Newspaper Page Text
SPEECH OF HON. ROBT. TOOMBS.
In the Seriate 'fthe United States, Feb. 2,1853.
Mr. Toombs, of Georgia: Mr. President, but for
the character of the assault which the honorable
Senator Irom Illinois iMr. TrumboUVbas thoufht
nroDer to make on the message of the J resl “ e “;
of the United States, I should bsvebeenconUjnt
to let it so to the country and vindicate itseii ,
hut, 6 on Account of the nature of that
deem it to be my duty to eipreamyy^
operation with the policy wh.ch ‘ h ®
dicates; and at .the
flcation at the signal ability an 1 of that
*«v ,^^n^ t A^S-peo-
Tern S.lvSa States of the Union. His
noficv is
Kansas ought to be admitted into the
Fnion, it seems that all the people of Kansas, and
all the representatives of the people of the United
States in both Houses of Congress for the last
three years, have agreed. Since 1856 there appears
to have been no question with any portion ot the
inhabitants of Kansas that it was their desire to
come into the Union. A large portion, said to be
a majority by those gentlemen who represent what
is knowa'as the Republican party, formed for them
selves nearly three years ago, a Constitution known
as the Topeka Constitution, and came here and
asked for admission into the Union under that in
strument. A very considerable portion of both
Houses of Congress—a majority in the other
branch, and a large minority in this—roted to ad
mit Kansas into the Union under what was known
as the Topeka Constitution. Another portion of
the people of Kansas, acting under the authority
of the territorial government and in obedience to
law, took no part m the action on the Topeka Con
stitution. Then the territorial legislature submit
«d the question to all the people oi Kansas, whether
they would come into the Union or not, and a very
large majority of the then inhabitants said they de
sired to come into the Union. In conformity to their
wishes, thus expressed, the territorial legislature
•ailed the Lecompton convention. That convention
met in pursuance of this act of the legislature,
which had for its authority the expressed will of
the people of Kansas at an election where all had
an opportunity of voting, and where, as far as I
am informed, no man complained that he had not
a fair opportunity of voting. Then those of the
people who were on the side of law and order, on
the side of the territorial government, recognised
by every department of the government of the
United States, said: 4 ‘ We, too, desire admission
into the Union.”
In 1858, this body seeing that this was the de
sire of all parties in Kansas, the Topeka party be
ing before ns with a Constitution seeking admis
ion, and believing it to be illegal and not in prop
er form to jHstify her admission into the Union,
other propositions were then made from various
quarters. The Senator from New York, (Mr. Sew
ard,) acting in behalf of the friends ot the lopeka
Constitution, the Senator from Illinois, (Mr. Doug
las,) probably other Senators, and myself, suggest
ed plans for 'doing that which it was settled every
body 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 necessary, proper, and
desirable bv all the people of Kansas, and also by
all the representatives of the sovereigns among
whom she desires to take her place.
Then I suppose there can be no difficulty about
so much of the policy of the President as recom
mends that Kansas shall be admitted into the
Union. Waiving all question as to the number of
her people, for various and sufficient reasons, it is
admitted on all hands 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 Leeompton Constitution. Why? Why oucht
s\je to be admitted under that Constitution rather
than under the Topeka Constitution ? The Presi
dent states historical facts which no man can deny.
Those persons who framed the Topeka Constitu
tion, for reasons which I do not pretend to say
were true or false, as I am simply giving the his
tory of the affair, said : “We will trample under
foot the Territorial legislature”—and the Senator
from Illinois, Trumbull,) to-day endorses and
defends their action for doing so—“we will not
recognise this government; we assume that we
are a majority of the people ; and we claim, proprio
ziavre , by virtue of being a majority of the people
of the United States in the Territory of Kansas,
that we can make our own Constitution, not only
without law, but against law, and demand admis
sion into the Union, even against the existing gov
ernment of the Territory.” That I deny ; that the
President denies. There is the issue, and it is a i
grave issue. It is an issue lying at the very found- (
ation of public liberty—an issue that will survive |
this question and a thousand such.
The President says Kansas ought to be admitted \
tinder the Leeompton Constitution, because it ,
comes with legality; it comes clothed with the c
dignity of representing the will of the majority i
legally expressed. That is the ground on which f
he puts it. What, then, are the historical facts? g
The Topeka Constitution is avowedly in opposition j
to the existing government. Its supporters have v
made that declaration everywhere, and have boa9t- v
ed of it until this moment. It is a pretended p
government, organised in opposition to the Terri- p
torial government, which, as I before stated, has t
been recognised by the President, by his predeces- t
sor, by both branches of the last Congress, and of n
this Cfongress, by every department of legitimate
government, and by a Republican House of Rep- s
resentatives themselyes; for at the last session of \
Congress both Housed voted for the payment of p
the Territorial legislature. I say the validity of t
the Territorial legislature was recognised by the 1
former Executive, Mr. Pierce, and has been recog- <
nised by the present Executive. It has been recog- f
nised by the Senate and House of Representatives, i
Every department of this Government has recog- «
nised it, except Topeka, if that be a department of '
the Government, if parties be referred to in this (
connection, I say that it has been recognised by the .
Democratic party, and also by the Republican par
ty. Every department of this government and all
the party ‘organizations have recognised the legali
ty ff the Territorial government; and if they had
not it could be well and easily maintained upon
irrefragible legal principles. No man, I suppose,
denies our right to make a Territorial government
of some sort. No man denies that we have made
such a government for Kansas ; that we have had
governors', judges, marshals, and constables thcra;
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 land, as the
President has justly and truthfully said.
The friends of the Topeka Constitution stand
here to oppose the admission of Kansas under the
Leeompton Constitution ; and they tell us, in the
first place, that it violates the fundamental princi
ples of the Kansas-Nebrasku act. I have a few
words to say on that act. I know something of
its history and its object, but I shall take it only
as it is on the statute book. Its enemies have
turned its expounders. It is not to be supposed
that they have expounded rightly that which has
always met their opposition. Four years ago there
was a great clamor raised when we attempted to
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 toe judicial departments,
and sanctioned by the people at the popular elec
tions. When we passed the Kansus-Nebraska act
in 185-i there was a greater clamor raised than, I
think, can be gotten up on this question of the ad
mission of Kansas into the Union under the Le
compton Constitution, even with the opposition of
the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Douglas). What
was that question ofi which such violent denuncia
tions were made; on which the people were told
’that liberty was trampled under foot; on which the
North was called to the rescue, and an appeal was
made to the freemen of that section that their lib
erties were taken away, that the South was making
aggressions on them, and that they were dough
faces if they submitted ?
When we came to establish Territorial govern
ments for Kansas and Nebraska, the representa
tives of the southern States of this Union, who
have the institution of slavery in their midst, re
cognised by their laws, affirmed that great princi
ple which, after all these struggles and troubles,,
has been ended by the proudest and the speediest
vindication that ever a great truth got from an
and prejudiced community. We simply
asked you to put e no prohibition upon us or our pro
pertj. We sought no advantage over you; but
we Batd: “This is common territory, and we
simply ask that while it is in a Territorial condi
tion, we shall be allowed to go there with our
pronejty, and yon with your property, and form a
civil society; and we will give yon all the great
advantages which are offered by a Terri torialgov-1
eminent, of protection and peace, uutil you are
strong enough to protect yourselves and come into I
the Union.” We simply asked that there should
be no prohibition on us, or our institutions or pro
perty. That was ail our demand; and the South
♦hen asked for but one thing in reference to that
bill In 1820, in the eighth section of the act
known aoi to admit Missouri into the Union,
and for other purposes, there was a claugo tb»t
slavery, or involuntary servitude except tor crimes,
should never exist in this Territory. W« stud,
“Repeal that, because it is unconstitutional. we
came to the legislative forum; we went to the
Executive forum ; we went to the judicial forum;
we went to the popular fornm; and everywhere
wo have received the verdict in our favor by the
fair judgment of honest men, North and South.
That was all we demanded. The clause which
seems to be a bone of contention, and to have
created trouble, and to have been bandied about
between politicians about popular sovereignty,
was no part or parcel of the aemand or of the ob
jest es (be bill. We were net tbeu te be taught
popular sovereignty. We did not want new les
sons on popular sovereignty in 1854. We had no
new theory on that subject. We said: “Here is a
law excluding us from the Territories; repeal it.”
After consultation, the Democratic party, with a
large body of the Whigs, said, “We will repeal it
because it is unjust.” It was repealed by gentle
men of the North and South, constituting a large
majority of this House and a majority of the
other, and maintained, as I have said, subsequent
ly by the judiciary and the people. The effect of
that repeal would have been to leave the people,
when they might come to make their State Consti
tution, free to make a government to suit them
selves; and, in the meantime, it would admit
everybody and protect everybody, while it was,
under the government of the United States, com
mon property. We declared that when they came
to ass admission into the Union, and clothe them
selves with the attributes of sovereignty, they
should be protected in making a government to
suit themselves, and coming into this Union, with
or without slavery, as their Constitution might
prescribe.
This was all wo 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 whe
were raising a clamor throughout the whole North,
and therefore they asked us to let the bill inter
pret itself upon this point. That was the sole rea
son for the introduction of the sentence which
seems now to be 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 1820. We desired nothing more than that
repeal, and this legislative interpretation was in
tended to prevent misrepresentation in the coun
trv. It was said “ u will be charged that, by re
pealing the act of 1820, we restore the slayary
laws;” and many gentlemen supposed that might
be the effect. That, however, was not our object.
Holding the principle which I did, and the great
body of the gentlemen with whom 1 acted, that
slavery was lawful wherever it was not prohibited,
I was content to unite with those who held the
contrary doctrine, that it was lawful nowhere ex
cept where it was expressly allowed by statute.
Being willing to stand on my own principles, and
legislate on my principles, and take the conse
quences 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 States of the Union; if it will teud
to raise a prejudice against you on this question,
and stand in the way of your carrying out this
great principle of constitutional law, put the fair
interpretation in the bill, and let it speak for it
self.” 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 was
to prevent misrepresentation of it, as I 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 inteut 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
onlv to the Consitution of the United States.”
They were left perfectly free to make their own
institutions without interference from Congress,
which had assumed m 1820 the right to prescribe
to them that they should not. In 1820 Congress
said, “ no matter if every man in Kansas, it every
man in Minnesota, desires to make his institutions
to suit himself, on the subject of slavery, he shall
not be ail »wed 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 poli
cy. Upon the question of power we have been
maintained by the courts, the expounders of the
laws, about whom the (torn Illinois (Mr.
Trumbull) seems to think so little. On the policy
of the measure, we have been defended by the
highest tribunal known to this country, the peo
ple. Who are the people? Those who are en
franchised by the thirty-one sovereign States,
who have a right to speak in the Government. I i
do not care whether they are white or black; I do -
not care whether they are rich or poor Ido not care i
for what reason any class may be excluded. 1 \
say it belongs to these thirty-one sovereignties to i
judge for themselves into whose hands they i
will commit civil power, into whose hands they ]
will place the elective franchise. We have up- 1
pealed to them as “ the people,” the only peo- j
pie known to the laws, the only people known to i
the Constitution, “ perfectly free,” free to execute i
this right according to law, and in 'no other man- ;
ner. J
The idea of the Topekaites, that under the Kan
sas-Nebraska act persons were to be allowed to ]
vote at the ballot-box whenever they thought
proper, and that those who did not like the Terri
torial 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 ot 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 en
dorsed here, nor in the other house, nor before the
courts, nor before the people; and they have at
tempted to strangle a great measure, to which they
are opposed, by interpretation. The question is a
plain one. Tile law as written is easily interpre
ted. 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 Government, I believe Connecti
cut and Massachusetts were recognised as repub
lican States, but 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-slavebolding States. Rhode
Island and Virginia excluded men because they
did not own land. North Carolina excluded 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 landhold
ers and lack-landers. Other States 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 iu its exercise; aud when
they have spoken this government has never in
quired into its rightfulness or its republicanism.
Sir, tbis Government never could have been
formed on modern wisdom; it was formed on a
very simple plan by those who met in 1757 at Phil
adelphia. They found these various provisions as
to the qualifications of voters in the thirteen sover
eignties which met there to make a Constitution.
Massachusetts might have wanted her own rule,
Rhode Island hers, Virginia hers. My own State
was more liberal in her franchise; she had but one
distinction. She gave political 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, but we do not. When we came into
the Union the same test was made by two-thirds of
the 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 thousands of men who fought
for its liberties of the country, as we say in ordina
ry parlance, lived and died excluded from the right
of ever depositing a single ballot in the ballot box,
or once casting a vote at the hustings. The fra
mers of the Constitution said, “We will not fix
any rule; it is a local question ; it is one we cannot
control; it is impossible for us to settle it; we vrill
leave it to the States • and therefore we will say
that whoever is entitled, under State laws, to vote
for members of the most numerous branch of the
legislature in any one State, shall be entitled to vote
for members of Congress.” That was a simple so
lution. The convention did not say to Virginia
yon must include black people; it did not say to
Massachusetts, you must exclude blacks; it did not
say to Virginia, you must let m the lack-landers;
but it B&id to each State, determine for yourselves
what portion of your community it is safe to in
, trust with political power, and we will take your
I rule, and whoever your laws enfranchise for the
most numerous branch of your legislature shall
stand enfranchised for the officers of this Govern
ment. That was the simple rule.
When I speak of the people of Kansas. I speak
of the people whom the law>gjbas declared arc en
titled to vote, who vote because the law gives the
right As for inherent sovereignly, I know it not;
it is an absurdity ; it is not an idea of government;
it is not an idea of liberty. It does not efisst in
nature. It exists nowhere but in the fancy or
brains of some politicians who want to work them
selves out of a dilemma by manufacturing a term.
God gives nobody the right to vote; nature gives
nobody the right to vote. Ten men necessarily
have no natural right, and no divine right that I
kuow of, to govern nine. It is a question of con
vention.
Mr. Wade—The people of Missouri seem to have
that “divine right.
Mr. they make any such clai», it is
a bad claim. They may, like others, set op a bad
claim; but I do not think they claim any such
thing in this case. lam putting the question on
the great fundamental principles that will lire
through all time and all ages. Missouri may vio
late them, Ohio may violate them; but they will
live as long as liberty is preserved. Those whom
the Constitution and the laws have enfranchised
are the people, and the onlv people meant in a legal
sense, the only people anybody by any possibility
•ould mean in this act. You did not mean women,
you did not mean children, you did not mean
idiots. Whom did you mean? The people under
the government rou were making. You made a
government and declared in the act creating it
who should be enfranchised, and how other peo
ple should be afterwards enfranchised.
I say now it necessarily happen, and
perhape it was impossible that it could happen in
a single one of the thirteen original States of the
Union, that i» Constitution was ever adopted by a
mnsoril(r of its people, in feet er by eaut-eat; be
eause most of them were adopted by conventions,
and they were divided into districts for the pur
pose oi electing delegates to tb€-conventions.
Population is the usual rule for fetffch 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 Constitution. You take numbers, but you
do not by any means determine how many of them
are voters. I think probably Kansas fumes nearer
to proposing an absolute naked rule of governing
by numbers than any community I have ever
known. The Lecompton Constitution was based
more nearly on that idea than any which has ever
come under my observation. They obliterated all
county lines, took a ceusus, and said. We will have
sixty members in the Convention; we will take
the whole population and divide it by sixty, and
five the same proportion all over the Territory.
say that is more nearly according to mere num
bers 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 who had the right to make institu
tions. They are made in our country by represen
tation. We provided a government for this Terri
tory ; the people elected a territorial legislature,
ana they were to govern through that legislature
until their admission into the Union as a State,
and then the people whom the Cotrflitution en
franchised were the people intrusted' with the
power of making, altering, and changing their
government. That is a plain proposition which no
body can mistake who will look at thq law. That
point was provided for in the very bill from which
this clause is seized. It said that at the first
election every citizen of the United States over
twenty-one years of age should vote, and all who
had declared on oath their intention lt» become cit
izens, and then that the first legislature should fix
the right of suffrage on certain limitations; and
therefore what “the people’' meant by this clause of
the act was expounded by the act itself.
Then, as the President properly states in his mes- ;
sage, the territorial government acknowl ’
! edged set out on the principle of the Kansas act, '
that the people acting acceding to l*W> thepeo- 1
pie acting through the government established by *1
law, have this right. That government stands <
there to day. It submitted to the people the pro- 1
priety of calling a constitutional convention. The ;
people decreed that there should be a convention, 1
und the legislature called it. The convention met; (
the fruit ot that convention is now before us. At this
point objection is made, even by some gentlemen j 1
with whom I have acted heretofore, in regard to 1
this matter. They do not disagree with the Presi
dent up to this point, but they say the Constitution 1
ought to have been submitted to the people. Why? '
From wheuee do you derive the idea that u must j
be submitted? Ido not nretend to say that it may :
not be so submitted, but 1 hold that is a point to be I
determined by tbe law-making power. I admit that
it may' be submitted; aud it must be submitted,
if the law so wills it. If the territorial law calling
the convention had decreed that the Constitution
should be submitted to a popular vote, the work
would be incomplete without submission. If the
convention ltsadf had declared that it should be sa
submitted, it would be incomplete without that
because it would have lacked a sanction
required by law. 1
This, however, lack* no sancticp gs fr.w. The ■
convention determined'to put the pmttiL 1
the question of slavery, before the people, and 1
tliev submitted no other question. ,They saw that 1
eighteen States bad been admitted Into the Union '
with Constitutions framed by conventions. They 1
saw from all your enabling acts, beginning with (
that of Ohio, in 1802, up to this day, no such re- 1
quirement was ever made by this Government '
until it was slipped somehow or other into the {
Minnessota bill. They saw that in no enabling act
had such a requirement been demanded by Con- j
gress as essential to the validity of a State Consti- 1
tution. It was not required by the territorial law, <
nor by the convention. Hence I say there is an ,
absence of all foundation for the idea that there is
such a necessity unless you get it somewhere else. 1
Where are you to get it from ? It Is not in the
law of Congress; it is not in the action of Con
gress; it is not in the territorial lan? €SWing the
convention; it is not in the Constitution itself.
Where, then, do you get it from ? You must go
to the “higher law” of the horftirable gentleman
from New York, and there you will not find it.
Go and look at the revelation* #f which he speaks,
and it is not there. Go to tbe only utterance of his
that I know of, and it is not there. Go, then, to
nature, from the beginning of the Wj’vW, and she
gives no such utterance. Where are you to get it?
It is faction; it is demagoguism; it is nothing
else; it has nowarrant in law, none in philosophy,
none in nature, and none in tbe 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. Iu tnat I thiuk he is
mistaken; because I have shown you what we
meant by “the peopleand when llie people act
they act througn organization; they act through
the legislature; they act through the convention ;
and the action of the convention is the action of the
people themselves. It is the embodiment of their
sovereignty. Millions of people have been born
under the Constitutions of Georgia and other
States which never had this essential prerequsite
of popular sanction as jt is now considered.
Mr. Doolittle, of Wisconsin—Will the honorable
Senator allow me, on the 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 the legal authority of the convention
to form a 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 legisla
ture, we may accept or reject thepropwitioua.
Mr. Doolittle—l will put one further inquiry.
If the legal authority of the conventual was de
rived 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 submi i »g tbe Coci'itu
tion to Unpeople of the Territory ? May it not be
done bv any legislature, as well as the original leg
islature which authorised the calling of the con
vention ?
Mr. Toombs—l think not, and for very obvious
reasons. The legislature called this convention
together, and it has performed its duty, and tbe
people voted upon the question submitted to them
before the action of the legislature to which the
Senator from Wisconsin has referred took place.
Then the previous law was executed* and the Con
stitution wanted nothing but the action of Con
gress to become the fundamental law. It was then
too late for the Territorial legislature to interfere.
It could not then affect the Constitution. It might
provide for calling another convention, and bring
ing another Constitution here, if it chosen but, as
far as the Constitution then formed was concern
ed, 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 understand
that the election which was to come off under the
schedule of the convention, did not take place uDtil
after the legislature had provided by law for
another election.
Mr. Toombs—Before tbe action of that legisla
ture the election on the Constitution took place, on
the 21st of December; and tbe coo vention, having
exhausted its powers, passed tbe metier back to
the people. Whether the action of the iesatfature
was before or after that time, It was incompetent
for the legislature to interfere with that work, be
cause it was executed when the convention dis
missed it, and they had nothing more to do except
to submit one clause of it, according to its own
terms, to tbe 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 bootee back to tbe point I
was arguing, and propose to show that my con
struction of the Kansas-Nebraska act was the con
temporaneous construction given by its friends.
1 hold in my hand a bill introduced into this body
by myself in 1856, wheh. with some amendments,
passed this body by a vote j)f three-fourths; but
the other House substituted for it a provision ad
miting Kansas with the Topeka Constitution. To
show that it was not understood to be the true in
tent and meaning of this act that the Constitution
should popular sanction, I will mention
that, when tbe Senator from Illinois (Mr. Douglas)
and other gentlemen, with myself, proposed to end
this disturbing difficulty by bringing Kansaas into
the Union, in 1856, the bill which passed this body
read thus: . . . , ,
“ That the following propositions be and the
same are hereby offered to the said convention of
the people of Kansas for their free acceptance or
rejection; which, if accepted oy the convention,
shall be obligatory on the United States and upon
the said State of Kansas.”
We passed an enabling act and went on to de
clare that a convention should 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 au*d meaning of the act as thus inter
preted by its friends two years after its passage;
as interpreted by the Senate by a majority of three
to one—an interpretation adopted by every one of
ite friends m the House of Representatives, and by
many gentlemen from other political organisations,
who affirmed this to be the trus intent and mean
ing of ths act, that submission of the Constitution
was not a requirement of the Kansaa-Nebraska ast.
This was an authoritative exposition, made by the
original friends of that measure, aud by other gen
tlemen who w'ere then members of Cosgress; and
would have been the law of tbe land but fur
the Republican majority in the other House, who
defeated it by substituting for it a proposition to
admit Kansas with the Topeka Coastitatiea.
I have not only shown Unit the interpretation I
have put on tbe Kansas-Nebraska act is the just in
terpretation, according to the philological construc
tion of the sentence, according to common sense,
according to all legal rules of interpretation, but I
have shown a legislative interpretation by all 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 not re
quire a popular sanction for the Constitution be
fore admiting the State into the Union. It did
not, however, prevent such sanction if required
by the convention.
I shall onlv 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
Leavenworth, and that there were bogus votes. I
have heard this cry from the enemies of the Terri
torial government from the day we passed the
original act until this day, and l expect tp hear it
until Kansas shall be admitted into the Union. 1
do not intend to deny or affirm the truth of these
allegations. 1 think there are very few now com
munities, verv few excited communities, wu*re vot
ing is done by ballot,anywhere in the United State?,
where there is not a large amount of cheating. We
have heard of such things in the State of Califor
nia; it has been alleged that iu the city of San Fran
cisco corruptions of this kind were carried cm to a
great extent. In the old, virtuous, civilized city of
New York, the commercial metropolis of the Union,
it is alleged every day, and sometimes proven.
One branch of Congress is nov exercised on a
wholesale fraud alltkecl to have taken place in the
citv of Baltimore. Idoqot know how that is; I
am passing no judgment on it,
I have one answer, which I thiuk ie a complete
one, to all these allegations. If there be Irauds at
elections, in all well constituted governments, tri
bunals are made to try them aud correct iheiu ;
and there let them go. The Baltimore election ot
members of Congress is to be passed on by the other
house. If there be allegations affectiug the elec
tion of a Senator of the United States, the ques
tion is to be settled here. If there has beep fraud
in the election ot members of the Senate or House
of Representatives of the legislature of Kansas,
the matter can be passed upon by those bodies
respectively when the State shall have been admit
ted mm‘the Union. That is the tribunal setup
by law for the decision of such questions. There,
and there alone, they can be decided. This body,
I trust, will never undertake whether or not there
have been frauds in the elections of Kansas. 11
the proceeding is legal prbnu jttcit, if prtriui fdCi€ %
it is fair, our duty ends. When the member from
the new State, elected by its people, takes Iris seat
in the other house, that body may investigate the
circumstances of his election. W hen the Sena
tors elected by tbe legislature of the new State
come 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 twenty centuries has shown can be safely in
trusted with anv such power. The ablest of Xng
lish jurists, the ablest parliamentarians, have
always held—and we find it deeply imbedded in
the privileges of the British Parliament, in the
privileges conferred on each House of Congress
by our Constitution, in the privileges of every
State legislature, and inherent in every town meet
ing—that a legislative body is to judge for itself of
the election, returns, and qualifications of its
members. Without this principle representative
bodies could ndt live an hour, if you have a case
of-fraud in the election of members of the legisla
ture, take the question there for decision. If vpu
have such a case m regard to the election of a
Representative 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.
If it be true that these bodies are so corrupt that
they will not decide the questions properly, it
proves that we are incapable of self-government;
aud I, for one, shall not admit that for auy purpose
whatever. They are the judges of such questions,
the absolute and sole judges. Every member here
holds his seat b}’ this principle. It you admit one
wrongfully, it cannot be controverted any where;
but the presumption is that jour decision is right.
Society could not live an instant if unjust judg
ments were not executed as well as just ones.
Does the supreme tribunal of any State or country
in the world alwavs decide rightly ? Nobody pre
tends that. But there must be finality ; there must
be a tribuual to decide, or there is no government
at all; and therefore bad judgments must be en
forced as well as good ones as long as they stand,
until filtered according to the forms of law.
My reply to the allegation of fraud is, that this
Confetmition comes from a regularly constituted,
legal government. The convention was called for
by a vote of the people, on the question being sub
mitted by their legislature. Delegates were elect
ed by tbe people, aud the convention met and
framed a Constitution. They submitted that por
tion of it which they thought proper to the people
for approval, and it* bus received their approval.
It stands on every* form of legality The law, the
peace of the country, the right, demand that the
policy of the President shall be sternly upheld by
the representatives of the States and of the people.
Mr. Wilson obtained the floor, but yielded to
Mr. Chandler, on whose motion the Senate ad
journed. _
Ralstok’s Hall.— Mr. Ralston lias supplied a |
want of the Macon community in his new and spa
cious hall, which was auspiciously inaugurated as
a place of public amusement by tbe great Thul
berg fete of last Friday evening. This hall will
seat an audience of one thousand two hundred,
and its internal arrangements are patterned alter
the most modern style, with parquet and gallery.
The stage is ample m size for any scenic represen
tation likely to be attempted in Macon. The ceil
ing lofty, and the arrangements for ventilation
very good. The access to the hall is spacious and
easy, and care has been exercised to have every
thing about it secure and strong. It is such a
place of assemblage as was needed for great occa
sions and warm weather, wherein the dimensions
of the old Concert have proved inadequate to the
requisition upon space and air. There is need ot
both hulls, and both will be good investment?.
The decorations of Ralston’s Hall are not yet com
pleted, but when all is finished, we believe that
Macon can boast of the finest and most commodi
ous public hall in the State. ,
Macon Telegraph, Feb. 10 th.
New Orleans, Feb. B.—The schooner Harkness
has arrived from Tampico to the 28th. The gov
ernment and support tbe Sucubaya plan of
government. Generals Parodi and Garza oppose
it. Il is reported that a large force is gathering
in the vicinity of the city of Mexico, with the iu
tention of attacking it, should the goverment per
sist in sustaining Comonfort. A number of tumults
had taken place in tbe State, but as yet no serious
result?,
From the Liverpool Time*, Jan. 23.
News of the Week.
The business prospects of the country are deci
dedly improving. It was fully expected that the
Hank of England would hare reduced the rate of
discount tbia week to four per cent., but the di
rectors separated without doing so, although it is
fully expected that next week they will reduce it
to this extent. The col&rs of the bank overflow
with gold, and contain, it is believed, at least four
teen millions. The price of produce is rising,
slowly but steadily, and the cotton market is fast
recovering from the depression under which it has
so long labored. The accounts, too, from the
manufacturing districts, are more cheering, and in
the course ot a short time all traces ol the late
panic will have disappeared.
This has been a busy week in the fashionable
circles of London, and next week will be still more
so. Her Majesty has received a great number of
Belgian and German visitors, royal and noble, with
their attendant suites, attracted to the British me
tropolis by the forthcoming marriage between the
Princess Royal of England and Prince Frederick of
Prussia. The State ball, on Wednesday evening,
at Buckingham Palace, was a very splendid affair,
at which more than a thousand persons were pre
sent, the elite of the British isles.
The East India Company are bracing themselves
for the conflict with Lord Palmerston’s govern
ment when Parliament opens next month, and they
are putting forth their power in away which it
will require all the strength of the Cabinet to
counteract. A pamphlet has been published by
the company, which contains an elaborate defense
of themselves, and of the principles on which they
have ruled India. This subject will give freshness
and vigor to the second session of the new Parlia
ment.
The new reform movement is also gathering
strength as the time approaches for the meeting
of the people’s representatives. In many of the
large towns associations have been formed to
coerce the Minister into the concession of a very
liberal instalment of reform, and unless the mea
sure is large and comprehensive, these bodies will
prove annoying obstacles in the Minister’s path.
It is impossible to overlook the fact that at the
moment when he most required support, Lord Pal
merston has weakened himself by his alliance with
Lord Clanricarde. If Lord Harrowbv was not a
pillar of strength, there was little that could be
urged against him, and he was not unpalatable to
the religious world. The “ breakers ahead ” have
fjiven a new stimulus to the opposition, and the
eaders are calculating that the noble member for
Tiverton may come to a dead lock on the India or
the reform question, perhaps on both, and their
joy is great at the prospect.
All the interest of the week centres in the
attempted assassination of the French Monarch.
The Court of Aldermen of the city of London has
presented an address t(T the French Ambassador
congratulating the Emperor Napoleon on his
escape; and the Court of Common Council has
followed the example. In Paris the British
residents have giet for the same purpose, and their
proceedings were marked, it is said, by considera
ble enthusiasm—so that the Emperor will see that
Englishmen, at least, have no sympathy with the
diabolical attempt on his life. Queen Victoria sent
to him a message by telegraph, and, also an auto
graph letter, congratulating him, in her own name
and in that of Prince Albert, on bis escape.
In fact, congratulations have poured !ti from
all quarters —at borne and abroad- But it
is rumored that this country will be asked to
expel from her soil the assassins who conduct
themselves in this abominable way • and it is
added th%t the expatriation of five refugees has
been demanded from England—two Italians and
three Frenchmen, a compliance with which request
will prove embarrassing to Lord Palmerston. The
subject will, probably, be reserved for the meeting
of Parliament, for the national sympathies are
very accute respecting the right of asylum—a
right of which Louis Napoleon, in the course of
his chequered career, was not slow to avail himself.
Notwithstanding this untoward eveut of the at
tempted assassination, the Emperor of the French
intends to visit Algeria in the spring, and during
his absence a Council of Regency will be ap
pointed.
A week or two back a communication from
Belgium appeared iu an influential London paper,
in which certain disparaging remarks were made
respecting the army of that country. This article
appears to have worked up the soldiers of the little
kingdom to fever heat, for the general officers have
commissioned three of their number to discover
the writer, and punish him. He stated iu sub
stance that the Belgians were the worst soldiers in
Europe, that they were far too numerous, and that
the employment of sixty thousand people for this
purpose was a satire upon common sense—truths
which most people will feel inclined to endorse.
It is said that the Russian railways are pro
gressing favorably. So far the result has shown
that laboF and capital can be readily procured,
apd the capital guaranteed appears likely to prove
sufficient for the purpose—a realisation of Mr.
Cobden'a prophecy, that if we knocked Sebastopol
about the ears of the Czar’s subjects, he would
come to Western Europe to borrow money to
build it up again.
The Prince of Circassia, Sefer Pacha, pressed by
the Russians in the Caucasus, is making an appeal
for help to the British Dation against his formida
ble foe, and a society has been formed in Londou
to respond to it. The Prince states a fact which
was not previously known—namely, that the
Circassians offered their services to the allies dur
ing the Crimean war, which were declined—very
foolishly, as we think.
From the Savannah Republican , Feb. 10.
Coudition of the Planters of Georgia.
Mr. Ei : I have observed several references
in the Republican , of late, to what you are pleased
to designate the solvent and prosperous condition
of the planters of Georgia. The small number of
cases reported to have been returned to the Inferior
Court of Hancock county, and the high prices
which negroes are commanding, you are glad to ,
consider as so many evidences of the
condition of the planting interests, and of I
country generally. Permit me to say, that the
cases to which y.lu have from time to time referred,
are exceptional cases. In this county—a smaller
county than Hancock, und equally as prosperous
and solvent—seventy cases were returned to the
February term of the Inferior Court—all of which,
with two exceptions, were suits for money. The
returns in other counties throughout the State, as
tar as my information extends, will be very heavy.
I have heard that a single legul tirm will bring to
the Federal Court, at Marietta and Savannah, suits
to the amount of fifty thousand dollars. These
latter suits, it is true, are for the most part against
merchants; but if the planters would pay the
merchants, the merchants would be able to pay
their creditors. So, it is the planter after all who
is in debt, and not the merchant.
The reports which have reached you in regard
to the prices of negroes are equally wide ol the
mark. There art* but few counties in the Stale
where prime field hands will bring over one thou
sand dollars in cash ; and simply because the money
is not in the country to pay«r them. Perhaps a
small lot, if sold m auy of ™ cotton producing
counties, would bring that Hut what 1
mean to say is, that prime hands Iron eighteen to
thirty years of age. unless sold under favorable and
exceptionable circumstances, will not, at. sheriff’s
sale, average more than one thousand dollars
Twelve momhs ago, such hands would have readily
commanded one-tilth, if not one-fourth more. A
bov twelve years old brought on the block in Mon
roe countv, last spring, eight hundred dollars. The
•nine bov, at sheriff's sale the first Tuesday in De
cember, sold for live hundred and sixty ‘dollars.
The reports which have reached you, I presume,
were based upon administrators’ sales, where lega
tees, to whom the money was going, came in com
petition with each other; or where there was a
credit of twelve months.
The planters of Georgia are more in debt than
you are aware of. They have ceased to raise their
own mules and horses, and hogs, and for some
years have looked to Tennessee, Kentucky und
Ohio for their supplies. Id this way many of them
have become, to some extent, involved in debt.
There are but few counties in the State where,
with all the disasters which have attended the cot
ton crop the past five years, planters can afford to
grow cotton at from six to ten cents per pound,
and pay from six to eight cents for pork, and from
one hundred and thirty to one hundred and seven
ty-five dollars for mules. This is the key to the
present condition of many of the planters in this
State. _ Upson.
The “learned Selden,” the great, wise and good
man who asserted the people’s rights against the
first Stuart Kings witball the force that great learn
ing and strong patriotism could have, nas, never
theless, one great blot on his memory. He lived
and died a bachelor, and was just as rusty, musty
and crusty, in his notions of women, as the rest
of that miserable tnbe of outcasts are. Hear what
he says of the marriage state, in his “ TaiXe Talk
“ ’Tis reason a man that will have a wife should
be at the charge for her trinkets, and pay all the
scores she sets on him. He that will keep a mon
key ’tis fit he shall pay for the glasses he breaks.”
There is no use attempting to scratch his Ijjcc,
ladies; the satirical rogue has been dead these wo
hundred years.
From the Boiiimore Sun.
Thirty-Fifth Congress—First Session.
Wasiungton, Feb. 8. —Senate.—Mr. Allen pre
sented the joint resolutions of the Rhode Island
legislature against the admission of Kansas under
the Lecompton Constitution.
Mr. Seward presented the petition of Bishop' ,
Potter and other clergymen, and a large number of
New York merchants, praying that schoolmasters
may be appointed for the instruction of seamen.
Mr. Douglas made several ineffectual efforts to
take up his resolution offered on Thursday, calling
for information relative to the facts attending the
formation of the Constitution.
The Vice-President announced that the hour batte
arrived for the consideration of the special order*
being the unfinished business at the last adjourn
ment.
Mr. Fessenden, who had the floor, said he
willing to give way for the purpose of having the
resolution considered, if r.o objection was made.
Mr. Mason said he should be compelled to
the yeas and nays on the motion to postpone the
special order, with a view to take up the resolution.,,
because the effect of that motion must be to con -
tinue the discussion in a different form from what,
it would be on the resolution of reference.
Mr. Douglas replied that it was entirely <mmar
terial to him whether the vote be taken first ge*
the reference or upon the resolution. He thought
any delay in the adoption of the resolution of in
quiry would only operate as a delay iu the settle
ment of the Kansas question; for he should deem
it his duty to get that information if he could pos
sibly obtain it, and should insist upon any reason
able delay in order to have it. It was essential tc.
a proper consideration of the subject; but if the
Senate preferred to go on with the discussion of:'
the resolution of reference first, he would withdraw
the motion and call it up afterwards.
The motion was accordingly withdrawn.
Mr. Fessenden said that he was perfectly willing •
to give way in order that the Senate might pasci
upon the question—whether any more information*
was to bt afforded to Congress officially than they •
had already received. He was under the Rnpres
sion that it was not the desire of the majhirity of*
the Senate that the resolution should be adopted,
and information sought for should be obtained.
He had no idea that such a thing would be allow-,
ed, but he was willing to make the attempt. If he -
had supposed that any investigation would be
made in reference to the stages of these Kansas
difficulties, the various frauds which have been
perpetrated the auswer which the Senator from .
Missouri (Mr. Green) made to his inquiry, the other
day, would have satisfied him that* no further in
formation would be afforded to the Senate officially
than was already before the body ; and, therefore,,
he saw no reason why he or any other Senator who
desired to speak upon the subject might not as well
proceed now as to defer his remarks until we
should have a report from the committee on terri
tories.
Mr. Green said that he replied to the question of
the Senator from Maine, that ho was not author ■
ised to speak for the committee, but would say,,
on his own responsibility, that the question of
these frauds was not before the committee ; and
further, that the committee would undertake to
carry out any direction which the Senate might
think proper to give.
Mr. Fessenden replied that he understood the
answer of the Senator from Missouri, as he had
repeated it, but that answer had conveyed the im
pression to his mind that no other information
would be afforded than we now had. Mr. Fessen
den then proceeded to comment on the President’s,
message, saying that it was drawn with care and
design, and was intended as an argument to the
country to affect their minds in reference to this
great question.
lie reviewed at length the message, saying that
he was opposed to this attempt to force slavery
upom4be people of Kansas, and he would agitate
so long as a single hope remained that slavery
might be driven from the Territory, which was
stolen and robbed from free<lorn.
Messrs. Clay and Benjamin briefly attacked Mr.
Fessenden’s positions, nnd Mr. Davis accused him
of uttering disunion sentiments.
Mr. Fessenden said he did not recognise the au
thority of Mr. Davis to lecture him, and he denied
that he had attacked slavery in the States where
it was established, or advanced disunion senti
ments; and he remarked that he had seen an ex
tract from a speech of Mr. Davis, in which it was
said that the fatter entered Mr. Pierce’s cabinet a
disunion.tnan.
Mr. Davis said that it was false and that the ex
tract of his speech was perverted, and he explain
ed that he said Mr. Fessenden’s course would have
the effect of undermining the Constitution..
Mr. Wilson’s proposition to send for persona
and papers and to examine into all the rela
tive to the adoption of the Lecompton Cdbati ration,
was rejected by six majority.
The Kansas message was then referred to the
committee on territories.
Pending au effort by Mr. Douglas t© get up his
resolution calling for information from the Presi
dent relative to Kansas affairs, the Seoate ad
journed.
House. —The galleries of the House were crowd
ed to-day—more so than on any previous occasion.
Many ladies were present.
The Speaker announced the pending proposi
tion to be on seconding the demand for the previ
ous question on the several to refer the
President’s special message on the subject of Kan
sas.
The demand for the previous question was thee
seconded by one hundred and ten against one hun
dred and live.
Mr. Washburn, of Maine, demanded the yeas
and nays, wishing the question to be so decided
instead of by tellers.
Mr. Barksdale—That’s a violation of the con
tract heretofore agreed on.
Mr. Florence—Yes, clearly.
Mr. Washburn did not press his motion.
The main questit n waa then ordered to bej put
by yeas 113, nays 107.
‘ he result of this vote was watched by every- -
body with extreme anxiety.
fcfcJjjho. next question was announced to be on the
motion orMr. Btepliens 10 refer the message to the
commitieo on territories.
The House disagreed—ayes 113, nays 114.
The next question was announced on agreeing
to the amendment ot Mr. Harris, of Illinois, pro
viding for a reference of the message to a special
committee, with authority to investigate the al
leged fraud by which the Lecompton Constitution
was procured.
The vote was announced—yeas 114, nays 111,,
and so the umeudment was agreed to.
Mr. Harris, of Illinois, moved a reconsideration
of the *ote, and to lay that motion upon the table;:
yeas 115, nays 111.
The amendment of Mr. Hughes—to refer the
message to a select committee of thirteen—as
amended on the motion of Mr. Harris, of Illinois,
(as referred to above,) was tfien agreed to—yeas
115, nays 111.
Mr. Keitt made an apology for violating llie de
corum of the House on Saturday morning ; saying
that personal collisions are always unnleasant,.
very seldom excusable, and rarely justifiable, lie
felt in full force the responsibility which he as
sumed when he said he was the aguressor, and
that the entire responsibility properly belonged to
him. In this connection he had another remark,,
which was, that if he received any blow or not, he
was utterly unconscious of having received it.
Mr. Grow said that, at the last session of the
House he unexpectedly found himself engaged in
a personal coflUion for the first time in liis life,,
and apologised to I he House.
The House then adjourned.
An Incident at Lucknow. —A letter received
from Calcutta Dec. Otli, from an American at that
port, says: “The English soldiers fight well, and
give no quarter to the Sepoys. In a recent conver
sation with a gentleman who has just returned
from Lucknow, he informed me that the natives
are exceedingly superstitious, and as an illustra
tion, he related" an anecdote. A part of the force
at the recent battle of Lucknow waa composed ot
sailors from the Englislj men-of-war, who compose
the naval brigade. During the battle, which lasted
several days, they were busily engaged at their
guns, and to facilitate their labors, built fires near'
their pieces, and cooked their bullocks, while they
kept their guns at work all the time. The Sepoys
noticed their fires, and asked an English prisoner
what they were intended for. He informed them
that the sailors were all cannibals, and that they'
were cooking the prisoners as fast as they toofc
them, and he added that the Highlanders were
much worse, as they ate human beings raw. This
account caused such consternation that the Se
poys commenced their flight, and was the means
by which the English sailors were enabled to kill
three thousand of them.”
Atlantic and Golf Railroad.— At a meeting of
the stockholders of this road, held at Milledge
ville, Monday last, the ftdlowing gentlemen were
chosen as a lioard of Directors for the current
' J. P. Screven ; Director*, Wm. 8,.
Hodgsou, Juo. Stoddard, Hinun Roberts, C. i
Monnerlyn, A. T. Mclnflre, E. R. 'Voting, J. B,
staoler. Win. 11. Wiltberger.
Hamnnah HepMkan, Ftb. 10.