The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1856-11-29

A REVIEW OF rHs MAJORITY REPORT q OF y'' N

Now that the din OF the political contest has ceased an
reason and truth have resumed their mild dominion i
me call your attention. and, through YOU that Of n.
public, to what may be received an appeal N
Judgment and the right rather than to partisan bias A,
prejudice have lately had occasion to take up the =
port Of the Kansas investigating committee and in com
parison Of the statements Of the majority with the evd
upon which they are supposed to be based have d
covered SO many inaccuracies, misrepresentation MI
statements contradictions, and distortions Of the sworn
facts and frequent spprsssioHss Vsri and sggsSioa t
that think il duty TO call candid consideration
what have TO allege against the yeritabeness OF that n
port SO many have neither the time the opportunity
fully investigate the subject for themselves and would G
be compelled TO accept the statements of the COMMITTEE
Just exposition OF the evidence taken by them that
due to them and the vndicaton of truth that they sOo
be shown what blind guide they are following
In what follows il will be perceived have especial ALA
sion 20 the election of March 30h 1885, at which the men
bers OF the first territorial legislature chosen and
the main point OF interest ia the reports and the par
lar subject which the committee delegated TO cousd
OF course cannot refer TO all the instances of conflict
tween the testimony and the report it would swell AL
limits of this article beyond any claim can reasonSb,
make upon your columns have therefore confined mys
to the most marked instances of violation Of the facts N
proven.
must premise that the Territory was subdivided p
ence TO population into council and representative distr
making of the former and fourteen of the latter Tn
districts referred to in the report and which have
course followed, election districts.
With reference tho second district the committee AN
l4") the Missourians began to in early in NJ
morning." and " were armed with donble-barreled guns
rifles &c" The crowd demanded that the judges shou
resign and upon their refusing to do So smashed in M
window sash and ALL and presented their pistols and
hat
they refer several witnesses, who certainly "swear lid
rubn but they make auson TO the conflicting evidence
l9o ll66, and 1852 The testimony (ll66) of Mr. Pan
Ellison who of the judges appointed by Governs
Reeder is in these words: When into the house
fifteen or twenty guns standing in cornell
which had been brought there by the freeState men w
the adjournment took place. the guns taken away
the freeState mem these all the guns saw on J
ground; did not gun in the hands of prosaved
man that day; there was charge made with eithg
guns pistols other weapons at the window nor wen
there any threats of violence made by the prosavery
there violence committed by the pro-slavery m
there that day the judges, there any threats
violence offered, saw" Now suggest the inquiry ID
every candid mind Is it just TO fact as prov
beyond question when there is conflict Of testimony sue
this 2 Is it honest to withhold the acknowledges
that there is such conflict if the committee did I'd
eve the testimony unworthy of credt2 The public hav
right to demand of these, their servants statement
the testimony which they delegated alone to colls
and not a partisan and one-sided exhibit fit
They also say 6) the testimony is uniform that nod
thirty who voted entitled TO vote" which un
ormty consists in the fact that 7o) expresses all
opinion upon the NATTER and his judgment was based no
upon knowledge of the bona Gds settlers the time d
the election but by comparing he list of voters with ibid
returns made two months BEFORE and thus utte
disregarding any increase of population in the interim
ave 1.-THE commee satisfied from he testimony thai,
had the actual settlers alone voted the reeStae canda
would have been elected by handsome majority Nov
may SEEM not single witness expresses
such opinion, gives particle of data by which
to justify another in arriving at any such conclusion
while on the other hand, several GEO, 1I65 l69 liza
ll75 ll76) and one ll7o) the person who took the c
sus, state that the pro-savery party had majority of ID
actual residents permit the honorable-minded reader
make his comments upon so startling an exposure
As TO the third district they say ls) "a large majority
four to one of the actual settlers freeStae men
and refer to III. B. Burgess" 92) who does not SO much
suggest opinion the relative number of the par
ties and while four do that the freeStae men h
majority four others (2l4 ll7s, $780, 1882 state q
the contrary and the committee satisfied u.s. ahl
there be the least doubt that if none but the acuL
settlers had voted the freeState ticket could have been
elected"
In the fourth district they tell ls) that "beforc
time for opening the polls the Missourians went to ano
than the house appointed for the election and there
the polls which statement IL is expressed in the rep
whether intended not leave others to Judge
calculated to leave the impression that this removal
made for some unworthy purpose while the facts as
fed, (222, 223 224,) are that the owner OF the b
designated for the polls absent some OF his famr
then In the house, unwel, and that his wife therefore
asked "as favor" that they would hold the polls 4
vOtIa Aba 81 An II. Al
place originally fixed and easy of access and that I'd
change made account of her request They alO
assert that the feeState party had "a decided majority
the actual settlers" s and refer TO three witnesses IA
of whom (2l7, 2l9O express opinion upon the subject
and the third (22O) witness (223) he would nOi
believe upon OATH yet upon this discredied witness
serton unsupported by any other they assert thai j
MissouriRns said that but pro-savery men shou
vote, and threatened 10 shoot any free-Sate Wh
would up 10 vote" though II was testified by hrs
others 22l 223 224) that there were no threats ma
and by one (223) judge Of the election that be third
tunes invited the freeState men to forward and
As to the relative strength of the parties on the OOua
side there two witnesses 22l 223) who state thI
the pro-slavery party had the majority.
As to the sixth district they down as pro-sayot
III, 81 j yet at the same time that they say they an
satisfied that OF the legal votes cast the pro sape an
ddatss had majority" they put down 32) one represer
alive elected by illegal rotes.
In the seventh district they state (2l) anearly all
settlers were freoState men, while by the most Care
examination Of the testimony do not discover that
gle witness says anything abouit while one Of the udg
(26l) says, AS Judge Of election am willing nov 4
that allowed no man to vote that we did not
slider had right to vote and the returns show that "A
overwhelming majority Of the votes cast were for the poi
slavery candidates.
As to the eleventh district no testimony whatever VA