pursuance of the popular will expressed under the previous act, providing for an election to be held on the 15th June, 1857, of delegates to such a convention.

3d. The official registry of voters, and the apportionment made by the acting governor (Stanton) of delegates to the convention so called in accordance with the provisions of said act.

4th. The assembling of the convention at Lecompton on the first Monday of September, 1857, under the act last aforesaid, and the journal of their proceedings.

5th. The constitution formed by the convention so assembled, alluded to in the message of the President.

6th. The action of the people on the questions submitted to them by one of the clauses of the schedule in the constitution.

These laws, facts, and proceedings constitute, in the judgment of the committee, all matters having any material bearing upon the main questions embraced in the recommendation of the President, and covered by the resolution of the House. But they permitted to be filed, and report to the House without deeming them relevant or material.

7th. The act of the territorial legislature of Kansas, at its called session in December last, providing for a vote to be taken on the 4th of January, just passed for and against said constitution.

8th. The cfficial announcement of said vote.

And, also, as cumulative, though not material

9th. The letter of Mr. Calhoun, president of the Lecompton convention, to the chairman of the Committee on Territories in the Senate. All these papers are appended in full to this report, (except a part of the journal which has not yet been received, but which is expected in time to be presented with the rest,) and marked as exhibits in regular order. The committee deem it unnecessary to go into an elaborate exposition of them by detail. A general reference to some of the material parts, for the purpose of illustrating the conclusions to be drawn from them, will be quite sufficient. Those which they deem material are all documentary, about which there can be no dispute. They show a full and complete history of the proceedings resulting in the formation of the Lecompton constitution from their beginning to their end: First, the law for taking the sense of of the people upon the propriety of applying for admission. Next, the law authorizing the call, in pursuance of the popular will. Next, the registry of voters, and apportionment of delegates. Next, the assembling of the convention, with their proceedings. Then, the constitution so formed; and, lastly, the ratification of it in the mode and manner provided by the convention. The legality and regularity of the whole are marked throughout. Every step in its progress was taken in strict conformity to law. But little appears on the face of the record even for comment. The question for the consideration of the House is, ought Kansas to be admitted as a State under the constitution so presented?

By the Constitution of the United States "new States may be admitted by Congress into this Union," and by the same instrument it is provided that "the United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government." Under the first of

these clauses eighteen new States have been admitted since the Union was formed; and two, besides Kansas, are now applying for admission. The usual questions of inquiry upon the applications of new States have been

1st. In relation to the number of the population.

2d. The regularity of the proceedings under which the application has been made.

3d. Whether the constitution presented be republican in form.

In this case the attention of the committee has not been directed to the question of population. That point seems to be conceded on all sides. Upon the point of legality and regularity no question can arise. No State ever before applying exhibited greater regularity in her proceedings. On this point there can be no doubt. The only other one, as to the republican form of the constitution-that, too, seems to be equally clear, and beyond cavil or dispute.

What, then, are the objections to the recognition of the constitution, and the admission of the State under it? These, it is true, arise mostly on matters outside of the record. But the committee propose briefly to notice them in connexion with some seemingly founded on the face of the record itself.

The first of the latter class is that urged by Governor Walker. The main ground of his opposition is the fact that the entire constitution has not been submitted for ratification to a popular vote. This objection rests upon the assumption that the validity of every constitution formed for the government of any people depends upon its having received such a sanction. His argument, in his own words, rests upon the "principle that sovereignty is vested exclusively in the people of each State, and that it performs its first and highest function in forming a State government and State constitution. This highest act of sovereignty, in my judgment, can only be performed by the people themselves, and cannot be delegated to conventions or other intermediate bodies."

That sovereignty is vested exclusively in the people of each State, and that it performs its first but not highest function in forming a State government and State constitution may be granted. But that this first act of sovereignty in making a constitution can only be performed by the people themselves, and that the power to perform it cannot be delegated to conventions or intermediate bodies, is not granted. Such a doctrine is not only novel but utterly at war with all our past history. In support of it Gov. Walker cites no authority but his own. He announces it as the conviction of his individual judgment, and the only authority he refers to to sustain it is that of previous speeches made by himself, in which he had expressed the same opinion. But the position cannot be maintained, either on principle or any recognized authority. Reason is against it, and so is precedent. When it is admitted that sovereignty, resides with the people," and that it is "inalienable," it does not follow that the right to exercise and execute sovereign powers cannot be delegated by them to others. If that were so, there could be no such thing as representative government. No law could be passed except by the people en This would uproot and overturn all our system. It is the

masse.

very essence of sovereignty that it may act by itself or by any other it may choose to appoint. The enactment of all laws and the execution of them require the exercise of sovereign power as necessarily as the formation of a constitution. A constitution is but a law. 1t establishes the modes or channels through which the sovereignty of the people is to be exercised, not "in propriis personis," but by chosen representatives. The formation of such organic law cannot be said to be the highest act or function of sovereignty. There can be no higher act of sovereignty than the declaration of war; for this may put in jeopardy the existence of sovereignty itself; and yet in our representative system this is left, not to the people themselves, but to their representatives.

Hence, though it be true that the formation of a State constitution is the "first function of sovereignty," it does not follow that this may not be performed by representatives chosen and clothed with full power to act for the people in this matter, as well as in all others requiring the exercise of sovereign power.

Logically considered, there is no more reason why the people cannot make a constitution by others clothed with full power to do so than that they can in this way put not only their political, but their individual, existence in hazard upon the fortunes of war. The formation of a constitution requires, it is true, the exercise of sovereign power, and so does the commonest act of legislation. If the power to do one can be exercised by an agent or representative, so can the other; and such has been the uniform understanding in this country from the beginning of our history. The Constitution of the United States was not ratified by a popular vote. In all the States it was adopted by conventions chosen by the people and clothed with full powers to act for them. In its provision for its own amendment it does not contemplate any ratification by the people through a popular vote to give validity to any such amendment. Such amendments are to be acted upon by the State legislatures. In all the old States, with one exception, their first constitutions were formed and put into operation through the "intermediate body" of a convention. Massachusetts alone submitted hers to a popular vote. The constitution of the State of Pennsylvania, the native State of Governor Walker, that under which he was born and reared, and under which that great and prosperous Commonwealth has grown up and attained her present high eminence in wealth, power, and renown, derived all its sanction by the people through their representatives in convention. The same is true of Mississippi, his once adopted State, and the same is true of a majority of the States of this Union. If Governor Walker's judgment in this particular be right, then all these constitutions are necessarily invalid, null, and void; and we have neither constitutions nor laws in more than half of the States of the Union. This doctrine is as preposterous as it is monstrous. Its bare statement is enough to consign it to general repudiation and condemnation. The uniform course in our past history has been, when a new State applies for admission, to see that the sovereignty of the people has spoken through. its legally constituted organs. The question of submitting their constitution to a popular vote or not is one for the people, and those whom

they clothe with power to determine this question, as well as others, for them. In the case of Kansas, in the first act appended to this report, Exhibit 1, it was provided to take the sense of the people upon the question of providing by law for the calling of a convention to form a constitution, and by law to define the powers or duties of the convention. This will be seen by the section (6) of the act. The vote was almost unanimous for the legislature so to call a convention and to define its duties. But few votes were cast against it. This, apart from the statement of Mr. Calhoun, appears from public documents accessible to all. The legislature did call a convention. They could have required them to submit their work to the people. This was a matter for their own discretion; but this they did not do. This convention was elected with unlimited and plenary powers. That such a convention could be so clothed no one can doubt who is acquainted with the history of similar bodies. They, therefore, had full power, at their own discretion, to submit the whole constitution formed by them, or any part or no part of it, just as they pleased, for ratification. This the people well understood before the election of delegates. This Governor Walker virtually told them himself. In his inaugural address he says:

"The people of Kansas, then, are invited by the highest authority known to the constitution to participate freely and fairly in the election of delegates to frame a constitution and State government. The law has performed its entire appropriate function when it extends to the people the right of suffrage, but it cannot compel the performance of that duty. Throughout our whole Union, however, and wherever free government prevails, those who abstain from the exercise of the right of suffrage authorize those who do vote to act for them in that contingency, and the absentees are as much bound under the law and constitution, where there is no fraud or violence, by the act of the majority of those who do vote, as if all had participated in the election. Otherwise, as voting must be voluntary, self-government would be impracticable, and monarchy or despotism would remain as the only alternative.

You should not console yourselves, my fellow-citizens, with the reflection that you may by a subsequent vote defeat the ratification of the constitution. Although most anxious to secure to you the exercise of that great constitutional right, and believing that the convention is the servant and not the master of the people, yet I have no power to dictate the proceedings of that body."

This language clearly conveys the idea that the convention might or might not submit the constitution to be formed by them to a vote of the people; and so far from the people not being able to delegate power or to authorize others to make a constitution for them being true, as now contended for by Governor Walker, it follows most clearly, from what he says, that such authority could be given even by their silence. The authority conferred would be implied by their abstaining from the polls. On the question of the powers of the delegates to be elected to the convention Mr. Stanton addressed the people as follows:

The government especially recognizes the territorial act which provides for assembling a convention to form a constitution with the view to making application to Congress for admission as a State into the Union. That act is regarded as presenting the only test of the qualification of voters for delegates to the convention, and all preceding repugnant restrictions are thereby repealed. In this light the act must be allowed to have provided for a full and fair expression of the will of the people through the delegates who may be chosen to represent them in the constitutional convention. I do not doubt, however, that, in order to avoid all pretext for resistance to the peaceful operation of this law, the convention itself will in some form provide for submitting the great distracting question

regarding their social institutions which has so long agitated the people of Kansas to a fair vote of all the actual bona fide residents of the Territory, with every possible security against fraud and violence. If the constitution be thus framed, and the question of difference thus submitted to the decision of the people, I believe that Kansas will be admitted by Congress without delay as one of the sovereign States of the American Union, and the territorial authorities will be immediately withdrawn.”

Here Mr. Stanton clearly admits the full power of the delegates to be chosen to form a constitution, valid in itself, whether it be submitted or not for ratification. It is true, he expresses great confidence that the "distracting question," which was the slavery question, would be "in some form" submitted to a fair vote of the bona fide residents of the Territory, and the firm belief that if "the question of difference" should be submitted to the decision of the people Kansas would be admitted without delay. This is exactly what was done by the convention, as the testimony accompanying this report shows. As to the powers of the convention, however, the committee will cite but one other authority. That is a speech made by Judge Douglas at Springfield, Illinois, on the 12th June, 1857, just before the election of the delegates took place.

"Kansas," said he, "is about to speak for herself, through her delegates assembled in convention to form a constitution preparatory to her admission into the Union on an equal footing with the original States. Peace and prosperity now prevail throughout her borders. The law under which her delegates are about to be elected is believed to be just and fair in all its objects and provisions. There is every reason to hope and believe that the law will be fairly interpreted and impartially executed, so as to insure to every bona fide inhabitant the free and quiet exercise of the elective franchise. If any portion of the inhabitants, acting under the advice of political leaders in distant States, shall choose to absent themselves from the polls, and withhold their votes with a view of leaving the free-State democrats in a minority, and thus securing a pro-slavery constitution in opposition to the wishes of a majority of the people living under it, let the responsibility rest upon those who, for partisan purposes, will sacrifice the principles they profess to cherish and promote. Upon them, and upon the political party for whose benefit and under the direction of whose leaders they act, let the blame be visited of fastening upon the people of a new State institutions repugnant to their feelings and in violation of their wishes. The organic act secures to the people of Kansas the sole and exclusive right of forming and regulating their domestic institutions to suit themselves, subject to no other limitation than that which the Constitution of the United States imposes. The democratic party is determined to see the great fundamental principle of the organic act carried out in good faith. The present election law in Kansas is acknowledged to be fair and just. The rights of the voters are clearly defined, and the exercise of these rights will be efficiently and scrupulously protected. Hence, if the majority of the people of Kansas desire to have it a free State, (and we are told by the republican party that nine-tenths of the people of that Territory are free-State men,) there is no obstacle in the way of bringing Kansas into the Union as a free State by the votes and voice of her own people, and in conformity to the great principles of the Kansas-Nebraska act