Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

not to refrain from the utterance of my sentiments as they may arise.

us with tariffs?" This, too, comes from South Carolina,which for years has studied in the school of its great master, a man of great intellect, of great purity of personal character, John C. Calhoun, the representative man of South Carolina, and the very man who was foremost among the advocates of the tariff policy, of which the gentleman now complains. I hold in my hand a volume which records the fact that Mr. Calhoun not only made an earnest and eloquent speech but gave his vote to establish, for the first time in the history of this Government, a tariff whose avowed object was the protection of the manufactures of this country. I quote an extract from the speech of Mr. Calhoun on the occasion of the passage of the tariff bill of 1816:

But the Senator from South Carolina makes some more specific charges, he asks some more Mr. President, before coming to the discussion direct questions, and says, when we, the repreof the direct question pending, I must be permit-sentatives of the North shall take possession of ted to notice, in brief terms, some of the extraor- the administration of the Government what guar dinary doctrines announced by the honorable Sen-antee have the South that "you will not plunder ator from South Carolina, [Mr. HAMMOND,] Who preceded me in the debate. Conscious of the strength of our own positions; conscious of the devoted patriotism which we bear towards the Constitution and the Union ourselves, we shall be drawn into no recriminations against the people or the institutions of South Carolina; although the honorable Senator was pleased, in the course of his remarks, to say, in speaking to the representatives and people of the northern States: "We cannot rely upon your faith when you have the power; it has always been broken whenever pledged." Does the honorable Senator from South Carolina, in serious earnest, intend to charge upon the great body of the people of the northern States all that this language implies? If he does, it is impossible for me to remain silent without giving him a passing answer. I ask the honorable gentleman when, and where, and on what occasion, have the people of the North broken their plighted faith, when given to the people of the South, or any other portion of the people of this Confederacy? Was it in the passage of the ordinance of 1787? Who passed that ordinance? It was passed by the unanimous vote of Congress. Every vote from South Carolina was in its favor; every vote from every State within the Confederacy was in its favor, with the exception of a single vote, and⠀⠀ated." that was cast by a gentleman from New York. Who, let me ask you, has ever sought to violate the plighted faith given by the ordinance of 1787? Has it been the people of the North or the repre-nue may give incidental protection to the manusentatives of the North?

Again, sir, who was it that passed the Missouri compromise? It was passed by the votes of the representatives of the southern States, against the votes of a majority of the representatives of the northern States. Who sought to break down the plighted faith which was given by the Missouri compromise? Was it the people of the North or the representatives of the North? Was it not the representatives of the southern States, with very few exceptions? But few of the representatives from the States of the North could be found who were ready to break down that, as one of the compromises of this Confederacy.

"When our manufactures are grown to a certain perfertion, as they soon will, under the fostering care of Gove ment, we will no longer experience these evils.”—Benton's

Abridgment of Debates, vol. 5, p. 641.

In April, 1816, it came to a final vote, and among others, Mr. Calhoun is found voting in the affirmative:

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

"And thus," says Mr. Benton, "was inaugurated a new policy with respect to the imposition of duties on imports → "Protection became the object, and revenue the incident, and to such a degree as often to disregard revenue altogether, and a surplus of nine millions was actually ere

་་

I do not stand here as the advocate of a high tariff; I do not stand here as the advocate of any protective tariff, except so far as a tariff for reve

facturing interests of the country; but, sir, does it not come with an ill grace from the State of South Carolina to ask us, when we take possession of the Government, whether we will not plunder them with tariffs, when the great representative man of South Carolina, Mr. Calhoun, himself, was the early author and advocate of the very tariff policy of which the Senator complains?

Again, the Senator asks the question, what guarantee have the South that we will not create another national bank? This, too, comes from South Carolina! Sir, it was John C. Calhoun who, in 1814, introduced the resolutions of inquiry in relation to the establishment of a national bank, But again, how inconsistent is the charge made and it was John C. Calhoun, in 1816, who, with by the honorable Senator from South Carolina, others, brought forward and passed the very Uniwhen he claims, in the same breath, that for sixty ted States bank bill of which the gentleman comyears the slaveholders of the South have controlled plains. I am no advocate of a national bank. I the policy of the Government of the United States. have opposed that institution and its creation in Holding the Government in their power, control-every form within my power for twenty years of ling its administration, what right have they to complain of violated pledges and violated faith?|| They have made the pledges and they have kept them or broken them at their pleasure, having the power of the Government in their hands.

Mr. President, this wholesale and sweeping denunciation upon the good faith of the people residing in the northern States, and their representatives in Congress, is a denunciation which calls upon me, for one, to repel it. The truth of history, in my humble judgment, not only does not sustain the charge, but it furnishes not the slightest foundation upon which it can rest.

my manhood. I oppose it now. The question of a United States bank is no more a question of discussion before the American people, than the question of the revolutionary war, or the question of the last war with Great Britain. The battle has been fought, the victory won, the policy of the Government forever settled on that question, and the Republican party is no more in favor of the establishment of a national bank than the honorable Senator himself. But with what grace does it come from the Senator from South Carolina to raise the question whether, when we take possession of the Government, we may not establish a

national bank, when it was the leader from South Carolina who introduced the very bank bill which cost us such a struggle to put down?

What guarantee have they, he asked again, that "we will not bankrupt" them "with internal improvements?" Sir, Mr. Calhoun, in the same speech from which I have already quoted, in 1816, advocated this very doctrine of internal improvement. In language, forcible, and in no way to be mistaken, he said:

"To give perfection to this state of things, it will be necessary to add, as soon as possible, a system of internal improvements."

beggary, and crime, may be found. They may be found in the streets of the city of New York. Are they not also in the streets of Baltimore, in the streets of Charleston, in the streets of New Orleans? The reason there are more in the city of New York than in any other of the cities of the Union, is because it is the great commercial center of this continent, open to the commerce of the world, receiving the influx of population from every portion of the globe.

If the honorable Senator had confined his remark to those specimens of misfortune which are to be found in the large cities of the North, I I stand here as no advocate of a general system should have given it no notice whatever; but he of internal improvements by the Government of says a majority of our people, a majority of the the United States. I stand here as the advocate voters in the northern States, are slaves. This of the doctrine laid down by General Jackson in remark compels me to notice it. I could not do his veto of the Maysville road bill; but, at the otherwise if I would. In behalf of the great State same time, I am ready, so far as I am able, to which I now in part represent upon this floor, oppose the pretense that the whole expenditures four fifths of whose population earn their daily of public money in relation to the protection and bread by their own labor, all of whose population regulation of our commerce must be upon the sea- regard labor as dignified and honorable, and not as shore; where the water is salt, and the tide ebbs a degradation, I repel the imputation. I should be and flows; and at the same time no money is to false to them if I did not repel it now and here. I be expended upon the great lakes, over which should be false to myself, false to my own educamore commerce floats than the whole value of the tion, and false to my own parentage, if I failed to cotton crop of which the honorable gentleman do so. Sir, the very blood that courses in these spoke in such eloquent terms. Against any such veins rises up to repel any such charge. Am I distinction, I, for one, am prepared to give my to be told on the floor of the Senate that, because vote, my voice, and my influence. my own father was a poor laboring man when he commenced the great battle of life, I am to be regarded as the son of a slave? There are others around me who will feel as deeply as I feel, the full import of this declaration, and who cannot suffer it to pass unnoticed.

The honorable Senator, in coolly looking upon the division of this Union into two great confederacies, North and South, and in comparing and in calculating their strength, their greatness, and their resources, dwelt at very great length upon the value of the cotton crop produced in the slaveholding States. I do not stand here to disparage any one of the southern States. I know their greatness, and I take pride in it. I claim the southern States as a part of this glorious Confederacy to which I myself belong. I acknowledge the greatness of the cotton crop produced there as an article of export. I acknowledge the great influence which it exercises throughout the manufacturing and commercial world; but while I acknowledge all that, the gentleman will not regard it unkind in me if I remind him of the fact that the cotton crop, with all its boasted value, is not worth as much as the hay which the farmers of the United States put into their barns.

Again, the honorable Senator said, in comparing the southern with the northern States, that we have our slaves, and that our slaves are white. I will quote his precise language:

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

*

"Your

“Your whole class of manual laborers and operatives, as you call them, are slaves." slaves are white, of your own race; you are brothers of one blood. They are your equals in natural endowment of intellect, and they feel galled by their degradation. Our slaves do not vote. We give them no political power. Yours do vote, and being the majority, they are the depositaries of all your political power. If they knew the tremendous secret, that the ballot-box is stronger than an army with bayonets, and could combine, where would you be?"

I do not deny that in the large cities of the North, or in the large cities of the South, or where ever large cities are found on the face of the whole earth, where riches in abundance, and poverty in its degradation, are brought together face to face, and concentrated, where all that attends upon vice, poverty, and crime, is developed to the greatest extent, the children of misfortune, vice, poverty,

As one of the representatives of the free white men of the non-slaveholding States, I tell the honorable Senator they are not slaves now, nor will they be made slaves. They understand full well their power and their position and their future destiny upon this continent. They know no masters; they acknowledge no dictators. They kneel to none but God, and not even then unless in their own way.

Mr. President, when I addressed the Senate on Thursday last, I said all that I desired to say in relation to the often-repeated intimation which we hear upon this floor and elsewhere, that unless Kansas be admitted at once under the Lecompton constitution, the Union is to be dissolved. Sir, this is but an appeal to our weakness, to our apprehensions; it is not an appeal to our judgment and our understanding. I propose, as briefly as I may, to go into an examination of the merits of the first place, and admitting for the present the the question now pending before the Senate. In legality and authority of the Legislature of the Territory of Kansas which was elected, or claims to have been elected, in the spring of 1855, standing for the present upon the ground assumed by the friends of this measure, the question which I now propose to examine as a legal question is this: whether the Lecompton constitution is of binding authority on the people of Kansas? Has it the force of a law upon that people, binding upon them, and binding also upon the States, and the people of the United States?

This involves some other questions. The first among these is, whether the people of a Territory can, of their own voluntary motion, without any enabling act by Congress, without any act by the

Territorial Legislature, independent of all existing legal authorities, form and establish a system of government to overturn an existing one, and make it legitimate, authoritative, and binding upon the people? As an American citizen, maintaining the doctrines of the American Revolution, I admit that, as an abstract right, any people possesses the right to change the form of their government and make it conform to their own will; but that is a revolutionary, not a legal right. It is a right which rests not upon the law, but a right which is above and before and beyond the law itself. It rests upon the higher law of the absolute sovereignty of the people, if there is any absolute sovereignty in human affairs. But it is a right to be exercised only as a revolutionary right. When the efils of an existing government become intolerable, and there is no peaceable mode of redress, or when there is a people existing without any government at all, they may exercise, and properly exercise, this abstract revolutionary right to commence and take incipient steps from the beginning to form and to establish the government under which they are to live. There is another qualification to the exercise of this right; and that is, that there should be a moral certainty of success. Whoever undertakes to revolutionize a government, to disturb the existing state of things, to supersede the established government and make it give place to another, must carry the revolution through; he must carry it to victory, to success, or he must pay the penalty for producing a rebellion.

If it be conceded that in the Territory of Kansas any such state of things has existed as to justify the exercise of this revolutionary right by the people themselves, independent of any enabling act by Congress, or any act of the Territorial Legislature what follows? It follows that the Topeka constitution, established by the people of Kansas, by their own voluntary action, twice submitted to that people, twice ratified by that people by overwhelming majorities, is the true revolutionary constitution for that State, and not the Lecompton constitution. If, therefore, you are to throw yourselves back upon the abstract right of revolution, you prove conclusively, not that Kansas should be admitted into the Union under the Lecompton constitution, but that it should be admitted into the Union under the Topeka constitution.

But, sir, I shall not dwell any longer upon that point, for that is not the ground which is assumed by the advocates of the Lecompton constitution. They place themselves upon the ground that the Lecompton constitution is not a revolutionary constitution, but that it is a legally authorized constitution, of binding authority itself; that it has the force of a law binding upon the people of Kansas. Those who advocate it do not choose to inquire whether it has been ratified by the actual majority of the people of Kansas, nor whether it embodies their will. They do not inquire, is it fair? is it just? but, is it authoritative? is it "in the bond?" As a legal question, therefore, the first point which I desire to examine is, upon what do you rest the legal authoritativeness with which you seek to clothe the Lecompton constitution? The President rests it upon the Kansas-Nebraska act, as an enabling act, and upon the act of the Territorial Legislature, passed in pursuance of it, as he alleges, which gave it the authority of law. The

honorable Senator from South Carolina [Mr HAMMOND] derives it from altogether a different source. He says "there is no government in the convention until after the adoption by Congress of its constitution." "How can it be possible that the convention should be the creature of a Territorial Legislature?" he asks; and again he says, speaking of the Territorial Legislature: "Shall that interfere with a sovereignty-inchoate, be still a sovereignty."

[ocr errors]

"The sover

eignty of Kansas resides, if it resides anywhere, with the Sovereign States of this Union."

the States, and says the sovereign powers to be He places the sovereignty of the Territories is exercised over them while Territories, are to be exercised by Congress, and by Congress alone. The Senator from Tennessee [Mr. JOHNSON its sovereignty not in Congress, not in the United traces the authority of this convention, and place States, not in the Territorial Legislature, but is the people of the Territory of Kansas, independ ent of the Territorial Legislature, and independ ent, also, of an enabling act by Congress; while, upon the other hand, the Senator from Georgia, [Mr. TooMBS,] derives its authority from another the course of his speech, on the 2d of February, source altogether. You will remember that in I put this question to him, "From what source de you derive the legal authority of the convention to form a constitution at all? From the Legisla ture of the Territory?" He answered:

"Entirely from the Legislature of the Territory. If the authority came from Congress we should be bound by any propositions we made. If it comes from the Territoria Legislature, we may accept or reject the propositions."

Now, Mr. President, when we come to exam ine this question as a legal question, does it not strike you that there is some strange conflict of opinion among the friends and advocates of this Lecompton constitution. One placing the source of its authority entirely in Congress as the represent ative of the sovereign States; another placing it in the people of the Territory independent of Con gress, and independent of the Territorial Legis lature; and a third deriving its authority entirely from the Legislature of the Territory. Where is this vagrant power? In examining a legal ques tion, the mind desires to be brought right up to the point, to meet it squarely, face to face. Where is it to be found? Where shall we seek the fugi tive? Now here, now there, now somewhere else. Now it hides itself in Congress; now in the Territorial Legislature; and then again it 18 found hiding itself among the people of Kansas, to be exercised by them independent of the Ter ritorial Legislature, and independent of the act of Congress.

I have already said that if it resides in the peo ple, to be exercised as an abstract revolutionary right, the Topeka constitution is the true consti tution of Kansas; but I propose to examine a little more particularly the ground which has been as sumed by the honorable Senator from Georgia, for that is the ground on which the President places himself, and upon which the advocates of this Lecompton constitution must stand, or po stand at all; and that is upon the authority derive from the Territorial Legislature of Kansas.

The Legislature of a Territory derives its pow ers from the organic act. The persons who may be elected to the Legislature are chosen by people of the Territory under the provisions of

the

that organic act, but every power which may be act was passed, or from the history or condition exercised must be found in the organic act, or it of the Territory at the time itwas passed, for there cannot be found at all. If it be not within the were not, I believe, over five hundred white inhab organic act, it is nowhere; and it therefore neces- itants in the whole of the Territories of Nebraska sarily involves the question, whether in the organic and Kansas at the time of the passage of that bill; act under which the Territory of Kansas was or- and, third, if you claim that this language contains ganized, any such power was given by the Con- an enabling clause, it is utterly void for uncer→ gress of the United States? If it be not in the tainty. It mentions no time, prescribes no mode, organic act, the action of those gentlemen who in which the initiative, the incipient step may be happened to sit in the Legislature that called the taken towards the formation of a constitution. A convention is of no more binding authority than portion of the people of that Territory, represented the action of the same number of gentlemen sit- || by delegates, assembled at Lecompton, have unting at Topeka or anywhere else in the Territory dertaken to form and regulate their domestic inof Kansas. That which goes beyond the author- stitutions in their own way; and a certain other ity given is of no force. It is void; and void things portion, and a still larger portion-a majority of are as no things; and that is the language of all three, yes, five to one-of the people of the Terthe books in speaking upon this subject. ritory, represented by their delegates at Topeka, have undertaken to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way. Now, which is the legal way? Which is the way pointed out by the statute? There is no legal way pointed out. You cannot see what is not to be seen. There is no such thing contained in it.

The same doctrine was expressly affirmed in the case of Arkansas, by the administration of General Jackson. The opinion of the Attorney General was taken; it became a subject-matter, undoubtedly, of consultation by the Cabinet; and it received the sanction of that illustrious man. The same thing is true in the case of Michigan; and the present Chief Magistrate of the United States, Mr. Buchanan himself, declared on this floor, when Michigan applied for admission, that, if a Territorial Legislature, without an enabling act first passed by Congress, should attempt to call a convention and form a State constitution to supersede the territorial government, it was a downright usurpation-I use his very words-it would be an act of usurpation on their part."

Does the Kansas-Nebraska act itself confer any authority upon the Territorial Legislature to call a convention to form a constitution and State government? In what language of that act do you find it? Is it in that language which confers all rightful powers of legislation upon the Territorial Legislature? That is just such language as is found in all the organic acts, commencing with the organization of Mississippi and Orleans; and in the organic act for the Territory of Missouri the same language is used. Is it to be found in those often repeated words:

"It being the true intent and meaning of this act not to legislate slavery into any State or Territory, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own

way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States?"

Do these words contain it? I shall not go over this ground at length. The argument contained in the speech of the honorable Senator from Vermont, [Mr. COLLAMER,] and the argument contained in the report of the honorable Senator from Illinois, [Mr. DoOUGLAS,] are perfectly conclusive upon this point, that the Kansas-Nebraska act of itself did not contain a provision authorizing the Legislature of the Territory to call a convention; and the fact that the men who sat in that Legislature called it, gives it no more force than if an equal number of clergymen sitting at Lecompton had done the same thing.

To show that no such authority was intended to be given by the organic act, I will briefly state three reasons which have occurred to my mind, and which are equally binding on all sides of this Chamber: First, the Kansas organic act contains no express grant of power to the Legislature to call a convention; second, no such power can be implied from the circumstances under which the

I have one other additional reason which I wish to urge upon those who advocate the passage of the bill admitting Kansas with the Lecompton constitution. In these days, when estoppels are being pleaded upon political questions; when it is insisted that, by some technical rule of the law, the people of Kansas are to be estopped by this Lecompton constitution; I desire to plead an estoppel in behalf of that people upon some honorable Senators upon this floor. On the 2d of July, 1856, upon their official oaths as Senators in this body, Messrs. Allen, Bayard, Bell of Tennessee, Benjamin, Biggs, Bigler, Bright, Brown, Clay, Crittenden, Douglas, Evans, Fitzpatrick, Hunter, Iverson, Johnson, Jones of Iowa, Mallory, Pratt, Pugh, Reid, Sebastian, Slidell, Stuart, Thompson of Kentucky, Toombs, Wright, and Yulee, by their votes here, declared that the Kansas-Nebraska bill was not an enabling act; for on that day they voted to create an enabling act for the people of that Territory. If estoppels are to be pleaded against the poor down-trodden people of Kansas, when they have been tyrannized over by a meager minority, backed up by the Army and the whole force of the Government of the United States, I beg leave, also in their behalf, to plead an estoppel against those gentlemen who are pleading this Lecompton constitution as an estoppel against them. As against the President of the United States, or rather as against this Administration, I will also plead an estoppel. This Administration claims to be estopped by the action of the last Administration from raising any question as to the legality of the Legislature of 1855; that the people of Kansas are to be estopped from saying anything about the usurpation which then took place in that Territory; that they must submit to that Legislature, and to all that follows as the consequence of that submission. The last Administration officially declared, (and the present Administration should be bound by it,) in effect, that there was no enabling act then in existence for Kansas, and that it was necessary that Congress should intervene to pass an enabling act for that Territory. President Pierce said, in a special message to Congress, in January, 1856:

"This, it seems to me, can be best accomplished by providing that when the inhabitants of Kansas may desire it,

and shall be of sufficient numbers to constitute a State, a convention of delegates, duly elected by the qualified voters, shall assemble to frame a constitution, and thus prepare, through regular and lawful means, for its admission into the Union as a State. I respectfully recommend the enact ment of a law to that effect. I recommend, also, that a special appropriation be made to defray any expense which may become requisite in the execution of the laws or the maintenance of public order in the Territory of Kausas."

lature are

passed a law requiring the constitution to be b mitted to the people for their ratification or repe tion entire; and that law passed and took ef four days before the constitution took effect. Us der that law, the constitution was submitted fact to a vote of the people of the Territory, was rejected by a majority of over ten thousand. If the constitution could not take effect until the 21st of December, it was still an unexecuted in

will, if you please, while the testator is still living the time had not arrived when it was to take ef fect. Before that time arrives, the law-making power intervenes, and requires an additional certificate to its authenticity. Why, sir, take the simple case of a deed: you give a power of torney to an individual to execute a deed; under that power he would have the absolute right to execute it, acknowledge it, and deliver it; and: would take effect against you. But suppose, t stead of executing it and delivering it, he may have some doubt about some clause contained i it-the description, perhaps and he sends it back to you to take advice on that question; and whe the deed is being sent back, while the deed is in your hands still undelivered, the law-making power intervenes, and provides for an additiona authentication; that instead of one, there shall be two witnesses, and instead of acknowledging before one commissioner, you shall acknowledg it before a judge, to give it effect: what eff would that law have upon this instrument? 1. would prevent its taking legal effect as an instre ment, because it was not in fact executed, sealed, and delivered, when the law intervened, and yo. refused to give it the additional authentication The law of principal and agent is the same, from the simple servant-boy sent upon an errand by ha master, his authority resting in parol, in mere word of mouth, to the envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary from Great Britain, com missioned by letters patent under the great sea of the Crown. It is just as true as to the one s the other, that at any time, at any moment before the authority is executed, the power may be revoked or modified, or rescinded altogether by the principal.

It follows of necessity, if there is no enabling act contained in the organic act of Kansas Terri-strument; it was still like a deed undelivered, ora tory, the whole pretended authoritativeness of this Lecompton convention necessarily comes to the ground, and the constitution of necessity must fall with it. But, sir, I go one step further. Still standing on the grounds assumed by its advocates, conceding, for the moment, that such a power is contained in the organic act as an enabling clause, what then follows? The power thus given, is given to the Territorial Legislature, and it just as much belongs to the Legislature of 1857; as to the Legislature of 1855. The powers of the present Legisequal to the powers of the Legislature which called the convention to frame this constitution; and what that Legislature failed to do, this Legislature would have the power to do. If, when Governor Geary vetoed the bill passed by the Legislature of the Territory, instead of overriding his objections, they had provided, as he desired, that the constitution, when formed, should be submitted to a vote of the people for their ratification or rejection, does any person doubt that such a provision would be legal and binding on the convention? The Legislature has the power, if it have any, to prescribe for the authentication of the proceedings of the convention, for the mode of calling it, for the mode of certifying it. I do not say that the Legislature would have the right to prescribe what the convention should declare as the will of the people of Kansas in the formation of their government, what the constitution should or should not contain; but the Legislature, if it is to have any power, has power to give authenticity to the act of the convention, the mode of proving it, the mode in which the will of the people is to be expressed. The authority which one Legislature could exercise, another Legislature could exercise, and exercise at any time before the constitution framed by the convention, and the rights of the citizens under it, become fixed and vested; before it takes effect as a binding instrument. At any time before it becomes like a deed, executed, sealed, and delivered, the Legislature of the Territory have the right to intervene, to require an additional authentication, before it shall go forth as the expressed will of the people of Kansas. I know it will be urged that the convention might at once, under the law as it stood, have declared the constitution to be in force from the moment of their adjournment, without any submission. But if they had that power, they did not exercise it. Instead of exercising the power of declaring that constitution to be in force, they referred it back, or a portion of it at least, for revision by the people before it should take effect. They declared this constitution shall take effect and be in force from and after the ratification by the people, as hereinbefore provided." From and after the ratification it is to take effect; not before. When was that ratification to take place? On the 21st day of December. Before the 21st of December the Legislature of the Territory, then in session,

On this point, then, I maintain, in the first place, that no authority has ever been conferred upos the Territorial Legislature to call a convention to form a constitution for the people of Kansas; but if any such authority is anywhere to be found within the clauses of the organic act, the Legs lature of that Territory lately elected, clothed wit all the power which was given to the first, before the constitution became an executed thing, having force and effect, according to its own languag passed an act by which it was required that there should be an additional authentication of that strument. I know that the gentlemen on the other side may say that this is a technical objection. that it is standing upon technical grounds. Le not upon legal technicalities alone that they rest their defense of this constitution? Do they res upon its justice or its fairness, because it is binding upon that people in honesty and good faith? Ne nically the legally expressed will of the peop sir. They rest upon it because they say it is tech Kansas. If they choose to stand upon techni ities, it is just that they should fall by ities. If they will plant themselves upon t

technica

the harsh

AL

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »