DEBATE ON LECOMPTON.

During the month of March, 1858, the proposition to admit Kansas under the Lecompton constitution was warmly debated in the Senate. On the 22d, Mr. Douglas made a speech which was one of the ablest efforts of his life, and will be read with interest and admiration, as long as a vestige of the political history of the Union exists. In this speech, after a rapid and brief review of his course in Congress, he shows that it was the chief merit of the Compromise measures of 1850, that they provided a rule of action which should apply everywhere, north and south of 36° 30', not only to the territories we then had, but to all we might afterward acquire; and thus prevent all strife and agitation in future. He shows that the Lecompton constitution is not the act and deed of the people of Kansas, and does not embody their will. In concluding, he alludes to the approaching termination of his senatorial term, and to the efforts that the Executive would make to prevent his reëlection. In tones that rang through the Senate chamber clear and sonorous as the blast of a trumpet, he gave utterance to these noble sentiments:

"I do not recognize the right of the President to tell me my duty in the Senate chamber. When the time comes that a Senator is to account to the Executive, and not to his State, what becomes of the severeignty of the States? Is it intended to brand every Democrat as a traitor who is opposed to the Lecompton constitution? Come what may, I intend to vote, speak, and act, according to my own sense of duty. I have no vindication to make of my course. Let it speak for itself. Neither the frowns of power nor the influence of patronage will change my action, or drive me from my principles. I stand immovably upon the principles of State Sovereignty, upon which the campaign was fought and the election won. I will stand by the Constitution of the United States, with all its compromises, and perform all my obligations under it. If I shall be driven into private life, it is a fate that has no terrors for me. I prefer private

life, preserving my own self-respect, to abject and servile submission to executive will. If the alternative be private life, or servile obedience to executive will, I am prepared to retire. Official position has no charms for me, when deprived of freedom of thought and action."

We give this great speech entire in a subsequent part of this work. It was delivered in the evening, the Senate chamber being brilliantly illuminated, and the galleries crowded, many ladies being admitted to seats on the floor of the Senate.

On the next day, however, March 23, the bill admitting Kansas into the Union under the Lecompton constitution, passed the Senate by a vote of 33 to 25. Previous to taking this vote, Mr. Crittenden, of Kentucky, moved a substitute for the bill, to the effect that the Constitution be submitted to the people of Kansas at once; and if approved, the State to be admitted by the President's proclamation. If rejected, the people to call a convention and frame a constitution to be submitted to the popular vote. Special provisions made against frauds at elections. The substitute was lost-yeas 24, nays 34.

On the first of April, the bill as passed was taken up in the House of Representatives, and Mr. Montgomery, of Pennsylvania, offered, as a substitue, the same one proposed by Mr. Crittenden. This was adopted in the House, ayes 120, nays, 112.

THE ENGLISH BILL.

The Senate refused to concur in this substitute, and a committee of conference was appointed by each House, who reported what has since been known as the English bill, which passed both Houses of Congress, and became a law. But in the debate in the Senate on the Crittenden-Montgomery amendment, Mr. Douglas spoke in its favor and

against the English bill, and in the course of his remarks said:

"I had hoped that the principle of self-government in the Territories, the great principle of popular sovereignty which we all profess to cherish, on which all our institutions are founded, would have been carried out in good faith in Kansas. I believe, sir, that if the amendment inserted by the House of Representatives be concurred in by the Senate to-day, and become the law of the land, the great principle of popular sovereignty, on which all our institutions rest, will receive a complete triumph, and there will be peace and quiet and fraternal feeling all over this country.

"We are told that this vexed question ought to be settled; that the country is exhausted with strife and controversy; and that peace should be restored by the admission of Kansas. Sir, why not admit it? You can admit it in one hour, and restore peace to the country, if you will concur with with the House of Representatives in what is called the Crittenden amendment. This amendment provides that Kansas is admitted into the Union on the fundamental condition precedent that the constitution be submitted to the people for ratification, and if assented to by them, it becomes their constitution; if not assented to, they are to proceed to make one to suit themselves, and the President is to declare the result, and Kansas is to be in the Union without further legislation. Concur with the House of Representatives, and your action is final; Kansas is in the Union, with the right to make her constitution to suit herself; and there is an end to the whole controversy."

The English bill, as passed, will be found in a subsequent part of this work.

On the 29th of April, Mr. Douglas again addressed the Senate on the same general subject, with more particular reference to the English bill, for the admission of Kansas, which had passed the House of Representatives. In this speech, he says:

Mr. President: I have carefully examined the bill reported by the committee of conference as a substitute for the House amendment to the Senate bill for the admission of Kansas, with an anxious desire to find in it such provisions as would enable me to give it my support. I had hoped that, after the disagreement of the two houses upon this question, some plan, some form of bill, could have been

agreed upon, which would harmonize and quiet the country, and reunite those who agree in principle and in political action on this great question, so as to take it out of Congress. I am not able, in the bill which is now under consideration, to find that the principle for which I have contended is fairly carried out. The position, and the sole position, upon which I have stood in this whole controversy, has been that the people of Kansas, and of each other Territory, in forming a constitution for admission into the Union as a State, should be left perfectly free to form and mold their domestic insti tutions and organic act in their own way, without coercion on the one side, or any improper or undue influence on the other.

The question now arises, is there such a submission of the Lecompton constitution as brings it fairly within that principle? In terms, the constitution is not submitted at all; but yet we are told that it amounts to a submission, because there is a land grant attached to it, and they are permitted to vote for the land grant, or against the land grant; and, if they accept the land grant, then they are required to take the constitution with it; and, if they reject the land grant, it shall be held and deemed a decision against coming into the Union under the Lecompton constitution. Hence it has been argued in one portion of the Union that this is a submission of the constitution, and in another portion that it is not. We are to be told that submission is popular sovereignty in one section, and submission in another section is not popular sovereignty.

Sir, I had hoped that when we came finally to adjust this question, we should have been able to employ language so clear, so unequivocal, that there would have been no room for doubt as to what was meant, and what the line of policy was to be in the future. Are these people left free to take or reject the Lecompton constitution? It they accept the land grant they are compelled to take it. If they reject the land grant, they are out of the Union. Sir, I have no special objection to the land grant as it is. I think it is a fair one, and if they had put this further addition, that if they refused to come in under the Lecompton constitution with the land grant, they might proceed to form a new constitution, and that they should then have the same amount of lands, there would have been no bounty held out for coming in under the Lecompton constitution; but when the law gives them the six million acres in the event they take this constitution, and does not indicate what they are to have in the event they reject it, and wait until they can form another, I submit the question whether there is not an inducement, a bounty held out to influence these people to vote for this Lecompton constitution?

It may be said that when they attain the ninety-three thousand population, or if they wait until after 1860, if they acquired the population required by the then ratio-which may be one hundred and ten thousand or one hundred and twenty thousand--and form a constitution under it, we shall give then the same amount of land that is now given by this grant. That may be so, and may not be

so. I believe it will be so; and yet in the House bill, for which this is a substitute, the provision was that they should have this same amount of land, whether they came in under the Lecompton constitution or whether they formed a new constitution. There was no doubt, no uncertainty left in regard to what were to be their rights under the land grant, whether they took the one constitution or the other. Hence that proposition was a fair submission, without any penalties on the one side, or any bounty or special favor or privilege on the other to influence their action. In this view of the case, I

am not able to arrive at the conclusion that this is a fair submission either of the question of the constitution itself, or of admission into the Union under the constitution and the proposition submitted by

this bill.

There is a further contingency. In the event that they reject this constitution, they are to stay out of the Union until they shall attain the requisite population for a member of Congress, according to the then ratio of representation in the other House. I have no objection to making it a general rule that Territories shall be kept out until they have the requisite population. I have proposed it over and over again. I am willing to agree to it and make it applicable to Kansas if you will make it a general rule. But, sir, it is one thing to adopt that rule as a general rule and adhere to it in all cases, and and it is a very different, and a very distinct thing, to provide that if they will take this constitution,.which the people have shown that they abhor, they may come in with forty thousand people, but if they do not, they shall stay out until they get ninety thousand; thus discriminating between the different character of institutions that may be formed. I submit the question whether it is not congressional intervention, when you provide that a Territory may come in with one kind of constitution with forty thousand, and with a different kind of constitution, not until she gets ninety thousand, or one hundred and twenty thousand? It is intervention with inducements to control the result. It is intervention with a bounty on the one side and a penalty on the other. I ask, are we prepared to construe the great principle of popular sovereignty in such a manner as will recognize the right of Congress to intervene and control the decision that the people may make on this question?

I do not think that this bill brings the question within that principle which I have held dear, and in defence of which I have stood here for the last five months, battling against the large majority of my political friends, and in defence of which I intend to stand as long as I have any association or connection with the politics of the country.

Mr. President, I say now, as I am about to take leave of this subject, that I never can consent to violate that great principle of State equality, of State sovereignty, of popular sovereignty, by any discrimination, either in the one direction or in the other. My position is taken. I know not what its consequences will be per

ORD
ZARY