The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1858-03-04
THEi NATToNAL ERA: WASHINGTON, D. c. MARCH 4, 1853

people 10 WHOM Iuey Hdu gwen
like to know how or in what form that release
was given. They held themselves out to the
people, on paper, pledging their honor that if
elected delegates to the Convention, they would
submit the Constitution to the people. They
refused to do so-they forfeited their word after
they were elected. Having been elected, they re-
fused to perform their promise. II Is charged
on them, and the excuse is, that those to whom
they made the promise released them from the
obligation of keeping it. | should like to ask
the honorable Senator from Virginia, Mr.. MA
son l with his high sense of honor land believe
it is higher with no man, whether he could be
excused from obligation thus given in wri-
/ ting, by any individuals who might come to him,
and say, awe do not hold you to it; party pur-
poses require little different disposition" Hon
orable men never would make such an excuse
for breaking their word of honor thus given. So
long as there was single voter who threw his
vote for me- or might have thrown his vote for
! me, on my written word or my spoken word that
| | would act in a particular manner, L should
deem myself base if / could retain the Office thus
bestowed on me, and at the same time refuse to
redeem the pledge that had made.
The next step that was taken under the forms
! of law was to present two slave Constitutions,
! las have before stated, and tell the people of
Kansas they might take their choice between
/ them provided they would swear to support the
one which might get the majority of votes.
| The last step in this proceeding under the
forms of law, was to return six or seven thousand
votes as cast on the Constitution on the 2lst of
December, when it is satisfactorily shown that
| no more than two or three thousand were thrown.
| Does any Senator ask me where get my author
| ity for this get it from the same authority to
! which the President appeals to show that there
| was rebellion in Kansas-Governor Walker and
| Secretary Stanton They say it, and nobody
| undertakes to dispute it.
| Ill G. L.. i'll
with, pledges having been forfeited, the question
| not submitted, and a cheat in the vote, we are
told that legality is all side and illegality
on the other, and we are bound to take the re-
suit; in other words, that this is legal ratiica-
ton. That is the principle laid down, and it
amounts to this that because it has never been
| submitted, therefore it has been legally adopt
| ed-a logical conclusion to which / am entirely
| unable to give my assent.
| What is the reply which is made to the allie
| cation of fraud2 The honorable Senator from
| Georgia makes it. His reply is, that it must be
| investigated in the proper place. What is the
| proper placer Is not this the tribunal? Where
is the question to be settled, if not here Are
not we the tribunal to settle the question whether
Kansas shall be admitted State under this
| Constitution Are not we the tribunal to settle
whether the matter has been fairly submitted to
| the people of Kansas, and whether they have
adopted the Constitution 1t comes before US
for action. If better tribunal than this can be
found to settle the question definitely, wish the
honorable Senator had pointed it out.
The votes on the Constitution are returned to
Mr.. John Calhoun. He is the man who forfeited
| his pledge; he is the man who broke his word !;
| he is the man who promised to submit this Con-
stitution to the people of Kansas, and refused to
| do so. The votes are to be returned to him he
| declares them; he claims no power to go behind
the returns and he is the person to make a con-
| elusive return on this subject. When wc wish
to inquire into the truth of these allegations,
| and judge whether this Constitution does fairly
| express the will of the people of Kansas is it
enough to reply I" the question has been settled
| by Mr.. Calhoun, and he is the proper tribunal !;
and the Congress of the United States in deciding
whether or not Kansas is to come into the Union
as State, has right to inquire whether fraud
has been committed or not, or whether the will
of the people of Kansas has been expressed or
not?" | reply again, that the Senator from
Georgia, for he is an eminent lawyer, well knows
the principle that fraud vitiates everything, no
matter what. 1t vitiates the record of a court of
law. 1t sets aside judgment. This is claimed
as judgment of the people of Kansas; judg-
ment that is conclusive by virtue of the decision
that has been made there by person who is
party to the whole thing. 1t is claimed as a
Judgment. We ask to go behind it, and inquire
into it. 1t is said we precluded. On what
principle? Not on the principle of law, for if
fraud will vitiate the record of a court and ena-
BILE any proper tribunal to inquire into it, | wish
to know why fraud will not vitiate an election,
as has always been hold from tho foundation of
the Government to the present time, when that
election is brought before the very tribunal which
is appointed by the Constitution to settle the
question:
My conclusion, then, Mr.. President, on all this
matter, is simply, that the President of the Uni
ted States, in sending this communication to US,
his written argument, has deliberately chosen to
omit the most important facts in the case, as well
known to him, or which should have been as we'll
known to him, as any man for he cannot plead
ignorance They are facts apparent on the rec
ord-palpable, plain, unmistakable. He has
omitted to state them, and he has stated others
which are disproved by the record accompany
ing the message. 1t has been shown over and
over again, beyond all power of contradiction,
Sand | take it few men can be found with hardi-
/ hood to deny it, that the vote of December 2lst
on the Constitution, does not express the will of
the majority of the people of Kansas. The at
tempt is merely to eStop US, and TO say that, by
virtue of the success of these fraudulent prac-
tees, the people of Kansas have no right to in
quire into the matter. Sir deny the principle
1t exists neither in law, in equity, nor in leg
islation, nor anywhere where truth and justice
prevail. Therefore, what have to say in refer
ence to that matter is, that considering the ques-
ton in that point of view, this Constitution pre-
sents itself to my mind outrage, deliberately
planned, followed up remorseessly, and perhaps
from the indications we have had, designed to be
carried through and imposed on the people of
Kansas. All have to say is, that it will meet
with my resistance, feeble as it may be, here, so
long as | am authorized to act on it, under the
forms of the Constitution of the United States
Sir, have considered this question so far
wholly with reference to the simple point wheth-
err in the exercise of what is called popular SOW
ereignty in Kansas, there has been any adoption
by the people of that Territory of the Constitu-
ton thus presented. That is only one branch of
the remarks which intended to present to the
Senate, and the Senate will pardon me if, on
this occasion, go little further, and treat of
what believe to be still more important, at any
rate, as important, and, as affecting my mind as
materially, with reference to tho whole subject
| have presented the question on the ground Of
popular sovereignty. The party to which be-
long have rejected the idea Of popular sovereignty
in the Territories, from the beginning. We do
not reject the idea that the people have a right
to rule. We admit it in our principles and our
practice; but we have rejected the idea that
Congress had right 10 change the whole form
in which it had been accustomed to exercise
authority over the Territories of the United
States, and lay those Territories open to Slavery
when they were free, under the name of giving
the people the right to prescribe their own in
stitutions in their own way. Since this doctrine
of popular sovereignty has been forced on us
since it has been adopted, to certain extent
we have been compelled to yield to it. We
were in hopes, that even in the exercise of that
principle, of the right which it was said the
people had to frame their own institutions, Kan