Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, March 27, 1856, Image 1
- samx^melton } proprietors. Au Independent Journal: Fov the Promotion of the Political, Social, Agricultural and Commercial Interests of the South. |lewis m. grist, pnwuher.
VOL. 2. YOEKVILLE, S. C? THURSDAY, MARCH 1856. NO. 13.
| Cljjoicf IPodrg. !
IS IT COME ?
The following is the poem that attracted
the attention of the Marquis of Lansdowne,
and induced him to make a present of XI00
to the authoress, Miss Frances Brown.
Is it come ? they said on the banks of the Nile
Who look'd for the -world's long promised day,
And saw but the strife of Egypt's toil
With the desert's sands and the granite grey.
From the pyramid, temple, and treasured dead
We T.ainly ask for her wisdom's plan:
They tell of the slave and tyrant's dread?
Yet there was hope when that lay began.
The Chaldec came with his starry lore,
That built np Babylon's crown and creed ;
And bricks were stamped on the Tigris's shore
With signs which our sages scarce can read.
From Ninus' Temple and Nimrod's Tower
The rule of the old East's empire spread
Unreasoning faith and unquestioned power?
But still, Is it come ? the Watcher said.
|
The light of the Persian's worshipped flame
TIia Aii/i'ionf Knnrlnrrn tta cnlnnilfif fltvnw
And once on the West a sunrise came,
When Greece to her freedom's trust was true.
"With dreams to the utmost ages dear,
With human gods and with godlike men,
No marvel the far-off day seemed near,
To eyes that looked through her laurels then.
The Romans conqueied and revelled, too,
Till honor and faith and power were gone,
And deeper old Europe's darkness grew
As wave after wave the Goth came on.
The gown was learning, the sword was law,
The people served in the oxen's stead,
But ever some gleam the Watcher saw,
And evermore, Is it come ? thev said.
I
Poet and Seer that question caught
Above the din of life's fears and frets ;
It-marched with letters?it toiled with thought
Through schools aud creeds which the earth
forcets:
And statesmen trifle, and priests deceive,
And traders barter our world away;
Yet hearts to that golden promise cleave,
And still, at times, Is it come 1 they say.
The days of the nation bear no trace
Of all the sunshine so far foretold ;
The cannon speaks in the teacher's place?
The age is weary with work and gold ;
And higher hopes wither and memories wane?
On hearths and altars the fires are dead ;
But that brave faith hath not lived in vain;
And this is all that our Watcher said.
political.
SPEECH OF HOIhW. W. B0YCE. j
7/i the House of Representatives, .1larch 6, !
1850, on the Resolution reported from the j
Committee of Elections in the Contested i
Election ease from the Tern tori/ of Eon- j
sos. \
Mr. Boycc said:
Mr. Speaker : I have not had time, since !
the presentation of the majority and minori-;
ty reports from the Committee of Elections, j
in reference to the Kansas contested election
case, to examine them carefully, and I shall
therefore have to denend for a knowledge of
v..v.Vw.? ? ?i cr
their statements on what I heard of them j
yesterday when they were read from the j
Clerk's desk. It seemed to me that a great:
(leal of irrelevant matter was introduced in- !
to the majority report. Instead of confin-!
ing themselves strictly to the subject before 1
them, the particular manner in which evi-1
dence should be taken in the case, the com- i
mittee went into a detailed recital of outra- j
ges alleged to have been committed in the j
Territory of Kansas. It may not have been i
the purpose, but the effect was necessarily to
inflame the public mind on this agitating j
question. I shall not follow the example 1
set me j although I might reply, and very (
satisfactorily, to the historical recital which |
the majority of the committee have made. I J
might light up my subject with the fires of j
the burning habitations of Southern cmi
grants in Kansas, who have suffered at the
hands of lawless violence; but I do not think
it proper to do this, because it does not be- j
long necessarily to the question before the
House. 1 propose to treat the question before
us in its naked proportions, in reference
to the mode in which the committee should
proceed to take testimony for the determination
of the right to a seat here, either of Mr.
Whitfield or his contestant.
The majority of the committee seem to in
sist, so far as I could understand the report :
read yesterday, that they could not take evidence
in Kansas, in the present condition of
things in that Territory; that it was sucli an
unsettled country, so wild, and so destitute j
of facilities for the examination of witnesses,
that they could not take evidence there. Eut
it seems to me they have overrated the difli-'
culties in that respect entirely.
Why can they not take evidence in that
new Territory, as well as they can in any of i
the Territories of the United States? They ;
have roads; they have rivers; they haveset- j
dements. Why, then, cannot the witnesses j
be brought together there as well as elsewhere
? Nobody imagines that witnesses
could not be examined in Nebraska, Wash-:
ingtou, or Oregon Territories. Then why
not in Kansas? l?ut it is said that such a j
course would produce great excitement. It
seems to me that the committee over-csti-'
mates the extent of the excitement existing
in Kansas. 1 have no doubt that these
things are exaggerated. The committee wisely
caution us not to listen to all the idle report*
which we might hear, and at the same
time they seem to me to give too much faith
to these rumors, because they appear to be- j
itcve that tlieie is aluiost a state of war in i
i
Kansas. 1 have no doubt that the state of
tilings in Kansas has been exaggerated. I
have no idea that the taking of testimony j
there would be attended vitli the disastrous 1
consequences anticipated by the committee.
If I understand their import, they say there
are no justices of the peace there ; and there i
1 apprehend, is the place where the shoe i
pinches.
Mr. Hickman.?A\ ill the gentleman from
South Carolina permit me to say a word /
Mr. Boyec.?Certainly.
Mr. Hickman.?It is right that I should
say that the majority of that committee rested
no part of their report on rumor, or upon
newspaper articles. They rested their re
port, and grounded it upon the statement of
facts alleged by Governor Eeedor, and the
allegations contained in the proclamation of
the President of the United States, and his
special message to Congress in reference to
Kansas.
Mr. Boyce.?They say that there are not
sufficient justices of the peace in the Territory
to take the testimony. Here I imagine
is the real objeetiou the majority of the committee
have to going into an examination of
this case in the usual manner. They are unwilling
to do it in a form which might seem,
in any sense whatever, to recognize the existing
government in Kansas. But it seems
to me that there is no necessity of going into
this new mode of proceeding in order to
avoid that difficulty. The House may guard 1
against that difficulty by declaring that the
-en |
JUMllTJi Ui lliu liuut'fjict yfCU'/j > 114111 HU \ ?: li?\: j
riglit to take the testimony. The reasons,
then, stated by a majority of the committee J
for this novel course of proceeding are not
satisfactory. This is entirely a new course
of proceeding. In the whole practice of the
Government, so far as I have been able to
ascertain, we have never before authorized |
the Committee of Elections to send for per- j
sons and papers in the case of a contested j
seat, except in the New Jersey case, and that J
was a precedent originated at a time of par- i
ty delirium.
Mr. Washburn, of Maine.?The gentle-1
man will find, if he will examine the matter,
that during the First or .Second Congress, j
after the adoption of the Constitution, that
the House expressly gave to the Committee j
of Elections the power to send for persons
and papers.
Mr. Boyce.?But never since that time, j
except in the case I have mentioned. The j
House doubtless found the practice a bad J
one, anil repudiated it from the time of the j
Second Congress until the New Jersey case I
came up. Now, in reference to this new
and unusual mode of taking testimony, if |
the question were between this or no other
mode, there might be some reason in the
proposition of the committee. But it is not
so. We have the old mode, authorized by
the act of 18f>l, and we have another alter- j
native, as suggested the other day, to send ;
special commissions to Kansas. Therefore
the question is not between this mode and
no other, but between the old mode and this
new mode.
It seems to me there are grave objections j
to this mode. What witnesses will you have
brought here, if you send to Kansas for persons'/
They will be willing witnesses?swift j
witnesses. Those are the very men we do |
not want here. We want men who have !
been attending to their own business; who J
have not been excited to fever heat by affairs j
in that Territory; and who have something j
to do besides coming here upon a crusade to
furnish evideuec. It seems to me the proposed
method is the worst possible mode of
obtaining evidence. We should have here
only partisans; while we want the evidence
of that portion of the community which is
calm and dispassionate. Besides, this mode
involves immense expense. There is no estimating
what the cost of it will be. Proba
bly ?200,000 or more. Unce open the door |
for everybody to enlist in this army of witnesses,
and uuder the zeal of partisan feeling |
there is no telling where the matter will end. j
Every man in Kansas who wants to take a j
trip to Washington at Government expense
will have a budget of news to unfold.
It seems to me that this mode of obtaining
evidence is not the proper one, in exam- j
ining who is entitled to a seat as Delegate I
from Kansas. It would be much more ap- j
propriatc if it were a general examination of i
all the affairs of Kansas. If you desire that;
sort of an investigation, appoint a special 1
committee, and refer to it the special mes-:
sage of the President,and confer upon it pow-;
or to send for persons and papers to make \
such examination; but let them not take
this special election case to hinge this indefinite
exploration upon.
I think, then, that the committee have j
failed to give sufficient reasons why we should
adopt this new plan which they have proposed.
The recommendation of the com-1
mittcc, if adopted, leaves them at liberty to
examine the whole history of Kansas, and i
?
everything which has taken place there,
from the inception of the government down j
to this time, f do not think that this ease !
should give them that unbounded license.? i
It is confined in a narrow compass. We j
have not a boundless sea of discovery upon !
which to take a voyage. Our limits are!
narrow, as I conceive the question. It seems |
to me, sir, there is perhaps only one question !
in the case; and that is to whether legality j
of the action of the Legislature of Kansas j
was affected by the Legislature removing j
from the town ot l'awncc to the Miawncc
Mission.
When this question was taken up the j
other day, different opinions were expressed j
as to the rule which should guide the House
in the investigation of the case; and 1 appro- j
hend that there ought to he some rule. Wc 1
ought not to pursue this matter vaguely and ;
without any landmarks. The chairman of,
the Committee of Elections, if I understood I
him correctly, seem to think that we had (
the power to proceed in this matter under |
the Constitution, giving us power to deter-!
mine the qualifications of members, A'e.; but it
seems to me that this is an entire misconception
of the matter, because Delegates of the
Territories are not, accurately speaking, members
of this House.
Again : it was insisted by some other gentleman
that, in the investigation of this ease,
wc arc absolutely bound to pursue the directions
of the act of 1 ? ">]. That, perhaps, is j
not strictly correct either. My own iinprcs-1
sion is, that the act of 18nl, though not absolutely
binding upon the House in this |
, ease?because it merely relates to the elecj
tion of members of the House?is to a ccr,
tain extent binding as a persuasive authori-!
j ty, as a parliamentary precedent, as the sense
of the House on the important subject as to
how these elections are t<i be investigated.? J
It is not merely a question of form as to what
rule the House should be guided by in its
attempt to investigate the case; it is in reality
a question of substance; because on the
rule which you adopt in the investigation of
the case will depend important consequences,
whether we adopt the rules laid down
by the act of 1851 or by the parliamentary
precedents. Either standard of investigation
will limit the range of enquiry.
"What does the act of 1851 prescribe ? The
act of 1851 is, it occurs to me, an act founded
in eminent wisdom?an act which will
stand the closest scrutiny. That act provides,
in the first place, that the contestant
shall "specify particularly the grounds upon
which he relics in the contest." Why
does it say "specify particularly?" 11c-j
cause Congress understood the evil oncers j
which would arise from allowing these mat-1
ters to be based upon general objections; and ,
like every other court called upon to investigate
a subject, Congress required the matter
to be stated specifically-, so that it could
proceed understanding!)'. Again : The act '
further goes on and requires the person claim-,
ing the seat, in his answer to the contestant's
protest, if he affirm any new facts to state
them "specifically." The result is, then,
that by these two provisions of the act, the
pleadings are made specific and the parties
bronght to issue. They do not, then, come
here at large, disputing everything, but a
few points arc developed for examination.? i
And the House can understand the impnr- j
tanec of this rule at once, because it is obvi-1
ous that the Committee of Elections ate facilitated
in their investigations when the issue
is clearly made; otherwise, it would be !
an endless task. If the contestant had the i
right allowed him to plead at large, the Com- j
mittce of Elections would never be able to j
get through the examination of objections |
made without defmitcncss or specification.? '
The act further goes on, and provides how !
evidence is to be taken. It provides means j
for the examination of witnesses, and pro-;
vides a certain time within which witnesses j
are to be examined, leaving it to the discrc-1
tion of thel louse to extend that time. These
are the leading provisions of the act of IS.")]; j
and it seems to me that it would he a great,
blunder in this House to depart from the prin- j
ciples of that act. It seems to me that though ;
this act is not, in the present case, technical- J
ly binding on this House, as it speaks only !
of members of this House?not meaning
Delegates in a strict sense?yet it would be j
unwise in this House to depart from the j
rules and principles and mode of investiga- j
tion pointed out by it.
So much then on this point. There arc
other general features in the case, to which
I would invite the attention of the House, :
because upon them depends, again, the ex- j
tent of the investigation. What is the office j
of Delegate of a Territory ? The delegate
ship of a Territory is a legal office. Tt is ,
not an office which has arisen by custom or i
by the sanction of this House alone. It is an
office which has arisen by force of the supreme
law of the United States governing ;
the subject. In England the king cannot
originate a new office with fees. This House
cannot originate a new general office, with or t
without fees. The office of Delegate from Kan j
scs is a legal office. The particular office of
territorial Delegates originated with the ordinance
of 3 7S7, and the ordinance was carried
into effect in that particular by the act
of Congress of 17S9. By that ordinance it
was provided that whenever the Northwestern
Territory had a population of five thousand
white male inhabitants, it should be en-'
titled to a Delegate in Congress, and since j
that time Delegates have been assigned to j
tlin various Territories 1?v act of (Jointress.? .
In this particular case the office of I) el cerate
from Kansas has been created by the Kan
sas-Nchvaska bill. The office is a creation j
of that act. It does not arise by the more i
will of this House, but by the will of all the
departments of the Government. That \ take
10 be beyond all dispute.
Again: the Kansas-Nebraska act, giving '
origin to this office, has defined how this I
officer shall be chosen. That question has ;
an important bearing upon this ease, because
that, 1 take it, excludes all pretence of Mr. '
I'ccdcr 10 a seat, and all questions which j
might be raised in that connection. The 1
act of Kansas aud Nebraska says on this subject,
that a Delegate shall be elected by the !
people of the Territory of Kansas. Ilow?j
It assigns to the people of the Territory a j
right to be represented in ('engross by a Dele- j
gate. Dul how arc they to exercise that ;
right? The Delegate is to be chosen by the j
will of the people. Dut how is their will to
lie manifested ? Their will is to be manifested
under the law?under a pre-existing law,
not a vagrant wandering, irregular liccnti
uu.s will, but a will to be exercised under the 1
forms of the law, under the regulation of the |
ballot-box, carried out at a particular time :
and under specified forms. That is the on-;
ly way, under the Kansas-Nebraska act, by !
which the office of Delegate of Kansas arises, j
That is the only way in which the office is
created, by force of the public will of Kansas
speaking under the law.
Congress in inserting that principle in the '
Kansas bill has not done anything new. It
has only implanted in that bill a great Amc- J
m-iunirJo flllf fl VI11 f?11 ll A wlliell ll.'lV
111.... ...?v - ,
existed throughout all of our history, and on j
which our institutions rest?the principle
that the public voice and the public will are !
to be obeyed and respected, under the forms I
of law?the principle that the people are j
everything while they speak under the law, |
and that they are nothing while they speak ,
against or over and above the law. It was ;
the peculiar boast of our ancestors that they
brought with them from England the insti-!
tutions of the mother country, and the chief .
of these institutions was the right of thepco- j
pie to be heard under the forms of law?not j
the right to licentious liberty, but that they
should be allowed to govern themselves tin-1
dcr forms of law. Our ancestors, sir, might
have made a greater boast than that?that
they not merely brought from the mother
country the institutions of the mother country,
but that they brought with them the
capacity for free institutions?the power to
live, not under licentious liberty, but under
the law.
It is a peculiarity of the Anglo?Saxon
race, and a peculiarity of the American people,
that they are the only people who have
demonstrated their capability for self-government?who
are able to live under and in
subjection to the law. There is no other
race that can make their own laws, and then
live under the laws they have themselves
made.
The people of France haw, four or five
times during the present century, had the
opportunity to govern themselves, but they
nave, m every instance, failed, because they
have never been able to live under their laws.
Look at the miserable spectacle of the South
American Republics. Do they not present
a wretched parody on free institutions??
They have never been able to govern themselves,
because they have never learned to
carry out the great principle of the people
speaking only in obedience to law.
Why, sir, we have a memorable instance
of the unwillingness of the American people
to go bevond the law, in the conduct of tnc
. * 7 I
Puritan fathers of Massachusetts. After
the battle of Lexington, while their blood !
was fevered with the wounds of battle? [
while their ears were daily vexed with Prit- i
isli drums, beating their arrogant reveilles
with every recurring sun, on Ruston Coin- ;
nioii, what did tliey do? They applied to
the Congress of the Confederacy, then assembled
at Philadelphia, to ask their advice
as to what step they should take in the modelling
of their government. So tenaciously ,
did they adhere to the law, so reluctant j
were they to violate the law, that oven in j
that extremity, when their blood was up, and I
,? ,i ,i ii i i
liiu duuiu uiuuu, iiiujr JiuiiafU in tut; cniuci- j
itv of their republican simplicity, anil applied
to the national Congress for advice.?
Tt was a sublime spectacle. Massachusetts
nourished no factious disorganizes then. I
say this was a sublime spectacle. It showed
what manner of men they were; it showed
that they were men made of the right stuff
?stern, earnest men?of intense convictions?bold,
fearless, rugged as their own
granite hills, but with a remarkable humility,
simplicity and conservatism of character,
worthy of all admiration, above all praise.
This conduct of the men of Massachusetts
in the olden time furnishes an example that
their descendants would not do amiss to follow.
This great principle, that the will of tiic
people is only potential under the law, came
under the consideration of the Supreme
Court of the United States, in a case arising
out of the memorable proceedings connected
with the Dorr rebellion. In that ease the
question was as to the right of the people to 1
speak outside of the law, or whether they :
should he confined to speaking under and :
through the law. Wc arc all familiar with j
the decision of the Supreme Court on that
occasion. 1 refer to it for the purpose of al-;
hiding to the position of Mr. Webster on ;
that occasion; a voice which Massachusetts J j
should always he willing to hear, as his is I;
the greatest name emblazoned on the pages j i
of her history. Mr. Webster, in his argu- i
incnt in that great case, laid down the posi-: i
tion which I have been contending for, that: i
the voice of the people could only be heard
through the regular forms of law. But I ,
will let Mr. Webster speak for himself.? (
Meu of Massachusetts, listen to his groat ,
voice 1 though dead, he yet liveth:
Mr. Webster, in the Rhode Island case, i,
said :
"This being so, then follow two other |
grout principles of the American system : j.
"1. The lirstis, that (lie right of suffrage j j
shall he guarded, protected, and seen red ;i-1
gainst force and against fraud; and
" 2. The second is, that its exercise shall ' i
I
he prescribed hy previous law, its f|uali(ica- ,
lions shall he pro>oribod hy previous law, ;;
the time and place of it-? exercise shall he ; i
pieserihed hy the previous law, and manner ;
of its cxereise and under whose supervision ;:
(always sworn officers of the law) is to he ' j
prescribed. And then again the result? are i
to he certiliod to the eentral power hy some
certain rule, hy some known public officers, '
in some clear and definite form, to the end
that two things may he done : first that eve- (
ry man entitled to vote may vote; second, j
that lifs vote may he sent forward and conn- :
tod, and so lie may exercise hi* part of sov- j,
ereignty in eommon with his fellow-citizens. : >
o Tn the exercise of political power through j ]
representatives we know nothing?we nev-! ]
or have known anything, hut such an oxer- j
cist as should take place through the jircscvi- ;
hod forms of law. M hen we depart from ; i
that we shall wander as widely from the A- i
meriean track as the pole is from the track
of the sun.''
These are noble words ; they have the ring
of the true metal; they sound like Massa-,
chwsclls of the olden time. Mr. Webster, ;
on 1 lint occasion, tool-* no now position, lie .
only took that position which iio struggled !
tor throughout life : for if there was anything
peculiar in the philosophy of Mr. Webster's
statesmanship, itwas his obedience to the
law, inculcating on all occasions, that the will
of the people, though it is omnipotent, must
he a will expressed under law, and by forms
of law. A great truth ; and it is in that aspect
only that wc can justly say I*". ^0///
i).';.
1
Now, T say this is no new principle applied j
to the Territory of Kansas, reouiring the
people of that Territory, when they elect a
a Delegate, to make their will known under the
forms of law. The last Congress, taking
the same position which the American
people and the American statesmen have taken,
at all times and upon all occasions, that j
the will of the people is to he expressed un- j
dor forms of law, and utterly repudiating (
that licentious liberty which would trample j
all law underfoot?the last Congress leipiir- j
ed that the people of Kansas, in declaring
I who should be their Delegate, must make I
their will known under forms of the law.?
This is the great principle upon which our
theory of government rests; to lose it is perdition.
When we divorce ourselves from it,
wc embrace anarchy and quick-recurring
despotism?wc canonize the sword, and prepare
the way for ourselves and our posterity
to pass through fire to the grim idol of intestine
convulsions.
I take it that those two propositions arc
ns clear as the noonday sun. The delegateship
from Kansas is a legal office, and the
Dctogatc must have had his election under
law. It is idle for any man to pretend to
claim his scat here in violation of these prin
ciples.
The claim of the sitting Delegate (Mr.
Whitfield") poems to me very plain?prima
fade, at least. TInw docs he claim a scat?
lie claims it under the certificate of the
Governor, by virtue of an election held un.
der the authority of the Legislature, which !
Territorial Legislature was elected in pur.su-'
ance of an act of Congress?, and deriving J
their authority to act from Congress?going
hack, therefore to the fountain head for his |
commission. His title, therefore, is what!
the lawyers call a good paper title, unexeep-,
tionahle, unless it can he attacked by evi- j
deuce outside of the record.
What arc the objections raised to his ti- :
tic? The objections are twofold. First,
the invalidity of the law under which lie j
was elected ; and, second, that he was elect- j
cd by illegal votes. I will commence with j
the last first. The first point I make is tbar
this objection is not sufficiently specific.?
It does not comply with the act of 1S51,
which rcauiros the contestant to snccifit
purfici'fdr/y the grounds of his objections..
It is not a compliance with that act to-day
that. A B, or C T), got illegal votes. But
the act of 1851, justly interpreted, requires
that the natucs of the illegal votes should
be set forth. If, then, the act of 1851 is
to be binding and operative upon this question,
that objection which Mr. Boeder raises
is at an end, because it is not sufficiently
specific; and 1 think, as I have said before
that we ought to be guided by that act. But
if we are not to be guided by that act, we
arc not, therefore, to be guided by our own
vain imaginings. We arc to be guided, then,
by parliamentary law?by the general law
of Parliament; for there is a general law of
Parliament, as Blackstonc says, known but
to few, but yet known to the Parliament?a
law existing in precedents What are the
precedents on this subject ? You will find,
by referring to the contested election cases,
that this very point has been considered and
determined. Tn the case of John C. Varnum,
(page 112,) it was held that ?the allegation
that votes were given by persons not
qualified to vote is defective, unless it shows
the names of such persons." Again : in the
case of Eastou vs. Scott, Delegate from Missouri,
(Contested Elections, 272,) it was held
that a "general averment in the notice contesting
an election that the votes are illegal,
is not sufficient, and the mimes of the pert'jits
excepted to must also he stated."
The objection was, as it is here, the illegality
of votes. But the House, upon the
adoption of the report of the committee, held
that a general specification was insufficient;
:iml I liolil, without referring further to authorities,
that the general specification in
this ease is also insufficient.
But I do not rest upon this objection. I
approach now the very marrow of the case
on this point. What is the objection? That
there were illegal votes given. Is it not obvious,
from the slightest examination, that
that objection has no validity in it; and flint
it is unnecessary to go into a minute cxami- \
nation of it? Why? Because it is not
pretended that till the votes cast for Whit- i
field on that occasion were illegal votes.? j
Well, suppose fifty, or one hundred, or five j
hundred, or even one thousand of the votes ,
e:.st were illegal, that does not alter the case, 1
unless those who did not vote, being equal
in number to the legal voters actually voting,
were kept away by force. Tf they were
restrained by duress or reasonable apprehensions
of violence from going to the polls, j
and the opposite party did go, then the elec-1
tion under these circumstances would be \
void.
But, the case does not stand on that ground.
They did not stay away from apprehension i
of violence; they stayed away on the calculation
that the law fixing the election was
void. They placed their case on that east,
and they must, stand the hazard of the die.
They stayed away because they would not ac-,
knowledge the validity of the law There- \
fore, let them stand to their own ground;
which was, that the law was invalid, and
not that the votes wore illegal. There is
nothing in this point which merits investigation.
i now approach what is considered the de- j
hat able ground in the ease, butT think I see j
my way clear.
It is said that the election under which j
Y\"hillicld was elected was invalid, and this |
on two grounds: 1st, because the Legislature
was elected by illegal votes; and 2d, be-1
cause they moved to .Shawnee Mission.
Iii reference to the first ground, 1 object!
to the jurisdiction of this House to deter-j
mine the validity of the election of the !
members to the Territorial Legislature, be- j
cause I say that the Kansas bill appointed a ,
vpcoial forum to determine that question?
the Territorial Legislature itself. I do not j
say that the act expressly in so many words,
confers this*power; but that it is a power naturally
implied and necessarily flowing from
the formation of a legislative power, in the
absence of restraining words.
All of our parliamentary history in the
mother country and in America, the practice
of all of our Legislatures?Federal, State
and Territorial?without a single exception
that I am aware of, shows that the invaria
ble rule has been for every legislative body
to judge of the returns and qualifications of
its members. It is the common law of all
our legislative bodies, and inheres in them
a< naturally a? it does in a woman to say
who shall be her husband. The authorities '
upon this subject are numerous. I annex a i
few:?
" It is obvious that a power must be lodged
somewhere to judge of the elections, returns,
and qualifications of the members of each
House composing the Legislature; for otherwise
there would be no certainty as to who
were legitimately chosen members ; indeed,
elections would become under such circumstances
a mere mockery; and legislation the
exercise of sovereignty by any self-constituted
body. The only possible question on such
a subject is as to the body in which such a
power shall be lodged, it lodged in any '
other than the legislative body itself\ its independence,
its purity, and even its exis- i
tence and action, may be destroyed, or put
into imminent danger. No other body but
itself can have the same motives to preserve (
and perpetuate these attributes; no other j
body can be so perpetually watchful to guard <
its own rights and privileges from infringe- '
mcnt, to purify and vindicate its own char- |
acter, and to preserve the rights and sustain |
the free choice of its constituents. Acror- \
dingly, the poxccr has always been lodged in \
the legislative body by the uniform practice <
of England and America."?Story. <
"The whole of the law and custom of i
Parliament has its original from this one max- ;
iin, < that whatever matter arises concerning
cither ITousc of Parliament ought to be ex- ^
amincd, discussed, and adjudged in that j
House to which it relates, and not elsewhere..'
Hence for instance, the Lords will not suffer
the Commons to interfere in settling the election
of a Peer of Scotland ; the Commons (
will not allow the Lords to judge of the elec- }
tion of a burgess; nor will either House (
permit the subordinate courts of law to ex- ^
amine the merits of either case. But the
maxims upon which they proceed, together
with the method of proceeding, rest entirely 1
in the breast of Parliament itself, and are 1
1
not defined and ascertained by any particular
stated laws."
[2 filackstone, see. 1G3. ?
" The two Houses must decide according (
to the established law of Parliament."?Ibid. (
a Bach House is made the sole iudce of i
the election, returns, and qualification of its
members. The same power is vested in the
British House of Commons, and in the Legislatures
of the several States; and there is
no other body known to the Constitution to
which such a power might be safely intrusted.
And as each House acts in these cases in a
judicial character, its decisions, like the decisions
of any other court of justice, ought
to be regulated by known principles of law,
and strictly adhered to for the sake of uniformity
and certainty."?Kent.
Such being the common law of legislative
bodies under our system, we must suppose
that Congress acted under this knowledge,
and intended to confer, and did confer, this
power on the Territorial Legislature of Kansas.
I assume this to be a fact, and I submit
that the legality of the elections of the
Territorial Legislature has been authoritatively
passed upon by the appropriate and exclusive
tribunal, and that it is not competent
for us now to go into this question.
But it seems to me, of all objections, this
is the last Governor Reeder should have <
raised. Did he not give certificates to two- t
thirds of this very Territorial Legislature ? 1
It strikes me I have heard so. "Why, sir, is I
it not the most extraordinary spectacle that {
we have ever been called upon to behold ? ?
Tq thprp n snectacle in the historv of oartv r
... - ? ~l ,, -- 4- ,,
politics in the mother country, or in our own
country, equal to it ? Was not Governor
Rccder the Governor of Kansas? Was he
not bound by his oath?an oath registered
in Heaven?to exercise and perform his duty
justly ? And did he not, in the execution
and performance of that duty, give certificates
to two-thirds of the members of the
Kansas Legislature ? Pocs it, then, lie in
his mouth now to undo all that ? Why, sir,
he must have estimated the intelligence of
members of this House very low indeed, if
he thinks we can take the excuse from him,
that he did not know then the illegality of
this election, and that he only acquired the
knowledge afterwards. Why and how is it
that he did not know it ? Was he not on the
ground ? Ilad he not cognizance of everything?
Where was he that he did not know
of the invasion of the Missouri army, of
which we hear so much now ? And if he
did know these things which he now testifies
to, he was a traitor to his country, to his mission,
to history, in giving these men their
certificates, knowing that they were not entitled
to their seats. He should rather have
dared every extremity, have retired under
the guns of Fort Leavenworth, or perished
by the swords of assassins, than thus to have
ignored his high trust. In charity, I must
presume that these things did not exist, but
that Gov. Recdcr has since lent too facile an
oar to the tales of inflamed partisans.
I submit that Governor Rccder is estopped
from raising this question.
Rut it is said that Governor Rccder should
not be estopped because he presents himself
in a representative capacity, speaking for certain
of the people of Kansas. But I submit
? i .1 1.. iLL J
tnat, wnatcver iorcc mere migat uu iu tuis i
idea, abstractly, it has no application to Governor
lveeder's case; because those whosent
him did not act under the law, but in violation
of the law; and by such irregular action
cannot impute any representative character
to him.
As to the second objection, it is said that
the law is void, because the Territorial Legislature
removed their sessions from Pawnee
City to Shawnee Mission. At the outset it is
evident that this is only a technical objection
and is not the mode in which I think we
should consider the question. "We should
not look at a great question of government,
affecting, as this consequentially does, the
entire political and social fabric of a new and
rising community, in the same way that a
lawyer would a demurrer to a special plea in
abatement. We should look at it in the light
of high statesmanship. I say this, not because
I deprecate investigation, for I do not.
I think the subject will bear the closest and
most technical scrutiny.
What is the objection to the removal of
the session of the Legislature from Pawnee
City to Shawnee Mission? If gentlemen
will examine, they will find the law bearing
an the case in five or six paragraphs, which I
mnex :
"Sec. 22. The persons thus elected to the
Legislative Assembly shall meet at such place
is the Governor shall appoint."
" Sec. 24. The legislative power of the
Territory shall extend to all rightfu1 3ubjecta
af legislation, consistent with the Constitution
and the provisions of this act."
" Sec. 31. The seat of government is hereby
located temporarily at Fort Leavenworth."
?Nebraska and Kansas Art.
" Sec. 0. In the event that the Secretary
if War shall deem it inconsistent with the
interests of the military service to furnish a
?? 1!? -c !i:i .4
UIUUIUIU JHJlllUU Ul IIIC liJllltUiji MUUUlUga at
Fort Leavenworth for the use of the territorial
government of Kansas, the sura of
twenty-five thousand dollars shall be, and in
that contingency is hereby, appropriated for
the erection of public buildings for the use
bf the Legislature of the Territory of Kansas,
to be expended under the directions of
the Governor of said Territory."?Art of
1854, parje 582.
"Appropriation of 825,000 for the continuance
and erection of public buildings
for use of the Legislature of Kansas, to be
jxpended under the direction of the Goveraor:
Provided, that said money, and the
money heretofore appropriated, shall not be
jxpended until the Legislature of said Territory
shall have fixed by law the permanent
jeat of government."?Act of 1855, j>aOe
335.
It is admitted that the Legislature had a
right to establish a permanent seat of government;
that it had a right to make a tempo-ary
seat of government urless such action .
vas inconsistent with the Kansas Nebraska
ict. Inconsistency is inferred ; and it is
intended that Fort Leavenworth was the
)nly place where the Legislature could meet
>ther than where the Governor might assemble
them until a permanent seat of government
was established. But this, it strikes
me, is a great misconception. "Why ? Genleraen
overlook this important fact, that
.here was a government in Kansas for a year
. . . lL a T AMnLitlMA *vi a! n MAV?a?m?MAn4
juiure uiu jjegiaiuiuie xnct?u guvciuuicuo
ntended by the act. The Governor was the
Executive and the Legislature. He was the
Government until the Territorial Legislature
was called together. He had a great mission
confided to him. To him, as to some
modern Pygmalion, was given the high trust
a bid a beautiful, social fabric rise out of
;haos. He had a noble mission given to
lim?a mission which has made the names
)f Solon and Lycurgus immortal. It was a
mission which, if well performed, gave the
ictor a place in the pantheon of history; but
f falsified, subjected him to the reprobation
)f impartial history.
The Governor, then, was the government
)f Kansas. He was as effectually the State
is Louis XIV, when he uttered those impeial
words, " I am the State " There was
levolved on him the duty of causing a cenius
of the inhabitants and qualified voters,
ippointing the times, places, and manner of
rolding the first elections, declaring the numier
of members of the Legislature, to certifying
as to who might appear to be elected,
ind appointing the time and place of the first
neeting of the Legislature. He had the
ioing of everything necessary to launch this
foung ship of State on its great historical
royage. Well, sir, it was obligatory on him
,o locate his seat of government at Fort Learenworth?for
how long ? Forever ? No;
)ut temporarily. What does temporarily
mean ? A short time. It was the duty of
he Governor of Kansas in the beginning to
ocat? the seat of government temporarily
' for a short time," at Fort Leavenworth.?
lie did so ; and the seat of government was
here for some two months. Not finding
proper accommodations there it was removed
)y him to the Shawnee Mission. Now, if,
vhen the Territorial Legislature was asscm)led,
and while they were passing a laW for
;he removal of the seat of government from
Pawnee City to Shawnee Mission, it was obected
that they had no right to pass such
aw?that it would be inconsistent with the
provision of the Kansas Nebraska act, mating
Fort Leavenworth a temporary seat of
government, would it nut have been a satis'actory
answer, if it were shown that the seat
)f government had been temporarily at Fort
Leavenworth, that the act had been obeyed
n that particular?that it had its full effica;y?
It seems to me this view puts an end
o all difficulty.
The Kansas act designated Fort Leavcnvorth
as the seat of government for a " short
line;" that is temporarily. The Governor
lid conform to the act in this particular.?
Fort Leavenworth was the seat of government
'or a short time, and thus the act having been
ibeyed and had its active energy, was dis:harged,
spent, complied with, exhausted,
>y the time the Legislature assembled, and
hey, therefore, in removing to Shawnee,
lid not trench on its provisions. I, there'ore,
put this part of the case upon the ground
hat the seat of government was at Fort Lea'nrmrnrtVi
fnr n << time." There IS
lothing in that pretence, it strikes me, in a
ogieal point of view.
But to advance: It will be found that
;here is an important modification made by
Congress in reference to the 6eat of governuent
being temporarily at Fort Leavenworth,
rhat place was first designated. Congress
lfterwards appropriated money to provide acjommodations
for the Legislature there, in
;ase the military buildings could not, in the
jpinion of the Secretary of War, be spared
br the use of the Territorial Legislature.?
Congress subsequently, at the next session,
passed an act appropriating $25,000 additionil
to be expended in providing public buildings
at the seat of government; but with a
proviso, that no money should be expended
[continued on the fourth pace.]