The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1856-03-13
Thursday, March s, 1856.
SENATE.

Thursday, March 6, 1856.
SENATE.
Mr.. Douglas made an explanation in regard
to the report of the Committee on Territories
on Kansas affairs. 1t was not yet prepared.
When prepared, it would be read in open COM
mittee. There had been perfect freedom of
communication between himself and Mr.. Cola
mer, in regard to the facts of the report.
Mr.. Brown, of Mississippi, introduced a bill
for the construction of railroad to the Pacific.
The bill making appropriations for fortifca-
tions and defences, amounting to nearly three
millions of dollars, a sum estimated as amply
sufficient, was taken up, briefly discussed, and
passed.
Mr.. Sumner called up a resolution, previously
submitted by hil, in relation to the Sound
dues. He addressed the Senate at considerable
length, going into a constitutional argument to
prove that the President had transcribed his
powers in giving notice to Denmark that the
treaty was abrogated.
A long discussion ensued, in which Messrs
Mason Seward, Fessenden, Toucey, Cass, Col
lamer, Stuart, Crittenden, and others, particpa-
ted, when the resolution was modified at the
suggestion of Mr.. Mason, and accepted by Mr..
Sumner, by striking out the following "Such
legislation be not necessary forthwith, in order
to supply defect in the notice of the purpose
OF the United States to abrogate the said treaty,
which the President has undertaken to give
to Denmark without the authority of an act of
Congress, and in disregard of the function of
the House OF Representatives in the abrogation
of all existing laws" so that it would read, to
consider whether there be any defect in the no.
tce which has been given, which such legisla-
ton may be necessary to remedy" in which
shape it was adopted.
| And at a late hour the Senate adjourned to
Monday.
! The House passed the two appropriation
bills reported yesterday from the Committee of
| the Whole House.
| The Speaker stated that the regular order
of business was the consideration of the follow
ing resolution, reported yesterday from the
Committee of Elections
| Resolced, That the Committee of Elections,
in the contested election case from the Terrific
ry of Kansas, be and are hereby empowered to
send for persons and papers, and to examine
witnesses upon oath or affirmation.
Mr.. Boyce, of South Carolina, being entitled
to the floor, at the request of Mr.. Phelps, of
Missouri, moved to recommit the report of the
Committee of Elections on the subject under
consideration, with instructions.
Mr.. Boyce then proceeded to discuss the
question. 1t seemed to him that great deal
of irrelevant matter had been introduced into
the report of the majority. The specific sub
ject before the committee was as to the partic-
ular mode in which testimony should be taken
in reference to this contested election case but,
instead of strictly combining themselves to this
| point they had gone into a general recital of
all the events which had occurred in the Terri
tory of Kansas. The effect of this, although it
might not be the purpose of the committee,
was to still more infame the public mind upon
this agitating question. He should not avail
himself OF the example of the majority of the
committee, but should confne himself to the
question before them in its naked proportions.
1t seemed to him that the committee had en-
tirely overrated the difficulties in the way of
taking evidence in this case in the Territory of
Kansas. They had given undue confidence TO
rumor; and he had no idea that the taking of
testimony in that Territory would be attended
with the disastrous results that the majority
imagined.
He did not think that the reasons presented
by the majority for the adoption of the resola-
ton were sufficient to justify its adoption. If
the question was this or no other mode, there
might be some reason in the request of the
committee; but such was not the case. The
question was between the old-established mode
and the new and almost unprecedented one pro-
posed by the committee.
If the resolution should be adopted, the wit
nesses that would be brought here would be
willing witnesses-in the language of the law,
"swift witnesses" These were the men whom
they did not wish to hear. They desired to
take testimony Of men who we're in the Terri
tory, attending to their own businessmen who
had something else to do, besides running here
III crusade to give evidence. 1t would be I'M
wise to depart from the principles and mode of
| investigation pointed out in the law relating to
| contested elections.
He then replied to the objections which had
been urged against the validity Of the law un-
der which Mr.. Whitfield claimed his seat, main
tanning the right of that gentleman. He was
| glad that the report of the majority contained
| nothing which seemed to recommend that Gov
Reeder should have the seat This indicated
q sense of justice on the part of the majority,
| which he would be astonished to see wanting,
and showed that, however party feeling might
| intame the mird, yet there was a point at
which good men would pause. Gov. Reeder
had not been elected by virtue of any law, and
therefore was not entitled to the seat claimed
by him.
| Mr.. Bingham, of Ohio, supported the reso-
luton, declaring that he did so because he
would have the law viniicated, and would go
as far as any man in support and maintenance
| of its supremacy. The committee, in making
tL;s -aq-eS.y .AASely aasi-sa 10 elliott tho truth
| which could wrong no man. This was demand
| ed by the interests of the nation, and the sa-
credness of the law, which had been violated.
1t was not claimed, in the report of the mi
norlty, that the power asked by the committee
was not within the discretion of the House.
Inc only question, therefore, was whether such
case had been presented as would authorize
| sucn an investigation. 1t was apparent that
either Gen. Whitfield or Gov Reeder was here
| IN violation OF the public law of the Territory
The most credulous man in the House could
not believe that free and enlightened neonle
would so far forget themselves, and the law
under which they received their protection.
as to violate it so grossly and Aagrantly as to
hold two elections for Delegate in the Same
month. 1t could not be disputed that, at each
of these elections, the vote poled was equal to
the entire legal vote Of the Territory But
would any man believe that, after voting for
Gen. Whitfield, the legal voters went through
the farce of voting for Gov. Reeder? 1t must
be apparent that, in one or the other of these
elections, the organic law of the Territory had
been wantonly trampled upon and disregarded.
And, this being the case, it concerned the peo-
pie of the land to know it. The question was,
had the people of Kansas chosen Gen. Whit
field, or had they been conquered by An inva-
ding army, and was Gen. Whitfield here with
out the consent of the people, in violation of
the law, and by the act of lawless invaders
1t was for the purpose of deciding this ques-
ton, that the committee asked for power to
send for persons and papers.
I He proceeded to make out the probable
cause" in support of the request to send for
persons and papers, saying that the usurpers,
assuming to be the Legislature of Kansas had
violated the organic law of the Territory. He
severely criticised their acts in supnort of Sla