But this is not all. At the adoption of the Federal Constitution, there were three of the old thirteen States whose respective populations did not reach the amount now required for Kansas. These were Delaware, with a population of 59,096; Rhode Island, with a population of 64,689; and Georgia, with a population of 82,548. And even now, while I speak, there are at least two States, with senators on this floor, which, according to the last census, do not contain the population now required of Kansas. I refer to Delaware, with a population of 91,635, and Florida, with a population of freemen amounting only to 47,203. So much for precedents of population.

But, in sustaining this objection, it is not uncommon to depart from the strict rule of numerical precedent, by suggesting that the population required in a new State has always been, in point of fact, above the existing ratio of representation for a member of the House of Representatives. But this is not true; for at least one State, Florida, was admitted with a population below this ratio, which at the time was 70,680. So much, again, for precedents. But, even if this coincidence were complete, it would be impossible to press it into a binding precedent.

The rule seems reasonable, and, in ordinary cases, would not be questioned; but it cannot be drawn or implied from the constitution. Besides, this ratio is, in itself, a sliding scale. At first it was 33,000; and this continued till 1811, when it was put at 35,000. In 1822, it was 40,000; in 1832, it was 47,700; in 1842, it was 70,680; and now, it is 93,420. If any ratio is to be made the foundation of a binding rule, it should be that which prevailed at the adoption of the constitution, and which still continued, when Kansas, as a part of Louisiana, was acquired from France, under solemn stipulation that it should be incorporated into the Union of the United States as soon as may be consistent with the principles of the Federal Constitution." But this whole objection is met by the memorial of the people of Florida, which, if good for that State, is also good for Kansas. Here is a passage:

"But the people of Florida respectfully insist that their right to be admitted into the Federal Union as a State is not dependent upon the fact of their having a population equal to such ratio. Their right to admission, it is conceived, is guaranteed by the express pledge in the sixth article of the treaty before quoted; and if any rule as to the number of the population is to govern, it should be that in existence at the time of the cession, which was thirty-five thousand. They submit, however, that any ratio of representation dependent upon legislative action, based solely on convenience and expediency, shifting and vacillating as the opinion of a majority of Congress may make it, now greater than at a previous apportionment, but which a future Congress may prescribe to be less, cannot be one of the constitutional 'PRINCIPLES' referred to in the treaty, consistency with which, by its terms, is required. It is, in truth, but a mere regulation, not founded on principle. No specified number of population is required by any recognized principle as necessary in the establishment of a free Government.

"It is in no wise 'inconsistent with the principles of the Federal Constitution,' that the population of a State should be less than the ratio of Congressional representation. The very case is provided for in the constitution. With such deficient population, she would be entitled to one Representative. If any event should cause a decrease of the population of one of the States even to a number below the minimum ratio of representation prescribed by the constitution, she would still remain a member of the Confederacy, and be entitled to such Representative. It is respectfully urged, that a rule or principle which would not justify the expulsion of a State with a deficient population, on the ground of inconsistency with the constitution, should not exclude or prohibit admission." (Exec. Doc., 27th Cong., 2d sess., Vol. 4, No. 206.)

Thus, sir, do the people of Florida plead for the people of Kansas.

Distrusting the objection from inadequacy of population, it is said that the proceedings for the formation of a new State are fatally defective in form. It is not asserted that a previous enabling act of Congress is indispensable; for there are notorious precedents the other way, among which are Kentucky in 1791, Tennessee in 1796, Maine in 1820, and Arkansas and Michigan in 1836. But it is urged that in no instance has a State been admitted whose constitution was formed without such enabling act, or without the authority of the Territorial

Legislature. This is not true; for California came into the Union with a constitution, formed not only without any previous enabling act, but also without any sanction from a Territorial Legislature. The proceedings which ended in this constitution were initiated by the military Governor there, acting under the exigency of the hour. This instance may not be identical in all respects with that of Kansas; but it displaces completely one of the assumptions which Kansas now encounters, and it also shows completely the disposition to relax all rule, under the exigency of the hour, in order to do substantial justice.

But there is a memorable instance, which contains in itself every element of irregularity which you denounce in the proceedings of Kansas. Michigan, now cherished with such pride as a sister State, achieved admission into the Union in persistent defiance of all rule. Do you ask for precedents? Here is a precedent for the largest latitude, which you, who profess a deference to precedent, cannot disown. Mark now the stages of this case.

The first proceedings of Michigan were without any previous enabling act of Congress; and she presented herself at your door with a constitution thus formed, and with senators chosen under that constitution, precisely as Kansas

This was in December, 1835, while Andrew Jackson was President. By the leaders of the Democracy at that time, all objection for alleged defects of form was scouted, and language was employed which is strictly applicable to Kansas. There is nothing new under the sun; and the very objection of the President, that the application of Kansas proceeds from "persons acting against authorities duly constituted by act of Congress," was hurled against the application of Michigan, in debate on this floor, by Mr. Hendricks, of Indiana. This was his language:

ing a Territorial Government in Michigan. These laws were, or ought to be, in full force there; but, by the character and position assumed, they had set up a Government antagonist to that of the United States." -(Congress. Deb., Vol. 12, p. 288, 24th Cong., 1st session.)

To this impeachment Mr. Benton replied in these effective words:

" Conventions were original acts of the people. They depended upon inherent and inalienable rights. The people of any State may at any time meet in Convention, without a law of their Legislature, and without any provision or against any provision in their constitution, and may alter or abolish the whole frame of Government, as they please. The sovereign power to govern themselves was in the majority, and they could not be divested of it."-(Ibid., p. 1036.)

Mr. Buchanan vied with Mr. Benton in vindicating the new State:

"The precedent in the case of Tennessee has completely silenced all opposition in regard to the necessity of a previous act of Congress to enable the people of Michigan to form a State Constitution. It now seems to be conceded that our subsequent approbation is equivalent to our previous action. This can no longer be doubted. We have the unquestionable power of waiving any irregularities in the mode of framing the constitution, had any such existed." (Ibid., p. 1041.)

"He did hope that by this bill all objections would be removed; and that this State, so ready to rush into our arms, would not be repulsed, because of the absence of some formalities which perhaps were very proper, but certainly not indispensable.”— (Ibid., p. 1015.)

After an animated contest in the Senate, the Bill for the admission of Michigan, on her assent to certain conditions, was passed, by twenty-three yeas to eight nays. But you find weight, as well as numbers, on the side of the new State. Among the yeas were Thomas H. Benton, of Missouri, James Buchanan, of Pennsylvania, Silas Wright, of New York, W. R. King, of Alabama.

(Cong. Globe. Vol. 3d, p. 276, 1st session 24th Cong.) Subsequently, on motion of Mr. Buchanan, the two gentlemen sent as senators by the new State received the regular compensation for attendance throughout

the very session in which their seats had been so acrimoniously assailed. (Ibid., p. 448.)

In the House of Representatives the application was equally successful. The Committee on the Judiciary, in an elaborate report, reviewed the objections, and, among other things, said:

"That the people of Michigan have without due authority formed a State Government, but, nevertheless, that Congress has power to waive any objection which might, on that account, be entertained to the ratification of the constitution which they have adopted, and to admit their Senators and Representatives to take their seats in the Congress of the United States." - (Exec. Doc., 1st sess. 24th Cong., Vol. 2, No. 380.)

The House sustained this view by a vote of one hundred and fifty-three yeas to forty-five nays. In this large majority, by which the title of Michigan was then recognized, will be found the name of Franklin Pierce, at that time a Representative from New Hampshire.

But the case was not ended. The fiercest trial and the greatest irregularity remained. The act providing for the admission of the new State contained a modification of its boundaries, and proceeded to require, as a fundamental condition, that these should "receive the assent of a Convention of delegates, elected by the people of the said State, for the sole purpose of giving the assent herein required." - (Statutes at Large, Vol. 5, p. 50, Act of June 5th, 1836.) Such a Convention, duly elected under a call from the Legislature, met in pursuance of law, and, after consideration, declined to come into the Union on the condition proposed. But the action of this Convention was not universally satisfactory, and, in order to effect an admission into the Union, another Convention was called professedly by the people, in their sovereign capacity, without any authority from State or Territorial Legislature; nay, sir, according to the language of the present President, "against authorities duly constituted by Act of Congress;" at least, as much as the recent Convention in Kansas. The