SPEECH OI SENATOR DOUGLAS. OF ILLINOIS, OV THB PACIFIC RAILROAD BILL. DEUTEBKD IS TH£ 8SSATK OF THS UHTTED BTATSg, AFBIL 17, IS5S. The Senate having nnder consideration the bill to authorize the President of the United States to contract for the transportation of the mails, troops, seamen, monitions of war, and aU other Government service, by railroad, from the Mis- Bonri river to San Francisco, in the State of California—Mr. DOUOLÂS said : Mr. PsisiEKíT ; I have witnessed with deep regret the indications that this measure is to be defeated at the present sesdon of Congress. I had hoped that this Congress would dgnalize itself by inaugurating the great measure of con¬ necting the Mississippi valley with the Pacific ocean by a railroad. I had supposed that the people of the United States had decided the question at the last presidential election in a maimer so emphatic as to leave no doubt that their will was to be carried into efiect. I believe that all the presidential candi¬ dates at the last election were committed to the measure. Äll the presidential platforms sanctioned it as a part of their creed. 1 believe it is about the only measure on which there was entire unanimity ; and it is a very curious fact that the measure which commanded universal approbation—the measure upon which all parties united; a measure against which no man could be foundL previbus to use election, to raise his voice—should be the one that can receive no sup¬ port, nor the cooperation of any one party, while disputed measures can oc¬ cupy the whole time of Congress, and can be carried through successfully. I make no complaint of any political party, nor of any gentleman who opposes this bill: but it did strike me that it was a fact to be noticed, that a measure of Ais description, so long before the country, so well understood by the peo¬ ple, and receiving such universal sanction from them, should not be carried into effect. If the bul which has been devised by the committee is not the best that can be fkamed, let it be amended and modified until its objectionable features shall be removed. Let us not make a test question of this particular form of bill or that particular form ; of this particular route or that particular route ; of the benefits to this section or that section. If there is anything wrong in the details, in the form, in the construction of the bill, let the objectionable features be removed, and carry out .the great object of a railroad communi¬ cation between the Mississippi valley and the Pacific ocean. Various objections have been raised to this bill, some referring to the route, involving sectional considerations ■ others to the form of the bill ; others to the present time as inauspicious for the construction of such a railroad under any circumstanesa. 6ir, I have axMnined this bill very carefially. I was a member 2 of the committee that framed it, and I gave my cordial assent to the report I am free to say that I think it is the best bill that has ever been reported to the Senate of the United States for the construction of a Pacific railroad. I say this with entire disinterestedeese, for I have heretofore reported several myself, and I believe I have invaridbly Ceeii a toember of the eommittees that have re¬ ported such bills. I am glad to find that we have progressed to such an extent as to be able to improve on the former bills that have, from time to'time, been brought before the Senate of the United States. This may not be perfect. It is difBcult to make human legislation entirely perfect; at any rate, to so con¬ struct it as to bring abotit an entice unanimity of opmion upon a question that inrOlvee, to some ertenty selfisli, Seotional,aiid battisfti considerations. But, sir, I think thiiblll ie ftir. 'Kist, it'Ufair in theHocatikn of thekoute; as between the different sections. The termini are fixed. Then the route between the ter¬ mini is to be left to the contratara arid'ownets of the road, who are to put their capital into it, and, for weal or for woe, are to be responsible for its man¬ agement. What is the objection to these "termini ? San Francisco, upon the Pacific, is not only central, but it is the great commercial mart, the great concentrating point, tli^great entrepot for the eommecee of the ñicífic, not only in the pres¬ ent, but in the fnthre. Tlinti jfcdat^WaS dekcted asdihe western terminus, for the reason that tliere seemed to be a unanimous sentiment, that whatever might be tlie starting point on the east, the system would not be complete until it snould reach the city of San Francisco on the west I sn^ested mveelf, in the com¬ mittee, the selection of that very point ; not that I had any objection to other points ; not that I was any more friendly to San Francisco and her inhabitants than to any other port on the Paleific ; Vmt because I believe that to be the com¬ manding port, the large city where trade concentrates, and its position indica¬ ted it as the proper terminus on the Pacific ocean. Then, in regard to the eastern fcrtnitius, a point on the Missouri river is se¬ lected, for various reasons. Otfe is, that it in Ceutral as between the Iforth and South—as nearly CMitral as could be selected. It was necessary to commence on the Missouri river, if yon were going to take a central route, in order that the starting point might connect with navigation, so that you might reach it by boats, in carrying your iron, your supplies, and your materials, for the com¬ mencement and the construction of the road. It was essential that you should commence ata point of navigation so that you could Connect with the sea- boaid. If you start it at a point? back in the interior, five hundred or a thou¬ sand mUes, as it is proposed, at ElyPaso, from the navigable waters of the Mis¬ sissippi, it would cost you more money to carry the iron, provisions, supplies, and men to that starting poin^ than it would to make a road from the Missis¬ sippi to the starting poin^ in order to begin the work. In lhat case it would be a matter of economy to make a road to your starting point in order to b^in. Hence, in my opinion, it would be an act of folly to think of starting a railroad to the Pacific at a point eight.hundred or a thousand miles in. the intei'iar, away from any connection with navigable water, or with other railroads already in existence. For these reasons we ^reed in the'bill to commence on the Missouri river. When you indicate that nver, a little diversity of opinion arises as to what point on the liver shall be selected. There are vanous respectable, thriving towns on either bank of the river, each of which thinks it k the exact position where the road ought to commença I sqppose that Kansas. Gtyi/Wyandott, Weston, Leavenworth, Atchison, Platte's Mouth City, Omaha, I>e Soto, Siopx City, and various other towns whose names .have not become familiar to us, and have found no resting-place on the mtp, each thinks that it has the exact place where the road should begin. T^eJI^.sir, I do not desire to show any preference be¬ tween these towns, either,of ,them would suit me very well;, and we leave it to the contractors to say which sbaU be Üielone. We leave the exact eastern terminus open, for the reason that the'publiq interests wiU be substantially as well served bj" the selection of the otw as tte otlier. It is not so at the western terminus. San Francisco does not occupy that relation to the towns on the Pacific coast thattl^ese little towns om the Missouri .river do to the country east 3 of tho Missouri. The publie have no material interest in the question whether it shall start at the mouth of the Kansas, at Weston, at Leavenworth, at St Joseph, at Platte's Mouth, or at Sionr City. Hther connects with the grçat lines; either would be substantially central as between North and South. So fer as I am eoncemed, I shotdd not care a sixpence which of those towns was selected as the starting point, because they start there upon a plain that stretches for eight hundrea miles, and can connect with the whole railroad sys¬ tem of the country. Ton can go directly west. You can bend to the north and connect with the northern roads, or bend to the south and connect with the southern roads. The Senator from Georgia (Mr. Ivzbson) would be satisfied, as I understand, with the termini, if we had selected one intermediate point, so as to indicate the route that should be taken between the termini. I understand that he would be satisfied if we should indicate that it should ¿o south of Santa Fé, so as to include as the probable line the Albuquerque route, or the one on the thirty-fifth parallel, or the one south of it. Sir, I am free to say that, individ¬ ually, I should have no objection to the route indicated by the Senator from Georgia. I have great feith that the Albuquerque route is an exceedingly favorable one ; favorable in its grades, in the shortness of its distances, in its dimate, the absence of deep snow, and in the topography of the country. While it avoids very steep grades, it furnishes, perhaps, as much of grass, of timber, of water, of materials necessary for the construction and repair of the road, if not more than any other route. As a Northern man, living upon the great line of the lakes, yon cannot indicate a route that I think would subserve our interests, and the great interests of this country, better than that; yet, if I expressed the opinion that the line ought to go on that route between the termini, some other moa would say it ought to go on Governor Steven's extreme northern route ; •ome one else would say it ought to go on the South Pass route ; and we should divide the friends of the measure as to the point at which the road should pass the mountains—whether at the extreme north, at the center, the Albuquerque route, or the further southern one down in Arizona—and we should be unable to decide between ourselves which was best. I have sometimes thought that the extreme northern route, known as the Stevens' route, was the best, as furnishing better grass, more timber, more water, more of those elements necessary in constructing, repairing, operating, and maintaining a road, than any other. I think now that the preference, merely upon routes, is between the northern or Stevens' route on the one side, and the Albuquerque route on the other. Still, as I never expect to put a dollar of money into the road, as I never expect to have any agency or connec¬ tion with or interest in it, I am willing to leave the selection of the route be¬ tween the termini to those who are to put their fortunes, and connect their character, with the road, and to be responsible, in the most tender of all points, if they make a mistake in the selection. But for these ¿onsiderations, I should have cheerfully yielded to the suggestion of the Senator from Georgia) to fix the crossing point on the Rio Grande river. But, sir, I am unwilling to lose this great measure merely because of a dif¬ ference of opinion as to what shall be the pass selected in the Rocky Mountains through wmch the road shall run. I believe it is a great national measure, I believe It is the greatest practical measure now pending before the country. I believe that we have arrived at that period in our history when our great sub- atantial interests require it. The interests of commerce, the great interests of travel and communication—those still greater interests that bind the Union together, and are' to make and preserve the continent as one and indivisible— all demand that this road shall m commenced, prosecuted, and completed, at the earliest practicable moment I am unwilling to postpone the bill until next December. I have seen these pos^nements from session to session, for the last eight or ten years, with the conndeêt assurance every year that at the next session we should have abundáíice of time to take up the bill and act upon it Sir, will you be better prepared at the next session than now! We have now the whole summer before us, draw- 4 ing onr paj-, and proposing to perform no servica Kext December, yon will have but ninety days, with all the unfinished business left over, your appropria¬ tion bills on hand, and not only the regular bUla, but the new deficiency bill ; and you will postpone this measure again, for the want of time to consider it then. I think, sir, we had better grapple with the difiiculties that surround this question now, when it is fairly before us, when we have time to consider it, and when I think we can act upon it as dispassionately, as calmly, as wisely, as we shall ever be able to do. I have regretted to see the question of sectional advantages brought into this discussion. If you are to have but one road, fairness and justice would plainly indicate that that one should be located as near the center as practi¬ cable. The Missouri river is as near the oentcr and the line of this road is as near as it can be made; and if there is but one to be made, the route now indi¬ cated, in my opinion, is fair, is just, and ought to be taken. I have heretofore been of the opinion that we ought to have three roads: one in the centre, one in the extreme south, and one in the extreme north. If I thought we could carry the three, and could execute them in any reasonable time, I would now adhere to that policy and prefer it; but I have seen enough here during this session of Congress to satisft me that but one can pass, ana to ask for three at this time is to lose the whole. Believing that that is the temper, that tha,t is the feeling, and, I will say, the judgment, of the members of both Houses of Congress, I prefer to take one road rather than to lose all in the vain attempt to get three. If there were to be three, of course the one indicated in this bill would be the central; one would be north of it, and another south of iL But if there is to be but one, the central one should be taken; for the north, by bending a little down south, canjoin it, and the south, by leaning a little to the north, cnn unite with it too; ana our Southern friends ought to be able to bend and lean a little, as well as to require us to bend and lean all the time, in order to join them. The central position is the just one, if there is to be but one road. Tlie coueession should be as much on the one side as on the other. I am readv" to meet gentlemen half way ou every question tliat does not violate principle, and they ought not to ask us to meet them more than half way where there is no principle involved and nothing but expediency. Then, sir, why not unite upon this bill? Vie ere told it is going to involve tlie Government of the United States in countless millions of expenditure. How is that? Certaiiih- not under this hill, not by authority of tins bill, not without violating this bill. The bill under consideration provides that when a section of the road shall be made, the Government may advance a portion of the lands, aud 512,500 por mile iu bonds on the section thus made, in order to aid in the construction of the next, holding a lien upon the road for the refund¬ ing of the money thus advanced. Under this bill it is not possible that the contrnctors can ever obtain more than §12,500 per mile on each mile of tic road that is completed. It is, thei'efore, very easy to compute the cost to ¿he Government Take the length of the road iu miles, and multiply it by §12,500, and you have the cost If you make the computation, you will find it will come to a fraction over twenty million dollars. The limitation in the bill.is, that in no event shall it exceed §25,000,000. Therefore, by the terms of tie hill, the undertaking of the Governmeut is confined to §25,000,000; and, by the calculation, it will be less than that sum. Is that a sura that would bank¬ rupt the Ti-eosiiry of the United States? I predict to you now, sir, that the Mormon campaign has cost, and has ledto engagements and undertakings that, when redeemed, will cost more tfiau ■twenty-five million dollars, if not double that sum. During the last six months ■on account of the Mormon rebellion, expenses have been paid, aud undertakiiiga have been aasumcJ, which wiU cost this Governmeut more than the total ex¬ penditure which can possibly he made in conformity with the provisions of this hilL If you had had this railroad made you would have savedthe whole cost which the Government is to advance in this little Mormon war alone. If you have a general Indian war in the mountaina, it wiU cost you t-wice the amount called for by this bUk If yon should have a war with a European «ó Power, the constnactîon of this road would save many fold its cost in the trans¬ portait ef troops and mnnitions of war to the Famfic ocean, in carrying on your operationa In aa eeonomieal point of view, I look upon it as a wise measure. It is one of economy as a war measure alooe, or as a peace measure for the purpose of preventing a war. Whether viewed as a war measure to enable you to cheek rebellion in a ^rritory, or hostilities with the Indians, or to canj on vigorously a war with a European Power, or viewed as a peace measure, it is a Wise policy, dictated by every consideration of public convenience and pnblic good. Again, sir. In carrying the mails, it is an economical measnre. Aj the Senator ftom Georgia ba^demonstrated, the cost of carrying the mails alooe to the Pacific ocean for Airty years, under the present contracts, is double the amount of the whole eipenditjure under this bill for the same time in the construction and working of the road. In the transportation of mails, then, It wonld save twice its coat The transportation of army and navy supplies wonld swell the amount three or foui^fold. How many years will it m before the Government will i-eceive back, in transportation, the Whple cost of this advance of aid in the oonstructlon of the road i But^ sir, some gentlemen think it is an unsound policy, leading to the doctrine of internal improvements by the Federal Government within the different States of the Union. We are told we mnst confine the road to the limits of the Territories, and not extend it into the States, becánse it is snpposed that enter¬ ing a State with this contract violates some great principle of State-rights. Mr. President, the committee considered thst proposition, and they avoided that objection, in the estimation of the most strict, rigid, tight-laced State- rights men that we have in the body. We struck but the provision in the bill first drawn, that the President should contract for the construction of a railroad from the Missonri river to the Pacific ocean ; and followed an example that we found on the statute-book, for carrying the mails from Alexandria to Richmond, Virginis—sn act passed about lie mne when the resolutions of 1798 were adopted, and the report of 1799 was made—an act Aat we thought came ex¬ actly within the spirit of those resolutions. "Ihlit act, according to my recol¬ lection, was, that the Department be authorized to contract for the transporta¬ tion of the United States mail by four-horse post-coacbes, with closed backs, so as to protect it from the weather and rain, num Alexandria fO Richmond, in the State of Virginia. It occurred to this committee that if it had been the cnstom, from the beginning of this Government to this day, to make contracta for the transportation of the mails in four-horSe post-coschea, built in a particu¬ lar manner, and the contractor left to fbmisb bis own coaches and his own horses, and his own means of transportation, we might make a similar contract for the transportation of the maila by railroad fiöm one point to another, leaving the oontractor to make his own raiiroa^ and furnish nis own cars, and oo^Iy with the terms of the eontracb There is nothing in this bill that violates any one principle which has pre¬ vailed in every mail contract that has been made, from the days of Dr. Frank¬ lin down to the elevation of James Buchanan to the Presidency. Every con¬ tract for carrying the mail by horse, from ench a point to such a point, in saddle-bags, iovolves the same principle. Every contract for carrying it ft-om each a pomt to such a point in two-horse hacks, with a covering to protect it from the storm, involves the same principle. Every contract to carry it from suob a point to eueh a point in four-horse coaches of a particular deserlptíon, involvee the same principle. Ton contracted to carry the mails from New York to Liverpool in ships of two thousand tons each, to be constructed ao- oording to a model prescribed by the Navy Department, leaving the contractor to fonush his own uiips, and reeelve so much pay. Ihat involves the same principle. You have, therefore, carried out the principle of this bill in every contract ÍOU have ever had for mails, whether it be npon the land or upon the water, n every mail contract yo i have had, you have carried out the identical princi¬ pie involved in this bill—simply the nght to contract for the transportation of the United States mails, trovps, miinitions of war, army and navy snpplies, at 6 fair prices, in the manner you prescribed, leaving the eontraeting party to furnish the mode and means of transportation. That is all there is in it. I do not see how it can violate any party creed ; how it can violate any principle of State-rights; how it can interfere with any man's conscientious scruples. Then, sir, where is the objection ? If you look on this as a measure of economy and a commercial measure, the argument is all in favor of the bill. It is true, the Senator from Massachusetts has suggested that it is idle to suppose that the trade of China is to center in San Francisco, and then p^ sixty dollars a tun for transportation across the continent by a railroad to ßoston. It was very natural that he should indicate Boston, as my friend from Georgia might, perhaps, have thou^t of Savannah, or my friend from South Carolina might have indicated Charleston, or the Sena¬ tor from Louisiana might have indicated New Orleans. But I, living at the bead of the great lakes, would have made the computation from Chicago, and my friend from Missouii would have thought it would have been very well, perhaps, to take it from St Louis. When you are making this computation, I respectfiiil}' submit you must make the calculation from the sea-board to the center of the continent and not charge transportation all the way from the Atlantic to the Pacific; for suppose you do not coustruct this road, and these goods come by ship to Boston, it will cost something to take them by railroad to. Chicago, and a little more to take them by railroad to the Missouri river, half-way back to San Francisco again. If you select the center of the conti¬ nent, the great lieart and center of the Republic—the Mississippi valley—as the point at whicli you are to concentrate your trade, and from which it is to diverge, you will ánd that the transportation to it by railroad would not be much greater from San Francisco than from Boston. It would be nearly the same from the Pacific that it is from tlie Atlantic ; and tlie calculation must be made in that point of view. There is the center of consumption, and the center of those great products that are sent abroad in all quarters to pay for articles imported. The center of production, the center of consumption, the future center of the population oi the continent, is the point to which, and from which, your calculation should be made. Tl>en, sir, if it costs sixty dollars per ton for transportation from San Francisco to Boston by railroad, half-way you may say it will cost thirty dollars a ton. The result, then, of coming from San Francisco to the center by"railroad, would be to save transportation by ship from San Francisco to Boston, in addition to the railroad transportation into the interior. But, sir, I dissent from a portion of the gentleraan^s argument, so far as it re¬ lates to transportation even from San Francisco to Boston. I admit that heavy articles of cheap value and great bulk, would go by ship, that being the cheapest mode of communication; but light articles, costly articles, expensive articles, those demanded immediately, and subject to decay from long voyages and de¬ lays, would come directly across by railroad, and what would save in time would be more than the extra expense of the transportation. You must add to tliat the risk of tlie tropics, which destroys many articles, and that process which is necessary to be gone through with to prepare articles for the sea-voy¬ age, is to be taken into the account. I have had occasion to witness that evil in one article of beverage very familiar to you all. Let any man. take one cup of tea that came from China to Russia overland, without passing twice under the equator, and he will never be reconciled to a cup of tea tnat has passed under the equator. The genuine article, that has not been manipulated and prepared to pass under the equator, is worth tenfold more than that which we receive here. Preparation is necessary to enable it to pass the tropics, and the long, damp voyage makes as much différence in the article of tea as the difference between a green apple and a dried apple, green corn and dried corn, sent abroad. So you will find it to be with fruits ; so it will be with all the expensive and precious articles, and especially those liable to decay and to injury, either by exposure to a tropical climate, or to the moisture of a long sea-voyage. Then, sir, in a commercial point of view, this road will be of vast importanoe. There is another consideration that I will allude to for a moment It will ex¬ tend our trade more than any other measure that j'ou can devise, certainly more 7 than any one that yon now have in contemplation The people are all anzioua for the annexation of Cuba-eo eoon aa it can. be obtamed on fair and honorable terme—and whv ! In ordar to get the amall, pitiful,trade of that Island. We all talk abotit the great importMice of Central America, in order to extend our commerce ; it is Talosble to the extent it goes. ]^t Cuba, Central Ajnenea. and all the islands snrroonding them, put together, are not a thousandth parf of the value of the great East India trade that would be drawn first to our weetem coast, and then across to the valley of the Mississippi, if this railroad be constructed. Sir, if we intend to extend our commerce ; if we intend to make the great ports of the world tributary to our wealth, we must prosecute our trade eastward or westward, as you please; we must penetrate the Pacific, its islands, and its continent, where the great mass of the human family reside- where the articles that have built up the powerful nations of the world have always come from. That is the direction in which we should look for the ex¬ pansion of our commerce and of our trade. That is the direction our public policy should take—a direction that is facilitated by the great work now pro¬ posed to be made. I care not whether yon look at it in a commercial point of view, as a matter of administrative economy at home, as a question of military defense, or in refer¬ ence to the building op of the national wealth, and power, and glory; it is the great measure of the age—a measure, that in my opinion has been postponed too long—and 1 frankly confess to you, that I regard the postponement to next December to mean, till after the next presidential election. No man hopes or expects, when you have not time to pass it in the early spring, at the long ses¬ sion, that you are going to consider it at the short session. When yon come here at the next session, the objection will be that yon must not bring forward a measure of this magnitude, because it will affect the political relations of parties, and it will be postponed then, as it was two years ago, to give the glory to the incoming Administration, each party probably thiiming that it would have the honor of carrying out the measure. Hence, sir, I regard the proposi¬ tion of postponement tall December, to mean till after the election of 1860. I desire to see all the pledges made in the last contest redeemed during this term, and let the next President, and the parties under him, redeem the pledges and obligations assumed during the next campaign. The people of all partiee at the last presidential election decreed that this road was to be made. The question is now before us. We have time to conáder it. We have all the means necessary, as much now as we can have at any other time. The Senator from Massachusetts intimates that the treasury being bankrupt now, we can¬ not afford the money. That Senator also remarked that we were just emermng from a severe commercial crisis—a great commercial revulsion—which had carried bankruptcy in its train. If we have just emerged from it, if we have passed it, this is the very time of all others when a great enterprise should be begun. It might have been argued when we saw that crisis coming, before it reached us, that we should furl our sails and trim our ship for the approaching storm; but when it has exhausted its rage, when all tna mischief has been done that could be inflicted, when the bright sun of day is breaking forth, when the sea is becoming calm, and there is but little visible of the past tempest, when the nausea of sea-sickness is sucaeeded by joyous exhilaration, inspired by the hope of a fair voyage, let men feel elated and be ready to commence a great work like this, so as to complete it before another commercial crisis or revulsion shall come upon ua. Sir, if yon pass this bill no money can be expended under it until one section of the road has been made. The surveys must be completed, the route must be located, the land set aside and surveyed, and a section of the road made, before a dollar can be drawn from the treasury. If you pass the bill now, it cannot make any drain on the treasury for at least two years to come ; and who doubts that all the effects of the late crisis will have passed away before the expiration of those two years. Mr. President, this is the auspicious time, either with a view to the interests of the oountry, or to that stagnation which exists between political parties. 8 •wliicli is calculated to make it a measure of the country rather than a partisan measure, or to the commercial and monetary affairs of the nation, or with reference to the future. Look upon it in any point of view, now is the time ; and I am glad that the Senator from Louisiana has indicated, as I am told he has, that the motion for postponement is a test question ; for I confess I shall regard it as a test vote on a Pacific railroad during this term, whatever it may be in the future. I hope that we shall pass the bill now. SPEECH 09 SENATOR DOUGLAS, OF ILLINOIS, 0« tat KMSAS-LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, A2n> TOS EEPOBT 09 TUS COMMirrEE OF GONFEEENCE. DKLIVEEED ra the SEHATE op the UHITED states, APEIL 2Î, 1S53. The Senate haviag reenmed the ooneideration of the report of the committee ot oonferenoe on the diaagreeine votee of the two Honsee on the bill (3. No. 161) for the admiesion of the State of Kansas into the Union—Mr. DOUGLAS said: Mr. PBEsmETr; I have carefully examined the bill reported by the committee of conference as a snbetitnte for the Zfonse amendment to the Senate bill for the admission of Kansas, with an anxiotis desire to find in it such provisions as would enable me to give It my support. I hod hoped that, after the disagree¬ ment of the two Houses upon this question, some plan, some form of bill, could have been agreed upon, which would harmonize and quiet the country, and re¬ unite those who agree in principle and in political action on this great question, so as to take it out of Congreaa I am not able, in the bill which is now under ooosiderstion, to find that the principle for which I have contended is fairly carried out The position, and the sole position, upon which I have stood in this whole controversy, has been that the people of Kansas, and of each other Territory, in forming a constitution for admission into the Union as a State, should be left perfectly free to form and mould their domestic institutions and organic act in their own way, without coercion on the one side, or any improper or undue influence on the other. The question now arises, is there such a submission of the I,ecompton con- stitation as brings it fairly within that principle i In terms, the constitution is not submitted at all ; but yet we are told Uiat it amounts to a submission, because there is a land grant attached to it, and they are permitted to vote for the land grant, or against it ; and, if they accept the land grant, then they are required to take the constitution with it; and, if they reject the lanu grant, it shall be held and deemed a decision against coming mto the Union under the Leeompton constitution. Hence it will be argued in one portion of the Union that this is a submission of the constitution, and in another portion that it is not. We are to be told that submission is popular sovereignty in one section, and submission in another section is not popular sovereignty. Sir, I had hoped that when we came finally to adjust this question, we should have been able to employ language so clear, so unequivocal, that there would have been no room for doubt as to what was meant, and what the line of policy wfis to be in the future. Are these people left free to take or reject the Le¬ eompton Constitution! If they accept the land grant, they are compelled to take it If they reject the land grant, they are out of the Union. Sir, I have 2 so special objection to the land grant as it is. I think it is a fair one, and if the}- had put this further addition, that if they refused to come in under the Lecompton constitution with the land gtanti tbey might proceed to form a new constitution, and that they should then have the same amount of lands, there would have been no bounty held out for coming in under the Lecompton con¬ stitution ; but when the law gives them the six million acres in the event they take this constitution, and does not indicate what they are to have in the event they reject it, and wait until they can form another, I submit the question whether there is not an indnoement, a bounty held out to infitiance these peopl*'' to vote for the Lecompton constitutioii f It may be said that when they attain the ninety-three thousand population, or the population required by the then ratio—which may be one hundred and twenty thousand—and form a constitution under it, we shall give then the same • amount of land that is now given by this grant. That may be ^ and may not I believe it will be so; and yet in the House bill, for which this is a Substitute, the provision was that they should have this same amount of land, whether they came in under the Lecompton constitution, or whether thev formed a new constitution. There was no doubt, no uncertainty left in regard to what were to be their rights under the land grant, whether they took the one constitntion or the otiier. Hence that propoMtiou was a fair submiaaicai, wiíhout any pen¬ alties OH the one side, or any bounty, or special favor, or privilege on the other to influence their action. In this view of the case, I am not able to arrive at the conclusioo'that this is a fair submission, either of the question of the con¬ stitution itself, or of admission Into the Union under the constitntion mrd the proposition submitted by this bill Again, sir, there is a further contingency. In the event that they reject this ccmstitution, they are to stay ont of the Union until they shall attain thé requisite population for a member of Congress, according to the then ratio of representation in the other House. I have no objection to making it a general rule that Territories shall be kept out until they have the requisite population. 1 have proposed it over and over again. 1 am willing to agree to it and make it applicable to Kansas if you will make it a general rule. But, sir, it is one tiling to adopt that rule as a general rule and adhere to it in all cases, and it ia a very different, and a very distinct thing, to provide that if they will take this constitution, which the people have shown that they abhor, tiey may com^ in with forty thousand people, but if they do not, they shall stay out untal they get ninety thousand; thus discriminating between the different character of institutions that may be formed. I submit the question whether It is not Con¬ gressional intervention, when you provide that a Territory may come in witi one kind of constitution with forty thousand, and with a different kind of con¬ stitution, not until she gets ninety thousand, or one hundred and twenty thousand f It is intervention with inducements to control the result It js intervention with a bounty on the one side and a penalty on the other. I aal^ are we prepared to construe the great principle of popular sovereignty in such a manner as will recognize the right of Congress to intervene and control the decision that the people may make on the q^uestlen. The great principle for w"hich we have all contended, in the language of the Kansas-Nebraska act, is to leave " the people perfectly free to form and regu¬ late their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Conatítu- tion of the United States." If you hold out large grants, and pacuuiary induoe- ments, to influence the affirmative vote, and Sie terror of staying out of the' Union to influence the negative vote, I submit the question, whether that people are left perfectly free to form and regulate their institutions i I insist tliat where there are inducements on one side, and penalties on the other, there is no freedom of election. The election must be free. The electors must be left unbiased by the action of the government, if yon are going to have fair ejections, and a fair decision. For these reasons 1 do not think that this bill brings the question within that principle which 1 have held dear, and in defense of which I have stood hern- for the last five months, battling Rennst the large majority of my politieal friends, and in defense of which 1 intend to stand as long as 1 have any assoe»- ation or connection with the politics of the country. I must repeat, sir, that I 3' «lo not think this brings it within the principU thus laid down, nor do the Democracy of Illinois tliink this bill comes within that principle. We have recently held a'Stnte convention. .Public meetings were held in ninety-eight of the one hundred and odd countiea In ninety-ecTen of these counties resoin» tions.were passed indorsing the course of the «felegatiou in Congress upon this ijuestion. In one county the opposite policy was sustained. That was the county;of Lake,' a county, where the Pepublicaus have an overwhelming ma¬ jority—perhaps teo'or twenty U) one over the Democrats, and where there were just Democrats , enough to hold the post office and the custom-house, and to fill the light-houses. . That one county was carried by the Lccompton men, twenty-seven of them in'number; I think; the other ninety-seven counties wfere being carried.^ the nnti-I.eoorapton men, and in nearly all of them by a unanimous vote. Taai'convention, representing; the entire State, embodied more.ofitne eminent and distinguished men—^eniof weight, of character, moral, political, and social, than any convention ever assembled in the State. That convention which thus assembled a few days ago passed resolution's, and among them was one upon this point whicb f will read. ■ After defining and indorsing the principle of popular sovereignty, the sixth resolution declares : " Retolved, That a fair application of these principles reqnires that the Lc¬ compton constitution shoulii be submitted to a «Jirect vote of the actual inhabi¬ tants of Kansas, so that they may vote for or agaiiist that instrument, before Kansas shall be declared one of the States of. tbu Union ; and until it shall be ratified by the people of Kansas at a fair election held for that ^purpose, the Illinois Demoeracy are unalterably opposed to the admission of Kansas nnder that constitution.. ' . 1 ' . • ; - • ,■ I will furnish to the reporter thé whole series, and ask him to incorporiite them into the report, as furnishing the platform upon which tlie Illinois Demo¬ cracy stand, an«! by which I intend to abide. .'"Colonel JlcClemand, from the committee to prepare resolutions for. the consideration of the convention, made the following report; which was read, and, on motion, each resolntion was separately read ana unanimously adopted: ."1, Tliat the Democratic party of the State of Illinois, through; their delegates in gc.ncrnl convention'assembled, do reassert and declare the principles avowed by thérn os when, on former occasions, they l/ave presented their candidates for popular suffrage. . .' . "2. /ïesoii'fi/, .That they are unalterably attached to, and will maintain in¬ violate, the principles declared by the national convention at Cincinnati iU' June, 1856. "• ' ' " ' ' . ."3. iicsof««i That they avow, with renewed energy, their devotion to the Federal Union of the United States, their earnest desire to avert sectional strife, their detcrmiustion to maintain' the'sovereignty of the States, and to protect every State, and the people thereof, in all their constitutional righti '"4. iiesohfili That thé platform of principles'established by the national Democratic o«invention at Cincinnati, is the only, authoritative exposition of Democratic doctrine, and they deny the right of any poWer on earth, except a like body, to change or interpolate, that platform, or to prescribe new and different tests ; that they will neither doit themselves nor permit it to be done by others, but will recognize all men as Democrats who stand by and uphold Democratic principles.' ., , . " 5. lietohed, Tnat in the organization of States; thé people have a right to decide at the polls upon the character of their fundamental law, and that the experience of the past year has conclusively demonstrated the wisdom and pro¬ priety of the principle, that the fundamental law, under which the Territory seeks admission into the'Union, should be submitted to the people of such Tcrritoryfor their ratification or rejection at a fair election to be held for that purpose; and that, before such Territary is admitted as a State, such funda¬ mental law should receive a majority of the legal votes cast at such election; and they deny thé right, and condemn the attempt, of any convention; called for the purpose of framing a constitution, to impose the instrument formed by them upon the people against their known wUL • -/ - i "6. Resolved, That a fair application of these principles requires that the Lecompton constitution should be submitted to a direct vote or the actual in¬ habitants of Kansas, so that they may vote for or against that instrument, be¬ fore Kansas shall be declared one of the States of this Union; and until it shall be ratified by the people of Kansas at a fair election held for that purpose, the Illinois Democracy are unalterably opposed to the admission of Kansas under that constitution. "7. Resolved, That we heartily approve and sustain the manly, firm, patri¬ otic, and Democratic position of S. A. Douglas, Isaac N. Morris, Thomas L Harris, Aaron Shaw, Robert Smitii, and Samuel S. Marshall, the Démocratie delegation of Illinois in Congress, upon the question of the admission of Kansas under the Lecompton constitution; and that, by their firm and uncompromisioc devotion to Democratic principles, and to the cause of justice, right, truth, and the people, they have deservea our admiration, increased, if possible, our confi¬ dence in their integrity and patriotism, and merited our warm approbation, our sincere and hearty thanks, and shall receive our earnest support "S. Resolved, That in all things wherein the national Aaministration sustain and carry out the principles of tl^e Democratic party as expressed in the Cii> cinuati platform, and affirmed in these resolutions, it is entitled to, and will pe- ceive, our hearty sup^iort" There the Democracy of Illinois, assembled in convention under the circum¬ stances which I have stated, have, by a unanimous voice, declared that this con¬ stitution must be submitted to a direct vote of the people on its ratification or rejection, and that Kansas must never come in under it unless, on such a direct vote, at a fair election, the people shall decide in favor of admission under it. Under these cirou*r>6tances. it wil be seen that I stand now, as I have stood du¬ ring the wlioke session, wj'IjIi the Democracy of my own State, firmly, immova¬ bly, in favor of that great pri ciüle of popiJar sovereignty, which leaves the people perfectly free either feo take the'Lecomptoo corfctitution, or to have such other one as they may choose to make. I have had appeals made to me from poUfeioal Iwecda, whom I respect and esteem, imploring me to yield this great principle on this questioo, in ooneider- ation of so many concessions being made on the other side. Some of that glo¬ rióos band of Democrats who have been acting with me on this question during the session, have felt it their duty thus to yield, believing, as tney think, that tliey have secured a substantial triumph in this great contest. Sir, I desire no personal triumph. I have not stood here for five months in conflict with men with whom I have acted a whole lifetime, struggling for a personal triumph. Hence, because they have made concessions, that fact ought not to change my course, unless those concessions are of such a nature as to give me the principles for which I contend. If the object was to prove that the Lecompton men had backed down, and abandoned their original ground, I could parade the fact that, at the opening of this session, we were told that Kansas must come in under the Lecompton oon- Btitution unconditionally, or else that four States would secede from the Union, It was then to be an unconditional admission. After a while, upon reflection, upon investigation, the conclusion was arrived at that it was wise to put a clause in the bill in some way recognizing the right of the people of that State to change their constitution before 1864, although, according to my construction of its tenus, it prohibited any change until that period. Here was a concession made, a great concession, a concession which I never could have made, on which¬ ever side of the question I may have been, for the reason that I do not believe that Congress have any right to alter or construe authoritatively a State coDSti- feutiou. It was not satisfactory to me to have Congress, in pursuance of the recom¬ mendation of the President, intervene and recognize, by any implication, the right of the people to change their State constitution in a ruaaner üi erent from that prescribed in the instrument itself. I deny the right of Congress to exercise any such power. I deny the right of Congress to inteiweu t and ati- thoritatively construe the constitution of a State. Ii the constitution was their act and deed; if it embodied their will—it was sacred, and it ought not to be touched by Congress in any respect whatever, except to receive it unconditioi> 5 aUy, or reject it tmconditionally. That conccesioa -wasmacle; but EtiUjt did not reach the point which I had felt it my duty to mate. It did not come to my principle. I do not claim that Senators are under any more obligation to come to me than I am to go to them. I claim the right to determine for myself, according to my own jud^ent and my own conscience, what my duty is to a great fundamental principle;'and if Senators cannot bring the bill within the principle, I must exercise my right and duty of dissenting from it I did not thinl tliat concession brought it within the principle, or obviated any of my objectiona It only made the bill more obnoxious to me by violating another principle equally sacred in our political system—that of the sovereignty of the Statea ■ ■ Next came tlie declaration that the free-State Legislature was elected; and hence, if Kansas was forced into the Union with a pro-slavery constitution, against the will of her people, it would not last long, for the reason that there was a free-State Legislature, who would immediately take steps to change it and abolish slavery, iThat argument did not address itself favorably to my judgment, for the reason that .it did not affect the principle involved. tVhat difference did it make, so far:8S the principle was concerned,whether there was a majority of free-State men or a majority of pro-slavery men in that Legisla- turef 'Vthat difference did it make to me, whether there was a majority of Democrats, or a majority of Republicans, or a majority of Americans in that Legislature, provided they were fairly and honestly elected? If the people of Kansas desired a pro-slavery Legislature, they had a right to ik If they de¬ sired a Republican Legislature, they had a right to it. If they desired an American Legislature, they had a right to it. If they desired a Legislature purely Democratic, electedi without reference to the question of slavery, it was their right to select such a one; and, sir, it was the duty of ilr. Calhoun to de¬ clare those elected who had received a majority of the legal votes, fairly and I honestly returned. The declaration of that result could not change the princi- .T>le involved in this discussion, for the great principle was, shall that people be left perfectly and entirely free to form and regulate their own institutions in their own way? i - ; Í .'¡These various concessions could not control votes enough to carry the bill. ..Vhat next? Then comes a disagreement between the two Houses of Congress. . The Senate insisting upon the bill which it had passed for the admission of Le- compton unconditionally, except what is called the Pugh-Green amendment; and the House insisting on the bill which it had passed as a substitute, known as the Crittenden-Montgomery bilL This committee of conference provide for I a question of submission to the people, but what do they submit? The chair¬ man of that committee of conference, the Senator from Missouri, [Mr. Gueex,] has informed you that the constitution is not submitted; the Senator from Vir- .ginia, [Mr. Hnsixn,] who was his colleague on the committee, has informed you 1 that tlie constitution is not submitted ; and I believe both of them have added , that they would not vote for the bill if the constitution was submitted. I un¬ derstand that similar declarations have been made in the other House of Con- ! gvesa by the members of the committee of conference there, showing that this .was their understanding and their construction of the bill ,;i Then^'if.the'constitulion is not submitted; if the people are not allowed to .-.vote f»t it or.against it freely, without a bounty on the one side or a penalty . on the «tlier,.how can it be said that it comes within that great principle of ^pular sovereignty which, I insist ought to be carried out in ml the Territories ? .It is no answer to this objection to tell methat because men have conceded so much, bought to concede. Ko matter how many and how great their conces¬ sions are,,!/ ihey.have not conceded the principle for which I contend, I cannot .tako: whattliey propose. It is not for me to say whether these concessions are ■ right or wrong, whether they are wise or unwise. It b enough for me that the principle for, which I insist has not been clearly and distinctly recognized in ,thb bilb-I'l dislike the indirection by which the submission is proposed to be mado—made to'depend on a land grant In order to enable the people of Kan- eas to reject the Lccoraptqn constitution, you compel tbem to vote against a land grant, which every man, woman, and child in the Territory would desire to nava Toa will not allow tbem to take the land grant unless they take the 6 constitution -n-itli it, and you -will not allow them to proceed immediately and mate a new constitution, with the same population, and have the same land grant, if they reject this. If you did that, then the principle would be fairly carried out ; but unless you do'allow that to be done, 1 insist that the principió is violated. ' Now, Mr. rreeident, I c.nn say to yon very franfcly, that if there were two amendments made to this bill, although it would still be somewhat objeetionable in its equivocal features, I could and would take great pleasure in giving it my support. One would be to strike out the land grant altogether, and the other to strike out the limitation as to population. Then the simple question pre¬ sented to the people would be, will you come in under the Lecompton constitu¬ tion or not? and if you do not, you may proceed immediately, with the'same population, to make'a new constitution. In that there would be perfect fairness; there would be no Congressional intervention with, its inducements to.control tJie results. Or, if you wanted to leavë the land grant in, why not make it ap¬ plicable to the new constitution as well as the old one, as the Crittenden amend¬ ment did? Then they would get thesame amount of land under the one as the otiier. In other worils, if you wish to make this proposition fair, you must give Kans.as the 6.sme. land} under any new constiWIUon she may form, as you do under this one, and you must allow her to come in with the same population under the one as under the other constitution. Tlicn there would be fairness, tJien there would he equality. 1 appeal to my friend from Virginia to know whether he, as a Southern man, desire.s to see tlie principle of Congressional intervention to control and influence the voting of the people carried out hereafter in the admission of new Statee? The time may come when the case will be reversed. The time may come when there will be an anti-slaverj" majority in both Houses of Congress. When that time comes, it may so happen that a bill may be brought forwai-d with a land grant of ten njillion acres for^a free State, and five million for a slave State; Or allowing a free State to come in with a population of forty thousand, and pro¬ viding that a slave State shall not come in without ninety thousand. Would GUI' Southern friends regard that as being a fair interpretation of the pi^nciple of popular sovereignty ? Would they not say that was the most dangerous aftd uuconstltutioiial system of intervention that was ever devised, when the Fed¬ eral Government steps into the Territories, and by its bounties on one side, and its penalties ou the other, attempts to influence and control the action of tb« people? I do not regard this as a matter of much consequence to Kansas; I do mot believe there is enough in this bounty, or enough in this penalty, to exercise auv material influence upon the people of Kansas in this election; but it iu- volves the great fundamental principle, it involves the principle of freedom of election, and it involves the great principle of self-government, upon which our institutions rest. With all the anxiety that I have had to be able to arrive at a conclusion in harmony with the overwhelming majority of my political friends in Congress, I could not bring my judgment or conscience to the conolusion that this was a fair, impartial, and equal application of the principle. There is another objection to this proposition, one that looks badly upon its face. I take it for granted that it was intended to be fair and just; but it giVes cause for apprehension, and will generate snspieion among the people that the election under it will iiqf be, and cannot be, fair. I allude to the provision as to the board of commissioners. By the bill framed by the eminent Senator from Kentucky, aud passed by the House of Keprescntatives, there was to be a board of four commissioners to superintend the election on the constitution ; two representing the people of the Territory, being the presiding oificers of the two branches of the Legislature; the other two representing the Federal Gov¬ ernment, being the Governor and Secretary, appointed by the President and the Senate. In that wa}-, two commissioners would necessarily be Of one class of politics, and the other two of another class of politics. Under that state of the case, it is not probable that unfairness would nave been perpetrated in the election. Under that board, as prescribed by the Senator from Kentucky, you would have the assurance, from the very law itself, that one-half ofthe judges 7 of election woulcî belong.to one party, and one half.to.the other; that one half of thé clerks would belong to one, and one half to the other., ' ' ' : . • ■ BuÇ how is it when you add a fifth member to the board, and provide that ' the board shall consist of five, the two presiding officers of the Legislature, and ■ then-thé Governor,Bccrctary,'and the district attorney, making, three United States officers, and declare, that three ehall constitute'the boatdf eis it not ■clear'that if these three gentlemen choose. they eanhave'all the judges of elec¬ tion and all the clerks bf election and all the returning ofiicers of one class of •political raith,*the same as Mr.,Calhoun did at the elections which took place ■ on the 21st'of December and the first Monday of January J Doe.s not the ■; change in this respect.give ground for.'apprehension that you may have the DïfonL the Shawnee, and the Delaware Crossing and Kickapoo frauds reCnact- ' ed'at this election! I.shoold have been better satisfied If it had been left as the Mouse bill, left it," with' the' four,commissioners, two from each political party in Kansas,'two representing the Federal Government, two representing the people of the 'Territory, reg^uiring three to be a quorum, thus rendering it impossible for partisan politics to cbnlrol the action of the board. The very fact that it was deemed necessary or"wise'to change this feature, is to me a serious objection to this proposition. Then, sir, what is ray duty upon this question, under this state of the easel I have but one line of duty, and that is to vote against the bill ; because, in my. opinion, there is not a fair submission to the people under such clrcumstancee as to insure an unbiased election and fair returns. I have indicated two amend¬ ments, which, if they had been'made, would have enabled me to support tliis bill, not'withstanding other defects in it. I will indicate another. I am willing to subscribe to the principle that a Territory shall contain the requisite popu¬ lation for a member of Congress before admission, provided it is made a general law. The Senator from Ohio [Mr. PcGu] yesterday cited me as authority for that provision of this bilk Me referred to my report, as chairman of the Com¬ mittee on Territories and the bill accompanying it, in 1856, in which I then provided that Kansas might proceed to form a constitution when she had the requisite population, to wit: ninety-three thousand four hundred and twenty, under the present ratio. That was my judgment then of the true rule upon the subject. He quotes also a proposition that I have brought in at this very session as a substitute for the Arizona bill, providing a general law that no Territory shall ever form a constitution and State government until it has the requisite population for a member of Congress. I am for that proposition now ; and if Senators will consent to any arrangement by which you can strike out the whole of this bill, and, in lieu of it, insert a provision that neither Kansas, nor any other Territory of the United States, shall,proceed to form a constitu¬ tion and State government for admission into the Union until it has the requi¬ site population for a member of Congress, according to the existing Federal ratio, I will give it my support. But, sir, if I require it in Kansas, I wish to require it in other Territories ; and if I am to apply that limitation to the new constitution that is to be made, I wish to apply it to the one that is in eiistencc. I am not willing to prescribe one ratio to one kind of constitution, and another ratio to another kind. 2Iake it uniform, and it can have my support I hare on all proper occasions indi¬ cated that as the proper rule—in 1856, as the Senator from Ohio proved ¡»at this session again, as he proved vesterday by reading the bill offered by me ; and I repeat now that, if you will strike out all of this bill but the clause that Kansas shall not come in until she has the requisite population for a member of Congress, and then say that this section is incorporated into and made part of the organic law of each of the Territories of the United States, and that none shall come for admission until they have that population, I will give it my support In other words, Mr. President, I desire to carry out the principle of leaving the people to decide for themselves in perfect fairness. I will support no rule applicable to the Korth that does not apply to the South. I will make no rule applicable to the South that I am not wflling to apply to the Xorth. I will not intervene either for slave constitutions or against slave constitutions byan act of Congress, holding out bounties on the one side or penalties on the other. 8 Stand on the great principle of e