Page images
[ocr errors]

and the country placed under the jurisdiction of a Territorial government, it ceases to be “under the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States," and is no longer subject to the provisions of either of the above-cited acts. Thus it will be seen that if the bill from the House of Representatives should become a law with the provisions granting a general amnesty in respect to all past crimes, and unlimited license in the future to perpetrate such outrages as their own bad passions might instigate, there would be no law in force in Kansas to punish the guilty or protect the innocent.

Inasmuch as the House of Representatives, by the passage of the bill under consideration, and the Senate, by its bill for the admission of Kansas into the Union, have each recognized the validity of the laws enacted by the Kansas Legislature at Shawnee Mission, so far as they are consistent with the Constitution and the organic act, and affirmed the propriety and duty of enforcing the same, except in certain specified cases, it becomes important to inquire into the extent of the differences of opinion between the House of Representatives and the Senate, in respect to the particular laws which ought not to be enforced. The Senate has already declared in the bill for the admission of Kansas into the Union that all laws and enactments in said Territory which are repugnant to, or in conflict with, the great principles of liberty and justice, as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States and the organic act, and embodied in the 18th section of that bill, shall be null and void, and that none such shall ever be enforced or executed in said Territory.

It is true that there is apparently another point of difference between the two houses, arising out of the question whether the people of Kansas shall be authorized to elect delegates to a convention (with proper and satisfactory safeguards against fraud, violence, and illegal voting), and form a Constitution and state government preparatory to their admission into the Union, or whether the Territory shall be reorganized in accordance with the provisions of the bill from the House, and left, for some years to come, in that condition. While the House of Representatives has recently expressed its preference for the latter proposition by the passage of the bill under consideration, your committee are not permitted to assume that they have insuperable objections to the admission of Kansas at this time, for the reason that a few weeks previous they passed a bill to admit that Territory as a state, with the Topeka Constitution. Hence, the change of policy on the part of the House, in abandoning the state movement with the Topeka Constitution, and substituting for it the proposition to reorganize the Territory and leave it in that condition, must be taken only as a strong expression of a decided preference on the part of the House for the bill under consideration, and not as conclusive evidence of insuperable objections to a fair bill, with proper and suitable guarantees against fraud and illegal voting, to authorize the people of Kansas to form a Constitution and state government at this time.

The committee recommended that the bill be laid on the table. The bill was laid on the table in the Senate-yeas 35, nays 12, no one venturing to approve or endorse it in that body.

The House did not act on either of the Senate bills relating to Kansas. In the General Appropriation Bill a clause was inserted providing that no part of the money appropriated thereby to defray the expenses of the Territorial government in Kansas should be drawn from the treasury until all the criminal prosecutions on charges of treason in Kansas, or for violation of the laws of the Territorial Legislature, should be dismissed, and the accused parties discharged.

To the Army Bill the House attached a clause that no part of the military force of the United States should be employed to aid in the enforcement of any act of the Kansas Legislature; requiring the President to disband the armed militia of the Territory, to recall all the United States arms therein distributed, and to "prevent armed men going into the Territory to disturb the peace or to aid in the enforcement or resistance of real or pretended law.”

These provisions the Senate struck out of the bills. The House refused to agree to the amendments of the Senate, and the Senate insisted on their action. Finally, the House yielded, except in the case of the Army Bill; and, though various committees of conference were held, no agreement was had, and Congress, on the 18th of August, adjourned without passing the Army Bill.

The President convened Congress next day, and sent a message to both houses urging the necessity for the passage of appropriations for the army. The old Army Appropriation Bill was revived, and a new one was introduced; but the House insisting on its Kansas legislation, both failed under the disagreeing votes of the two houses. At last, on a third bill, on the 30th of August, the House, by a vote of 101 to 98, receded from its position, and the bill passed. Congress adjourned the same day without any legislation for Kansas.



THE Lecompton controversy was the most severe and painful that has ever attended Mr. Douglas's public career.

It was also one that elicited from him a greater exhibition of his native abilities than any other of the many in which he has been engaged. In 1846 he took the high strong ground of the Democratic party as declared at Baltimore upon the Oregon Boundary question. He sustained the President to the utmost of his ability. President Polk, however, induced by high and patriotic motives, thought proper to yield to the advice of the co-ordinate branch of the treaty-making power, and disposed of that question by abandoning 54° 40' and accepting 49o. Upon the annexation of Texas, Mr. Douglas took ground in favor of extending and renewing the line of 36° 30' as a settlement of the Slavery question. He succeeded. In the fierce controversies on the Oregon Territorial Bill he renewed time and again the proposition to extend the Missouri Compromise line of 36° 30' to the Pacific; his efforts proved unavailing, and that bill passed. In 1850 he had supported and defended the Fugitive Slave Law and the compromise acts of that year -defended them in the presence of an armed and hostile meeting at Chicago, and succeeded. In 1854 he had carried through successfully the Kansas-Nebraska Act, and, through violence and denunciation at home and throughout the North, had maintained with unfaltering nerve the rectitude of his conduct. In 1856 he had canvassed Illinois from one end to the other, urging the election of Mr. Buchanan upon the ground that the Democratic party and its candidates were pledged in the most solemn manner to secure to the people of the Territories the right of having slavery or not, as they of their own free action might determine. In answer to the cry that came up from every Republican orator—and in Illinois the leading men of that party from all parts of the country were on the stumpthat the government of Kansas, her officers, and Legislature, were in the hands of the “ Border Ruffians,” his answer was, that no matter who were placed over the people temporarily, no Constitution could be adopted nor state government erected that was not called into being by the votes of the people in ratifying that Constitution. That the ultimate power of adopting a Constitution was in the hands of the people, and could not be taken from them, was the universal answer made to the charge that under the Nebraska Act Kansas would be made a slave state in defiance of the wishes of the people. On that defense, and on that pledge made every where throughout the campaign, Illinois preserved her ancient credit, and gave her electoral vote to Mr. Buchanan.

After the inauguration of Mr. Buchanan it was deemed advisable to select as governor of Kansas some person of ability, who had also discretion to regulate that ability, and personal character entitling him to the respect of men of all parties, not only in the country generally, but particularly in Kansas.



Such a man was Robert J. Walker. When tendered the office he peremptorily declined it. It was a position in which there was little credit to be gained, and a vast amount of responsibility and vexation. Those who had previously gone there had failed, and failed most miserably; indeed, much of the trouble that had existed might have been traced to the incompetency, personal unfitness, or corruption of those who had been selected as governors. Mr. Douglas was particularly anxious for the appointment of Mr. Walker, and took an active part in inducing him to consent to go to Kansas as gov

After long and serious consideration, Mr. Walker accepted the office; in so doing, he placed a condition on file that he was to be governor with the assurance that he was to tell the people of Kansas that they should have the privilege of voting directly for or against any Constitution that might be prepared for them. He proceeded to Kansas, and in his speeches he repeated this pledge, and in so doing stated that he made it with the knowledge and approval of the President and his cabinet; and that, unless the Constitution was submitted to the people for ratification or rejection, he should endeavor to defeat it before Congress.

Mr. Douglas, in Illinois, by speeches delivered at various parts of the state, referred to Governor Walker's course as a proof that the pledges he had made during the previous year, that Mr. Buchanan would faithfully carry out the spirit of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, were about to be redeemed to their letter.

When the convention met in Kansas, and while it was in session, it became obvious that a large portion of the people, led on by fanatical and turbulent spirits, would not participate in forming a state government. While this was to be regretted, yet no person in Illinois believed that the convention would attempt to adopt a Constitution without providing for its submission to the people. Mr. Calhoun himself was solemnly pledged, in writing, to submit the Constitution to the people. Mr. Douglas had justified the course of Governor Walker and the administration. When Congress met, in December, 1857, the President's Message indicated that, as a matter of peace, the administration would, in the event of the Lecompton Constitution being presented, urge the admission of Kansas under that Constitution.

The President's Message was communicated on the 8th of December; after it was read, Mr. Douglas stated that he would take an early opportunity to express his views upon the subject of Kansas, in which he was constrained to say he differed with the President to some extent. On the next day he addressed the Senate in the speech of which some extracts are given as follows:

Mr. President,—When yesterday the President's Message was read at the clerk's desk, I heard it but imperfectly, and I was of the impression that the President of the United States had approved and endorsed the action of the Lecompton Convention in Kansas. Under that impression, I felt it my duty to state that, while I concurred in the general views of the message, yet, so far as it approved or endorsed the action of that convention, I entirely dissented from it, and would avail myself of an early opportunity to state my reasons for my dissent. Upon a more careful and critical examination of the message, I am rejoiced to find that the President of the United States has not recommended that Congress shall pass a law to receive Kansas into the Union under the Constitution formed at Lecompton. It is true that the tone of the message indicates a willingness on the part of the President to sign a bill, if we shall see proper to pass one, receiving Kansas into the Union under that Constitution. But, sir, it is a fact of great significance, and worthy of consideration, that the President has refrained from any endorsement of the convention, and from any recommendation as to the course Congress should pursue with regard to the Constitution there formed.

The message of the President has made an argument-an unanswerable argument, in my opinion-against that Constitution, which shows clearly, whether intended to arrive at the result or not, that, consistently with his views and his principles, he can not accept that Constitution. He has expressed his deep mortification and disappointment that the Constitution itself has not been submitted to the people of Kansas for their acceptance or rejection. He informs us that he has unqualifiedly expressed his opinions on that subject in his instructions to Governor Walker, assuming, as a matter of course, that the Constitution was to be submitted to the people before it could have any vitality or validity. He goes further, and tells us that the example set by Congress in the Minnesota case, by inserting a clause in the enabling act requiring the Constitution to be submitted to the people, ought to become a uniform rule, not to be departed from hereafter in any case.

On these various propositions I agree entirely with the President of the United States, and I am prepared now to sustain that uniform rule which he asks us to pursue in all other cases, by taking the Minnesota provision as our example.

I rejoice, on a careful perusal of the message, to find so much less to dissent from than I was under the impression there was, from the hasty reading and imperfect hearing of the message in the first instance. In effect, he refers that document to the Congress of the United States as the Constitution of the United States refers it--for us to decide upon it under our responsibility. It is proper that he should have thus referred it to us as a matter for Congressional action, and not as an administration or executive measure, for the reason that the Constitution of the United States says that “ Congress may admit new states into the Union.” Hence we find the Kansas question before us now, not as an administration measure, not as an executive measure, but as a measure coming before us for our free action, without any recommendation or interference, directly or indirectly, by the administration now in possession of the federal government. Sir, I propose to examine this ques

« PreviousContinue »