The Kansas herald of freedom., 1855-10-27


changed or repealed in a regular and
legal way. Is there anything wrong in
this opinion? DO you seriously believe
that the Legislature was an illegal body,
having no power to enact laws? Such
is the ground | know some have taken,
and have been severely eensured in
certain quarters for holding that the acts
of the Legislature, within the scope OF
their authority, were binding.
The Legislature had been recognized
as legal both by my predecessor and the
judiciary department. Would any enc
claim that / should have disreearded
both, and held the Legisla ure as i!iegaH
This body had been convened by my
predecessor at Pawnee City. No cue
doubted his power to convene them at
that place. They organized as Legis-
lative body, and the Governor addressed
them an annual message, inviting their
consideration to various subjects of legis-
ation; thus clearly recognizing them as
a legal Legislative body at Pawnee City.
The Legislature adjourned to this point
the Shawnee Mission-and although
this law was vetoed by the Governor, it
was carried in both branches by almost,
if not quite, a unanimous vote. And so
far as form, at least, is concerned, is bind
ing. The right to adjourn was ques-
toned by the Governor; and to remove
all doubt on this subject, the Legislature
called, by resolution | believe, on the
Judges of the Supreme Court of the
Territory, for their legal opinion as to
their right to adjourn. Judges Leeompte
and Elmore. of the Supreme Court
both gentlemen of distinguished legal
ability-gave an able opinion, sustaining
the right of the Legislature TO adjourn
their session from Pawnee City TO the
Shawnee Mission, and determining that
they were legal Legislative body set
ting at the place, and that consequently
their acts passed in conformity with their
legislative powers, were obligatory and
binding. Now is it possible that any
man in or out Of Kansas would have JUS
titled me in disregarding the acts of my
predecessor, in disregarding the decis-
ion of the Judges of the Supreme Court,
in disregarding the opinion of the whole
Legislative body, and in setting aside and
holding as null and void all the acts pass
ed by that body? There is not despot
in Europe that could have exercised such
an enormous stretch of power with i'm
punity. had to treat the Legislature
either as legal or an illegal body; to
have treated them as an illegal body
would have been. as l have shown-un-
der the cirermstanees-an act wholly
unauthorized, and criminal attempt
for it could have amounted to nothing
more-to subvert the very Government it
was my duty TO support. 1t was, then.
my duty to recognize the Legislature as
a legal body. The moment that this is
conceded to be the duty of the officers
and citizens is plain: 1t is to obey the
law prescribed by the law making pow
er, until it is changed in that mode known
to our institutions.
But tits said that there were illegal votes
cast at the election of the members. 1t
is very probable this is true. Few cleo
tons take place any where without some
illegal votes being cast. But this is not
a matter that can be enquired into by
an Executive officer after members have |
received their certificates of election,
been sworn in and served out their term
of office. Could the President of the |
United States pronounce the acts of Con-
gress void, and refuse to carry them into
effect, because illegal votes had been cast
for various members of the body that
enacted them? The idea is simply alb
surd. But what right had 1 to enquire |
whether Illegal votes had been cast or
not? My predecessor, who had the whole
subject before him, and the means of
knowing the truth, and to whose super
vision the whole subject had been contid-
ed by the organic law, and under the sol
emn sanction of his official oath, and
| under the broad seal of the Territory,
granted his certificate to each member
elect, certifying that he had been duly
elected. 1t is surely no compliment to
my predecessor to say these certificates
are false and wholly untrue.
| The fact that after the Legislature be-
came organized the seats of two of the
Senate or Council, and probably some
six of the House of Representatives were
contested, and that the contesting mem
bers were admitted to their seats, does
not change the case. There is not be-
lieve. a Legislative body in the United
States but what claims, and is in the dali
ly habit of exercising, the right to Judge
of the election and qualification of its
own members. The Council and House,
then, did nothing more than exercise a
right claimed and exercised by all legis-
latiye bodies, Indeed the friends of
Governor Reeder land l believe you are
one of them, predicate his claims to a
seat as Delegate to Congress on the ex-
ereise of this very power. In the very
nature of things, all legislative bodies
must have and exercise this power. 1t
is presumed they will always exercise it
directly and in proper eases: but sup
pose they should not, will the absurd
proposition be maintained that an abuse
of this power renders void all their acts
Suppose the House of Representatives of
the United States should, in the exercise
of this power exclude, improperly, iii
you please, the whole delegation of
State, who produced their certificates of
election, and admit contesting delega-
ton, would any one claim that this
would render void all the acts passed by
that Congress, and that the President
would have the right. and that it would
be his duty to nullify them, and treat
them as having no binding force? No
one would claim the correctness of |
proposition so absurd. Yet what is the
difference between the case put, and the |
supposed one under consideration so far
as the question of the legality and bind
ing force of laws are concerned; none
certainly that viii initiate against the |
obligation of the acts of the Kansas
Legislature. 1t IS proper that l should
say that entirely concur in the opinion |
taYDreSSal hv the S.,Dran,a Ca,,-t