11 and must not be interruped by fraud or violence ; but in his late message he tells us that his mind at that period was fixed entirely on the Slavery clause ; he did not think of anything else. I understand the Senator from Pennsyl vania to have declared on Saturday that he formerly held that a Constitution certainly should be submitted to the people, for their approval or dissent; but he also observed that he, like the President, when he said so, thought of nothing except the Slavery clause. I do not know but that it may be prudent, in the view of some, to withhold the whole of a Constitution from the consideration of the people who are to live under it at the time. It might be an over dose; it might be a little too much for the stom achs of the people to take a whole (Constitution; and if the people are not to judge eft it, who can do it better than Doctor Buchanan, or the Senator from Pennsylvania ? They give it to the people by clauses; they suppose there are some things too high for the consideration of the people, when they come to investigate a Constitu tion. There are other matters, if I understand them, which it is safe to intrust the people with, and they are to be the judges of what shall be submitted. But, sir, I was led to this course of remark from the zeal of gentlemen to define their positions on this subject. I suppose it is a princi pie of the Democratic party always to be in line with the President on all subjects. I sup pose, if he takes snuff, every true Democrat ought to sneeze, or else be read out of the party; and I suppose all true Democrats are willing to do that. I have taken it for granted that such would be the fact. But I will state my ob ject in calling attention to the Toombs bill. I was not invited into the famous council where all the clauses of that bill were taken under consideration, and yet I doubt not that I understand it just about as well as they did, and they will correct me if I do not state it aright. A bill admitting Kansas under what was called the Topeka Constitution had lately passed the House of Representatives, at the period at which the Toombs bill was framed. It was sent here; and this body had voted it down. The Repub licans voted for it, and the Democracy voted against it. We were outnumbered, and the Topeka Constitution was killed. As the Presidential campaign was approaching, it did not look exactly right, considering the commotions that had taken place in Kansas Territorry, that., after voting down the proposition the people of the Territory had given you, you should go into the.canvass without substituting anything for it. If I was to guess now, I should think that council was held for the purpose of getting up a very plausible measure, which they knew the Republicans would have to vote against, and which could not pass the House of Representatives, and which would be a very good thing to take on the stump in the canvass. My opinion is, that that is about all the importance that is to be attached to what was called the Toombs bill, I do not care much what clauses it had in it. It was plausible enough on its face, I know, except in this particular; and I was off my guard in relation to it. *1 did not look to see whether it had that or not; I did not care whether it had it or not. I knew then, as now, that the Administration had everything their own way in that Territory; and when you provided for officers to execute your law, if it were made by an angel from heaven, it would be perverted to the very worst of purposes, and it would be turned into a party channel that could not be got rid of. I knew that was so, and I voted against the bill, because no bill could be properly, justly, and equitably carried out in the Territory under the cfficers who then presided there. It gave the Democratic party a little advantage over us, because our ideas were not patent on the face of the bill, and people would probably look to its language more than they would to the circumstances prevailing in the Territory, which rendered it exceedingly inexpedient that anybody should then vcte for the immediate organization of the Territory into a State, under the officers who were to take charge of it. The Senator from Louisiana alluded to it as a reproach to the Republicans here, that they did not vote for it, as though it was an olive branch held out by the Democracy that we refused, and the people there refused. He intimated, that while we professed to wish that something might be done to make peace in the Territory, and give the poeple a State Constitution, with aright to regulate their affairs, we stood here to reject it. He said, that while the people were calling for assistance, we were voting against the measure proposed, to which, he argued, there was no objection. That is a very lawyer-like argument, and very shrewd, and it might possibly deceive the people; but it will not deceive Senators. We all understand these little policies that prevail here. I will say no more about that bill. It is a thing of the past; let it go. CTHE CONVENTION. I am not in a condition to prolong this debate a great while, and therefore I shall pass to the next phase of the matter. You say the Legislature authorized a Convention. They could call it; there was nothing wrong about it; but I contend there was no authority about it. They called a Convention. Now, this is the position I assume, and I invite attention to it from any part of this Chamber, from the most eminent lawyers in it: If the Territorial Legislature had no authority to call a Convention ; if it still required an enabling act to give it real legal validity; then, when they called their Convention, it was perfectly optional with the people to comply with the act or not. It was a mere voluntary call on them, not authorized by law, inviting them to vote for delegates
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM4ODY=