The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1856-07-31
oLIvER's REPORT.

oLIvER's REPORT.
Mr. Oliver, of Missouri, comes to the follow
ing conclusions, in his minority report, as one
of the Kansas Investigating Committee
ain conclusion, the undersigned begs to re-
port 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 maj ority
report
Second That the Territorial Legislature icds
legallyconstituted body, and had poacer to
pass palid lars, and their enactnsents are there
fore raid.
I" Third. That these laws when appealed to,
have been used for the protection of life, lib
erty, 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 a valid election.
Fifth. That said Whitfield, at said cleo.
Without SpeddsisJlaar 9s Re RHgbsE Of LEGAL aes
Delegate to this body, and as entitled to a seat
on his floor sach.
.Sirh. That the election under which the
contesting Delegate, Andrew ii. Reeder, claims
his seat, was not held under any law, but in
contemptuous disregard of all law f; and that
it should only be regarded as the expression of
band of malcontents and revolutionists, and
consequently should be wholly disregarded by
the House.
/" Ssreath. As to whether or not Andrew ii.
Reeder received greater number of votes OF
resident citizens on the 9th than J. w. Whit
field did on the LIST of October, 1855, no test
mony was taken by the Committee, SO far as
the undersigned knows, nor is it material to
the issue.
An Of which is respectfully submitted.
an. OLIVER"
Mr.. Oliver resides on the borders of Kansas
his constituents, though not all, are the very
" Border Rutians" themselves; and it was
proven before the Committee, that Mr.. Oliver
Representative in Congress then, as he is
now, was at the election at Hays's, in the Fif
teenth district, made a speech, and urged OF
defended the right of his Missouri constitu
ents to vote. Messrs. Howard and Sherman
the majority of the Committee, refer in their
report to this matter as follows:
"Fifteenth DiSfrict.-The election in this
district was held in the house of Mr. Hays
On the day of election, a crowd of from 400 to
500 men collected around the polls, of which
the great body were citizens of Missouri One
of the judges of election, in his testimony,
states that the strangers commenced crowding
around the polls, and then the residents left.
Threats were made, before and during the cleo
ton day, that here should be no Free State
candidates, although there were nearly or quite
as many Free State as Pro-Slavery men resi-
dent in the district. Most of the crowd were
drinking and carousing cursing the Abolition.
lists, and threatening the only Free State Judge
of election. A majority of those who voted
wore hemp in their button holes, and their
password was all right on the hemp!' Many
Of the Missourians were known and named by
the witness. Several speeches were made by
them at the polls, and amongst those who spoke
were Major Oliver, one of our Committee, Col
Burns, and Lalan Williams, of Platte county.
Major Oliver urged upon all present to use no
harsh words, and expressed the hope that moth
ing would be said or done to harm the feelings
of the most sensitive on the other side. He
gave some grounds, based on the Missouri Com
promise, in regard to the right of voting. and
was understood to excuse the Missourians for
voting. Your Committee are satisfied that he
did not VOTE"
These amiable gentlemen exonerate their
colleague from the imputation of so gross a
violation of law as that of voting in the Terri
tory would amount to; but is he whit less cul-
psble for retaining from what he urged others
to do? We think not. We think it would
have been more manly to have set them the
example.
Of course, it could not be expected that Mr..
Oliver, thus circumstanced, representative
of the Missouri borderers, and an alder and
abettor in their invasions of Kansas, could
come to different conclusions. We think there
was manifest IMPROPERLY, want of delicacy,
exhibited, in his taking the Office of Commits
sioner, to investigate matter in which his
constituents and himself were the very parties
implicated. But he was not a mere passive
recipient of the Office. He sought it earnestly,
and the whole South backed bis application,
SO that Mr.. Banks, who in spirit of magma.
nimity which has never characterized the Pro-
Slavery party, yielded to their urgent solicita-
tons. We think he acted Enwisely. The mi
nority member should have been one of the
shlest and most upright members from the
South, friend Of the Administration but he
should not have been from Missouri. He
should have been free from any merely per-
sonal bias. A minority report from such q
man would have commanded far more attention
than one from pa,ticeps criminis, a. Mr..
Oliver is, to cay nothing of the undue influence