Speech of Hon. Alexander H. Stephens, of Georgia, on the Report of the Kansas Investigating Committee

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.

RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM4ODY=