"THE CONSTITUTION. We publish this instrument to-day in full. It occupies almost the whole of our available space, and precludes the possibility of any extended remarks. *"Our opinion of the final action of the convention, as briefly given in our last issue, has not been changed by such an examination of the constitution as we have been able to give it. We still think, that the whole subject should have been submitted to the people. But, at all events, the slavery question should have been fully and fairly put to the people for their decision. This, as we understand it, has not been done. No matter how the people may vote, if this constitution should prevail, Kansas will be a slave State. We would not object to this result If the people should so will it; but we think they should have a full opportunity to determinė the character of the institution of the new State."

A recent number of the Charleston Mercury substantiates this view in these words:

"We lay before our readers this morning the message of the President of the United States. It is, as was to be expected, an able document, sound in almost all of its positions, and worthy of the Chief Magistrate of our great confederated Republic. The main point of difficulty and delicacy is in the affairs of Kansas. He thinks that the convention of Kansas, in submitting only the clause in the constitution relating to slavery, has fulfilled what he supposes to be the requisition of the Kansas-Nebraska act. We are equally satisfied with the action of the convention. We differ, too, with the President as to what is submitted to the vote of the people. We do not think that the question of slavery or no slavery is submitted to the vote of the people. Whether the clause in the constitution is voted out or voted in, slavery exists and has a guarantee in the constitution that it shall not be interfered with; whilst, if the slavery party in Kansas can keep or get the majority of the Legislature, they may open wide the door for the immigration of slaves. But this, also, is a small matter of difference with the President. It is enough for us that he goes with the South in the policy of admitting Kansas into the Union, with the constitution she shall present, whether with or without the slavery clause. We heartily support his policy, although we may not agree in all his reasoning. And, above all, we rejoice for the sake of our old partiality, and our advocacy of him before he reached the illustrious dignity of the Presidency, that he has not soiled his fame by identifying it with Walker."

My view of the effect of the submission of the slavery clause in the mode in which it is submitted, is strengthened by the proclamation of the president of the convention, in which he proclaims:

"Now, therefore, be it known to the people of Kansas Territory, that on the said 21st day of December, 1857, polls will be opened in the several election districts of said Territory, at which the actual bona Ade white male inhabitants, resident in said Territory, on said day aforesaid, shall vote for or against the future introduction of slavery into said State of Kansas, in the manner following as required by said constitution:

"The voting shall be by ballot, and those voting for Kansas as a slave State shall vote a ballot with the words, 'Constitution with slavery, and those voting for Kansas to be a free State shall vote a ballot with the words, 'Constitution with no slavery."

In the bill of rights, this Lecompton constitution declares that all elections shall be free and equal; and yet, as I have shown, by the schedule which follows it, à test oath is put into the constitution expressly to prevent the voting of any man who is not willing to support all its provisions. Further, the bill of rights declares that it is an inalienable and indefeasible right of the people to amend or alter the constitution whenever they please; but the schedule which follows says, that whenever the constitution may be amended, they shall not be permitted to make any amendment affecting the right of property in slaves. Thus while this convention lay down certain fundamental principles in the bill of rights, in the schedule they themselves violate every one of them. Honorable Senators who have argued the question on the other side have cited the provision that it is an inalienable and indefeasible right of the people to alter or amend the constitution at any time; yet the schedule provides that no amendment which may be made shall affect the right of property in slaves.

Sir, it may be necessary for me to say if it is, I beg the attention of the Senate while I say it that I am not discussing this question with reference to my own opinions upon slavery; I am not discussing it with regard to my own opinions on any provision contained in the constitution; but I am discussing it for the purpose of proving that the action of the convention is, and was intended to be, a trick and a fraud upon the people of Kansas.

What else have they done in the submission of this question to the people of Kansas? They have done what, so far as my research goes, never was done, or attempted to be done, by any other Territory i in the history of this Government. They have ignored the territorial condition, the territorial laws, the territorial organization. Every other State formed from a Territory whose history I have been able to examine, has provided that the president of the convention should issue his proclamation to the sheriffs or other proper officers of the Territory to hold an election on a certain day, the people at that election voting upon the constitution. What has this convention done? It has provided that the president of the convention shall appoint commissioners in each county; that those commissioners shall appoint the inspectors of election; that they shall establish the precincts, hold the elections, and make the returns eventually to him. If he is absent or dead, or for any other reason does not choose to attend to it, the president pro tempore of the convention is clothed with the authority; and if he is out of the way, seven men of the convention do it.

I was not at all surprised when the Senator from Pennsylvania and the Senator from Indiana stopped at this point, and said they should be glad to see what was done under such provisions, in regard to an election, before commit ting themselves to vote for the admission of Kansas under this constitution, What do you expect they will do! What does their history show you they have already done? They have set the will of the people at defiance. They have told you in their published debates that the very reason why they will not submit this constitution to a vote of the people, is that the people will vote it down if they have a chance. The Washington Union, in the article to which I have referred, asks what earthly reason there is for withholding the constitution from a vote of the people, "except a consciousness that the majority would condemn it?" and the editor adds, "we confess that we should find some diffi culty in answering that." Sir, these men have not left you to inference; they have proclaimed, in their own debates, that they will not allow the factious people of Kansas to vote down their work. One must admire them for their courage, if he cannot for their honesty. Theirs is a bold position. It is this: here we are, forty or fifty men assembled in convention, in the Territory of Kansas, about to perform the great act of bringing a new sovereignty into ex istence, about to fix the fundamental law to govern the people; and we know that we have so fixed it that, if it be submitted to their vote, they will reject it by an immense majority; therefore, they shall not have the opportunity. It is bold, but it is not ingenious. It is what any desperado can do; but it is not honest, it is not just.

What then, I ask, are you to expect from a convention whose conduct is thus marked with dishonesty, with fraud, with trickery, from the time they com menced their work down to its close! Why wait to see the result of the elee tion of the 21st of December, when you have the best evidence in the world, the light of the past conduct of these men, to enable you to say what they will do! They will do whatever they shall deem necessary to effect and perfect their act of oppression upon the people of Kansas.

I have already referred to the peculiar provisions under which the election of the 21st was to be held. I will now, in addition, mention the fact that I have examined the laws of Kansas, and find there is no law to prevent fraudu lent returns at that election. This view is taken by acting Governor Stanton, in his recent message to the Territorial Legislature:

"The laws now prevailing in this Territory provide for the proper punishment of illegal and fraudulent voting, but there is no provision which will reach the case of fraudulent returns. The case of the late Oxford precinct, in Johnson county, was an enormity so great that it has nowhere been defended or justified. Yet the evil consequences of it are seen in the fact that even the late convention has been so far imposed upon that, in ita apportionment for the State Legislature under the constitution, it has assigned to Johnson county four representatives, which must necessarily be based on the notoriously false returns from that county. In order to meet the apprehensions naturally growing out of these circumstances, I recommend the adoption of a provision making it felony, with suitable punishment, for any judge or clerk of election knowingly to place on the poll-books the names of persons not actually present and voting, or other wise corruptly to make false returns, either of the election held by order of the convention, or of any other election to be held in this Territory."

Let me ask any Senator here this question: If there were an election in his own State upon a matter of great political importance, when the people wer excited, and the subject itself one of vital character, would he consent to go into an election when the prime man of his opponents was to appoint the inspectors, receive the returns, and count the votes? Would you, sir, submit your liberties to any such election as that? I speak now of a State where law, order, and honesty of purpose have characterized its history. ory. But, in Kansas, where fraud and violence, rapine and murder, have characterized the extreme men of both parties, would you submit to an election held in that way? Is there a Senator here from the South who would say, "I am willing, to-day, that General Lane, if he be alive, shall appoint the commissioners, and these commissioners appoint the inspectors to hold the election, that they shall make the returns to Lane, and that he shall count the votes, and declare the result of the election!" If there is a Southern Senator here who would do it, I would not; nor would I trust any extreme man upon the other side; nor would I trust anybody but the constituted authorities of Kansas. Why pass over the legislative authorities; why ignore the inspectors, who hold their office by virtue of territorial law; unless it be for the purpose of deceiving and defrauding the people? "Wait," says the Senator from Indiana; "wait," says the Senator from Pennsylvania. "I will not commit myself," says each of them. "Here," says the Senator from Pennsylvania, "are large and dangerous powers given to the president of the convention; I want to see what he will do, before I determine what I will do." Well now sir, for my part, I do not wish to wait for that purpose. When I see a man who, during his canvass for the position of delegate to the convention, published over his own signature the resolutions of the convention that nominated him, declaring that they would support no man for delegate who did not pledge himself to submit the constitution to a free and fair vote of the people for ratification or rejection, after the election disavow, ignore, and trample under foot that avowal which was to get the people's votes, I do not wish to wait any longer to know what he will do. That there may be no mistake as to the pledge of the president of the convention to submit the constitution to the popular vote, I submit his pledge, signed by himself, and other candidates:

To the Democratic voters of Douglas county:

It having been stated by that abolition newspaper, the Herald of Freedom, and by some dis affected bogus Democrats, who have got up an independent ticket for the purpose of securing the vote of the Black Republicans, that the regular nominees of the Democratic convention were opposed to submitting the constitution to the people, we, the candidates of the Democratic party, submit the following resolution, which was adopted by the Democratic convention which placed us in nomination, and which we fully and heartily indorse, as a complete refutation of the slanders above referred to.

JOHN CALHOUN,
W. S. WELLS,
L. S. BOLING,
W. T. SPICELY,

A. W. JONES,
H. BUTCHER,
JOHN M. WALLACE,
L. A. PRATHER.

LACOMPTON, Kansas Territory, June 18, 1857.

"Resolved, That we will support no man as a delegate to the constitutional convention, whose duties it will be to frame the constitution of the future State of Kansas, and to mould the political institutions under which we, as a people, are to live, unless he pledges himself, fully, freely, and without reservation, to use every honorable means to submit the same to every bona fide actual citizen of Kansas, at the proper time for the vote being taken upon the adoption by the people, in order that the said constitution may be adopted or rejected by the actual settlers of this Territory, as the majority of voters shall decide."

A man who, after such a pledge before the election, turns round and tramples it under foot, will do anything that God has given him the power to do, to defraud the people; or if he should happen to be intimidated, he can turn it over to the president pro tempore; and if he should not happen to be bold enough to carry it out, he can find seven men of the convention who will; for all history proves that seven men will do, together, what no one of them would dare do, alone. I may mention here that the convention which nominated Governor Ransom for Congress, voted down, by a majority of forty to one, a proposition to accept the constitution whether it should be submitted to the people or not, • thus showing the clear understanding of the Democratic party of Kansas, that the constitution should be submitted to the people.

Mr. President, if the action of this convention was to be limited to the people of Kansas, there might, by possibility, be some other view of it presented, that might affect my course, but when I am asked to give my vote to consummate this fraud, I answer-never. It will be seen that I have not attached that importance to preliminary action which some men have. I have said that the Kansas-Nebraska act embodies the great principle that lies at the foundation of • our Government. It cannot be better expressed than it has been by the President himself, in his letter accepting the Cincinnati nomination:

"The recent legislation of Congress respecting domestic slavery, derived as it has been from the original and pure fountain of legitimate political power, the will of the majority, promises ere long to allay the dangerous excitement. The legislation is founded upon principles as ancient as free government itself."

Upon every occasion on which I have addressed the people of my own State and others, I have pledged myself to abide faithfully and unqualifiedly by the provisions of that act. I have pledged myself everywhere to stand by this principle "as ancient as free government itself," and to assure to the people of every State and Territory-and Kansas in particular-the full, free, and unqualified right to exercise their opinions in regard to the institutions they will have. The Democratic party has planted itself, in terms as plain as human language is capable of specifying it, on the same platform, in the convention which nominated Mr. Buchanan. Not a Senator has spoken here but has expressed his re gret, his deep regret, and the President himself has expressed his, in the strongest terms, that this constitution was not submitted to the people of Kansas by the direction of that convention. The policy adopted by the President, and carried out in Kansas, was wisely founded on this principle of free government, and had the convention adopted it, all would now be peaceful and quiet there. The resolution passed at Cincinnati, to which I have alluded, is in these words:

"Resolved, That we recognise the right of the people of all the Territories, including Kan sas and Nebraska, acting through the legally and fairly expressed will of a majority of actual residents, and whenever the number of their inhabitants justifies it, to form a constitution, with or without domestic slavery, and be admitted into the Union upon terms of perfect equality with the other States."

These principles, I have said, are embodied in the Kansas act; and they must be carried out by Congress, if it is intended to maintain this Government. They must be carried out, if it is intended to maintain a national Democratic organi zation in the country; but more, I say they must be carried out, if it is intended to maintain the Union of these States. Why, sir, look at it; look at the present condition of things in Kansas-the people there protesting against the ac tion of the convention, and asking the Governor to convene, as he has convened, an extraordinary session of the Legislature to meet the contingency. They are arming; they are determined to resist an admission, under this constitution, by any and every power with which God has clothed them; and yet we are to sit here, and say, "we admit you into the Union of the United States." As well might you take a prisoner, under the sentence of a court of Justice, handcuffed, with your officers surrounding him, by force to the prison, and say to him, "there is no coercion, we admit you into the penitentiary." (Laughter.)

I repeat, sir, the people stand there in open arms, and the telegraphic wires have but this day brought us the information that insurrections are springing up throughout that Territory against this attempt to coerce them into the Union, and eram this constitution down their throats. To call that an admission of a State is to falsify the use of language and for what? There is the substance of this inquiry when you have done for what? Is there any impending necessity for admitting Kansas under the present constitution? Is there anything in the public condition of the country that makes it an imperious ne cessity that Kansas shall be admitted now, under this constitution? Will it not do in April! Will it not do in May! Will it not do next year! Was there not an election in Kansas in October last, under the judicious, prudent, cautious, and well-timed policy of the President of the United States, which was peaceful, at which the people voted and had a right to vote! Was it not quiet then! Did not order reign there, ign and would it not reign there now but for the operations of this convention! Why this haste to admit Kansas under this Lecompton fraud! Why not wait? Why may not Congress wait? What is to be gained! Why, say some gentlemen, we want to localize this dispute; we want to fence it in within the bounds of Kansas; we have had enough of it in Con-. gress, and more than enough of it throughout the Union. Well, sir, if there be one man in all these United States, who more than another feels that desire, I would claim to be that man. From the commencement of my public life down to to-day, it has seemed to me as if there never was anything before my vision but a woolly-headed negro. (Laughter.) You can scarcely meet a gentleman here in private conversation, you cannot meet him in debate, but that on one side or the other this eternal and interminable question of slavery is ever before your eyes.

But, sir, will this sort of measure localize it! The great Patrick Henry said that he knew of no light by which to guide his footsteps, except the lamp of experience. What is our experience on this matter? From the time the Kansas-Nebraska act was passed, have not the northern and southern States been engaged in a strife in regard to the settlement of Kansas and the establishment or rejection of slavery therein? Not only have law and order been violated, but, as I have said before, lives have been taken, and rapine and murder have grown out of it; and the President tells us that when he came into power, the condition of things in that Territory was alarming; civil war was impending, You find the Territory alive now, and bad men exercising their power. Hand to hand they are about to take each other's blood.

Do you suppose that by simply changing this from a territorial to a State government you are going to produce quiet and peace throughout the other

States of this Union, and localize the difficulty in Kansas! Why, sir, as well might you believe that, having fired the foundation of your building, the flame would never reach its roof. A people there resisting a monstrous fraud by hundreds and by thousands, and Congress consummate the fraud and expect that people to submit! We have no right to expect it. But what of these Lecompton gentlemen-these gentlemen who have not only taken care to provide an election which shall fix a constitution to suit them, but have taken care to provide an election which shall elect a Legislature and Governor and State officers also to suit them! Will they not hold the power, and, holding it, will they not exercise it as they have exercised it! When these people undertake to rise and exercise the inalienable and inde feasible right which this constitution says they have got, will not these constituted authorities say to them as the constituted authorities of Rhode Island did, "you are in insurrection; you are undertaking to overthrow the constitution; I, as Governor of the State, call out the military to put you down; and if your movement becomes too formidable, I will call upon the President of the United States to aid me?" The law provides that when the Legislature, or in the absence of their being in session, the Governor, calls upon the President, he must respond. What says the Supreme Court upon principles like these! In the case of Luther, the Supreme Court says it will recognize, in executing the laws of the country, the government that the Executive authority of the United States has recognized. The laws of the United States prescribe the duty of the President. It is to respond to the Governor and Legislature of Kansas. They, I say, are taken care of, and secured by this same convention. These are the men who will be in power, and you expect to localize the difficulty.

I have said that one of the most unfortunate results of these political discussions is the engendering of erroneous opinions, many of them fraught with danger to this Confederacy; and not among the least of these is that idea got up in certain States that when any of your citizens go to another State or Territory you have some right or authority to take care of them after they are there. We are not without history on that point. It has been done in the States of this Union. They have passed legislative acts and authorized men and means, and weapons in some instances, to be carried to Kansas to take care of somebody's liberties who before was a citizen of that State. Do you suppose that civil war can exist in Kansas, and that that people will not be sympathized with by the people of the other States? Have you any power to control them! Can Missouri or lowa keep its citizens within its own borders when their brothers and fathers and other relatives are fighting a hand-to-hand fight in Kansas! It is impossible. Can any State do it! It is not to be expected; and it was for that reason, prominent among all others, that compelled me to say, as I did on the reading of the message, that, if I could agree with the reasoning of the President, I might possibly agree with his conclusions. Sir, I believe that just so sure as you undertake to consummate this Lecompton fraud, and force this constitution upon the people of Kansas against their will, as firmly I believe it as I believe I'am a living man to-day, you will light the torch of civil discord throughout this Union. Gentlemen may then cry "peace! peace!" but there will be no peace. Sir, if you desire peace, it is easily attained; attained without the expense of violating any principle; attained simply by the plainest process in the worldby adopting that principle which lies at the foundation of our institutions, and, in the language of the President, "is as ancient as free government itself," the principle of the Kansas organie law. Take such means and such measures as will secure to the people of Kansas the right to settle this question by a majority of their votes, and all will be peace. Is it not easy! Cannot the people of Kansas wait? Cannot Congress wait!

I have said that the power of admitting States into this Union necessarily forces upon Congress the paramount duty of seeing that the State asks its admission in accordance with the will of a majority of the people. Show me that, and I will never inquire one instant as to what their domestic institutions are or what other provision is contained in their constitution, so that it secures a republican government, which is no more nor less than a representative government, based upon the will of the people. As I said, I am pledged to that by every speech I have ever made in my State. I am pledged to that upon the principles of the strietest honor and justice among men. Higher, higher, yet, I