Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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.