The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1856-07-17

Topeka Constitution had reached the Senate
certainly, before it had reached me. To avoid
all question on the subject of boundaries, l
adopted those which were assigned In the bill
which had been reported by the Committee on
Territories.
Again, the learned committee express a
doubt in their report whether my bill is framed
so as to admit the State of Kansas under the
Topeka Constitution. have only to say, In
reply, that the bill proposes that the State OF
Kansas shall he admitted Immediately. The
State OF Kansas certainly has no other Constl-
tuition than the Topeka one; and the bill, IN
form, Is, mutGtis mutdndis, Identical with the
law under which California was admitted into
the Union, and now holds her place In the
Confederacy. These, sir, are unimportant mat
ters-matters of mere detail, unworthy to dwell
upon at this hour of the night, and at this Pc
Rod in the session of Congress.
object to the new bill of the Committee on
Territories, for weightier reasons than any OF
mere criticism on details. / confess, frankly,
that / regard it as a bill of concession, il not
of compromise. Certainly it goes too far In
its concessions to the friends of Freedom In
Kansas, to be identical with the bill which IT
has supplanted in the affections OF the Com
mittee on Territories. 1t permits the people OF
Kansas to come into the Union with such pop
ulation as they may have on the 4th of July
next, instead of obliging them to wait until
they shall have a population of ninety-three
thousand four hundred and twenty souls. 1t
seems at least also to waive the previous prop
osition of the Committee on Territories, of an
appropriation for extraordinary expense to
maintain peace and order, in subsection to the
usurping authorities in Kansas. But, while the
bill gees so far, object against it, that it stops
short of remedy which would restore peace,
safety, and freedom, in Kansas.
l am not bound, by any previous committals,
to accept any bill which stops short of those
objects.
First, however, l inquire what substantial
objection lies against my own bill? There is
only one which is now seriously insisted upon,
which is, that the formation and adoption of
the Topeka Constitution were the acts, not of
the whole people, but of one political party-a
portion of the people Of Kansas only. The
honorable Senator from Georgia says that the
Constitution received only seven hundred votes
1t is true that the Free State party instituted
proceedings to call Convention to decide
whether it was expedient to establish a pro-
visional State, and also the proceedings to call
a Convention to frame the Constitution. But
they invited all parties, and all the citizens of
Kansas to participate in the decision of every
question which was thus brought under discus
sion and they provided that the proceedings
should stand or fall, according to the will of
the people of Kansas, expressed through the
ballotboxes in the customary way. BY ma Ori-
ties, thus formally ascertained, the Convention
was called and held, and the Constitution was
and promulgated. Who else should
have called the Convention, or instituted pro-
ceedings towards the adoption of the Constitu-
ton? Not Congress, for Congress had been
silent on the subject in the organic law! Not
the President nor the Government, for neither
had power. Not the Territorial Legislature
that was the authority which was to be sub.
verified by substituting for it a Federal State.
Not those who upheld that Legislature, be-
cause they we're content. 1t is the party which
needs and desires improvement or innovation, in
every State, that initiates the proceedings by
which it is to be effected. 1t was unfortunate
that the election for the adoption of the Con-
stitution occurred only two days after new
foray of the Missourians in the Territory had
terrified and alarmed the people, and rendered
it unsafe for the citizens of Kansas to attend
the polls, in all the districts throughout the
Territory.
This misfortune, however, resulted from no
fault of the Convention, or of the majority who
adopted the Constitution. The misfortune it.
self lends strength to the application for the
admission of the State. And there can be no
mistake in assuming that the Convention was
by a majority of the People, since
we find, by the report of the committee of the
House of Representatives, that elections were
held in seventeen districts, which gave for the
Constitution seventeen hundred and thirty one
votes, and only forty-six votes against it; while
in the town of Leavenworth its opponents de-
stroyed the ballot boxes, which were known to
contain about FIVE hundred additional afiirma-
tive votes, with only thirty-eight adverse votes.
Sir, the State of California was admitted into
this Union, upon proceedings no more legiti-
mate, no more regular, no more warranted by
any preexisting laws, than these.
Mr.. WELLER. Will the honorable Senator
allow me to correct him
Mr.. SEWARD. Certainly.
Mr.. WELLER. think the honorable Sena-
tor does great mi ustice to the State l have the
honor to represept here. There was military
in California and by virtue of
that Office he exercised civil Jurisdiction, and
was a civil as well as military Governor. 1t
was lr4er his proclamation that Convention
was called, ana the Constitution adopted. Now,
in this case, should like to see the Senator
argue the question here, that the Convention
was held, not only without authority of law,
that Territory. The point of differ
enee IL thisi 80 far as the Federal Goyesnnsnt
left power In the commander in California: the
Convention there was held in pursuance Of the
ordinance of that officer. There was no law
scribing the conditions upon wnio,,i thew should
form Constitution, and ask for admission into
the Union. In the absence Of any legislation
on the part of Congress- the people assembled
under the call of the military and civil Gov
ernor, and proceeded to organize State Gov.
eminent, and applied for admission into the
Union. But, es to Kansas, there has been
law passed by Congress, prescrbing the terms
on which they shall form State Constitution.
Their Convention was in direct violation of the
fundamental law, and now they ask for admis-
sion into tae Union. hope the Senator from
New York will see that there is a great deal of
difference between the way in which California
came into the Union, and the way in which he
proposes to admit Kansas.
Mr.. SEWARD. The honorable Senator Is
very kind and very fair in his statement, and
will endeavor to meet the objection he presents.
If he had been here, as he was not, l believe,
during the debate on the admission of California,
he would have learned that it was as serious
and grave an objection to the mode in which
the California Convention was called, that 1t was
called by military authority, without any sane
ti9n to Congress whatever, as it is now against
Kansas, that ner Convention was called without
the authority Of an act of Congress, or in viola
ton or it. The military Governor of California
was Governor appointed in time of war Cal.
ifornia was conquered, and it remained in the
hands of a Governor who was appointed by the
President, without any warrant of law whatever,
or of the Constitution.
Mr.. WELLER. We head California by a
treaty, and not by conquest.
Mr.. SEWARD. We held it by both. At all
events, my statement was, that there was no pre-
vious authority of Congress. The military Gov