SPEECH of HON. ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS, OF GEORGIA, ON THE REPORT OF THE KANSAS INVESTIGATING COMMITTEE, IN THE CASE OF REEDEB AGAINST WHITFIELD. DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, JULY 31, 1856. WASHINGTON: PRINTED AT THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE OFFICE. 1856.
A ? 44 <S J 76 • 7/5^^ r t
KANSAS CONTESTED ELECTION. Mr' STEPHENS said: Mr. Speaker: If I were to consult my feelings to-day, my strength and physical ability, I should not trespass upon the patience of the House. If I were to consider the temperature of the day, the heat—the sweltering heat by which we are almost overpowered,! should certainly say nothing on this occasion. If I were to look to what is the apparent temper and tone of this body upon the subject before us, as indicated by the vote taken two days ago, I should feel constrained to let this question now be decided without a word from me. I should despair of all hope of being able to change what Seems to be a fixed determination of a majority of the House by any effort I could make. Day before yesterday 1 saw a majority on this floor, in order to reach a purpose similar to that which they now seem bent on, vote to confer the most unlimited Ahd dangerous power on the President of theUnitedStates. No subservient part yin the P>ritish House of Commons ever yielded more power to the Crown by a vote of confidence, than this House on the occasion I refer to, conferred upon our Chief Magistrate, whom they have been wont so generally to mistrust, and unjustly to censure and upbraid. I allude to the vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from'Ohio [Mr. Sherman] to the Army bill. It is in these words: “ Provided, nevertheless, That no part of the military force of the United States Herein provided for shall be employed in aid of the enforcement of the enactments of the alleged Legislative Assembly of the Territory of Kansas, recently assembled at Shawnee Mission, until Congress shall have enacted either that it was or was not a valid Legislative Assembly, chosen in conformity with the organic law by the people of the said Territory: Jlnd provided, That until Congress shall have passed on the validity of the । said Legislative Assembly of Kansas, it shall be the dutj of the President to use the military force in said Territor to preserve the peace, suppress insurrection, repel invasion and protect persons and property therein, and upon tin national highways in the State of Missouri, or elsewhere from unlawful seizures and searches: Jlnd be it furthei provided, That the President is required to disarm tip present organized militia of the Territory of Kansas, am recall all the United States arms therein distributed, am J to prevent armed men from going into said Territory P disturb the public peace, or aid in the enforcement or resist ance of real or pretended laws.” The President, by this provision, which re ceived the sanction of a majority of this House is created sole dictator over Kansas. His will should the Senate concur—which I feel confiden they will not do — would be more omnipotem there than that of Caesar’s ever washover thi Roman legions, before he crossed the Rubicon Gentlemen on this side of the House, in theii misguided zeal for what they call freedom, have conferred on the President a power that 1 mysell would confer on no living man. Not only this they have conferred a power in direct violation of tne Constitution of the United States. Thej have authorized the President to disarm the militu ■of Kansas ! The second amendment of the Constitution is in these words---- Mr. PURVIANCE. I rise to a question ol order. Is it in order to refer to the action of this body on a former occasion ? . The SPEAKER. The Chair thinks that tht gentleman from Georgia is in order so far as he has proceeded. Mr. STEPHENS. The gentleman may keep quiet. This is not the only vote of the majority I intend to allude to. Another one I have in store may disturb him even more than this. Tin
4 second article of the amendment to the Constitution of tl United States is as follows; “ A well-tegulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people tc keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” That is f e language of the Constitution we have all swot i to support. The right of the people—the milt t—to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, say;, .he Constitution; but this House, in the face and teeth of the Constitution, has said that this rightshall be infringed!—that the militia of Kansas shall be disarmed, and that the wheels of Government shall be stopped,.unless this unconstitutional behest of theirs shall be complied with. And now, since I have seen the majority of this House thus arraying themselves against the Constitution, and striking down this great bulwark of liberty, and the safeguard of the rights of the free white people of this country, to answer an unhallowed purpose of party, under a false idea of “ negro freedom,” am I not justified in saying that I almost despair of effecting anything,by .what I may say in behalf of right, truth, justice, law, order, and the Constitution? But, sir, that vote was given without argument i—without full debate. On the subject now before (us, we are not yet trammeled with the previous Question. It is my purpose, therefore, to-day— notwithstanding m bodily weakness, notwith- fetanding the heat of the weather, arid notwithstanding this unfavi able indication of the tone and temper of the House—to make, an appeal to whatever good sense and sound judgment may be left in the House. 1 do not yet despair of the tause of truth. 1 shall never despair so long as men will hear and lend a .stening ear to reason. I intend to-day to argue this question on principles, fixed, immutable, and as unassailable as Ithose of the Constitu;' ci itself; and I approach the subject with the ' ings of one thrice nerved for the argument, i a the consciousness that that iis cause is bottom^ upon truth and right. The first re^hlmiqu upon your mWe declares John W. Wm ikld, the sitting Delegate of the Territory of peat, as such, on it outset of what 1 ska resolution, that the in tlie slightest degr. before. The report tee sent out to Kaihos its of the case an iota. nsas, is not entitled to his nor. And 1 state, in the say in opposition to this : -stion has not changed pee the subject was here the investigating commit- iias not changed the merThere is no fact, no circumstance, collected in the mass of testimony that 1 now have before me, which changes the merits of the question in the smallest particular. How stood the case before the committee was instituted ? The sitting Du legate presented himself, with the certificate, vn't the seal of the Governor of the Territory, a 'illy ejected under the territorial law, parsed in conformity with the law of Congress. By virtue of the certificate lie was sworn in, and took his scat. What was the objection filed to his holding his scat ns such? An allegation on the part of the contestant, nut that he did not have a majority of the legal voters at the election, but that the fait’passed in the Territory, under which the sitting Delegate was elected, was invalid, and the election under it therefore void, because of the illegality of the organization of the Territorial Legislature that enacted it. This statement covers the whole merits of the case, as it stood when the committee was raised. 1 said then, and I say now, that the subject of the legality or illegality of the organization of the Territorial Legislature of Kansasis a question over which this House has no jurisdiction. The proper return and election of the members of that Legislature were questions to be settled and determined by the Governor and the Houses of the Legislature respectively, themselves. This was my position then, and it is the same now. 1 shall not, at this time, repeat the argument then submitted; but I throw down the gauntlet, and defy any gentleman to answer or controvert it. No man can get over.it or around it, but by overriding principles as old as Magna Charta, and which lie at the foundation of all American representative institutions. The right of every legislative body to settle and determine absolutely the election of its own members, is a necessary incident of its own organic functions. In England, the House of Lords cannot question any decision of the Commons touching the election of its members; neither can the Commons question a like decision on the part of the Lords touching the qualifications of a peer; neither can the King, by his prerogative, interfere with the decision of either House on such subjects. These principles are laid down as the “ lex parliamentari,” by Sir Edward Coke, sustained by Blackstone, Mr. Justice Story, Kent, R?awle, and all writers upon the subject. They are incorporated in express .terms in the Constitution of the United States, so far as the rights of both Houses of Congress are concerned, and in the constitutions of ail our State governments, defining the powers of their legislative bodies. The same principle is recognized and affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Borden and others, growing' out of the Dorr rebellion in Rhode Island in 1842. It lies al the foundation of all legitimate political power as recognized in this country. Without it there I can be no certainty in legislation; and without its maintenance, nothing but. disorder, confusion, and the wildest anarchy may be expected to ensue. We cannot have a representative Government administered on any other principle. If you can inquire into the legality of the election of the members of the Legislature of the Territory of Kansas, in the question now before its, you can do the same thing with regard to the States. If you can judge of the returns and qualifications of members of that Legislative Assembly, you can also upon the same principle inquire into mid judge of the legality of the elections, returns, and qualifications of members of the several State Legislatures that passed the laws under which ail Lhe members ol this House were elected. The Senate may do the same in their body. Where is the difference? And where is this matter to end ? In judging the qualifications and elections of the members of this House, we sit as a court; and in passing judgment upon the validity of such
5 laws as come before us in our investigations, we ] are to be governed by the same rules and principles as those of all other courts in like cases. If I the law of Kansas under which the sitting Dele-: gate was elected, has anything in it inconsistent' with the Constitution of the United States, or j the organic act of the Territory, you have aright to that extent to pronounce it invalid and void, as any other court would have; but questions relating to the organization of the law-making power, courts will never inquire into,.and we cannot properly do it either. No case can be found where it.has ever been done, either in this country or England. The Legislature of Kansas was elected in pursuance of a proclamation of the Governor of the Territory, under the organic act passed by Congress. It was made the duty of the Governor to supervise that election, prescribe the mode and manner of holding it, and to declare who was properly and legally elected. You passed another bill day before yesterday, for the reorganization of that Territory, and directing another election to be held in the same way. In that bill the same identical words are used—“ that the Governor shall declare who are legally elected to the Legislature.” Suppose that Sill.should become a law, and the Governor.appointed under it should order a new election, and after the returns made should declare a majority to be duly elected, just as in the case of the Legislature whose laws are now brought in review, would this House again un- tertake to set aside that judgment, if it should so turn out that the new Legislature under the new act should pass any laws that the majority of this House might not like? Where is to be the end of this business ? Now, sir, I maintain that, if the bill which has just passed this House, shall become a law, and < the Governor to be appointed under it shall order | an election for another Legislature, and in pur- , suance of his directions an election shall be held for members of a House of Representatives and, a Council as provided, and the Governor, upon canvassing the returns, shall declare, as it will be his duty to do, who may be duly and legally elected, and shall give certificates accordingly, and the two houses of the Legislature, thus constituted, shall, after being duly sworn, enter upon . their legislative duties under a law thus passed by Congress, and shall hear and determine, each House for itself, all matters pertaining to the election of its members, outside of the prima facie certificate of the Governor; all such matters and questions so pertaining to the election of the members, and the legality of the organization of the Legislature so constituted, will be forever closed by that determination. This House would have no right or power to reopen the question. And just so in the case before us, Congress passed a law organizing a territorial government. The Governor appointed was authorized to order an election for members of a Legislature at such time, and such places, and in such manner as he thought proper. The returns of the election were to be made to him, and he had power | to declare who was duly elected. The House of Representatives was to consist of twenty-six ■ members, and the Council of thirteen. The Gov-i ernor ordered an election on the 30th of March ,, 1855. He divided the Territory into ten council! districts, fourteen representative districts, and| eighteen election districts, or voting precincts.. He appointed the judges of election at each poll and directed how their places thould be filled in| case those appointed should fail or refuse to act. The judges were all to be sworn. The rules and! regulations for conducting the -election were ex-, ceedinglyrigid. The election was so held. The) returns were.made to him as required; and out of the twenty-six members of the House of Rep-1 resentatives, he declared seventeen were duly! elected, and awarded certificates accordingly. Ot thirteen Councilmen, he declared nine were duly! elected, and awarded them certificates accordingly. The election of four councilmen and nind representatives to the House he set aside. In these cases he ordered new elections. This took place on the 22d of May, and he awarded certificates to those whom he declared to be duly elected at that election. The members of the House and Council, thus declared to be duly elected by him,| were convened by him on the 2d day of JulyL 1855. Every member, of both the Council and House of Representatives, in that. Legislature! so convened, took his seat by virtue of the Governor’s certificate. These are admitted facts. Nothing brought to light by the investigating committee assails or impeaches any one of them in the slightest degree. Each House, after being thus constituted, inquired into, heard, and determined all questions of contested seats in theifi respective*bodies, as all other legislative assemblies do. The right to do this was inherent in! them. On this point Judge Story says, in his Treatise on the Constitution of the United States,, volume 2, page 295: “ The only possible question on such a subject is as to the body in which such a power shall be lodged. If lodged in any other than the legislative body itself, its independence^ its parity, and even its existence and action, may be destroyed or put into imminent danger. No other body but itself can have the same motives to perpetuate and preserve these attributes; no other body can be so perpetually watch? ful to guard its own rights and privileges from infringement^ to purify and vindicate its own character, and to preserve! the rights and sustain the free choice of its constituentsj Accordingly, the power has always been lodged in the legisla-t tive body by the uniform practice of England and America.^ Such, too, is the doctrine of Coke, of Black-, stone, of Kent, and all writers upon the subject, asl I showed before. Each House, therefore, of the Kansas Legislature was the proper tribunal toi settle all questions pertaining to the election of I its own members; and their decision, when made,] was just as final in law as that of ours upon ai similar question here. There was, however, noi contest over the election of but seven members of I the House, and two of the Council. Two mem-, bers of the Council, and two of the House, whose) election was set aside at the first election, were; declared duly elected at the second election.. Every one of the thirteen members of the Council, therefore, except, two, held his seat without
6 tony contest whatever; andnineteen of thetwenty- ise of Representatives ny contest. And after six members of the Hou held their seats without a ........ ........ the Houses were thus organized in pursuance of law, and compliance wi+h every legal form, they (were recognized as r gaHy-constituted, lawT- Eaking body by the Governor. He addressed em official communications as such. In his first message, in pointing out to them their duties, amongst other things the Governor named the duty of passing some such law as that qnder which the sitting Delegate was elected. He Vetoed some of their acts; but not upon any grounds touching the legality of their election or organization. All questions, therefore, of that ftharacter, I maintain, upon the soundest principles bf constitutional law, are now closed. It is too late to open them; and not one of these great, leading and controlling facts, in this case, iseven assailed by any testimony taken by the investigating committee. They are all confirmed and established by that testimony; and if the sitting Delegate shall be voted out upon grounds assumed in the report of the majority of the Committee of Elections, it will Establish not only a novel, but a most mischievous precedent. It will be taking one long step towards that revolution which a party in this country Beems to be aiming at. This House will but be joing what it is said the people of Missouri did in Kansas. It is said they carried the election there ey illegal voting; and what else will you be doing here ? Where do you get the power or authority »q say that Governor Reeder did not act right in jiving certificates of election to the members of the Legislature whom he adjudged to be duly elected ? Where do you get the power, under the Consti- Lution, or under the organic law, or under any jther law, to vacate his judgment in this case? The right to judge in the first instance was ex- sressly given to him. The right to judge finally md absolutely necessarily devolved upon the souses of the Legislature respectively. Congress seserved no supervisory power over the subject. Where, then, do yon derive your power of annul- mg a judgment of another department of Government having exclusive and absolute power md jurisdiction over the subject-matter? If it were true thatthe greatest frauds had been Sracticed in the election in Kansas—if any amount ^f illegal voting had been resorted to, and the people waived their right to inquire into it at the Proper time and before the proper tribunal—if they made nc complaint to the Governor when they ought \o have done it—if they made no protest within the $me prescribed—if defeated candidates failed to congest the returns of their competitors until after the term of office of the members of the Legislature expired, it is, as I maintain, now too late to file my such complaints before this or any other pody. The question of the legality of the organization of that Legislature, so elected, so constituted, so recognized by the Governor, so dis- iharging the functions of a law-making power, is, in my judgment, a closed question forever. And this is certainly the private opinion of Governor Reeder himself; for in the mass of testi- tnony, collected by the committee, (pages 1152, 1153, and 1154,) I find two letters written by him ' in this city last waiter to a friend of his in Kansas. I will read to the House an extract of one of these, bearing date the 12th February, 1856. It was in relation to the movements in Kansas, in opposition to the territorial laws. In this letter he says: “ As to putting a set of laws into operation in opposition to the territorial government, my opinion is confirmed instead of being shaken; my predictions have all been verified so fafpimd Will 'be in the-fimire'. We. will be, so far as legality is concerned, in the wrong; and that is no trifling matter, in so critical a state of things, and in view of suclibloody consequences.: “ I may speak my plain and private opinion to our friends in Kansas, for it is my duty. But to the public, as you will see by my published letter, I show no divided front.” This admission covers the whole ground. In it he distinctly asserts, and gives it as his own candid judgment, that, “ so faros legality is concerned,” hie and his friends were in the wrong. The truths acknowledged in this admission are the same which I have been endeavoring to enforce. The whole merits of this case turn, in the report of the Committee of Elections, upon the simple question of the legality of the organization of the Legislature that passed the law under which the sitting Delegate was elected. That, in my judgment, is a closed question. That, in the private judgment of Governor Reeder also, was a closed question. Out of his mouth he stands condemned in this movement. But, Mr. Speaker, strong as these positions are—unassailable as they are—impregnable as they are—I do not intend to rest the argument solely upon them. I intend to take up the report of the committee of investigation referred to by the gentleman from Maine, [Mr. Washburn.] I intend to examine it, and exhibit to this House and the country the character of some-of the fads reported by them. I intend to examine some of their conclusions, too. Thegentleman from Maine [Mr. Washburn] says, “that all the conclusions as to matters of fact arrived at by the said special committee are clearly and mcontrovertibly established by the testimony in the case.” Now’, sir, I join issue with the gentleman from Maine, [Mr. Washburn.] I join issue with the majority of the Committee of Elections. 1 join issue also with the investigating committee as to the matters of fact arrived at by them in the'conclusions to which they come in their report; and I defy the gentleman from Maine, [Mr. Washburn,] or either gentleman on the investigating committee, or anybody else in this Houseorout ofit, to maintain the correctness of the conclusions as to matters of fact arrived at by them. I shall show that what has been proclaimed “ official proof,” is nothing but reckless assertion. The first of these conclusions is in these words: “That each election in the Territory, held tinder the organic or alleged territorial law, has been carried by or ganized invasion from the State of Missouri, by which the people of the Territory have been prevented from exercising the rights secured to them by the organic law.” Now, sir, the gentleman from Maine, [Mr.
7 Washburn,] and the majority of the Committee of Elections, assert in their report that this con- I elusion, as a matter of fact, is incontrovertibly established by the testimony taken. I say that1 the testimony taken establishes no such fact. I say,that the testimony taken establishes a'factin direct contradiction to this statement. I say that the evidence abundantly and conclusively establishes the fact that General Whitfield was duly elected by the actual and legal resident voters of the Territory, at the election on the 29th of November, 1854. ' This fact appears not only from the testimony,' but it is admitted by the committee of investigation themselves in their own report. Then how can it be true thqt every election there has been carried ‘ '"•'’anized invasion from Missouri ? 1 will read from the doc se f. Hereon page 8 is what purports to be an abstract of the vote cast on the 29th of November, 1854, fr<?m which it seems that Whitfield got 2,258 votes; Flenniken 305; Wakefield, which (I believe) was a mistake for Whitfield, 248, and 22 scattering. These 305 for Flenniken, and 22 scattering, were all the votes Cast against Whitfield in the entire Territory. Mr. SHERMAN. The gentlemands entirely mistaken. The abstract shows that 2,258,votes were cast for Whitfield; 248 for Wakefield; 305 for Flenniken, and 22 scattering, but that 1,729 of those votes were illegal, and only 1,114 were legal. Of the legal.votes cast General Whitfield had a plurality, having received 537 legal votes. Mr. STEPHENS. I tell the gentleman I am not mistaken; and his statement, that 1,729 of the 2,258 cast for Whitfield were illegal, is not sustained by proof. There is a wide difference between assertion and proof, and this table exhibits the truth of this most forcibly. The table states that there were 1,729 illegal votes cast; but where is the proof of the fact of these 1,729 votes being illegal ? The table is not proof. The table also states that there were only 1,114 legal votes cast at that election. Where is the proof of that? But suppose there were only 1,114 legal votes cast. Take from that number 305 votes cast for Flenniken, and 22 scattering, and it would leave Whitfielffelected by a large majority; or, if the 248 for Wakefield were not intended for Whitfield, and if all the votes for that name, and the 327 for Flenniken, and scattering, were legal votes, as is assumed, but without proof, then, Whitfield, having 537 admitted legal votes, was duly elected, having received a greater number than any other candidate. How, then, can it be said that his election, in this instance, was carried by an organized invasion from Missouri ? But, sir, I call for the proof upon which this exhibit of legal and illegal votes is made 1 The exhibit of Whitfield’s, Wakefield’s, and Flenniken’s votes, and the scattering votes, is copied from the official return, but the addenda touching the legal and illegal votes, and the number of voters under the census taken three months after, Have been put to it by the committee. It is in their statement, not in the testimony, and I ask for the proof to warrant it? But, even according to the gentleman’s own showing, now made, after deducting from his count one thousand seven hundred and twenty-nine without proof, Whitfield was certainly duly elected at that election by the legal voters of the Territory., Indeed, the committee of investigation say, in reference to this election, on page 8 of their reportu “Of dfe legal votes cast, General Whitfield re- ceivfed a plurality.” This settles the questiOn.i If Whitfield got a plurality of the legal votes ofi the Territory, of course he was duly elected. Now, sir, I ask the gentleman upon my right! [Mr. Washburn] to tell me, and this House,। and the country, how he and a majority of the! committee of elections can say that it is estab^ lished by “ incontrovertible proof ” that “ each elec* tion in the Territory, held under the organic or alleged territorial law, has been carried by an i ’'ized invasion from the State of Missouri?” u " matter of fact, arrived at by the special con. n.c 4 as clearly and incontrovertibly es« tablishe.il or ’'h testimony,” cannot stand a moment’s hand! Jg It falls at the first blow. Ilia the first conclusion wrived at by the committed of investigation, and incorporated in the report of the Committee of Elections, as the foundation, the very corner-stone of the fabric of their report in this case. This cornei none, sir, I knock from under the fabric, and the whole superstructure must fall witli it, if there be nothing more solid oi firm for it to rest upon. But, sir, I do not intend to stop here. ThiS conclusion of the committee is but a sample oi all the rest. I have read the whole of this document of one thousand two hundred and six pagesi and I assert that there is ne. * single one of tin conclusions of the committee arrived at as ma® ters of fact, which is sustained by the testimony massive, voluminous, and contradictory as it is I repeat, however, here again, that there is not i fact or statement contained in it, by the mog prejudiced, one-sided witness sworn, which goei to assail or impeach in the slightest degree th great leading facts upon which the merits of thr case'’ rest. These are the elections held in pur suance of the Governor’s proclamation under th organic law—his judgment.upon the returns g the election of the members—the large majoritj of both branches of the .Legislature holding thei seats during their whole term under the certifi cates of the Governor, without a word of coni plaint from him or anybody else—that he, a Governor, recognized them as a legislative bod? —that he did not question the legality of thei organization. The testimony of Governor Reede himself was taken, and none of these facts at denied by him. No word of complaint was ev« heard about the legality of the organization of til Legislature, or about an invasion from Missouri for several long months after the election; nc until after he was turned out of office. Durifi all this, time, before he was removed by the Preu ident, the only cry heard from him, as the sent] nel upon the watchtower of the rights of tl] people of Kansas, was, “All’s well I” But, sir, I will proceed. 1 intend to take u this mass of testimony, and sift it a little further
8 to see how far it warrants the conclusions of the committee touching the elections of the members of the Legislature on the 30th of March, 1855. The testimony is all we have anything to do with. The conclusions of the committee are nothing. They were not authorized to give us any of their conclusions; and I have shown yoy wh^ their conclusions are worth, taking one as a sample. To collect and report the facts was all they, had to do. Then, sir, what fact is sworn to by a single witness, upon which the election, in a single district, held on the 30th of March, could be legally set aside if we were now sitting in judg- mentupon it? The greater part of this testimony, taken vrith the view to impeach the election of 30th of March,is nothing butlong-winded stories, as pointless as they are evidently prejudiced, (founded in many instances upon bare hearsay, and (altogether establishing nothing. The statements । of most of the witnesses are all on the same line, ispeaking of an invasion, companies of men coming rover from Missouri in hundreds, in wagons, armed with guns, pistols, knives, &c., but not one of them swears that ^single man in the Territory, at la single election precinct, was prevented from voting [by the use of these arms, or any other violence. The testimony of all the witnesses sworn does mot establish the fact, that one hundred known residents of Missouri voted in the whole Territory, or that the result at a single poll would have been different if all the votes proven to be illegal be rejected in the count. There were but three or four fights throughout the Territory on the day of the election, and not one of these about voting. All this general vague rumor and statement, therefore, about an invasion from Missouri, and the election having been carried by fraud, [force, and violence, 1 shall pass over. To set aside an election upon the grounds of illegal voting, the names of the voters must be stated, and the illegality of the votes proved. There is nothing of this kind in this testimony. Nor is the bare fact of illegal voting at an election sufficient to set it aside. If this were so, there are very few of Us entitled to seats upon this floor, I suspect. To set aside an election on such grounds, it must be shown that the result would be different by a rejection of the illegal votes. I wish, however, to call the attention of the House and the country to some real, substantial Tacts collected by the committee, of much weigh- Cier import than these loose sayings of one-sided md swift witnesses. Amongst these facts of substantial character is a copy of the census taken [n February, 1855, which is to be found commencing on page 72 of the committee’s report. This census gives the name of each resident legal voter in the Territory, thirty days before the March election. It also gives the State from which the settler migrated. The committee do pot seem to have given much attention to the important facts disclosed by this official document. They have made no analysis of these facts. I nave. 1 have counted every name on the census roll, and noted the section of country from which me settler migrated, and I find that of those who tvcre registered as legal voters of the Territory I in February, a month before the election, 1,670 l were from the southern States, and only 1,018 from the entire North! There were 217 from other countries. That makes the 2,905 resident legal voters in the Territory, a month before the election. I have compiled a table setting forth the number of settlers from the North, and settlers from the South, as given in the census report, for each district in the Territory. Here it is: Settlers from Settlers from the North. the South. First district.................................... 280 88 Second district........... . ....................67 132 Third district............................ 49 37 Fourth district.................................. 24 23 Fifth district......................................129 295 Sixth district................................... 83 155 Seventh district............................ 32 21 Eighth district........................... 12 26 Ninth district................................ 27 10 Tenth district................................... 29 27 Eleventh district......................... - 28 Twelfth district............................... 50 • 49 Thirteenth district....................... 22 55 Fourteenth district................ 42 286 Fifteenth district............................... 37 206 Sixteenth district............. . ............. 125 192 Seventeenth district....................... 10 40 1,018 1,670 In the first election district, there were 280 legal voters, emigrants from the northern States-,-and 88 from the southern. That is the Lawrence district. In the second district, there were ,67 from the North, and 132 from the South. In the third district, there were 49 from the North, and 37 from the South. In the fourth district, there were 24 from the North, and 23 from the South. In the fifth district, there were 129 from the North, and 295 from the South. In the sixth, there were 83 from the North, and 155 from the South. Mr. SHERMAN. Will my friend read again ; the numbers from the fifth district? [ Mr. STEPHENS. In the fifth district, there were 129 from the North, and 295 from the South. The fifth district had an overwhelming majority of residents from the South, and that is the only district, I believe, in which the committee have taken the testimony of witnesses to prove that the Abolitionists were in a'majority on the day of election. Now, sir, from these facts — facts of record, and indisputable, I deduce an argument which, to my mind, is much more incontrovertible and irresistible than any inference the majority of the committee may draw from the vague sayings of witnesses, about a multitude of-strangers being at the polls in wagons, &c. This inference, which I draw from these facts, is, that there was a decided majority of anti-Free-Soilers in the Territory, and in a large majority of the districts, in the month of February, if there had been no immigration after that time. But the evidence is abundant and conclusive that there was a large immigration of legal voters from the South after
9 the census was taken, and before the election, much larger than at any other, time. (A. B. Wade, page 159, and others.) One witness, Mr. Banks, on page 164, swears, that “ betwixt two and (three hundred settlers moved into the district (the first) in which he lived, which was after the census was taken, and before the election.” His .testimony related, to only, part of the^ district, where he was acquainted. Another, witness swears that, to the best of his knowledge and belief, there were four hundred actual residents and legal voters of the pro-slavery party in this first district on the day of election, (page 1159.) The testimony shows that, in most of the districts, there was a large immigration of actual residents, legal voters from the South, after the census was taken, and before the day of election. It shows, further, that the immigration during that time was much larger from the South than the North. But the facts disclosed by the census show that there was a majority of six hundred and fifty-two of legal voters from the South over those from the. North, in February. Now, sir, with these facts before us, I call the special attention of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr.Sherman] to the following statement in his report, on page 34: If the election had been confined to the actual settlers, undeterred by the presence of non-residents, or the knowledge that they would be present in numbers sufficient to outvote them, the testimony indicates that the council would have been composed of seven in favor of making Kansas a free State, elected from the first, second, third, fourth, and sixth council districts. Theresultin the eighth and tenth, electing three members, would have been doubtful ; and tire fifth, seventh, and ninth, would have elected three pro-slavery members. “ Under like circumstances the House of Representatives would have been composed of fourteen members in favor of making Kansas a free State, elected from the second, third, fourth, fifth, seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth representative districts. “ The result in the twelfth and fourteenth representative districts, electing five members, would have been doubtful; and the first, sixth, eleventh, and fifteenth districts would have elected seven pro-slavery members. “ By the election as conducted, the pro-slavery candidates in every district but the eighth representative district received a majority of the votes.” In this statement the committee say that the testimony indicates that, if the election had been confined to the actual settlers, the council would have been composed of seven in favor of making Kansas a free State, elected from the first, second, third, fourth, and sixth council districts. Now, sir, I join issue with the gentleman and the committee on this point. The census, which the committee seem not to have consulted, is the best testimony on it. Let us then see what indications it affords. The first council district consisted of the first, fourth, and seventeenth election districts. In these, according to the census, the legal voters, emigrants from the North, according to the census, was 314, from the South 151; making the number of legal resident voters in that council district 465, in February, without taking any count of immigration afterwards; but the evidence shows that many of the residents coming from the North, and even some of the acknowledged free-State men, voted for those called pro-slavery candidates, because they did not like the. candidates put up by their party. They were too ultra in their abolitionism, (page 160.) The testimony shows, also, that the whole number of votes cast for the Free-Soil candidates in that council district, was but 254, (page 31.) This would give 43 majority for them, if the 254 cast for them were all legal votes. But the testimony of Mr. Ladd, Governor Reeder’s own witness, who was a candidate on that ticket for councilman, establishes the fact that at least fifty of these votes were illegal, cast by emigrants from New England, just arri ved—some of them fortyeight hours before the election. This will be seen on page 118 of this huge volume. His language is as follows: “ I know some of those who had recently arrived voted : I can only approximate their numbers—I should think there were from fifty to sixty. I think there were some who arrived within forty-eight hours; I cannot say as to whether they made settlements in the Territory at that time.” If, then, these fifty or sixty acknowledged illegal votes be deducted from those cast for the Abolition ticket, it would leave a majority for the candidates on the other side, of the actual residents in February, even in Lawrence, the great rendezvous of New England emigrants, and without any reference to the emigration from the South after the census was taken. There is no evidence, by any witness sworn, that any man, even in Lawrence, was prevented from voting by force, violence, or intimidation. Some witnesses swear that they did not vote because of the crowd; but not one swears that he could not have voted if he had wanted to, in consequence of any violence, force, or threat; and there was no crowd about the polls in the afterpart of the day. Therefore, in this first district, the testimony in connection with the census does not indicate that, if the election had been left to the actual residents alone, the Free-Soil ticket would have been elected. This, however, was one of the elections set aside by the Governor, and another was held there on the 22d of May. But, sir, how is it in the other council districts mentioned by the committee? I have a paper before me which I have compiled, exhibiting the organization of all of the council districts, with the number of settlers in each from the North and South, according to the census as far as can be ascertained. The seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth council districts were formed by dividing the districts in which the census was taken, in such a way that the exact number of settlers from each section cannot be accurately arrived at in them; but it is apparent, from the census returns, that they could not have been divided so as not to have had a large majority of settlers from the South in each. Here is the exhibit:
10 COUNCIL DISTRICTS Number of Council District. Election Districts. Settlers from the North. Settlers from the South. 1st, composed of 1st 4th ,17th 280 24 10 88 23 40 314 151 2d « CC 2d 67 132 3d cc « 3d 7th ' 8th 49 32 12 37 21 26 93 84 4th u « 5th 129 295 5th « CC 6th 83 155 6 th « « 9th 10th 11th 12th 27 29 50 10 27 28 49 106 114 7th <1 it -• 18th and parts of 14th and 15th - Large majority from the South. 8th « Part of 14th, —Burr Oak precinct. - Large majority from the South. 9th « CC Part of 15tb : - Large majority from the South. 10th cc it 16th and part of 13th - Large majority from the South. » O 1 2 1 1 1 2 no witness states any fact to the contrary; but many confirm this indication. The eighth and tenth districts, they say, would have been doubtful, while the census'shows a large majority-of the settlers in those districts were emigrants from the South. In reply to what is said in the extract read from the report touching the character of the House 'I have also made an exhibit from which it will be seen upon what sort of foundation that statement rests. REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICTS. I have already shown what the testimony indicates in the first council district. Then how is it in the second ? The census shows that there were 67 resident legal votes in it from the North-, and 132 from the South. The evidence of witnesses shows that this majority from the South was largely increased by actual residents before the election, (page 1157.) In the third council district the census showed a majority of 9 only from the North. The evidence of witnesses shows that this majority was overcome before the election by actual settlers from the South, The fourth shows only 129 from the North, against 295 from the South. The sixth district shows a majority of 8 from the South. In the districts mentioned by the committee, the census returns, by themselves, clearly indicate that' but two of them had a majority of settlers from the North, while ! Number of Representative districts. f Election . districts. Settlers from the North. Settlers from tiie South. - . __ No-of Reps. 1 1 1st composed of ( 17th i 4th 10 24 40 23 1 I 34 63 2d ft Ct 1st 280 88 3 ,, 3d « CC 2d 67 132 2 4th Ct a 3d 49 37 1 5th u « ( 7th j 8 th 32 12 21 26 44 47 6th Ct 6th 83 155 2 7th Ct CC 5th 129 295 4 8th M CC ( 9th I Wth 27 29 10 27 ? 1 56 37 9th CC H ( 11th i 12th 50 28 49 11 50 77 10th CC 13th 22 55 1 11th It CC 7th Council district ; viz : 18th and parts of 14th and 15th. - Large ma jority from the South. 2 12th Ct Cl Burr Oak precinct in the 14th. - '------* ------' Majority from the South. 2 13th CC CC 1 Part of ) £ istn 5 ■ - Majority from the South. A _..y.___— _ - 2 14 th Ct CC c 16th and ) 4 part of > ( 13th 5 - Majority from the South. 3
11 From this table, Eased upon the census, it is clearly established that there was a majority of the actual settlers from the North in the Territory in but three of the fourteen representative districts. These 'were the second, fourth, and eighth—electing in all but five members out of the twenty-six. But I cannot dwell upon these exhibits. No man can gainsay the facts they disclose. They are based upon the census, and the .organization of the districts by Governor Reeder; and these two exhibits show conclusively to my mind, and as I think to all candid minds, that if the vote in the Territory had Keen confined exclusively to the actual resident registered voters in February, the result of the election would not have been different from what it was! The census shows that there were then a majority of 652 residents in the Territory from the South, over those from the North; and it is well known that great numbers of the emigrants from the North voted with the southern settlers against the Free-Soil party at the election. Four of the members elected to the Legislature, voted for by southern men, were from the North. Mr. Banks, a member of the House, went from Pennsylvania; Mr. Water- son, from Ohio; Mr. Lykins, a member of the Council, was from Indiana, and Mr. Barbee from Illinois. These men, though emigrating from the North, were members of the Legislature, and belonged to wliat the gentleman styles the proslavery or “border ruffian” party in Kansas. The whole 44 Free-Soil vote,” or 44 free7State” vote, as the gentleman calls it, in the entire Territory on the 30th of March, amounted to less ; th’an 800, as appears from the exhibits of the com- ; mittee’s report, (pages 31 and 32.) This is more | than 200 less than the number of emigrants from the North in the Territory, according to the census, aijd less than one third of the legally- registered voters in February. Now, as no witness swears that any man of that party was prevented from voting, the whole ‘ evidence taken together clearly indicates, if it does not establish, the fact conclusively, that the Free-Soil party in Kansas was largely in the minority at the March election, and that all this cry about an invasion, and the election having been carried by Missourians, is nothing but clamor. It is an after-thought. As to the statement of old man Jordan, it is sufficient to say, in reply .to it, that there was no Free-Soil ticket run at the election where he was, in the third district. There was no reason, therefore, for any attempt to keep him from voting. It is very possible, Mr. Speaker—it is even probable, and I do not mean to say but what it is altogether true, that a great many illegal votes were cast at the election. It is certainly admitted, also, that great numbers of the citizens of Missouri went into the Territory on the day of the election, but there is no proof that any great numbers of them voted. They went, according to the testimony, to see that illegal voting should not be allowed by parties sent out by the eastern emigrant aid societies, barely for the purpose of voting and returning. The main point, however, 11 am now presenting is, that if every vote be I rejected and cast out of the count but those of the । actual resident registered voters in the Territory in February, the result, upon all reasonable and rational grounds of calculation and conclusion, would have been the same as it was. These views are founded upon fixed and ascertained facts— upon a registry of the legal voters, with the places i from which they went, and not upon loose state- I mehts of one-sided witnesses about the polls be- । ing crowded with strangers, and great multitudes ■ of people coming upon the ground in wagons, i&c. Why, Mr. Johnson .(one of the judges of ‘election, too, at a precinct in the seventh distn. j swears, on page 261, that 44 a great many of the people in that district, whom he considered legal, voters, came to the polls in their wagons, I have no doubt, as I came there myself in my wagon. It is the habit of the people in the Territory to go to gatherings in their wagons.” And in this immediate connection, too, he states, 44 and as a judge of election, I am willing now to swear that we allowed no man to vote that we did not consider had a right to vote.” The tale told by all the witnesses examined by Governor Reeder amounts to nearly the same thing. They all had their 44 story pat.” A great crowd was assembled about the polls. Some had guns, pistols, and knives. Well, sir, when and where was there ever an election held at which the people did not crowd about the polls? And is it not strange, that this army of invasion, with flags, banners, and music—guns, pistols, and knives, did so little mischief? Not a man was hurt by them in the whole Territory! Not a i homicide committed ! Not even an assault and battery about voting in the whole Territory! For from all the testimony taken it appears that there were but three or four fights in all Kansas on the day of election; and these fights were not about voting ! Why, sir, in the municipal election, in this city, the other day, at one precinct alone, there were half a dozen men knocked down— some were shot—one has since died of the wounds received in the affray; and one man, two or three days afterwards, was killed in the streets merely for hurrahing for his candidate! But in the invasion and subjugation of Kansas on this memorable election day, no man was killed—no man was even whipped for, or on account of, his voting! Strange invasion and subjugation was that! A subjugation without a life lost, a bone broken, or a bruise given, and about which no complaint was raised until months afterwards! And why, Mr. Speaker, was itgotup afterwards? Why do we hear so much of it now? What ia the real cause of all this clamor at this time, in this House and out of i. about the illegality of the election of the Leg mature in Kansas, and । of a pretended down- drying out for redress imposed upon them by ng State ? I understand ■a, top, doubtless, under- md it. There is a party i d to 44 rule or ruin ’ ’—nbt mghout the Republic. It , geographical lines against these pretended grievar trodden majority th- against a system of I the people of a neig it, sir, very well, au stand it. We all u11 in this country do, only in Kansas, hi,' I is a party forme J uj m
digitalcommons.cedarville.eduRkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM4ODY=