The Crime Against Kansas

26 < thousand. They submit, however, that awy ratio of resentation, dependent upon legislative action, based tly on convenience and expediency, shifting and vacil- ng as the opinion of a majority of Congress may make it, 7 greater than at a previous apportionment, but which a referred to in the treat’7 Lire Congress may prescribe to be less, cannot be one of f constitutional ‘principles’ rsistency with which, by its terms, is required. It is, in Ith, but a mere regulation, not founded on principle. No lcifi°d number of population is required by any recog- L'ed principle as necessary to the establishment of a free livernment. I It is in nowise ‘inconsistent with the principles of the rleral Constitution,’ that the population of a State should Hess than the ratio of Congressional representation. The f y case is provided for in the Constitution. With such pcient population, she would be entitled to one Repre- ptative. If any event should cause a decrease of the oulation of one of the States even to a number below the nimum ratio of representation prescribed by the Consti- ion, she would still remain a member of the Confederacy. !d be entitled to such Representative. It is respectfully Led, that a rule or principle which would not justify the pulsion of a State with a deficient population, on the pund f inconsistency with the Constitution, should not elude or prohibit admission.”—Ex. Doc., 27th Cong., 2d 38., Vol. 4, No. 206. Thus, sir, do the people of Florida plead for the people of msas. Distrusting the objection from inadequacy of population, is said that the proceedings for the formation of a new Uto are fatally defective in form. It is not asserted that a |evious enabling Act of Congress is indispensable; for ere are notorious precedents the other way, among which e Kentucky in 1791 ; Tennessee in 1796; Maine in 1S20; :d Arkansas and Michigan in 1836. But it is urged that no instance has a State been admitted, whose Constitu m was formed without such enabling Act, or without the ithoricy of the Territorial Legislature. This is not true; Ir California came into the Union with a Constitution [ rmed not only without any previous enabling Act, but also I thout any sanction from a Territorial Legislature. The । oceedings which ended in this Constitution were initiated I7 the military Governor there, acting under the exigency r the hour. This instance may not be identical in all rspects with that of Kansas ; but it displaces completely hie of the assumptions which Kansas now encounters, ar.d also shows completely the disposition to relax all rule, rider the exigency of the hour, in order to do substantial Lstice. But there is a memorable instance, which contains in ’self every element of irregularity which you denounce in i e proceedings of Kansas. Michigan, now cherished with ,ich pride as a sister State, achieved admission into the nion in persistent defiance of all rule. Do you ask for ’ecedents ? Here is a precedent foi the largest latitude, Jhich you, who profess a deference to precedent, cannot The first pro- '.sown. Mark now the stages of this ca-e. edings of Michigan were without any previous enabling ct of ith a mder as in Congress ; and she presented herself at your door Constitution thus formed, and with Senators chosen that Constitution—precisely as Kansas now. This December, 1S35, while Andrew Jackson was Presi- By the leaders of the Democracy at that time, all Objection for alleged defects of form was scouted, and anguage was employed which is strictly applicable to 'Kansas. There is nothing new under the sun ; and the ery objection of the President, that the application of tansas proceeds from “ persons acting against authorities uly constituted by Act of Congress,” was hurled against . le application of Michigan, in debate on this floor, by Mr. Hendricks of Indiana. This was his language: “ But the people of Michigan, in presenting their Senate bnd House of Representatives as the legislative power Existing there, showed that they had trampled upon and I iolated the laws of the United States, establishing a Terri- korial Government in Michigan. These laws were, or ought • o be, in full force there ; but by the character and position Hssumed, they had set up a Government antagonistic to that f the United States.”—Congress Deb., 2Ath Cong., 1st sens., pol. 12, p. 2SS. To this impeachment, Mr. Benton replied in these effective words: [ “ Conventions were original acts of the people. They Impended upon inherent and inalienable rights. The people of any State may at any time meet in Convention, without a law of their Legislature, and without any provision, or against any provision in their Constitution, and may alter or abolish the whole frame they please. The sovereign power to was in the majority, and they could not —Ibid., p. 1036. of Government as govern themselves be divested of it.” Mr. Buchanan vied with Mr. Benton new State: in vindicating the “ The precedent in the case of Tennessee has completely silenced all opposition in regard to the necessity of a previous act of Congress to enable the people of Michigan to form a State Constitution. It now seems to be conceded that our subsequent approbation is equivalent to our previous action. This can no longer be doubted. We have the unquestionable power of waiving.any irregularities in the mode of framing the Constitution, had any such existed.”—Ibid., p. 1041. “ He did hope that by this bill all objections would be removed ; and that this State, so ready to rush into our arma, would not be repulsed, because of the absence of some formalities, which perhaps were very proper, but certainly not indispensable.”—Ibid., p. 1015. After an animated contest in the Senate, the Bill for the admission of Michigan, on her assent to certain conditions, was passed, by 23 yeas to 8 nays. But you find weight, as well as numbers, on the side of the new State. Among the yeas were Thomas II. Benton, of Missouri; James Buchanan, of Pennsylvania; Silas Wright, of New York; W. R. King, of Alabama. (Cong. Globe, Vol. 3, p. 276, 1st session 24th Cong.) Subsequently, on motion of Mr. Buchanan, the two gentlemen sent as Senators by the new State, received the regular compensation for attendance throughout the very session in which their seats had been so acrimoniously assailed. (Ibid., p. 448 ) In the House of Representatives, the application was equally successful. The Committee on the Judiciary, in an elaborate report, reviewed the objections, and, among other things, said: f “That the people of Michigan have, without due authority, formed a State Government, but, nevertheless, thol Congress has power to waive any objection which might, on that account, be entertained, to the ratification of the Constitution which they have adopted, and to admit their Senators and Representatives to take their seats in the Congress of the United States.”—Ex. Doc., 1^ sess., 24th Congress, Vol. 3, No. 380. The House sustained this view by a vote of 153 yeas to 45 nays. In this large majority, by which the title of Michigan was then recognized, will be found the name of Franklin Pierce, at that time a Representative from New Hampshire. But the case was not ended. The fiercest trial and the greatest irregularity remained. The Act providing for the admission of the new State, contained a modification of its boundaries, and proceeded to require, as a fundamental conctition, that these should “receive the assent of a Convention of delegates, elected by the people of the said State, for the sole purpose of giving the assent herein required.” (Statutes at Large, Vol. 5, p. 50, Act of June 5,1336.) Such a Convention, duly elected under a call from the Legisla-_ ture, met in pursuance of law, and, after consideration, declined to come into the Union on the condition proposed. But the action of this Convention was not universally satisfactory ; and in order to effect an admission into the • Union, another Convention was called professedly by the people, in their sovereign capacity, without any authority from State or Territorial Legislature; nay, sir, according to the language of the present President, “ against authorities duly constituted by Act of Congress;” at least as much as the recent Convention in Kansas. The irregularity of this Convention was increased by the circumstance, that two of comprising a population of the oldest counties of the State, some twenty-five thousand souls, refused to take any part in it, even to the extent of not opening the polls for the election of delegates, claiming that it was held without warrant of law, and in defiance of the legal Convention. Ihis popular Convention, though wauling a popular support coextensive with the State, yet proceeded, by formal act, to give the assent of the people of Michigan to the fundamental condition proposed by Congress. The proceedings of the two Conventions were transmitted to President Jackson, who, by message, dated 27th December, 1836, laid them both before Congress, indicating

RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM4ODY=