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
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM4ODY=