The Kansas herald of freedom. [volume] (Wakarusa, Kan. Territory) 1854-1860, 1858-05-15
LAWRENCE, KANSAS, MAY Is. 1858.

CndtaCtef Is people Oh q IerfIlOIy, ll3t
| look on them in respect to this subject.
Whether they be moro or less vile on the
one side or the other, is not the question.
[ fear that neither party could take the
chair of impartiality. and justice, and be
shameless enough to attempt to admins
ter rebuke or justice to the other,
One great objection to their admission
at all is that they have not shown, by
their conduct on any side, that they are
altogether fit for association with the
States of this Union. a little more ap-
premiership, a little more practice of
honest and fair dealing, little more spirit
Va submission and subordination to law
and authority, would be well learned by
them, and fit and qualify them much bet
ter for citizens of the United States
That is my opinion. I have, however,
spoken of their political rights as men,
and it is not for me to sit in judgment to
condemn and deprive them of the right
of suffrage on one side or the other, be-
cause of frauds committed by one, or
violence practiced by another. This is a
political question.
THE CASE sTATED-AN ARGUMENT.
1t is said, however, that the series of
legalities and technicalties, to which
have alluded, of regular election, of a
regular convention, of a submission to the
people, and of votes of the people upon
all these questions, have been regular; and
what then? All the people had right
to vote, and those who did not vote for
feited their right to complain; and we are
not to inquire whether there were any
people who did not vote, or whether those
who voted voted fairly, and were entitled
to vote or not. 1t is said we are precluded
by the forms in which this transaction is
enyeloped; that the formal election, the
formal certificate of election, the formal
constitution eertifed-these formalities
are enough to us, and that we are not per-
mitted to look further; that We ought not
to look further Sir, I do not so. We
are applied to now to admit new State
into the Union. The instrument which
she presents as her constitution is opposed
by people of the same Territory. They
say this is not our constitution; it is
against our will, but it has been imposed
upon US by device and fraud. 1t is void
for fraud. If it is not void for fraud, for
that is rather legal than political term,
we present these frauds and this opposi-
ton as a reason you should not admit our
Territory into the Union under this con-
stitution.
That is the state of the question before
you. The complainants admit all the
regularities just as the President states
them. Perhaps they admit the effect
these forms would ordinarily have, but
they urge other facts in opposition to the
apparent evidence of the constitution
itself as I have before adverted to. A
majority of the people have protested
against it. The present legislature, by its
inquiries, have developed the vast frauds
which were practiced in the convention
concerning and relating to all around this
constitution. They say, "Do not accept
that; do not admit US under it; send it
back; let it be submitted to fair vote of
the people" Sir, upon such complaint
as this, are we not bound, in justice to that
people, to examine the whole case? Can
any Senator turn and refuse to look at the
testimony that is offered? Can he be
justified in so doing by naked legal pre-
sumptions, from naked regularities or ir-
regularities :?