The Kanzas news., 1858-01-16
The Lecomp.On Constitution in Congress
sPEECH OF s. A. DOUGLAS


On motion of Mr. Douglas, the Senate
resumed the consideration of the motion
made by him yesterday, TO print the Presl-
dents message and accompanying docu-
ments, with fifteen thousand extra copies.
Mr. Douglas said:
Mr.. PREsIDENT-When yesterday the
Presidents message was read at the Clerk s
desk, heard it but imperfectly, and l was
of the impression that the President OF the
United States had approved and indorsed
the action OF the Lecompton Convention in
Kanzas. Under that impression, l felt il
nv duty to state that, while concurred IN
the general views of the message, yet, SO
far as it approved or indorsed the action OF
that convention, / entirely dissented from
it, and would avail myself of an early OPP
portunity to state my reasons for my dis
sent. Upon a more careful and critical ex-
animation of the message, L am reJolced to
find that the President of the United States
has snotrecommended that Congress shall pass
a law to receive Kanzas into the Union under
the constitution formed at Lecompton. 1t
is true that the tone of the message indicates
willingness on the part of the President
to sign bill, if we shall see proper to pass
one, receiving Kanzas into the Union under
that constitution But, sir, it is a fact of
great significance, and worthy of considera-
ton, that the President has refrained from
any Endorsement of the convention, and
from any recommendation as to the course
Congress should pursue with regard to the
constitution there formed.
The President, after expressing his regret
and notification and disappointment that
the constitution had not been submitted to
the people in pursuance of his instructions
to Governor Walker, and in pursuance of
Gov Walkers assurance TO the people, says,
however, that by the Kanzas-Nebraska act
the slavery question only was required to
be referred to the people, and the. remainder
of the constitution was not thus required to
be submitted. He acknowledges that, as a
general rule, on general principles, the
whole constitution should be submitted !;
but according to his understanding of the
organic act of KanZas, there was an impera-
tive obligation to submit the slavery ques-
ton for their approval or disapproval, but no
obligation to submit the entire constitution.
In other words, he regards the organic act,
the Nebraska bill, as having made an excep-
ton of the slavery clause, and provided for
the disposition of that question IN mode
different from that in which other domestic
or local, as contradistinguished from Federal
questions, should be decided. Sir, permit
me to say, with profound respect for the
President of the United States, that l con-
ceive that on this point he has committed a
fundamental error, an error which lies at the
foundation of his whole argument on this
matter. / can well understand how that
distinguished statesman came to fall into this
error. He was not in the country at the
time the Nebraska bill was passed; he was
not party to the controversy and the dis
cussion that took place during its passage.
He was then representing the honor and the
dignity of the country with great wisdom
and distinction at a foreign court. Thus
deeply engrossed, his whole energies were
absorbed in conducting great diplomatic
questions that diverted his attention from
the mere territorial questions and discus
sions then going on in the Senate and the
House of Representatives, and before the
people at home. Under these circumstances
he may we'll have fallen into an error, radi-
cal and fundamental as 1t is, in regard to the
object of the Nebraska bill and the principle
asserted in it.
Now, sir, what was the principle enun-
ciated by the authors and supporters of that
bill when it was brought forward ? Did
we not come before the country and say
that we repealed the Missouri restriction for
the purpose of substituting and carrying
out as a general rule the great principle OF
self-government, which left the people OF
each State and each Territory free to form
and regulate their domestic institutions In
their own way. subject only to the COnsti-
tuition of the United States? In support ot
that proposition, it was argued here, and
have argued 1t wherever l have spoken in
various States of the Union, at home and
abroad, everywhere I have endeavored tc
prove that there was no reason why an ex-
ception should be made In regard to the
slavery question. l have appealed to the
people If we did not all agree, men of al
parties, that all other local and domestic
questions should be submitted to the peo-
pie. l said to them, 1--WE agree that the
people shall decide for themselves what kind
of a Judiciary system they will have We
agree that the people shall decide what kind
OF school system they will establish; we
agree that the people shall determine fol
themselves what kind of banking system
they will have, or whether they viii have
any banks at all /; We agree that the people
may decide for themselves what shall be the
elective franchise in their respective States
they shall decide for themselves what shall
De the rule of taxation and the principles
upon which their finance shall be regulated
We agree that they may decide for themselves
lhe relations between husband and wife, pa
rent and child, guardian and ward and why
should We not then allow them to decide fol
themselves the relations between master and
servant? Why make an exception of the
slavery question by taking it out of tha
great rule of self-government which applies
10 all the other relations of life ?'' The
very first proposition in the Nebraska bill
was to show that the Missouri restriction
prohibiting the people from deciding tn,