13 ing such voter to poll his vote contrary to his own wishes, shall, on conviction, be adjudged guilty of a misdemeanor, and punished by fine not exceeding five hundred dollars, or by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding three months, or by both such fine and imprisonment. “ Sec. 28. Any person who shall cause to be printed and circulated, or who shall circulate, any false and fraudulent tickets, which upon their face appear to be designed as a fraud upon voters, shall, upon conviction, be punished by - fine not exceeding five hundred dollars, or by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding three months, or by both such fine and imprisonment. “ This aet to take effect and be in force from and after its passage.”—Chap. 52, p. 281. . Are not these provisions ample to secure a full and fair expression of the popular will in the choice of those who shall make laws for them, or to change and alter any obnoxious ones that may now be in force ? What objection is there to it? The only one I have heard'is, that anotherclause denies the right of suffrage to those who may be . guilty of a violation of the fugitive slave law, and requires a voter, on being challenged, to purge himself by what is called the “ test oath.” This is the provision to which the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Meacham] alluded the other day, I suppose, when he applied to it the term “ scandalous.” But, sir, 1 do not see how that gentleman and his friends generally can object strongly even to that feature, since their vote, two days ago, upon the bill introduced by the gentleman from Indiana, [Mr. Dunn.] That bill expressly affirms the fugitive slave law, notwithstanding all that has been said by them against it, and their denunciations of those by whose votes it was passed. In order to get a restoration of the Missouri restriction over Kansas, this side of the House voted for this very fugitive slave law; and nothing but a “pair” prevented the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Meacham] from voting for it himself. Here is a clause, for which all on this side of the House voted: 11 Jhid provided further, That any person lawfully held to service in any other State or Territory of the United States, and escaping into either the Territory ofKansas or Nebraska, may be reclaimed and removed to the person or place where such service is due, under any law of the United States which shall be in force upon the subject.” This is an indorsement in express terms of the fugitive slave law, as it now exists upon the statute-book, for which I say all on this side of the House voted a few days ago. Mr. LEITER. I did not vote for that provision. ' Mr. STEPHENS. I beg the gentleman’s pardon; he did vote, against it, I believe. Mr. BENNETT, of New York. The gentleman must make another exception. I did not vote for the fugitive slave provision. Mr. STEPHENS. I believe the gentleman did not vote at all. I intended to speak only of those who did vote. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Leiter] is the only one on the Free-Soil side who voted against it. All the others who voted at all voted for it; and I allude to the fact to show that, for the purpose of accomplishing a •favorite object, those who have been so loud in their denunciations of this law have been willing to give it their sanction. Even the senior gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. Giddings,] who some time ago arraigned his colleague, [Mr. Campbell,] the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, for bringing forward a bill containing items of appropriation to pay officers for the discharge of their ditty in the execution of this law, has, by his vote, not only sanctionedits constitutionality, but the propriety of its enforcement. Mr. GIDDINGS. Will the gentleman from Georgia allow me to ask him a question? I'understand he is in favor of the fugitive slave law; but I ask him whether he voted for the fugitive slave law to which he alludes, the other day? Mr. STEPHENS. I did not. Mr. GIDDINGS. Then the gentleman and I disagree. Mr. STEPHENS. Yes, we disagree in many . things, but not on that point in that bill, if the gentleman was really in favor of what lib voted for. The gentleman voted for the bill, I suppose, notwithstanding it contained the fugitive jiiave clause, because it contained an arbitrary and absolute restriction upon the/ree unit of the free white men in Kansas. It was upon that point we disagreed. The fugitive slave law is already in force in that Territory by the original Kansas bill, for which I voted. But how can that gentleman and others, who gave the vote they did the other day, ever hereafter raise their voices against the constitutionality of this law, and in denunciation of those who voted for it in 1850? I recollect a.member from Michigan, (Mr. Buel,) who was literally run down in his State for voting for.it at that time. Pictures were got up, I was told, representing him with a slaveholder in pursuit of his fugitives. He was beaten before the people in Kis election for giving that vote. Perhaps some one who aided in that defeat is present. If so, and if he was in his place and voted tWo days ago', he reaffirmed by his vote the very same law. Let this be made known to his constituents. It is but due to the character and worth of a noble and true man, who fell a victim to the Moloch of party in the discharge of a*public duty, and in the maintenance of his constitutional obligations. But, sir, the point I was on is this: How can gentlemen raise such objections to that feature in the Kansas election law, which denies the right of suffrage to those who are guilty of~a violation of a statute of the United States, which they, by their votes, have affirmed shall subject them to the pains and penalties of felony? Crimes of certain grades, in many of the States, deprive men of the right of voting. Why may not felony in Kansas be a disqualification as well as anywhere else? Why not leave this matter to a ■majority of the honest people in the Territory to settle for themselves at the next election? The reason, sir, is obvious. The party to which I have alluded are opposed to the principle of the people in each State and community attending to their own interrfal affairs, and of allowing those
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM4ODY=