by the people at the popular elec-*
tious. When we passed the Xansas Nebraska act
in Ic51 there was a greater clamor raised than,
I think, can be gotten up on tills question of the
admission of Kansas into the Union under the
Lecompton Constitution, even .w ith the opposi
tion of the senator from Illinois, .[idr. Douglas.]
What was the question on which such violent
denunciations were made, on which the people
were told that liberty was trampled under foot;
on which the North was called to the rescue, aud
an appeal was made to the freemen of that section
that their liberties were taken away, that the South
was making aggressions on them, aud that they
were duugh-faoes if they submitted?
We came to establish territorial governments
for Kansas and N< braska, tun representatives of
southern States of this Union, who have the insti
tution of slavery in their midst, recoguis 'd by
tbeir laws, affirmed that great principle which,
after all these struggles and troubles, has been
ended by the proudest and the speediest vindica
tion that ever a great truth gut from an incited
Cud prejudiced community. We simply a**ked
you to put no prohibition upon us or our property.
We sought no advantage over you; but we
said: “this is common territory, and we simply
ask that while it is iu a territorial condition we
•hall be allowed to go there with our property,
And you with your property, aud for s. civil
•ociety ; aud we will give you all the great ad
vantages which ar j offered by a territorial govern
ment, of protection and peace, until you are
strong enough to protect yourselves and come in
to the Union.” We simply asked that there
should be no prohibition on us, or our institutions,
or property. That was all our demand; and the
South then asked for hut one thing in reference
to that bill. In ;S2'J, in thu Sih section of the
aet known as an act to admit Missouri into the
Union, and for other purposes, there was a clause
that slavery, or involuntary servitude, except for
Crimes, should never exist in this Territory. We
■aid ‘ Repeal that, because it is unconstitutional.”
We came to the legislative foiuru; we went to
the legislative forum; we went to the executive
forum; we went to the judicial forum; we went
to the popular forum; and eveiywaere wo have
received the verdict in our favor by the fair judg.
meet of honest men North and South. That was
*11 we demanded. The clause which si ems to bo
eboue of contention, and to have created trouble,
*nd to have been bandied about between politi
cian*, about popular sovereignty, was no part or
jiarcel of the d'-mand of the object of the bill. We
were not then to be taugbt popular sovereignty.
lion, the democratic parly, with a large body of
the wings, said : “We will repeal it, because it is
unjust.” It was repealed by gentlemen of the
North and the South, constituting a large majority
of this house, and a majority of the other, and
maintained, as I have said, subsequently, by the
judiciary and the people. The effect of that re
peal would have been to leave the people, when
they might come to make their State constitution,
free to make a government to suit themselves;
and, in the mean time.it would admit everybody,
and protect everybody, while it was, under the
government of the United States, common proper
ty. We declared that when they came to ask ad
mission iuto the Union, and cl. the themselves
with the attributes of soverciguty, they should be
protected iu making a government to suit them
selves and coming into this Union, with or with
out slavery, as their constitution might prescribe.
This was all we wanted, but it was said by gen
tlemen from the northern States that this would be
the subject of misrepresentation, that this simple
repeal might possibly revive the pro-slavery laws
of Louisiana, and whether it did or not, it would
be so charged by the adversaries who were raising
a clamor throughout the whole North, aud therefore
they asked us to let the bill interpret, itself upon
this point. That was the sole reason for the intro
duction ofthe sentence which seems now tube
made in many quarters the chief of the corner. It
was a legislative interpretation of the effect of
repealing the eighth section of the act of 182(1.
We desired nothing more than that repeal, and
this legislative interpretation was intended to pre
vent misrepresentation in the country. It was
said “it will be charged that by repealing the act
of 18‘2U we restore the slavery laws,” and many
gentlemen supposed that might he the effect.
That, however, was not our object. Holding the
principle which I did, and the great body of the
geutlcmen with whom 1 acted, that Slav ry was
lawful wherever it was not prohibited, 1 was con
tent to unite with those who held tile contrary
doctrine, that it was lawful now here except where
it was expressly allowed by statute. Being
willing to stand on my own principles, arid legis
late on my principles, and take the consequences
of standing on them, I said, “all 1 ask of you is a
tabula rasa, therefore, if this can be construed as
having the effect you fear: if it can be injuriously
construed against you in the non-slaveholding
St-stes of the Union; if it will tend to raise a
prejudice against you on this question, and stand
iu the way of your carrying out this great princi
ple of constitutional law, put the fair interpreta
tion in the hill and let it speak for itself.” Hence,
we injected what a distinguished member of the
other House, and for a long time a distinguished
member of this body, said was a stump speech, into
the bowels of the bill It waste prevent misrep
resentation of it, as 1 once had occasion to say to
the honorable senator from New York, [Mr.
Seward.] That was the sole motive: that clause
was that it was:
“The true intent and meaning of this act is not
to legislate slavery into any Territory or State, nor
to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people
thereof peifectiy free to form and regulate their
domestic institutions in their own way, subject
only to the constitution of the United States.”
They were left perfectly free to make their own
institutions without interference from Congress,
which had assumed iu 1S2U the right to prescribe
to them that they should not. In 182:1 Congress
said, “no matter if every man in Kansas, if every
man in Minnesota, desires to make his institutions
to suit himself, on the subject of slavery, he shall
not be allowed to do so, but we will do it for them.”
Congress assumed, as a matter of conscience, that
it was its duty to do this for the people. To that
we objected. We denied the power and the policy.
Upon the question ol power we have been main
taiued by the courts, the expounders of the laws,
about whom the senator from Illinois [Mr.
TKtMliLXL | seems to think so little. On tiie
policy of the measure we have been defended by
the highest tribunal known to this country—the
people. Who are the people? Those who are
entianchised by the thirty-one sovereign States,
who have a right to speak iu the government. 1
do not care whether they are white or black; I do
not care whether they are rich or poor; I do not
care for what reason any class may be excluded—
I say it belongs to these thirty-one sovereignties
to judge for themselves into whose hands they wiil
commit civil power, into whose hands they will
jdace the elective franchise We have appealed
to them as “the people,” the only people known
to the laws, the only people known to the consti
tution, ‘‘perfectly free,” tree to execute tliis right
according to law and in no other manner.
The idea of the Topekaites, that under the Kan-
sis-Nebraska act persons were to be allowed to
vote at the ballot-box whenever thev thought
proper, and that those who did not like the ter
ritorial government might make a rebellion against
it for themselves, is a “perfect freedom” that was
discovered by the enemies of the bill: not by its
friends. To this day none of the friends of the
measure, none of its legitimate expounders, have
ever held any such “perfect freedom” as that.
That is a “perfect freedom” claimed by its enemies.
They could not get their views endorsed here, nor
iu the other house, nor before (tie courts, nor before
the people: aud they have attempted to strangle a
great measure, to which they are opposed, by
interpretation. The question is a plain one. The
iaw as written is easily interpreted. Who are “the
people?" and how do they speak? We know of no
people in this country except those recognised as
such by law. Iu the formation of this govern
ment. I believe Connect!Nit and Massachusetts
were recognised as republican States, hut they put
limitations on the right of suffrage; they excluded
men from voting if they were not freemen of a town
My own State excluded some because of their color
and so did many of the non-slnveholding States.
Rhode Island and Virginia cxclud“d men because
they did not own land. North Carolina exciudeiV
them for some purpose because they did not have
land, and granted the franchise to the lack-landers
for other purposes. She divided it between land
holders and lack-landers. Other Stales excluded
from the right of suffrage those who would not
perform military duty. It was conceded that it
was for the governing power to determine those who
should share at the ballot-box in its exercise; and
when they have spoken this government has nev
er inquired iuto its rightfulness or its republican
ism.
Sir. this g overument never could have been
formed on modern wisdom. It was formed on a
very simple plan by those who met iu 1787. at
Philadelphia. They found these various pro
visions as to the qualifications of voters iu the
thirteen sovereignties which met there to make a
constitution. Massachusetts might have wanted
her own rule; Rhode Island hefs; Virginia hers.
My own State was more liberal in he.r franchise.
ShehaJ hut one distinction. She gave politic 1
power to every man that bore on his face a white
skin. We chose to make that a test. I know some
gentlemen think it is unjust, hut wedo not. When
we came into the Union the same test was made
by two thirds of tin.* States, that the voters should
be white. Some inserted an additional clause
against the universal right of suffrage even by
white men. by which thousands and tens of thou
sands of men who fought for the liberties of the
country, as we say in ordinary parlance, lived and
died excluded from the right of ever depositing a
single ballot iu the ballot-box. or once casting a
vote at the hustings. The framers of the constitu
tion said “we will notiix any rule; it is a local
question: it is «ue w e cannot coutrol; it is Ltnposi-
b'e for us to settle it; we will leave it to the States,
and therefore we will g.;y that Whoever is entitled
under .State laws to vote for members of the most
numerous branch of the legislature in any ore-
State, shall be entitled to vote for members of Con
gress. That was a simple solution. The conven
tion did not say to Virginia, you must include
black people; it did not say to Massachusetts, you
must exclude blacks; it did not say to Virginia, you
must let in the lack-landers; hut it said to each
State, determine for yourselves what portion ot
your community it is safe to instrast w ith political
powerand we will take your rule, and whoever
your laws enfranchise for the most numerous
branch of your legislature shall stand enfranchised
for the officers of tliis government. That was the
simple rule.
When I speak-of the people of Kansas, I speak
of the people whom the law lias declared are
entitled to vote; who vote because the law gives
the right. As fur inherent sovereignty, I know
it not; it is an absurdity; rt is not an idea of govern
ment: it is not an idea of liberty. It does not exist
in nature. It exists nowhere but in the fancy or
brains of some politicians who want to u oik them
selves out of a dilemma by manufacturing a term.
God gives nobody the right to vole; nature gives
nobody the right to vote. 'Pen men necessarily
have no natural right, and no Divine .right that
J know of, to govern nine. It is a question of con
vention.
Mr. WADE. The people of Missouri seem to
have that “Divineright.”
Mr. TOOMBS. If they make any such claim, it
is a bad claim. They may, like others, set up a
had claim; but I do not think they claim any such
thing in this case. I ain patting the question on
numbers tluvn any other community I have ever | government from the day we passed the origins
known. The Lecompton constitution was based t act uuiit this day, and 1 expect to hear it uutii
the gn at fundamental principles that wiil liv,
through all time and all ages. Missouri may vio
late tie in; Ohio may violate them; but they will
live as long as liberty is preserved. Those ndiom
the constitution and the laws have enfranchised
are the people, aud the only people meant ill legal
sense—the only people anybody by any possibilitj-
could racial ru this act. I ou did not mean chil
dren, you did nofjmeaii idiots. Whom did pou
mean? The people under the government you
were making. Yon made a government, and de
clared in the -act creating it w ho should be enfran
chised, and how other people should he afterwards
enfranchised.
I say now it did not necessarily happen, aud
perhaps it was impossible that it could happen in a
single one of the thirteen original States of the
Union, that its constitution was ever adopted by a
majority ofits people, in fact or by ouusent; be
cause most of them wore adopted by conventions,
aud they were divided into districts for the purpose
of electing delegates to the conventions. Popu
lation is the usual rule for .such divisions. In our
section of the country we usually take the federal
population, including whites and blacks, according
to the proportions recognised in the federal consti
tution. You take numbers, but you do not by
any means determine how many of them are vo
ters. I thiak probably Kansas comes nearer to
nr/mnaimr an nl.of.lnla iint-ul *•'■’*
more n •nriy »*u th.it id--athan any which has
cui.e under my - ovation. They obliterated
county lines took a eeusns.and said we w ill have
sixty members in the convention; we will take the
whole population and divide it by sixty, aud give
the sani“ proportion all over the Territory. I say
that is more nearly according to mere numbers
than any instance I have known.
When we proclaimed that the people should be
free to form their institutions, we declared who were
the people w ho had the right to make institutions.
They are made in our country by representation.
We provided a government for this Territory; the
people elected a territorial legislature, and they
were to govern through that legislature until their
admission into tha Union as a State and then tiie
people whom the constitution enfranchised were
the people intrusted with the power of making,
altering, and changing their government. That
is a plain proposition w hich nobody can mistake
who will look at the iaw. That point was provi
ded for in the very bill from which this clause is
seized. It said that at the first election every citi
zen of the United States over twenty-one years of
age should vote and ail who had declared on oath
their intention to become eitizens, and then that
the first legislature should fix the right of suffrage
uncertain limitations;and therefore “the people”
meant by this clause of the act was expounded by
the act itself.
Then as the President properly states in bis
message, the territorial government, thus acknowl
edged, set out on the principle of the Kansas act
that the people, acting according to law—the peo
ple, acting through the government established
by law—have this right. That government stands
there to-day. It submitted to the people the pro
priety of calling a constitutional convention. The
people decreed that there should be a convention
and the legislature called it. The convention
met; the fruit of that convention is now before
us. At this point objection is made, even by some
gentlemen with whom 1 have acted heretofore in
regard to this matter. They do not disagree with
the President up to this point; but they say the
constitution ought to have, been submitted to the
people. Why? From whence do you derive the
idea that it must be submitted' I do not pretend
to say that it may not be so submitted, but I bold
that is a point to be determined by the law-making
power. I admit that it may be submitted, and it
must be submitted, if the law so wills it. If the
territorial law calling the convention had decreed
that the constitution should be subuiited to a pop
ular vote, the work would he incomplete without
submission. If the convention itself hail declared
that it should be so submitted, it would be incom
plete without that sanction because it would have
iacked a sanction, required bylaw.
This however lacks no sanction of law. The
convention determined to put the i/uestio cexita
the qestioii of slavery, before the people, and they
submitted no other question. They saw that
eighteen States had been admitted into the Union
with constitutions framed by conventions. They
saw from all your enabling acts, beginning with
that of Ohio, iu 18d2, up to this day, no such
requirement was ever made by this govern
ment until it was slipped-somehow or other in
to the Minesota bill. They saw that in no ena
bling act had such a requirement been demand
ed by Congress as essential to the validity of a
State constitution. It was not required by the
territorial law, nor by the cooventioti. Hence 1
sav there is an absence of all foundation for the
idea that there is such a necessity unless you get
it somehow else. Where are you to get it fioiu?
It is not in the law of Congress; it is not in the ac
tion of Congress; it is not iu the territorial law
calling the convention; it is not in the constitution
itself Where, then, do you get it from? You must
go to the “higher law” ofthe honorable gentleman
from New York, and there you will not find it.—
Go anu look at the revelation of which he speaks,
and it is not there. Go to the only utterance of
his that I know of, and it is not there. Go, then,
to Nature, from the beginning of the world, and
she gives no such utterance. Where are you to
get it? It is faction: it is demagogism. It is noth
ing else; it has no warrant in law; none iu philoso
phy. none in nature, and none in the revealed will
of God.
The Kansas convention thought proper to sub
mit a portion of the constitution to the people.—
The President says that in his opinion, according
to his construction of the act, they were bound to
submit the slavery question. In that I think lie is
mistaken; because 1 have shown you what we
meant by “the people;” and when the people act
they act through organization; they act through
the legislature; they act through the convention;
and tilts action of the convention is the ac ion of
the people themselves. It is the imbodimeut of
their sovereignty. Millions of people have been
born under the constitutions of Georgia and other
States, which never had this essential prerequisite
of popular sanction as it is now considered.
Mr. Doolittle. Wiil the honorable Senator al
low me. on tiie point he is discussing, to ask a
single question?
Mr. Toombs. With great pleasure.
Mr. Doolittle. My question is. from what source
do you derive tiie legal authority of the convention
to forma constitution at all? From the legislature
of the Territory?
Mr. Toombs. Entirely from the legislature of
the Territory. If the authority came from Con
gress, we should be bound by any propositions we
made If it comes from the territorial legislature,
we may accept or reject the propositions.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. I will put one further in
quiry. If the legal authority of the convention
was Derived from the legislature of the Territory,
has not the legislature of the Territory, until the
State is admitted into the Union, the legal power
of legislation still for the (state: and may not the
legislature pass a law submitting the constitution
to the people of the Territory? May it not he done
by any legislature, as well as the original legis
lature which authorized the calling of the conven
tion?
Mr. TOOMBS. I think not, aud for very
obvious reasons. The legislature called this con
vention together, and it lias performed its duty,
and the people voted upon the question submitted
to them before the aciion of the legislature, to
which the senator from Wisconsin lias referred,
took place. Then the previous law was executed,
and the constitution wanted nothing but the action
of Uongresss to become the fundamental law. It
wits then too late for the territorial legislature to
interfere. It could not then affect the constitu
tion. It might provide for calling another con
vention, and bringing another convention lu re, if
it chose, but as far as the constitution then formed
was concerned, the law providing for it was an
executed law and nothing could be done under it
except to elect State officers, and its validity did
not depend on that. That is my view of it.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. As a matter of fact, I un
derstand that the election which was to come off
under the schedule of the convention liidnottake
place until after the legislature had provided by
iaw for another election.
Mr. TOOMBS, Before the action of that legis
lature the election ou the constitution took place on
the 21st of December; and the conven ion, having
exhausted its powers, passed the matter back to
the peop.e. Whether the action of the legislature
was belore or after that time, it w as incompetent
for the legislature to interfere with tiiat work
because it was executed when the convention dis
missed it, aud they had nothing more to do except
to submit one clause of it, according to its own
terms, to the* people, all the rest was perfect.
Then, neither the legislature that gave the power
could revoke it, nor any subsequent legislature
take it away.
After this digression, I coinc back to the point
I w as arguing, and propose to show that my con
struction of the Kausas-Nebraska act was the
cotempoianeous construction given by its friends.
I hold ill my hand a bill introduced into this body
bv myself in l85(i, which, with some amendments,
passed this body by a vote of three-fourths; but the
other house substituted for it a provision admit
ting Kansas with the Topeka constitution. To
show that it was not understood to he the true
intent and meaning of this act that the constitu
tion should receive any popular sanction, I w ill
mention that, when the senator from Illinois [Mr.
Douglas*] and other gentlemen, wiih myself,
proposed to end this disturbing difficulty by bring
ing Kansas into the Union in 1856, the bill w hich
passed tliis body read thus:
“That the following propositions be, and the
same are hereby, offered ta4.be said convention of
the people of Kansas for their free acceptance or
rejection; which, if accepted by the convention,
shall be obligatory on the United State s and upon
the said Slate ot Kansas,”
We passed an enabling act, and went on to
declare that a convention biiould be called to make
a constitution; and we proposed to that convention
to accept certain terms and conditions. We did
not require that they should submit the constitu
tion formed by them to the people. This was the
true intent and meaning ot the act, as thus inter
preted by its friends two years after its passage; as
interpreted by tiie Senate by a majority of three to
one—an interpretation adopted by every one of its
friends in the House of Representatives, and by
many gentlemen from other political organizations,
who affirmed tliis to be the true hi tent aud meaning
of the aet—that submission of tiie constitution was
Hot a requirement of the Kansas-Nehraska act.
This was an authoritative exposition, made by tiie
original friends of that measure, aud by other
gentlemen w ho were then members of Congress,
and would have been the law of the laud but for
tiie republican majority in the other house, who
defeated it by substituting for it a proposition
to ailmit Kansas with the Topeka constitution.
I have not only shown tiiat the interpretation I
have put on tiie Kausas-Nebraska aet is the just
interpretation, according to the philological con
struction of the sentence, according to common
sense, according to ail legal rules of interpretation,
but 1 have show n a legislative interpretation by ali
its friends when they attempted to carry it out.
I hope therefore, that there is an end to the ques
tion as to the true intent and meaning of the Kan-
sas-Nebraska act on this point. It did no: require
a popular Sanction for the constitution before
admitting the State into the Union. It did not.
however, prevent such sanction if required by the
convention.
I shall only advert to one other point. We are
told that the Lecompton constitution is a fraud;
that there was cheating at the polls; that there was
cheating at some crossing, and cheating at Leaven
worth; and that there were bogus votes. I have
Kansas shall be admitted into tiie Union. I do
notiiiii nd ki deny or affirm the truth of these .il
legal ions. 1 think there are very few new com-
inimiti s, very few excited communities, where
voting is done by ballot, anywhere in the United
States, where there is not a large amount of cheat
ing. We have heard of such things iu the Stite
of California; it has been alleged that in the city
of San Francisco corruptions of this kind were car
ried on to a great extent. Iu tiie old, virtuous
civilized city of New York, the commercial
metropolis of the Union, it is alleged every day,
aud sometimes proven. Oue branch of Congress
is now exercised on a w holesale fraud alleged to
have taken place in the city of Baltimore. I do
not know how that is; lam passing no judgment
on it.
I have one answer, which I think is a complete
one, to all these allegations. If there be frauds ai
elections, in all well constituted government*
tribunals are made to try them and correct them;
and there let them go. The Baltimore election of
members of Congress is tube passed on by the
other house. It there be allegations affecting the
election of a senator ofthe Untied States, the qn*s
tiou is to be settled here. It there has been fraud
in the electiuu of members of the senate or house
of representatives of the legislature of Kansas
the matter can be passed upon by those bodies
respectively when tiie .State shall have been admit
ted iuio tiie Union. That is the tribunal set up by
law for the decision of such questions. There and,
there alone, they can be decided. This body, 1
trust, will never undertake whether or not there
have been frauds in the elections of Kansas- It
the proceeding is legal primafacie, ifprima facie it
is fair, our dory ends. When the m- mbor hum the
new State, elected liv its people, takes his seat in
the ocher house, that body may investigate the
circumstances ul his election. When the senators
elected by the legislature ofthe new State corns
here, this body can determine the legality of their
election.
Every legislative body is the proper tribunal to
decide questions affecting the elections of its mem
bers. it is the only tribunal which the experience
of tw enty centuries has shown can he safely in
trusted with any such power. The ablest of
Euglishjurists, the ablest parliamentarians, have
always held—and we find it deeply imbedded in
the privileges of the British Parliament, in the
privileges conferred ou each houses of Congress
by our constitution, in tire privileges of every
State legislature, anu inherent in every town
Public fleeting.
Jasper Ga., Feb’y 2d. 1858.
A-f online: to previous notice, a meeting of the
citizens i f Pickens eoun'y, was held to take im6
consideration the Acts of the last Legislature and
the ret • Message of Governor Brown ou the ques
tion of legalizing the suspension of specie pay
ments by the Bauks. The meeting was organized
by calling W. H. Gordon, Esq., to the Chair, and
requesting William Tate, Esq , to act as (secretary.
Upon motion, W. T. Day, was called upon to
explain the object of the meeting, which he did
iu a few brief remarks.
Upon motion of W. T. Day, Esq., tiie Chairman
appointed a Committee of live, consisting ot W.
T. pav, Esq., Abraham Crow. Moses Jones, Jas.
Bruce, and J. Shelton, to prepare matter for the
action of the meeting.
The Committee then asked permission to retire
to make up their report, which was granted.
In a short time the Committee returned antTof
fered as tbeir report the following preamble and
resolutions.
Whereas, the Legislature, at its late session,
having passed a bill, legalizing the late Bank
suspensions iu this State, or in other words, sus
pending tiie p- ual operation of the Act ot 1810, in
relation to the forfeiture of the several bank char
ters, on account of their refusal to redeem their
bills, in gold and silver coin on demand, and Gov
ernor Brown, in the discharge of his duty, having
thought proper to withhold his signature from the
bill, and the Legislature having passed the bill by
a constitutional majority through both branches of
the General Assembly, and it being the right of
the people to declare their approbation or disap
probation, of all laws passed by the General As
sembly, and to approve or condemn the acts of all
public officers iu the discharge of their duty, either
in public meetings called for that purpose or oth
erwise: Therefore, be it
Resulted, That the people of Pickens county,
unanimously aud most cordially approve ofthe
action of Governor Brown in vetoing the bill le
galizing the late bank suspensions iu this State.
We expected that much from him; we would
have been satisfied with nothing less; that the
principles set forth in his veto Message are fully
approved of by this meeting, and will live and be
cherished b> the people, as long as they know
how to appreciate a free and republican form of
government, giving equal rights to all—exclusive
privileges to none—that Governor Brown is en
titled to the generous confidence of the people of
Georgia, for his able and impartial vindication of
the right against the wrong, bolstered as it was
meeting—that a legislative body is to judge for | by |j 1( ? great monied power of the State: that we
itself of the election, returns, and qualifications ofj have undershakeu confidence in the honesty, in
ks members. Without this principle, represents- tegrily. patriotism, intelligence and statesman-
live bodies could not live an hour. If you have a | like abilities of Governor Brown, who will with
case of fraud in the election of members ofthe
legislature, lake the question there for decision.
If a ou have such a case iu regaid to the election
of a representa.ive in Congress, take it to the other
house. If you have such a case as to the election
of a member of this body, bring it here. Ifitlie
true that these bodies are so corrupt that they will
not decide the questions properly, it proves that we
are incapable of self-government; and I. for oue,
siiail not admit that for any purpose whatever.
They are the judges of such questions—theabso-
luie and sole judges. Every member here holds
his seat by this principle. If you admit one that such class legislation meets our unqualified
wrongfully it cannot be controverted anywhere; | disapproval.
but the presumption is, that your decision is right. 3d Resolved, That the bill legalizing the bank
Society could not live an instant if unjust judg-1 suspensions in this State, was a palpable and di
luents were not executed as w ell as just ones, reel violation of tha Constitution as well as an
Does the supreme tribunal of any Stan- or country ! outrage upon an injured people: unconstitutional
in the world always decide rightly? Nobody pre- i because-*/ is a law impairing the obligation of con
tends that. But there must ho finality; there must | tracts between the banks and the bill holders,
he a tribunal to decide, or there is no government j The passage of the bill was an outrage upon the
at all; and therefore had judgments must be on-, people, became the principal inducement for the
forced as well as good ones as long as they stand, I people, to sacrifice their property, tiour cotton,
until alte red according to the forms of law. j binds and negroes, and property of every descrip-
M v reply to the allegation of fraud is, that this ! tiou, and take-in exchange therefor “bank bills was
constitution comes from a regularly-constituted,, the express condition that they should have
legal government. The convention was called j the right to have the hank charters forfeited at
for by a vote of tin* people, on the question being ] the expense of the STATE, in the event that the
submitted by their legislature. Delegates were ; banks should fail or refuse to redeem their bills
elected by the people, and the convention met and j on demand in gold or silver coin, this being the
framed a constitution. They submitted that j most available remedy, and the only one of any
portion of it which they thought proper to the j practicable advantage. In a financial crisis like
people for approval, and it. has received their ap-: the present we think it great injustice at the very
proval. It stands on every form of legality. The * time that the people are wronged, tin ir property
law, the peace of the country, the right, demand : sacrificed tor hank bills, and the banks refusing
that tin-policy of the 1’residdnt shall be sternly j to redeem them AT Tills TIME, for the legislature
upheld by the representatives of the States arid ' to interpose, and by thu strong arm of usurpation,
of the people. | deprive the people, the bill holder, of his vested
. . ’ ~~ > rights, and snatch from him the only available
A lanfcrr in a Cotton llill. i remedy he has-against the banks. Such an out-
A raw. straw-hatted sandy-whiskered, six-footer
—on*- ofthe purely uninitiated, came in yesterday
from Green with a load of wood for the Factory
Company. Having piled his wood to tire satis-
rage is unparalleled in the history of leg.station.
4th. Resulted That we approve of the course
faction of the overseer, he bated his team with a
bundle of green glass, brought all the way from
home for that purpose, and then having invested
a portion of his wood proceeds in root-beer and
gingerbread at Ham’s In* started to see the “city”
—filling his countenance rapidly with bread and
chewing it rapidly as he went.
lie reviewi d the Iron foundry and machine
strop, aud was just opposite the warp mill as the
hands were going in from dinner. Th
hurrying in, as only factory girls can hurry—and
Jonathan, unaccustomed to such an array of plaid
shawls and hood bonnets, deposited his goad stick
on the stairs, and stalked in to see what the trouble
The clattering machinery and the movements of
the operatives bew ildered him for the moment; hut
being of an inquiring turn of mind, and seeing
much that was calculated to perplex one whose ob-
serva.iun in mechanics hail been mostly confined
to threshing machines and corn sliellers, he began I
lllsll
gerons inquiries in all direction
this way lie made himself acquainted successively
with the external aml| internal economy of various
machines through which cotton-ivarp progresses
in the cour-e of its manufacture—the picker, heat
er, lap-winder, doubler, and speeder, and finally
reached the breakers, and finishers, just as the
card-stripper was going through the operation,
technically termed “stripping the flats.” Induing
this the large cvlender ol the card is exposed to
view and is seen revolving with a very pretty buzz.
Not content with contemplating the “poetry of
motion,’" at a safe distance, our hero must no* Js.
introduce himself between the cards, to get a near
er view. This movement brought his nether ha
biliments in dangerous proximity to the gearing
of the next eard, and, “thereby hangs a tale.”
“You—I saj'l She goes pooty—don't she bos.-?”
said Jonathan inquiringly
“She don’t do anything else,” responded the
strippet; “but yon must be very careful how yov
move around amongst this hard ware. *Twas
only last week, sir, that a promising young man
from Minot, a student at the Academy here, was
drawn into that very card, sir, and before any
assistance could reach him, he was run through,
and manufactured into No. '6 “super-extra’ cotton
warp yarn.”
“I-s-s-sw ow! I believe you are joking?” stuttered
Jonathan.
“Fact sir,” continued stripper, “ and his discon
solate mother came down two days ago aud got
five bunches of that same yarn as melancholy lel-
ics.,’ --
“I5y the mightyl that can't bo true!"
“Fact, sir, fact,, and each of his follow students
purchased a skein apiece, to bo set iu lockets, and
worn in remembrance of departed worth.”
“Is that the treuth mm*? Was he rt.ily keerded.
spun, and sot hi lockets?”
A sense of personal danger here shot across our
hero’s mind, and lie began to retreat precipitately
without waiting for an answer.—There was not
much room to spate betwixt himself and the gear-
ing of the card behind him. Another step back
ward completed the ceremony of introduction.
His uuwhisperables beiug of large calibre, the
process of snarling them up into a hard knot was
no ways slow. Jonathan gave tongue i us tauter
and by the twentieth gyration of the embodiment
the music was melodious. Gen. Scott, himself,
could not have protested more forcibly against an
“attack upon his rear."
“O-h ! M-u-r-d-e-r! Let go—yeou h-u-r-t-! Blast
your pictures—let go. Aiut ye ashamed? Git eoiit!
Taint pooty, Daruatiou seize ye, let alone on me
can’t yew, dew?”
The gearing by this time had wound him np so
that he was obliged to stand on tip-toe. HU hands
were revolving vigorously behind him though he
dared not venture them too near the “seat of war.”
The card stripper threw off the belt, but the mo
mentum cylcnder kept revolving, and the gacen’un
supposing it iu full operation, burst out anew:
‘ Oh stop her! Stop lier, w on’t ye? Stop her dew!
I aiut well, and 1 orforbe at home. Father wants
the s eers, and mother's going to bake. Stop the
tarnal nrasheen—can,t ye/ l)e» ? Oh dear. 1 11 be
kearded and spun, and sot intew lockets! Je-ru-Sa
lem how I wish I was tew hum!”
The card was stopped at last, but Jonathan's
clothes were so entangled in the gearing, that it
was no small task toextricato him. Like Othello,
he “was not easily moved,” and it was only' by
cutting out the whole of the invested territory,
that he was finally released.
“What are you about Inert.,” inquired the over
seer entering.
“Nothing sir, only ‘snipping fiats,” answered
the stripjRT.
Jonathan, nut caring to resume his pursuit of
knowledge under difficulties, a pair *f overalls
were charitably loaned him aud ire starred with
his steers ou a fast walk towards home, giving a
series of short kicks, with either leg ae he went, as
if to assure himself that he bad brought .away his
full compliment of links from the “cussed sua-
sheen.”—Hasten Yankee Made.
dn That w<
of our Senator, Uol. Tate, and our Representative,
Maj. John E. Price ; that for their prompt opposi
tion tu the late bank suspension bill, they are ell-
tilled to the fullest confidence of tlicir constituents;
any other course would have been upon their part,
a betrayal ofthe confidence reposed iu them.
5th. Resulted That we are in favor of so alter
ing the constitution of the State, as to t ike it
out of the power of the legislature to legalize any
bank suspension.
After reading the report of the Committee,
y were I Qol. \V. T. Day, made a very appropriate speech
upon the subject ofthe late bank suspensions,
Governor Brown’s veto Message, and referred to
that beautiful pink of consistency in the city of
Augusta, known as the Chronicle ifc Sentinel,
some times known as the hired bank organ ofthat
city, and also to another of the same stripe in the
city of Savannah (the Savannah Republican).
I le said it was a little remarkable that there was
no intelligence no where but among the bank
men. according to tlicir bank logic; that it matter
ed not how much of a dunce a man was if he could
* n I only get connected some way with the banking
system of the Sure, there would be a mighty ray ot
light ail at once loom and light up his pathway,
lie also alluded to the powerful intiui ni.c that the
monied corporation exercised over the legislation
of the country ; after which the Resolutions were
unanimously adopted.
Fpon motion it w as further—
6th. Resolved, That the proceedings of this
meeting be published in the Federal Union and
Casstille Standard.
Upon motion the meeting adjourned.
\V. H. GORDON, Churn.
William Tate, Sec’y.
Anti-Bank Meeting in Campbell.
At a larire respectable and enthusiastic meeting
of the citizens of Campbell county, assembled in
CampbelUou on the first Tuesday in February to
take into consideration our uudiuiinished attach
ment to our most exemplary Governor (Brown) in
the firmness with which he would have strangled
another minister, (though not of the Herculean
frame of Andrew Jackson) who was unwilling
that one should have survived another day or
another hour, unless they did stand up square to
the rack, and liquidate all their promises to pay.
The meeting was organized by calling Wesly
Caoip to tiie Chair, and requesting B. W. Yates
to act as Secretary.
Un motion of Col T. A. Latham, a Committee
of five w as appointed to report matter for the ac
tion of the meeting as follows: Matthew Reed,
Wm. N. Magwirk. Alfred D. Davis, Stephen Bag
gett, W. F. Devine.
Alter a short intermission the Committee report
ed the following- preamble and resolutions.
We the Committee beg leave to make the fol
low ing rtpoi t to-wit:
Whereas at. the late session of the Georgia Leg
islature a bill was passed making the late suspen
sions of the Biliks in tliis State legal; And whereas
Gov Brown, with Jivckson firmness, as the chief iu
this Siato, did also add his veto; and whereas tiie
General Assembly by a constitutional majority
passed the bill over the Governor’s head, and it
is now the law ufiliis State, in spite of our ster
ling, watchful and cautious Executive, who
Jackson-firmness discharge the duty he owes to
the people of Georgia, notwithstanding the abuse of
the thru air le and Sentinel and other hireling bank
organs in the State.
2d. Resolved, That the bill granting relief to
tin* suspended banks which protected them, and
left the people in the clutches of the law, was un
wise, unjust and impolitic and an outrage upon
the rights ofthe people : a system of class legisla
tion, tor the Uein fit of a few, at the expense ot the
many which is in direct conflict with the spirit
’ cuius of our free and liberal institutions, and
Ltller «f Baa. Hiram Warner.
Greenville, Jan’v 15th, 1853.
Dear Sir: In th ■ short interview T h<d the. hon
or to ha\i. with you during the session ot the icg
islature, in relatiou to Kansas affairs, which was
interrupted by your official engagements, I did
not have the opportunity to present my views as
fully and distinctly as was desirable on my part,
so as to enable you to have a clear understanding
of them. While I have not the vanity to suppose
that my individual opinions upon this, or any oth
er question, are entitled lo any great considera
tion ; yet it is always desirable to be correctly
understood, and therefore avail myself of a leisure
moment to express to you the views, which are
entertained by me in relation to the Kansas Ne
braska Act more fully, and in detail, as well as
the reasons which have influenced my judgment
in relation to that Act and its legitimate results in
favor ofthe slave-holding States, when fairly and
faithfully executed. The great fundamental prin
ciples embodied in that Act. I fear have nut been
duly considered and appreciated by our people.
That Act was the obvious and necessary result of
the compromise measures of 1850. The South
yielded much in that compromise, an d as you are
well aware. I was in favor of abiding by it, not
because it wase“wis liberal and just” to the South,
but because it embraced the great principle of
non-intervention by Congress with the question of
slavery, aud partially nullified the Missouri restric
tion offlth March, 1820. I say partially nullified the
Missouri restriction, which declared that slavery
should befircrer prohibited north of thirtv-six di-
greesYind thirty minutes, because one of the com
promise measures, to-wit: the Act organising the
Territory of New Mexico which embraced aeon
siderable portion of Territory within its limits,
covered by the Missouri restriction, declared that
said Territory “shall be received into the Union
wirh, or without slavery, as their constitution
may prescribe, at the time of their admission.”
9th U. S. Statutes 417. The Act organising the
Territory of New Mexico, you will perceive treat
ed the Missouri restriction as a nullity to the ex
tent of the Territory covered by that restriction,
embraced in that Act. The Kansas Act is only
declaratory ofthe great principle of noninterven
tion by Congress with the question of slavery, as
having been already settled, when it declares that
the Missouri restriction, “being inconsistent with
the principle of nonintervention by Congress with
slavery in the States and Territories as recognized
by the legislature of 1856, commonly called the
compromise measures is hereby declared inopera
tive utid void, it being the true intent and meaning
of this act, not to legislate slavery into any terri
tory or State, nor to exclnde 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.” Allow me to call your attention to other
provisions of the Kansas act. I hav-* heard it as
serted !>y southern gentlemen, both in and out of
Congress, that there was no law in Kansas for the
protection of slave property, wi'hout provision be
ing made, therefor, by the territorial legislature
Those who place such a construction upon the
Kansas act mistake its provisions. By the J2d
section of that act it is declared, “That the con
sritution and all laws of the United States not
locally inapplicable, shall have the same force and
effect within the said territory ut Kansas, as else
where within the United States, except the eighth
section of the act preparatory to the admission ol
.Missouri. Ac." Now you will perceive that all
laws of the,l "nited States, not locally inapplicable.
are expressly declared to he in force, in that terri
tory. By the l lth section of the Act of 1789, es
tablishing the judicial Courts of the United State.*
it is declared that all the before mentioned Courts,
including the Circuit and District Courts of the
United States, “shall have power to issue writs of
scirefacias, habeas corpus, and all other writs not
specially provided for by statute, which may he
necessary for the exercise of their respective juris
dictions, and agreeable to the principles and
nsages of law.”—1st vol. statutes at large, 81 2.
In Robinson vs. Campbell (3rd Wheatons Rep..
212) it was held that the remedies in the Courts of
the United States at common law, and in equity
are to be, not according to the practice of the
State Courts, but according to the principles ot
common law and equity, as distinguished aud
defined in that country from which we derive
our knowledge of those principles. The 27th
section of the Kansas act declares, that the juris
diction ofthe several Courts iu that territory both
original and appellate, “shall be as limited by
law.” The same 27th section of the act further
declares, that “each of tha District Courts in said
territory shall have, and exercise the same juris
diction in all cases arising uniter the constitution,
and law s of the United States, as is vested in the
Circuit and . is'rict Courts of the United States.”
The legal remedies for the redress of wrongs done
to property by the common law, are familiar to
you, such as trespass, trover, detinue, Ac . aud
the Courts of that territory under the organic act,
were clothed with ample power and authority to
issue all such writs, and afford such remedies as
“may be necessary for the exercise of their respec
tive jurisdictions, and agreeable to the principles
and usages of law.” If any one should injure nty
slave in that territory, the laws of the United
States give me a remedy by an action of trespass;
if one should convert, harbor, or detain my slave
in that territory, the laws of the l.nited States af
ford me a remedy, by an action of trover, or de
tinue, as the case may be; for ail the laws ofthe
United States, not locally inapplicable, are ex
pressly legislated into that t> rritory and Courts
provided to execute a»d enforce them. Further
more. the Kansas act expressly recognizes slaves
as property. The '47tii section of that act provid
ing for appeals to the Supreme Court ot the L'uitod
States, further declares, “that appeals may he
taken in cases when* the amount in controversy
shall exceed one thousand dollars, except only,
that in all eases involving title to slaves, the said
writs of error or appeals, shall bo allowed and de
cided by said Supreme Court, without regard to
the value of the matter, property or title, in con
troversy’'—and providing also for an appeal to the
Supreme Court of the United States, from the de
cisions of any terriiorial Judge, “upon any writ
ot habeas corpus involving the question of person
al freedom.’' The Kansas Act. therefore, not only
declared the Missouri restriction inopera'ive and
void in that territory, as being inconsistent withthe
compromise measures of 1850, but expressly recog
nized slaves as pr«p>rty, and provided Courts and
legal remedies for the protection ofthat property
In the enactment of the Kansas Nebraska Act
Congress simply performed a duty enjoined by
the constitution, as well as by the 3rd article of the
treaty of cession of the Louisiana territory, which
expressly stipulated that the inhabitants of that
territory should enjoy all the rights, advantages,
and immunities of citizens of the United States,
and be maintained and protected, in the free enjoy
ment, of their liberty, property, and the religion
which they professed, until admitted iuto the
Union of the United States, according to the
principles of the Federal Constitution.
If the territorial legislature of Kansas had pass
ed a law, excluding slave property front that ter
ritory. or depriving the owners of slaves of all
legal remedies for the protection of their slave pro.
perty, snoh a law would have lieen simply void,
as being repugnant, not only to the organic act,
organizing that territory, but to the 3d article of
the treaty of cession just cited, as well as to the
Constitution of the United States Muc|^as been
said both in Congress, and out of Congress, about
Federal sovereignty in the territories, popular
sovererg'Uty^zriid squatter sovereignty. The fun
damental error of theadvocatesofthe.se different
kinds of sovereignty iu the territories, consists, iu
the assumption, that tho people of a territory while
remaining in a territorial condition, have, or pos
sess, any political sovereignty whatever. Th
inhabitants of a territory undoubtedly have the
clare war. coin money, Ac. These attributes of
sovereignty, are not exercised in the name of th
Federal Government, but always exercise,! ■ ,i
I'"’ i> 1 ' th.* United States, the principals t‘ u il]
compact. 1 iiat the States oefore, and at the tinro
of thu adoption of the Federal constitution w- r«
sovereign and independent States, will not be ile
nied, and as such, they entered into the corau-ret
with each other, as shown by that instrument
According to the principles asserted by the best
political writers upon the subject, soverefomv I,
indirisilde, and unalienable. Vattel 27 si-erTi
Ib d 31, section 69. Nor do several independ *> *
States, by confederating together, by voluntar
engagements, part with their sovereignty y. ,T
states the proposition so clearly, that I will stat
in his own words. “Finally several sovereforf 1 j
independent states may unite themselves rogetl **
by a perpetual confederacy, without ceasing tc I
each individually, a perfect state. They whit
gether constitute a federal republic, their i 0II , t '* U *
liberaiio swill not impair the severe,guty 0( -'
member, though they may, in certain respects *'T..
some restraint on the exorcise of it, in virtue of *i
untary engagements. A person does not cease to I
tree and independent, when he is obliged to fo]i!?
engagements which he has voluntarily" C ontra ■> i •
Vattel 3. section 10. C ‘ C(J -
By virtue of their voluntary engagements tl
several States authorized the Federal Governme t*
to exercise certain enumerated acts of sovereii*nt
in their joint name, but never intended, and jib
not part with one particle of their inherent pol't
ical sovereignty. This is most clearly illustraf'.i
not only by the contemporaneous history oft)
action of the Federal Government, but bv it*
every day practice. Treason is an offence j*,,' 1
mitted against the political sovereignty of the gov
eminent. Where is allegiance due by the citizen"
to the Federal Government,or to the United States?
The obvious answer would he, that allegiance^
due wherever the sovereignty resides. The const*
tution declares, that treason shall consist, in l evv "
ing war against the. United States, or in ’adhering
to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort
and not in levying war against the Federal (;, IV .’
eminent. The Act of 1796 punishing treason de^
dares, “that if any person owing allegiance to die
United States of America, shall levy war against
them, or shall adhere to their enemies, giving
them aid and comfort, &c., shall he guilty of trea
son against the United Slates." The laws of Oon
gross, are all enacted in the name of the Uniti-J
States, where the sovereignty resides, and not in
the name of the Federal Government. The nro-
cess of the Court issues, not in the name of the
President of the Federal Government, hut in the
name of the President of the United S ates. Who
ever heard a mandate, or an order issued by, or
to an office of the Army, or Navy, in ihe name of
the Federal Government? Such orders always is
sue in the name of the United States, and tho
Marshal executes both civil, and criminal process,
issuing from the Courts, in the name of the Ui
has at all times, and under aJI circumstances show- ’ rights of American citizens, possess the elements of
ed iiunyeif to be tire friend ofthe people when political sovereignty, which, indue time, may be
their rights are threatened; be it therefore isserted, and recognised in accordance withthe
1st. Itc sol red, That Ike people of Campbell principles of the Federal Constitution ; but while
county, without distinction of party, do most remaining in a territorial condition they have
heartily approve the principles set forth in Gov. 4 none, and are not entitled to exercise political sor-
Brown’s veto message upon the bill passed by the ’ treiunty. The inhabitants of a territory are de-
liollotrays Ointment aud J’dJs.—Neither caustic
nor the knife can ever he required in tin- treatment of
wounds, uiceis, tumors, or schirrous swelling, to which
Holloway’S Ointment has been rqqjlied) hr time. Tiie
effect of the Digestive apparatus is all list miraonkiua.
There is an uniailiqg test qy which to know the gen
uine, viz., the Water-mark, “Holloway, New York and
London,” which appeal*: iu semi-transparent letters in
every leaf of the biHik of directions, fculess the same
are plainly seen in the paper when held between the
eye and the light, the hook and (Jhe medicine it envel
opes is counterfeit.
-*— ■ ■ ■
There is now on exhibition at the Mer
chants’ Exchange in New York, a Bed-
Wood Plank, from the Mendocina Saw
Mills, California. It measures 12 feet long,
6 feet 6 inches wide, and 2 inches thick..
Always do as the sun does, look at the bright
recent session of the Legislature, making the
general hank suspension legal.
2d. Resolved, That w« uot only approve the
principle set forth in said veto Message, but from
our hearts approve with tho same unanimous de-
ision the aet-of applying the same remedy to the
same hill.
3d. Reset red, That the true Democratic faith of
the real Jackson stripe of equal privilege to all,
exclusive privilege to none, by placing the monied
aristocracy on the same footing with the humblest
th btoi in the laud is the real simou pure kind
we want.
4lh. Resolved, We recommend the next Legis
lature to change the Coil*litution so us to have
animal elections as well as annual sessions.
On inotiou. the preamble and resolutions were
adopted, and the Secretary requested to send one
copy to the Federal Union office, and one to the
Atlanta Intelligencer and Examiner for publica
tion. The meeting then adjourned.
WESLY CAMP, Presdt.
15. W. Yates, Sec'y.
Appointments by the Presidrat.— lly anil withthe.
ndtite aud consent of the Senate.—George Vail, of
Now Jersey, consul of th* 1 United States at
Glasgow.
John S. Daney, of North Carolina, consul of the
United .States at Dundee.
Alex. Henderson, of 1-founsylvania, consul of the
United States at Londonderry.
H. Rives Pollard, of tiro Territory of Kansas,
consul ofthe United States at Bangkok, iu Siam.
Brooke i>. Williams, of the District ol Columbia,
consul ol the United States at Revel.
Ferdinand L. Sarmif-nto, of Pennsylvania, con
sul ofthe United States at Venice.
John D. Diematwri, ufGeorgia, consul ofthe
Uiiiri d States at Athens.
Stokes L. Roberts, of Pennsylvania,consul of
the United Statce at Trinidad tie Cuba.
John B. Costa, of Texas, consul ofthe United
States At Nice.
Joseph Walsh,of Louisiana, consul of the United
■States at .Monterey.—JJxishit^toM lituuu.
Large Reward fur Seymour.—New York, Feb 10.
The Hartford Savings Institution offer* a reward
of five thousand dollar* for the apprehension and
delivery of Seymour, tiie .defoulring Treasurer of
that InAitutiou.
American silver is so plentiful in New York
hat large quantities -cannot he used, excent
^pendent upon the federal government for their
executive and superior judicial officers, when a
people clothed with political sovereignty are not,
but may appoint their own executive and judicial
officers, as provided by their own organic law
which is their constitution. The Kansas act dele
gated to the inhabitants of that territory, such
political sovereignty only as the federal govern
ment possessed under the constitution, ami no
more, and this necessarily involves the inquiry,
what political sovereignty did tho federal govern
ment have, and possessjunJcr the constitution at
the time ofthe passage of that act? This is the
great question which constitutes the foundation,
aud basis of ihe discussion, in regard to political
sovereignty in tho territories, and must control it.
For if it be conceded that the federal government
is clothed aud invested with political sovereignty
by the constitution, it is extremely difficult to es
cape from the conclusion, that tl passed to tin*
people or Kansas territory, according to the pro
visions of the act organizing it, and the legisla
tive assembly of that territory, might hate ex> reis-
ed the same authority, and cuutiol, over persons
and property, within the limits of tiiat territory, as
any sovereign biate may do, tor the people of that
teintory are “left perfectly free, to foiui and regu
late their domestic iustitutious in the same way,
including tl„; question of slavery, subject only to
the constitution of the United bintes.” It is some
times said that the federal government w hen act
ing w it bin the sphere of the powers delegated to
it by the constitution issorertigu. This is an as
sumption, not authorised by the constitution.
The l'eueral government when acting within the
sphere of the powers delegated to it by the con
stitution is supreme, not sucenign. The constitu
tion, and tho taws of tho United States which shall
be made iu pursuance thereof, shall be the su
preme law of the land, is the language of the com
pact. Why is the constitution and tne laws of the
United States made in pursuance thereof, the su
preme law ofthe laud, and why am I hound to
obey them as such? Simply because the sover
eign States that formed it had. iu their sovereign
capacity, ample power and authority, to so de
clare; it is by virtue of the compact entered into
between the sovereign States, when the constitu
tion was made, w hich is the evidence of the com
pact between them.
The sovereign contracting parties s'ipulated,
and contracted, that the Federal Government
w hich they created, should exercise certain spec-
I ified attributes of sovereignty, in their name, and
ted States, where the sovereignty resides. The flag
of the Union, the emblem of sovereignty, was
designed, uot with one star representing the Fed
eral Government, hut with thirteen stars, repre
senting the sovereignty of the-thirteen United
States—ami wherever that flag floats, on the land,
or the sea, it is an emblem of the sovereignty of
t'<e United States.
When that flag was raised upon the territory of
Kansas, by theautbority of the United States, the
sovereignty of every State in the Union was re*i-
resented there, and if that territory had been in
vaded by a hostile foe, with a hostile intent, it
would havo been an invasion of the sovereignty of
every State in the Union, represented by that flag,
of South Carolina, as well as Masschusetts, of
Georgia, as well as New York, and all would have
been hound, acting through their common agent
the Federal Government, to have repelled him.
The political sovereignty being in the United
States, it was extended over that territory, for the
protection of persons and property therein, so
long as it remained in a territoral condition. The
citizen of Georgia with his property, was as much
entitled to protection there, as the citizen of New
York, the citize n of South Carolina, as the citizen
of Massachusetts, the citizens of all tho States
with their property, were all entitled to equal pro
tection upon the common territory, under the flag
of the Union which, represented the joint sov-
eignty of all the States. Now the question may
Oe asked, if the political sovereignty over that
territory was in the United States, and not in the
inhabitants of hat territory, how do tirey acquire
political sovereignty, at the precise time they as
semble in convention to frame a Stale Constitu
tion ? As I have already said when the citizens of
the several States go into that territory, they carry
with them all tbs rights of American citizens, the
dements of political sovereignty. An int.uit child
has the elements of a man within him, but he is
not a man: yet, in process of time, with pro
per training, he will become a man, and when he
is of sufficient age, and practical experience, ho
may take upon himself the duties, and response
bilities of a man. When the territory of Kansas
was organised under the guardianship, and protec
ting care, of the sovereignty ofthe Uniti d States,
it was an infant State, possessing the elements of
political mjvereiguty, which, in process of time,
under thiTbstering care, and protection of that
joint sovereignty, might become an independent
State, assume the exercise of political sovereignty,
and with the consent of the United Stales, he admit
ted into the Union in accordance with tiie princi
ples of the Federal constitution. Now iu order to
assert their political sovereignty in that territory,
it must be done iu a lawful manner, and under the
authority of the United States. The inhabitants of
Kansas have, it is understood, taken the iniatory
steps to provide a government tor themselves, by
calling a convention to frame a constitution for
their government as an independent State, to as
sert their political sovereignty, in subordination to
the laws and authority of the United States. This
they had the undoubted right to do under the act
organizing that terrirory, which declares, that the
people thereof shall be “ perfectly free to form,
and regulate, their doinestictie iustitutious in their
own way, subject only to the Constitution of the
United States."
The question of slavery it is understood is, or
was to be submitted to the people, by the conven
tion for their ratification or rejection. There was
no more necessity, for submitting that question to
the people under the organic act, than any other
? uestion, but the convention having submitted it,
shall not complain, whatever the result nmy be,
so fair play shall be allowed; it has been douc iu
their own way, and if they had refused to have sub
mitted that question to the people, such refusal,
would have been done iu in their own icny idso,
and nobody outside of the territory, would hava
had any just cause of complaint. Whether tin*
constitution which tho people of Kansas shall
adopt and send up to Congress, under the author
ity of the United .Stafos, shall tolerate or prohibit
slavery, is not the question; the question is,
whether the expressed will of the people of that
territory in convention assembled, under the au
thority of the United States, shall be respected,
and carried out in good faith according to the truo
intent aud meaning of the Kansas act. The slave-
holding States in 1850, made concessions, in order
to obtain the great principle of non-intervention
embraced in tiie Kansas act; they have struggled
to maintain, and have recognized, th«ir equal
rights, iu the common territory of the Union, and
they ought not, and I seriously hope will not per
mit themselves to be cheated aud defrauded out of
any practical benefits that may result to them,
from the legitimate operation of that fundamental
principle—that great, and vital principle, as ap
plicable to the common territory, must he main
tained, mid executed in goo*l faith by those wlmsa
duty it is to execute it, and uot evaded by any art^
fill or plausible pretext whatever. The position
which our State has taken upon that question, iu
a certain contingency, is based upon sound, ami
fundamental principles, as I have attempted to
demonstrate, and I do -not entertain the Ira't
doubt, that in the discharge of jour official duty
to the people upon that, as well as all other ques
tions involving their interests, as well as tlu-ir hon
or, you will he found equal to the occasion, what
ever it may be. I beg you to accept the assuraccu
of my high regard, and esteem, while I have the
honor to bo
Very respectfully, your ob't. servant,
HIRAM WARNER
His Excellency, Joseph E. Brown, Milledgeville-
Farmer's Omnibus.—There is five pounds ot
pure sulphur in every ono hundred pounds ot
wool.
Carrots consume 199 pounds of lime to the acre,
turnips hut 90 pounds.
A cubic foot of common arable land will he'd ”
pounds of water. -
It takes 5 pounds of corn to form one of be r -
Three ami a haif pounds of cooked meat will term
oin* of pork. , .
To add ono per cent, of lime to a soil t" a i
is destitute of it, requires It 1 pounds ot slacken
lime, or six of caustic to the acre .
Clay will permanently improve any soil that
sandy or loachv. Lime and leached ashes will a
benefit le»chy laud. . -| N )
A loti of dry forest leaves producesoniv*»_
pounds of mould ; hence 5141 pounds of urou. w ‘‘
produce a ton of plants. _ .... ,i,- n
Clay, applied to sandy land, is far ^et e
sand to clay land. ICO tons to the acre, wi g'
an inch in depth- ..
Pure phonphreasit* worth from four to ‘‘' .j, jt
sand dollars a tou; and as it comes from the 1 •
shows how scarce it is. . wor th
A rich mold, formed by rooting clover. ‘ s >er
more than the same number of pounds " ' ^
400 pounds of dry plant will yield lob P ou
mold
will take up.
Swamp muck, or pent when dry, \«
without dripping, four times its o"", c , e .
water. Hence the necessity uf thorough • -
Ti „,i tin* longest, m”
peaty soils.radiate heat most rapidly,
ly cool soonest, and are first to experience
Heavy Defalcation.— HARTFORD, ConD.. H f ^
—John VV. Seymour, Secretary am! 1 y t
the Hartford County Savings Associ«.ou, ^
tow n on Saturday last, and since • (i> t |,»t
been ascertained that he * a , au * . , Ti>°
tioiis* Jar. ocjiuuau , lflP nfthe®^
cautile Bank, and was considered on.
upright men in the community, i Vi,'*■ VI nuur,
Bank does not lose a dollar bv Mr. ^“ t|lcI *
neither, as for as we can learn, does « j—