7 Washburn,] and the majority of the Committee of Elections, assert in their report that this con- I elusion, as a matter of fact, is incontrovertibly established by the testimony taken. I say that1 the testimony taken establishes no such fact. I say,that the testimony taken establishes a'factin direct contradiction to this statement. I say that the evidence abundantly and conclusively establishes the fact that General Whitfield was duly elected by the actual and legal resident voters of the Territory, at the election on the 29th of November, 1854. ' This fact appears not only from the testimony,' but it is admitted by the committee of investigation themselves in their own report. Then how can it be true thqt every election there has been carried ‘ '"•'’anized invasion from Missouri ? 1 will read from the doc se f. Hereon page 8 is what purports to be an abstract of the vote cast on the 29th of November, 1854, fr<?m which it seems that Whitfield got 2,258 votes; Flenniken 305; Wakefield, which (I believe) was a mistake for Whitfield, 248, and 22 scattering. These 305 for Flenniken, and 22 scattering, were all the votes Cast against Whitfield in the entire Territory. Mr. SHERMAN. The gentlemands entirely mistaken. The abstract shows that 2,258,votes were cast for Whitfield; 248 for Wakefield; 305 for Flenniken, and 22 scattering, but that 1,729 of those votes were illegal, and only 1,114 were legal. Of the legal.votes cast General Whitfield had a plurality, having received 537 legal votes. Mr. STEPHENS. I tell the gentleman I am not mistaken; and his statement, that 1,729 of the 2,258 cast for Whitfield were illegal, is not sustained by proof. There is a wide difference between assertion and proof, and this table exhibits the truth of this most forcibly. The table states that there were 1,729 illegal votes cast; but where is the proof of the fact of these 1,729 votes being illegal ? The table is not proof. The table also states that there were only 1,114 legal votes cast at that election. Where is the proof of that? But suppose there were only 1,114 legal votes cast. Take from that number 305 votes cast for Flenniken, and 22 scattering, and it would leave Whitfielffelected by a large majority; or, if the 248 for Wakefield were not intended for Whitfield, and if all the votes for that name, and the 327 for Flenniken, and scattering, were legal votes, as is assumed, but without proof, then, Whitfield, having 537 admitted legal votes, was duly elected, having received a greater number than any other candidate. How, then, can it be said that his election, in this instance, was carried by an organized invasion from Missouri ? But, sir, I call for the proof upon which this exhibit of legal and illegal votes is made 1 The exhibit of Whitfield’s, Wakefield’s, and Flenniken’s votes, and the scattering votes, is copied from the official return, but the addenda touching the legal and illegal votes, and the number of voters under the census taken three months after, Have been put to it by the committee. It is in their statement, not in the testimony, and I ask for the proof to warrant it? But, even according to the gentleman’s own showing, now made, after deducting from his count one thousand seven hundred and twenty-nine without proof, Whitfield was certainly duly elected at that election by the legal voters of the Territory., Indeed, the committee of investigation say, in reference to this election, on page 8 of their reportu “Of dfe legal votes cast, General Whitfield re- ceivfed a plurality.” This settles the questiOn.i If Whitfield got a plurality of the legal votes ofi the Territory, of course he was duly elected. Now, sir, I ask the gentleman upon my right! [Mr. Washburn] to tell me, and this House,। and the country, how he and a majority of the! committee of elections can say that it is estab^ lished by “ incontrovertible proof ” that “ each elec* tion in the Territory, held under the organic or alleged territorial law, has been carried by an i ’'ized invasion from the State of Missouri?” u " matter of fact, arrived at by the special con. n.c 4 as clearly and incontrovertibly es« tablishe.il or ’'h testimony,” cannot stand a moment’s hand! Jg It falls at the first blow. Ilia the first conclusion wrived at by the committed of investigation, and incorporated in the report of the Committee of Elections, as the foundation, the very corner-stone of the fabric of their report in this case. This cornei none, sir, I knock from under the fabric, and the whole superstructure must fall witli it, if there be nothing more solid oi firm for it to rest upon. But, sir, I do not intend to stop here. ThiS conclusion of the committee is but a sample oi all the rest. I have read the whole of this document of one thousand two hundred and six pagesi and I assert that there is ne. * single one of tin conclusions of the committee arrived at as ma® ters of fact, which is sustained by the testimony massive, voluminous, and contradictory as it is I repeat, however, here again, that there is not i fact or statement contained in it, by the mog prejudiced, one-sided witness sworn, which goei to assail or impeach in the slightest degree th great leading facts upon which the merits of thr case'’ rest. These are the elections held in pur suance of the Governor’s proclamation under th organic law—his judgment.upon the returns g the election of the members—the large majoritj of both branches of the .Legislature holding thei seats during their whole term under the certifi cates of the Governor, without a word of coni plaint from him or anybody else—that he, a Governor, recognized them as a legislative bod? —that he did not question the legality of thei organization. The testimony of Governor Reede himself was taken, and none of these facts at denied by him. No word of complaint was ev« heard about the legality of the organization of til Legislature, or about an invasion from Missouri for several long months after the election; nc until after he was turned out of office. Durifi all this, time, before he was removed by the Preu ident, the only cry heard from him, as the sent] nel upon the watchtower of the rights of tl] people of Kansas, was, “All’s well I” But, sir, I will proceed. 1 intend to take u this mass of testimony, and sift it a little further
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM4ODY=