this constitution." But suppose there were frauds in relation to it: is it not something if I show you that, in regard to that part of the constitution which was submitted to the people to be ratified by them, and was nothing until the people had ratified it even according to the constitution itself, there was fraud in that election, -and abundance of fraud? So glaring, so impudent, and so fearless had fraud in elections become there, that upon that very poll list, in one of the precincts, (I forget whether it was in Oxford, or Shawnee, or that other precinct that emulates these in its character for fraud, Kickapoo,) you find that the President of the United States, Colonel Benton, and the gentleman from New York, (Mr. SEWARD,) were there, it seems, or fictitious votes were put in for them by somebody, and a long list of persons of that sort figure on the poll-book at these miserable precincts as actual voters. That was the vote on the constitution on December 21; that was on the -part submitted to the people. They were the constitution-making power there, and there I show you the frand.

What further frauds there were I know not; but this much is apparent and later developments sshow greater frauds still that in one single precinct, where there were only thirty or forty votes to be taken legitimately, there were over twelve hundred; and under the investigation lately made by commissioners in Kansas, that upon sworn testimony is stated to be the fact. In one precinet there were twelve -hundred fraudulent and fictitious votes out of twelve hundred and sixty; seven hundred in another, and over six hundred in another; making in the aggregate twenty-six hundred votes in three precincts, entirely fraudulent and fictitious, or to a great extent fictitious, written out by hundreds on the poll-book after the election was over, put on without scruple upon the poll-book, upon the election return, put down without scruple during the election, of those who were qualified and those who were not qualified; that is the way this constitution in part has received its sanction. 、!:དཱ་

But, sir, I think we should take a very partial view of this subject, one very unsatisfactory to our judgment, if we were to isolate these facts which have direct relation only to the formation of this constitution, and leave out all the surrounding circumstances. It seems to me that the proper and the just mode of regarding this constitution is to consider it as one of a series of acts, and see if we can find that the whole action and operation of all those acts were to lead to one general purposethat of maintaining by fraud and by falsehood the power and the government of the minority, and their offices to them against the will of the great majority of the voters. I say it is an act connected with all the other acts. The whole case is to be taken, and every part of it judged of in this connection.

Now, what was the first act? That is historical. We may all speak of it now, though we disputed it at the time. The first Legislature that was elected in Kansas under the organic act, was not elected by the people of Kansas. It was elected by persons who intruded into the polls, intruded themselves with arms in their hands, and seized upon the ballot-box, put in their own ballots, driving away the legitimate voters, and elected the members to the Legislature. That is the way the govern- ment of Kansas was inaugurated. There was an opposition to it from the first. -Those who had been driven from the polls, those who were opposed to the party that was installed in power by these means, conceived such indignation and such disgust that they proclaimed aloud, whether wisely or unwisely, they renounced obedience to this spurious government, as they called it. It is not material to me whether their complaints are well-founded and true, or not. I am endeavoring to -depict the course of things, to show their motives and the motives of the persons who were thus installed into the territorial government. They came to their power by violence; they came to their power by fraud. That was the complaint of the opposing party in Kansas. They renounced their rule, they renounced their laws, refused to commit themselves in any way to their support, refused -to go to any election afterwards. They said, "What is the use? This corrupt minority who have got into power, who have in their hands the means of controlling the election, who are not too good to do it, and who will do it, who have done it, will practice, the same means; we shall be again driven from the polls, or, if not, they, having the control of the elections, and of all the officers who conduct and manage them, will have what returns made they please. We will subject ourselves no more to the humiliation of attempting to execute a right w which we know will be frustrated and defeated by fraud, or by violence, or by force." Under these impressions, and with these feelings, which it is not my part here either to justify or rebuke, but simply to state the fact, they withdrew from the elections

lest, by voting according to the laws passed by this corrupt Legislature, they should -seem to acknowledge its authority and their allegiance to it.

ChNow, what would be the condition of the men who had been installed into power in this way! They were very glad of this. In all the elections to be held afterwards, this power of the minority, however small, would be continued; as their enemies would not come up to vote, they would be re-elected and would retain and perpetuate their power. So they went on the field abandoned by the majority, and the minority ruling everything in this way. Look at the evidences that are before you from these high officers lately returned from Kansas-Stanton and Walker. They tell you of fraud regularly perpetrated there; and, although they had thought before that people were acting factiously, that they were acting seditiously, that they were acting rebelliously in attempting to withdraw themselves from this government altogether and to act for themselves, and that their complaints of fraud and imposition upon them in elections were rather affected for the purpose of giving color to their conduct than otherwise, yet when they went among the people and heard them, and learned all about the dealings that had been practiced, they could not doubt their truth and their sincerity in the resentment which they felt and in the conduct which they pursued. However unwise, it was sincere on their part. They had been defrauded; they had wrongs enough to sting and humiliate them. This is what these officers say. I know nothing about it; we know nothing about it, except on the testimony. That these persons were capable of committing fraud, we know. They began in fraud. Has any gentleman here denied, is there any gentleman who discredits, the history which we all have of the frauds practiced in the first election that was held in Kansas? However we might doubt this, however we might have disagreed, however we might have believed or disbelieved heretofore, have not every mist and doubt been cleared away from around this fact, and is there one here now to say that the right of election was not trodden down in the first election for a Territorial Legislature in Kansas, and that a minority government was not elected? That they have continued that government by fraud since, is shown at every step of their progress.

It was in the midst of this self-suspension of the right of suffrage on the part of their opponents, that they called the convention by which this constitution was made. Look at the constitution itself. On its own face, does it not contain the amplest preparation for fraud, visible and apparent! Look at the external evidence marked on its face. They pass by all the sworn officials of the territorial government who had before conducted elections. They authorized, by the schedule to the constitution, President Calhoun to take this whole matter into his hands, to appoint the officers to conduct the elections, giving him control over that official body, and the appointment of them all; and the returns were not to be made to any permanent officer of the government, not to the Governor, but to this same Mr. Calhoun. He was to appoint the officers to conduct the election, receive the returns, count the ballots, and declare the result. Well, Mr. Calhoun has performed all this business! Another thing every human being, in respect to that part of the constitution which was submitted to the people, before he could vote for or against it, was required to swear that he would support that constitution when it was adopted. In that constitution, those who framed it well knew were provisions intolerable to all the free-State men in the Territory, and they would not swear to support it. They so believed and hoped and expected. This was under the show of a fair election. Not only have they secured all the advantages resulting from the appointment of the officers to conduct it, but, to leave their consciences more easy, these officers were not even sworn. There was no provision for that. But every man voting for the constitution, or that part of it submitted to him to vote upon, was required to be sworn beforehand that he would support that constitution. This, it was supposed, if nothing else, would keep off the free-State men.

It is said, in this testimony, that Governor Walker, from the time he went there, had been diligently persuading all the people of the Territory to throw aside this inaction of theirs, come into the elections, and participate in the Government. For this, Mr. Stanton says, Governor Walker became the object of utter hostility to Mr. Calhoun's party. They did not want conciliation. They demanded, as the same witness says, repression. They wanted penalty, not persuasion. They did not know what the result of this persuasion might be in the elections afterwards to take place on the constitution. It was necessary, therefore, to make provision against the possible effect of these persuasions and arguments of Governor Walker; it was, therefore, necessary to put in, though nobody opposed them, six thousand votes for the constitution, they believing that that was a majority of the greatest number of votes ever given on any

occasion in the Territory, and so it is stated here. They just went beyond the line; and for fear of rendering it more monstrous, and the fraud more visible, they went just so far as the necessity demanded the fraud. They did not choose to use it superfluously. They rather husbanded it, to be used as the occasion might require, and no more than was required. I cannot shut my eyes to this fact. These preparations, then, in the schedule of the constitution, were made in anticipation of the vague dangers that were apprehended. It was greatly important to carry through this constitution, greatly important to preserve their authority under the constitution. There were two Senators of the United States to be elected. All the officers of the State government were to be constituted. These were to be the reward of those who had labored.

These seem to me to be preparations made for fraud; and when I come to compare them with the action which took place afterwards, the design and the act, the purpose and fulfilment of it, make the proof perfect. The means of doing it, the means of facilitating it, are given in the constitution. The actual perpetration of it afterwards at the polls is seen. It is seen in the election upon the constitution. It is seen in the election of the 4th of January, for officers under the new constitution. There is where these frauds, lately developed, were practiced to such an enormous extent. There is where these little precincts distinguished themselves.

Another fact may be noticed, that this convention to make a constitution were to meet, by law, in September, and go to their work. They met then. Did they go to work? No. Why did they not? There was an election of the Territorial Legisla ture to take place in the October following. They wanted to know the result of that election; to know how the land lay; whether all was safe or not; whether any point was necessary to be guarded in the constitution; whether there were any unexpected majorities rising up; whether there were any obstructions in the way of ordinary frauds. They wanted to see what was the character of the new Legisla ture, that they might meet the emergency and meet the exigency with any constitutional provision that might be necessary to perpetuate their power. They adjourned. The Legislature was elected; and that Legislature turned out, notwithstanding all the frauds that were practiced, to be against them. What then? The Legislature being against them, now what is the provision in the schedule? The officers of election, and other officers of the Government, were, many of them, appointed by the Territorial Legislature. They said: "Now, here has come in, in October, a Legislature opposed to us. What so likely but that they who have complained of frauds from Governments officials, will now change the officers and change the mode of election?" What then? They declare in the schedule that all who are in office now shall hold their offices; that all the laws in existence now shall continue in existence until repealed by a Legislature which shall meet under the State organization under the constitution. That silences completely the Territorial Legislature, paralyzes the power of the Territorial Legislature. That was certainly against them; and to take the chances of a future election under that constitution, that future election was to take place, by the same schedule, on the 4th of January, and then they were to make another death-struggle for supremacy; and then they did. I have seen the report of the commissioners lately appointed by the Territorial Legislature of Kansas to investigate the frauds. There this Government party did make efforts more than worthy of all their former practices in fraud, in order to secure the Legislature, which, under the constitution, would make Senators of the United States. It was here that Oxford, that Shawnee, that Kickapoo, distinguished themselves in the multiplicity of votes, feigned and fraudulent.

And when you see such things as these in the constitution, when you see such things as these all around the constitution, when you see the same men who made the constitution rulers in the land during the whole time, do you not see that the frauds have been everywhere, that the imposition upon the people has been everywhere? And how can you exempt from the contagion (if there was nothing more than this general association from which to infer it) this constitution and those who made it? Judging from the positive internal evidence that exists in it, and the facts that surround it, I cannot. I believe it violates the right of the people to govern themselves, to impose it upon them. I believe this constitution is the work of fraud-fraud upon the rights of the people.

I do not undertake to defend this people for their conduct. It is not my part nor my province. I should agree, perhaps, with the President, that much of their conduct had been of a disreputable, disorderly, and seditious character. It may be that it deserves the epithet of "rebellion," which the President applies to it. I have nothing to do with that. I am not the advocate. I have disapproved of their con

duct in many instances. There were many bad men among them, as I believe, but for that the law assigns its proper punishment. The majority of the people have their political rights, that remain, notwithstanding their legal offences. It is in that point of view, it is in their political character as the people of a Territory, that I look at them in respect to this subject. Whether they be more or less vile on one side or the other, is not the question. I fear that neither party could take the chair of impartiality and justice, and be shameless enough to attempt to administer rebuke or justice to the other.

One great objection to their admission at all is that they have not shown, by their conduct on any side, that they are altogether fit for association with the States of this Union. A little more apprenticeship, a little more practice of honest and fair dealing, a little more spirit of submission and subordination to law and authority, would be well learned by them, and fit them and qualify them much better for citi zens of the United States. That is my opinion. I have, however, spoken of their political rights as men, and it is not for me to sit in judgment to condemn and deprive them of the right of suffrage on one side or the other, because of frauds committed by one, or violence practiced by another. This is a political question. It is said, however, that the series of legalities and technicalities, to which I have alluded, of a regular election, of a regular convention, of a submission to the people, and of votes of the people upon all these questions, have been regular; and what then? All the people had a right to vote, and those who did not vote forfeited their right to complain; and we are not to inquire whether there were any people who did not vote, or whether those who did vote voted fairly, and were entitled to vote It is said we are precluded by the forms in which this transaction is enveloped; that the formal election, the formal certificate of election, the formal constitution certified-these formalities are enough for us, and that we are not permitted to look further; that we ought not to look further. Sir, I do not think so. We are applied to now to admit. a new State into the Union. The instrument which she presents as her constitution is opposed by the people from the same Territory. They say, "this is not our constitution; it is against our will; it is not only against our will, but it has been imposed upon us by devices and fraud. It is void for fraud. If it is not void for fraud, for that is rather a legal than a political term, we present these frauds and this opposition as a reason why you should not admit our Territory into the Union under this constitution."

or not.

That is the state of the question before you. The complainants admit all the regularities just as the President states them. Perhaps they admit the effect these forms would ordinarily have, but they urge other facts in opposition to the apparent evidence of the constitution itself, as I have before adverted to. A majority of the people have protested against it. The present Legislature, by its inquiries, have developed the vast frauds which were practiced in the convention concerning and relating to all around this constitution. They say, "do not accept that; do not admit us under it; send it back; let it be submitted to a fair vote of the people." Sir, upon such a complaint as this, are we not bound, in justice to that people, to examine the whole case? Can any Senator turn away and refuse to look at the testimony that is offered? Can he be justified in so doing by naked legal presumptions from naked regularities or irregularities!

Do not suppose that I would disparage all these conclusions and presumptions from a formal regular manner of doing business. In many cases, and to many of the transactions of society, especially to your courts of justice, they are necessary, and they subserve the purposes of justice. They were not made to sacrifice justice, but to uphold it and maintain it and protect it as an armor. That is the proper business of forms-not to crush down justice, but to promote it. We are not now sitting here governed by any technicalities. This is a grand national political tribunal, to judge according to our sense of policy and our sense of justice. That is our high province-not to be controlled by presumptions of law when we can have the naked truth. It is the truth that ought to guide; and for that we ought to look wherever we can find it; and where you find the truth on one side, and the fiction on the other, which is to be followed, the truth or the fiction? I take the fact; take the truth; let the fiction return to those tribunals which are by law made subject to it. This is a question above that sort of argument. It is inquirable into. Else how can we judge that it is their constitution? It is the first time, I believe, that such a question has ever come up in the Senate of the United States. In all former applications for admission, there has been one thing about which there has been no question; and that was, the willingness to be admitted, and the constitution under which they desired to be admitted. There has been no question about the

I

authenticity of a constitution, or about its expressing the true will of the people before this, that I know of. I am satisfied there has been none; but now that there is, we must inquire into the authenticity of the instrument offered to us; we must inquire whether it is better, on full consideration, to admit this instrument and the State with it or not; and, in the exercise of that judgment, we are bound to look Tabroad for the truth wherever we can find it. I think, therefore, these matters are all fairly subject to our consideration.

Mr. President, convinced as I am from these imperfect views of the evidence in the case, that this instrument is not really the constitution of the people of Kansas, or desired by them to be accepted by you in their admission into the Union; believing that it is not their constitution; and believing, moreover, as I verily do, that it is made in fraud and for a fraud; believing that these matters are inquirable into by us, and that the inquiry has led us to abundant light on this subject, I cannot, I will not vote for it. Viewing it as I do, with the opinions I entertain, I could not consent to her admission without violating my sense of right and justice; and I would submit to any consequence before I would do that.

Now, sir, what considerations are there, apart from these which I have stated, which could lead me to give, or could compensate me for giving, a vote against my sense of what was right and just? What advantage to our whole country, or to any portion of it is to result from taking Kansas into the Union now with this constitution? Is anything to be gained? Is the South or the North to gain anything by it! I see nothing to be gained by it. I think there is not a gentleman here who -believes that Kansas will be a slave State. Before this territorial government was made, many of the leading men of the South here argued that Kansas and Nebraska I never could be slave States. By the law of climate and geography, it was said they could not. So said my friend from Georgia, (Mr. TooMBS,) and so said Mr. STEPHENS. Mr. TOOMBS. Never.

"

The

Mr. CRITTENDEN. Mr. KEITT and Mr. Brooks, of South Carolina, said so. opinion was expressed by numerous southern gentlemen that Kansas could never be a slave State. It was for the principle that they contended; and the principle, the abstract principle, was a just one.

Mr. HAMMOND. With the permission of the Senator, I will ask him, "Did I understand him to say that Mr. KEITT had declared Kansas never would be a slave State?"

- Mr. CRITTENDEN. Yes, sir; so it is reported. Mr. HUNTER, of Virginia, said: "Does any man believe that you will have a slaveholding State in Kansas or Nebraska?"

Governor BROWN, of Mississippi, said:

"That slavery would never find a resting place in those Territories."

1 Mr. DOUGLAS said:

"I do not believe there is a man in Congress who thinks it could be permanently a slaveholding country."

Mr. Badger, of North Carolina, said:

"I have no more idea of seeing a slave population in either of them than I have of seeing it in Massachusetts."

Mr. MILLSON, of Virginia, said:

"No one expects it. No one dreams that slavery will be established there."

Mr. Frederick P. Stanton, of Tennessee, said:

"The fears of northern gentlemen are wholly unfounded. Slavery will not be established in Kansas and Nebraska."

The late Mr. Brooks, of South Carolina, said in his speech of the 15th of March, 1854:

"If the natural laws of climate and of soil exclude us from a territory of which we are the joint owners, we shall not and we will not complain."