I
come now to another extract from a speech of Mr. Douglas,
made at Beardstown, and reported in the Missouri
Republican. This
extract has reference to a statement made by me at Chicago,
wherein I charged that an agreement had been entered into by
the very persons now claiming credit for opposing a
Constitution not submitted to the people, to have a
Constitution formed and put in force without giving the
people of Kansas an opportunity to pass upon it.
Without meeting this charge, which 1 substantiated
by a reference to the record, my colleague is reported to
have said:
“For
when this charge was once made in a much milder form, in the
Senate of the United States, I did brand it as a lie in the
presence of Mr. Trumbull, and Mr. Trumbull sat and heard it
thus branded, without daring to say it was true.
I tell you he knew it to be false when he uttered
it at Chicago; and yet he says he is going to cram the lie
down his throat until he should cry enough.
The miserable craven-hearted wretch! he
would rather have both ears cut off than to use that
language in my presence, where I could call him to account. I see the object
is to draw me into a personal controversy, with the hope
thereby of concealing from the public the enormity of the
principles to which they are committed.
I shall not allow much of my time in this canvass
to be occupied by these personal assaults—I have none to
make on Mr. Lincoln; I have none to make on Mr. Trumbull; I
have none to make on any other political opponent.
If I cannot stand on my own public record, on my
own private and public character as history will record it,
I will not attempt to rise by traducing the character of
other men. I
will not make a blackguard of myself by imitating the course
they have pursued against me.
I have no charges to make against them.”
This
is a singular statement taken altogether.
After indulging in language which would disgrace a
loafer in the filthiest purlieus of a fish-market, he winds
up by saying that he will not make a blackguard of himself,
that he has no charges to make against me.
So I suppose he considers, that to say of another
that he knew a thing to be false when he uttered it, that he
was a “miserable craven-hearted wretch,” does not amount to
a personal assault, and does not make a man a blackguard. A discriminating
public will judge of that for themselves; but as he says he
has “no charges to make on Mr. Trumbull,” I suppose
politeness requires I should believe him.
At the risk of again offending this mighty man of
war, and losing something more than my ears, I shall have
the audacity to again read the record upon him and prove and
pin upon him, so that he cannot escape it, the truth of
every word I uttered at Chicago.
You, fellow-citizens, are the judges to determine
whether I do this. My
colleague says he is willing to stand on his public record. By that he shall
be tried, and if he had been able to discriminate between
the exposure of a public act by the record, and a personal
attack upon the individual, he would have discovered that
there was nothing personal in my Chicago remarks, unless the
condemnation of himself by his own public record is
personal, and then you must judge who is most to blame for
the torture his public record inflicts upon him, he for
making, or I for reading it after it was made.
As an individual I care very little about Judge
Douglas one way or the other.
It is his public acts with which I have to do, and
if they condemn, disgrace and consign him to oblivion, he
has only himself not me, to blame.
Now,
the charge is that there was a plot entered into to have a
Constitution formed for Kansas, and put in force, without
giving the people an opportunity to pass upon it, and that
Mr. Douglas was in the plot.
This is as susceptible of proof by the record as is
the fact that the State of Minnesota was admitted into the
Union at the last session of Congress.
On
the 25th of June, 1856, a bill was pending in the United
States Senate to authorize the people of Kansas to form a
Constitution and come into the Union.
On that day Mr. Toombs offered an amendment which
he intended to propose to the bill which was ordered to be
printed, and, with the original bill and other amendments,
recommended to the Committee on Territories, of which Mr.
Douglas was Chairman. This
amendment of Mr. Toombs, printed by order of the Senate, and
a copy of which I have here present, provided for the
appointment of commissioners who were to take a census of
Kansas, divide the Territory into election districts, and
superintend the election of delegates to form a
Constitution, and contains a clause in the18th section which
I will read to you, requiring the Constitution which should
be formed to be submitted to the people for adoption.
It reads as follows:
“That
the following propositions be and the same are hereby
offered to the said Convention of the people of Kansas, when
formed, for their free acceptance or rejection, which, if
accepted by the Convention, and ratified by the people at
the election for the adoption of the Constitution, shall be
obligatory on the United States, and upon the said State of
Kansas,” etc.
It
has been contended by some of the newspaper press, that this
section did not require the Constitution which should be
formed to be submitted to the people for approval, and that
it was only the land propositions which were to be
submitted. You
will observe the language is that the propositions are to be
“ratified by the people at the election for the adoption of
the Constitution.” Would
it have been possible to ratify the land propositions “at
the election for the adoption of the Constitution,” unless
such an election was to be held?
When
one thing is required by a contract or law to be done, the
doing of which is made dependent upon and cannot be
performed without the doing of some other thing, is not that
other thing just as much required by the contract or law as
the first? It
matters not in what part of the act, nor in what phraseology
the intention of the Legislature is expressed, so you can
clearly ascertain what it is; and whenever that intention is
ascertained from an examination of the language used, such
intention is part of and a requirement of the law.
Can any candid, fair-minded man, read the section I
have quoted, and say that the intention to have the
Constitution which should be formed submitted to the people
for their adoption, is not clearly expressed?
In my judgment there can be no controversy among
honest men upon a proposition so plain as this.
Mr. Douglas has never pretended to deny, so far as
I am aware, that the Toombs amendment, as originally
introduced, did require a submission of the Constitution to
the people. This
amendment of Mr. Toombs was referred to the committee of
which Mr. Douglas was Chairman, and reported back by him on
the 30th of June, with the words, “And ratified by the
people at the election for the adoption of the Constitution”
stricken out. I
have here a copy of the bill as reported back by Mr. Douglas
to substantiate the statement I make.
Various other alterations were also made in the
bill to which I shall presently have occasion to call
attention. There
was no other clause in the original Toombs bill requiring a
submission of the Constitution to the people than the one I
have read, and there was no clause whatever, after that was
struck out, in the bill, as reported back by Judge Douglas,
requiring a submission.
I will now introduce a witness whose testimony cannot
be impeached, he acknowledging himself to have been one of
the conspirators and privy to the fact about which he
testifies.
Senator
Bigler alluding to the Toombs bill, as it was called, and
which, after sundry amendments, passed the Senate, and to
the propriety of submitting the Constitution which should be
formed to a vote of the people, made the following statement
in his place in the Senate, December 9th, 1857.
I read from part 1, Congressional
Globe of last session, paragraph 21:
“I
was present when that subject was discussed by Senators,
before the bill was introduced, and the question was raised
and discussed whether the Constitution, when formed, should
be submitted to a vote of the people.
It was held by the most intelligent on the subject,
that in view of all the difficulties surrounding that
Territory, the danger of any experiment at that time of a
popular vote, it would be better that there should be no
such provision in the Toombs bill; and it is my
understanding, in all the intercourse I had, that that
Convention would make a Constitution and send it here
without submitting it to the popular vote.”
In
speaking of this meeting again on the 21st December, 1857 (Congressional Globe, same vol., page 113), Senator Bigler said:
“Nothing
was farther from my mind than to allude to any social or
confidential interview.
The meeting was not of that character.
Indeed, it was semi-official, and called to promote
the public good. My
recollection was clear that I left the conference under the
impression that it had been deemed best to adopt measures to
admit Kansas as a State through the agency of one popular
election, and that for delegates to the Convention.
This impression was the stronger, because I thought
the spirit of the bill infringed upon the doctrine of
non-intervention, to which I had great aversion; but with
the hope of accomplishing great good, and as no movement had
been made in that direction in the Territory, I waived this
objection, and concluded to support the measure.
I have a few items of testimony as to the
correctness of these impressions, and with their submission
I shall be content, I have before me the bill reported by
the Senator from Illinois, on the 7th of March, 1856,
providing for the admission of Kansas as a State, the third
section of which reads as follows:
“
‘That the following propositions be, and the same are hereby
offered to the said Convention of the people of Kansas, when
formed, for their free acceptance or rejection; which, if
accepted by the Convention and ratified by the people at the
election for the adoption of the Constitution, shall be
obligatory upon the United States, and upon the said State
of Kansas.’
“The
bill read in place by the Senator from Georgia, on the 25th
of June, and referred to the Committee on Territories,
contained the same section, word for word.
Both these bills were under consideration at the
conference referred to, but, sir, when the Senator from
Illinois reported the Toombs bill to the Senate, with
amendments, the next morning, it did not contain that
portion of the third section which indicated to the
Convention that the Constitution should be approved by the
people. The
words ‘and ratified by the people at the election for the
adoption of the Constitution’ had been stricken out.”
I
am not now seeking to prove that Douglas was in the plot to
force a Constitution upon Kansas without allowing the people
to vote directly upon it.
I shall attend to that branch of the subject by and
by. My object
now is to prove the existence of the plot, what the design
was, and I ask if I have not already done so.
Here are the facts:
The
introduction
of a bill on the 7th of March, 1856, providing for the
calling of a Convention in Kansas, to form a State
Constitution, and providing that the Constitution should be
submitted to the people for adoption; an amendment to this
bill, proposed by Mr. Toombs, containing the same
requirement; a reference of these various bills to the
Committee on Territories; a consultation of Senators to
determine whether it was advisable to have the Constitution
submitted for ratification; the determination that it was
not advisable; and a report of the bill back to the Senate
next morning, with the clause providing for the submission
stricken out. Could
evidence be more complete to establish the first part of the
charge I have made of a plot having been entered into by
somebody, to have a Constitution adopted without submitting
it to the people?
Now,
for the other part of the charge, that Judge Douglas was in
this plot, whether knowingly or ignorantly, is not material
to my purpose. The
charge is that he was an instrument co-operating in the
project to have a Constitution formed and put into
operation, without affording the people an opportunity to
pass upon it. The
first
evidence to sustain the charge is the fact that he reported
back the Toombs amendment with the clause providing for the
submission stricken out.
This, in connection with his speech in the Senate
on the 9th of December, 1857 (Congressional
Globe, part 1,page 14), wherein he stated:
“That
during the last Congress, I [Mr. Douglas] reported a bill
from the Committee on Territories, to authorize the people
of Kansas to assemble and form a Constitution for
themselves. Subsequently
the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Toombs) brought forward a
substitute for my bill, which, after having been modified by
him and myself in consultation, was passed by the Senate.”
This
of itself ought to be sufficient to show that my colleague
was an instrument in the plot to have a Constitution put in
force without submitting it to the people, and to forever
close his mouth from attempting to deny.
No man can reconcile his acts and former
declarations with his present denial, and the only
charitable conclusion would be that he was being used by
others without knowing it.
Whether he is entitled to the benefit of even this
excuse, you must judge on a candid hearing of the facts I
shall present. When
the charge was first made in the United States Senate, by Mr. Bigler,
that my colleague had voted for an Enabling Act which put a
Government in operation without submitting the Constitution
to the people, my colleague (Congressional
Globe, last session, part 1, page 24) stated:
“I
will ask the Senator to show me an intimation from any one
member of the Senate, in the whole debate on the Toombs
bill, and in the Union from any quarter, that the
Constitution was not to be submitted to the people.
I will venture to say that on all sides of the
chamber it was so understood at the time.
If the opponents of the bill had understood it was
not, they would have made the point on it; and if they had
made it we should certainly have yielded to it, and put in
the clause. That
is a discovery made since the President found out that it
was not safe to take it for granted that that would be done
which ought in fairness to have been done.”
I
knew at the time this statement was made, that I had urged
the very objection to the Toombs bill two years before, that
it did not provide for the submission of the Constitution. You will find my
remarks, made on the 2d of July, 1856, in the appendix to
the Congressional
Globe of that year, page 179, urging this very
objection. Do
you ask why I did not expose him at the time? I
will tell you—Mr. Douglas was then doing good service
against the Lecompton iniquity.
The Republicans were then engaged in a hand-to-hand
fight with the National Democracy, to prevent the bringing
of Kansas into the Union as a slave State against the wishes
of its inhabitants, and of course I was unwilling to turn
our guns from the common enemy to strike down an ally. Judge Douglas,
however, on the same day, and in the same debate, probably
recollecting, or being reminded of the fact, that I had
objected to the Toombs bill when pending, that it did not
provide for the submission of the Constitution to the
people, made another statement which is to be found in the
same volume of the Congressional
Globe, page 22, in which he says:
“That
the bill was silent on the subject is true, and my attention
was called to that about the time it was passed; and I took
the fair construction to be, that powers not delegated were
reserved, and that of course the Constitution would be
submitted to the people.
Whether this statement is consistent with the
statement just before made, that had the point been made it
would have been yielded to, or that it was a new discovery,
you will determine; for if the public records do not convict
and condemn him, he may go uncondemned, so far as I am
concerned. I
make no use here of the testimony of Senator Bigler to show
that Judge Douglas must have been privy to the consultation
held at his house, when it was determined not to submit the
Constitution to the people, because Judge Douglas denies it,
and I wish to use his own acts and declarations, which are
abundantly sufficient for my purpose.
I
come to a piece of testimony which disposes of all these
various pretenses which have been set up for striking out of
the original Toombs proposition, the clause requiring a
submission of the Constitution to the people, and shows that
it was not done either by accident, by inadvertence, or
because it was believed that the bill, being silent on the
subject, the Constitution would necessarily be submitted to
the people for approval.
What will you think, after listening to the facts
already presented, to show that there was a design with
those who concocted the Toombs bill as amended, not to
submit the Constitution to the people, if I now bring before
you the amended bill as Judge Douglas reported it back, and
show the clause of the original bill requiring submission,
was not only struck out, but that other clauses were
inserted in the bill putting it absolutely out of the power
of the Convention to submit the Constitution to the people
for approval, had they desired to do so? If
I can produce such evidence as that, will you not all agree
that it clinches and establishes forever all I charged at
Chicago, and more too?
I
propose now to furnish that evidence.
It will be remembered that Mr. Toombs’s bill
provided for holding an election or delegates to form a
Constitution under the supervision of commissioners to be
appointed by the President, and in the bill as reported back
by Judge Douglas, these words, not
to be found in the original bill, are inserted at the
close of the 11th section, viz:
“And
until the complete execution of this act no other election
shall be held in said Territory.”
This
clause put it out of the power of the Convention to refer to
the people for adoption; it absolutely prohibited the
holding of any other election than that for the election of
delegates, till that act was completely executed, which
would not have been until Kansas was admitted as a State, or
at all events till her Constitution was fully prepared and
ready for submission to Congress for admission. Other
amendments reported by Judge Douglas to the original Toombs
bill, clearly show that the intention was to enable Kansas
to become a State without any further action than simply a
resolution of admission.
The amendment reported by Mr. Douglas, that “until
the next Congressional apportionment, the said State shall
have one representative,” clearly shows this, no such
provision being contained in the original Toombs bill. For what other
earthly purpose could the clause to prevent any other
election in Kansas, except that of delegates, till it was
admitted as a State, have been inserted except to prevent a
submission of the Constitution, when formed, to the people?
The
Toombs bill did not pass in the exact shape in which Judge
Douglas reported it. Several
amendments were made to it in the Senate.
I am now dealing with the action of Judge Douglas
as connected with that bill, and speak of the bill as he
recommended it. The
facts I have stated in regard to this matter appear upon the
records, which I have here present to show to any man who
wishes to look at them.
They establish beyond the power of controversy, all
the charges I have made, and show that Judge Douglas was
made use of as an instrument by others, or else knowingly
was a party to the scheme to have a Government put in force
over the people of Kansas, without giving them an
opportunity to pass upon it.
That others high in position in the so-called
Democratic party were parties to such a scheme is confessed
by Gov. Bigler;
and the only reason why the scheme was not carried, and
Kansas long ago forced into the Union as a slave State, is
the fact, that the Republicans were sufficiently strong in
the House of Representatives to defeat the measure.
|