The Kansas herald of freedom., 1856-04-12

and may well raise objection to the claims
of the sitting Delegate and, secondly,
that if it were otherwise, the House can,
upon the motion Of any member, make
the investigation. The Constitution
says. Each House shall be Judge of the
elections, returns, and qualifications of
its own members > and what it may do
in one of the Specifications, it may do in
/ all. There is no restriction, and no rea-
son for any. Mark how careful and pre-
else, how full and comprehensive is the
language! it seems to have been prepar-
ed to prevent all question and cayil
The House may judge of the quoiyfca-
tions J; that is, as to the age, residence,
and citizenship of the claimant. 1t may
also judge of the returns-the eertifi-
Gates or other evidences which he pro-
duces; and it may go further and be-
yond the returns, although they appear
to be in form and correct, and look into
the election itself, and see if that was all
right-if it was made at the proper time
and places, and by the proper parties,
and if not, may set it aside. 1t may
look into every fact upon which the elec-
ton depends-into tie laws regulating
the election and, of course. may in
quire whether there were any laws bind
ing upon the House or upon the people
whose rights are in controversy. Now,
all this is so plain that argument cannot
help it. The memorialist denies thai
there Was Legislature in Kansas. The
minority insist that, whether this be true
or not, the House cannot inquire. The
question is one of fact merely, and like
all questions of fact, must be settled by
proof: and, from the nature of the case,
the only evidence that can be had is that
of Witnesses to what has transplred. Ii
the body of men who assumed to be a
Legislature were not elected by the in
! habitants of Kansas, but by the people
of Missouri, who went into Kansas mere
ly for the purpose of voting, and having
voted, returned homo. it cannot be con-
tended that they were in the Legislature
intended by the organic law of the Ter
ritory. This is question of fact, and is
susceptible of truth. Men who were
upon the ground know whether the peo-
pie of Kansas were driven from the polls
or not, and whether the elections were
managed and carried by non-residents.
If here, they could inform the House OF
facts from which it would be able to de-
eide whether the alleged Legislature was
in truth what it claimed to be, or any
thing more than convention, a caucus,
or mob But, say the minority, We are
not permitted to inquire into these things;
we nave the laws of the Legislature,
their book of statutes, and their journal;
we cannot 90 behind them-they are
conclusive. Every Legislature, they
say, has the power to judge of the cleo
tions of its members, and by their deci-
sions we are bound. This, to certain
extent, is true, but there must be a Leg
islature to Judge and when, as in this
case, the fact that there was Legislature
is controverted and put in issue, the issue
must be tried, and the assumptions and
acts of such pretended Legislature can
not be received as final and conclusive
evidence of its legal existence. Ifthere
were in fact no Legislature in Kansas. it
is not easy to perceive how the acts of a
body of men assuming TO be such can
make it Legislature-can validate aud
make legal what is in itself null and void.
Certainly, it is novel doctrine that a
convention or promiScuous assembly
can, proprio v;gore, transform itself into
legal Legislature, and make its own re-
cords conclusive evidence of its rightful
and proper creation and existence -