But if Spain, dead to the voice of her own interest, and actuated by stubborn pride and a false sense of honor, should refuse to sell Cuba to the United States, then the question will arise, What ought to be the course of the American government under such circumstances? Self-preservation is the first law of nature, with States as well as with individuals. All nations have, at different periods, acted upon this maxim. Although it has been made the pretext for committing flagrant injustice, as in the partition of Poland and other similar cases which history records, yet the principle itself, though often abused, has always been recognized.

The United States have never acquired a foot of territory except by fair purchase, or, as in the case of Texas, upon the free and voluntary application of the people of that independent State, who desired to blend their destinies with our own.

Even our acquisitions from Mexico are no exception to this rule, because, although we might have claimed them by the right of conquest in a just war, yet we purchased them for what was then considered by both parties a full and ample equivalent.

Our past history forbids that we should acquire the island of Cuba without the consent of Spain, unless justified by the great law of self-preservation. We must, in any event, preserve our own conscious rectitude and our own self-respect.

Whilst pursuing this course we can afford to disregard the censures of the world, to which we have been so often and so unjustly exposed.

After we shall have offered Spain a price for Cuba far beyond its present value, and this shall have been refused, it will then be time to consider the question, does Cuba, in the possession of Spain, seriously endanger our internal peace and the existence of our cherished Union?

Should this question be answered in the affirmative, then, by every law, human and divine, we shall be justified in wresting it from Spain if we possess the power; and this upon the very same principle that would justify an individual in tearing down the burning house of his neighbor if there were no other means of preventing the flames from destroying his own home.

Under such circumstances we ought neither to count the cost nor regard the odds which Spain might enlist against us. We forbear to enter into the question, whether the present condition of the island would justify such a measure? We should, however, be

recreant to our duty, be unworthy of our gallant forefathers, and commit base treason against our posterity, should we permit Cuba to be Africanized and become a second St. Domingo, with all its attendant horrors to the white race, and suffer the flames to extend to our own neighboring shores, seriously to endanger or actually to consume the fair fabric of our Union.

We fear that the course and current of events are rapidly tending towards such a catastrophe. We, however, hope for the best, though we ought certainly to be prepared for the worst.

We also forbear to investigate the present condition of the questions at issue between the United States and Spain. A long series of injuries to our people have been committed in Cuba by Spanish officials and are unredressed. But recently a most flagrant outrage on the rights of American citizens and on the flag of the United States was perpetrated in the harbor of Havana under circumstances which, without immediate redress, would have justified a resort to measures of war in vindication of national honor. That outrage is not only unatoned, but the Spanish government has deliberately sanctioned the acts of its subordinates and assumed the responsibility attaching to them.

Nothing could more impressively teach us the danger to which those peaceful relations it has ever been the policy of the United States to cherish with foreign nations are constantly exposed than the circumstances of that case. Situated as Spain and the United States are, the latter have forborne to resort to extreme measures.

But this course cannot, with due regard to their own dignity as an independent nation, continue; and our recommendations, now submitted, are dictated by the firm belief that the cession of Cuba to the United States, with stipulations as beneficial to Spain as those suggested, is the only effective mode of settling all past differences and of securing the two countries against future collisions.

We have already witnessed the happy result for both countries which followed a similar arrangement in regard to Florida.

Yours, very respectfully,

HON. WM. L. MARCY, Secretary of State.

JAMES BUCHANAN.
J. Y. MASON.

PIERRE SOULÉ.

No. 90. Report of the House Committee on Affairs in Kansas

July 1, 1856

JANUARY 24, 1856, President Pierce sent to Congress a special message on the condition of affairs in Kansas. February 14 a memorial from Andrew H. Reeder was presented in the House, contesting the election of John W. Whitfield, who had taken his seat at the beginning of the session as delegate from Kansas Territory. On the 18th, copies of the territorial laws and executive papers of the governor were called for. On the 19th the Committee of Elections moved for leave to send for persons and papers in connection with the Kansas contested election. The resolution was recommitted, with instructions to the committee to report the reasons and grounds on which such authority was desired. The report of the committee was presented March 5, and 20,000 extra copies ordered to be printed. On the 17th, Dunn of Indiana moved the appointment of a select committee of three to investigate the troubles in Kansas. The motion was agreed to on the 19th, by a vote of 102 to 93, and Lewis D. Campbell of Ohio, William A. Howard of Michigan, and Mordecai Oliver of Missouri were named as the committee. Campbell was later excused, and John Sherman of Ohio was appointed in his place. The papers called for Feb. 18 were sent in March 24. The majority report of the select committee was submitted July 1, Oliver's minority report following on the 11th. July 24 the Committee of Elections reported in favor of Reeder, who on the 31st submitted a further statement in his own behalf. August I, by a vote of 110 to 92, Whitfield was unseated, and then, by a vote of 88 to 113, Reeder's claim was also rejected.

The reports submitted July 1 and 11, with the accompanying testimony, are very long. The extracts following give the summary statements of conclusions with which the majority and minority portions close.

-

REFERENCES. The report of the select committee is House Rep. 200, 34th Cong., Ist Sess; the extracts here given are on pp. 67 and 109. The proceedings and debates in the House may be followed in the Journal, and the Cong. Globe. The special message of Jan. 24 is in the Journal, and also House Exec. Doc. 28; the papers transmitted March 24 are in House Exec. Doc. 66. The report of the Committee of Elections March 5 is House Rep. 3; the report July 24 is House Rep. 275. Reeder's memorial submitted July 31 is House Misc. Doc. 3. On the Kansas struggle as a whole, see the annual messages of the Presidents, 1854-61, and accompanying documents. The papers of the territorial governors are in the Kansas Hist. Collections. portant general references are: Von Holst's United States, V., chaps. 2, 3, 5, 6, 8; VI., chaps. 2, 4, 5; Rhodes's United States, II., passim; Nicolay and Hay's Lincoln, II., chap. 6; Wilson's Slave Power, II., chaps. 35, 37, 40-42, 49; Greeley's Amer. Conflict, I., chap. 17; Johnston, in Lalor's Cyclopædia, II., 664-667; Sumner's Works (ed. 1880), IV., V., passim.

Im

Your committee report the following facts and conclu

sions as established by the testimony:

First. That each election in the Territory, held under the organic or alleged Territorial law, has been carried by organized invasion from the State of Missouri, by which the people of the Territory have been prevented from exercising the rights secured to them by the organic law.

Second. That the alleged Territorial legislature was an illegally constituted body, and had no power to pass valid laws, and their enactments are therefore null and void.

Third. That these alleged laws have not, as a general thing, been used to protect persons and property, and to punish wrong, but for unlawful purposes.

Fourth. That the election under which the sitting delegate, John W. Whitfield, holds his seat, was not held in pursuance of any valid law, and that it should be regarded only as the expression of the choice of those resident citizens who voted for him.

Fifth. That the election, under which the contesting delegate, Andrew H. Reeder, claims his seat, was not held in pursuance of law, and that it should be regarded only as the expression of the resident citizens who voted for him.

Sixth. That Andrew H. Reeder received a greater number of votes of resident citizens than John W. Whitfield, for delegate.

Seventh. That in the present condition of the Territory a fair election cannot be held without a new census, a stringent and well-guarded election law, the selection of impartial judges, and the presence of United States troops at every place of election.

Eighth. That the various elections held by the people of the Territory preliminary to the formation of the State government, have been as regular as the disturbed condition of the Territory would allow; and that the constitution passed by the convention, held in pursuance of said elections, embodies the will of a majority of the people.

As it is not the province of your committee to suggest remedies for the existing troubles in the Territory of Kansas, they content themselves with the foregoing statement of facts.

All of which is respectfully submitted.

WM. A. HOWARD.

JOHN SHERMAN.

MINORITY REPORT

. In conclusion, the undersigned begs to report the following facts and conclusions, as he believes, established by the testimony and sanctioned by the law:

First. That at the first election held in the Territory under the organic act, for delegate to Congress, Gen. John W. Whitfield received a plurality of the legal votes cast, and was duly elected such delegate, as stated in the majority report.

Second. That the Territorial legislature was a legally constituted body, and had power to pass valid laws, and their enactments are therefore valid.

Third. That these laws, when appealed to, have been used for the protection of life, liberty and property, and for the maintenance of law and order in the Territory.

Fourth. That the election under which the sitting delegate, John W. Whitfield, was held, was in pursuance of valid law, and should be regarded as a valid election.

Fifth. That as said Whitfield, at said election, received a large number of legal votes without opposition, he was duly elected as a delegate to this body, and is entitled to a seat on this floor as such.

Sixth. That the election under which the contesting delegate, Andrew H. Reeder, claims his seat, was not held under any law, but in contemptuous disregard of all law; and that it should only be regarded as the expression of a band of malcontents and revolutionists, and consequently should be wholly disregarded by the House.

Seventh. As to whether or not Andrew H. Reeder received a greater number of votes of resident citizens on the 9th, than J. W. Whitfield did on the 1st of October, 1855, no testimony was taken by the committee, so far as the undersigned knows, nor is it material to the issue.

All of which is respectfully submitted.

M. OLIVER.