"Memorial of four thousand one hundred and seventy citizens of Kansas, asking that Kansas may be admitted into the Union under the Topeka constitution."

Mr. LEITER. I want to know from the gentleman if he supposes they are all the voters of the Territory?

Mr. SMITH, of Virginia. It is the census of the Topekaites, taken by their own party, in their own way, and I take it for granted it contains all the voters they have got. It is not to be supposed they did not swell the number as large as they could, and yet four thousand one hundred and seventy votes are all they have, according to their own showing.

What argument, then, is to be derived from the assertion that they have ten thousand voters in the Territory? Why, sir, the men in buckram of Falstaff are no comparison. Here is their own official testimony, presented by their own Delegale from that Territory.

But now I come to another statement of the gentleman from Ohio. Sir, I traveled through several counties in that State last fall, before the election, and I know the monstrous tales that were told to excite the people there against the Democratic party. But, sir, the sober second thought of that people operated, as it always will in this country, and you may see the result by looking at the majority with which Chase was elected then, and at the vote he got in this last election. Mr. LEITER. Governor Chase was not elected by a majority vote on either occasion.

Political Organizations—Mr. Leiter.

people, and who strive to accomplish that end by means absolutely shocking to the moral sense of the people, excites no fear with me.

Sir, in the mad fanaticism of the North-I will not say the gentleman from Ohio is included in that mass, but so far as his action is concerned it goes to accomplish the same purpose-it is notorious that the great heart of the Black Republican party is unfriendly to the continuation of the Union, unless they can rule it all. They had rather be the first man in a village than the second in Rome. They had rather rule in hell than serve in heaven. "Rule or ruin" is the great doctrine is the great doctrine of that obnoxious party.

But, sir, I have already said enough; and will now conclude by quoting, as applicable and appropriate to the Black Republican party, these words of the infernal one to his roaring asso

ciates:

"But of this be sure:

To do aught good will never be our task, But ever to do ill our sole delight."

POLITICAL ORGANIZATIONS.

SPEECH OF HON. B. F. LEITER,
OF OHIO,

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
May 31, 1858.

The House being in the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union

Mr. LEITER said:

SENATE.

gentlemen, yet I have my misgivings that they do not themselves believe in them, and as much despise those principles as I do. I have had the fortune, or misfortune, of being born and brought up in a slave State. My early education was received in a slave State. Nevertheless, I was never taught to believe that slavery was a godly institution or a great blessing, but that it is a great wrong, opposed to every principle of republican government. Now, sir, if I could not get that education in a slave State, I appeal to gentlemen who have been raised in free States, and who have been educated there and taught that every man has the God-given rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, which every other man is bound to respect, whether they would be found advocating the principle they do, were it not for the political organizations of the day? Were it not for power and political plunder, in my judgment, you could not find a single man north of Mason and Dixon's line who would advocate the institution of slavery as these gentlemen do. It has been but within a few years that I have heard it defended by southern statesmen as a matter of right, and never by northern men, until they found the success of Locofocoism dependent upon that course, since which time they are its most zealous advocates.

a treacherous hypocrite. Now, sir, in the hour allotted to me by this committee, I propose to consider other relations than those existing between red men and white men-other relations than those existing on the Pacific coast. I propose to consider relations existing between white men of the North. I propose to consider relations which

Mr. SMITH, of Virginia. Well, that makes no difference. I ask you to look at the vote he received at the former, and the vote he received at this last election. Sir, truth will always tri-ises-in short, that the red man on the Pacific is umph with the people when they come to reflect; and you see the mesmeric influence which it has had there. Well, sir, this being the case, there is a great outcry raised by many, and you see here men who have left the Democratic party, men who are mere political bawds, absolutely calling us to account for want of patriotism. Why, recollect some days ago, when the honorable gen-political parties of the North bear to each other; tleman from Kentucky, [Mr. MARSHALL,] With his adroitness, had succeeded in drawing the Black Republicans into positions which violated the principles which they professed, and which they consented to occupy for the purpose of success, and after all were defeated, he challenged any one of them all to say that they did not vote with their eyes open for the Montgomery amendment. He repeated his challenge, when a member from Ohio [Mr. SHERMAN] acknowledged that his party had acted with their eyes open, but had not consented so to vote until assured that certain gentlemen would stand by them to the end. Another gentleman from Ohio [Mr. GIDDINGS] stated that he came into the arrangement with extreme reluctance, and not until he was assured of the pledge of honor of the Douglas wing of the Democracy to stand by them to the last.

And that was not all. The gentleman from Maine [Mr. WASHBURN] at another time read a paper, in which was put down what he regarded as the understanding between the two parties. It turned out, upon examination, however, that a great many of the Douglas Democrats had not gone into the arrangement, and that the Black Republicans had been sold. And now, in their spite, in their vexation, this pure, immaculate party, embracing the gentleman, [Mr. LEITER,] undertakes to call us to account. Yes, sir, even he himself, and they, in the vexation of their heart at having been sold, at having been thwarted in their political schemes for success-for they gave up their principles to accomplish that, and nothing else this party, which stands before the world as political charlatans and tricksters, talks about calling us to account!

Well, sir, I have no fear of them. This party, which stands before the country convicted, by their own confessions, as political bawds, that party whose only end is to win and rule this

and I think I shall be able to succeed in proving to this committee that there are other men than red men who are not to be trusted, and who are treacherous and hypocritical. I propose, in this hour allotted me, to prove that the leaders of the Locofoco party are equally treacherous with the red man of the Pacific coast, and that their pledges and promises are mere hypocritical pretenses, unworthy of the confidence of the people. I do not propose to include in my remarks the rank and file of the so-called Democratic party, because, in my judgment, they are as much disposed to do right as any other men of any other party. This I know from the relations which I at one time held with that party, and my intercourse with them.

Now, sir, I wish it distinctly understood by this committee that I find no fault with any gentleman who may differ with me in regard to the great political issues which divide the people of this country. I say, as a Democrat, that I respect every man, although he may differ with me in opinion; and when I see gentlemen from a certain section of the country advocate in this House principles which I deem to be antagonistical to good government, I have the charity to believe that they, coming from the section which they do, are honest in their convictions, and intend to do right. They, by education, have been taught to believe that the peculiar institutions of their locality are sanctioned, not only by man, but by the Almighty, which, in my judgment, is a fundamental error; yet they are entitled to their opinions, radically wrong though they may be. But, sir, when look about me, and see men whose education has been the reverse, who have been taught from the cradle principles entirely different from those which they advocate-I say that although I respect the men, I have no kind of respect or regard for the principles which they advocate. Although I may treat them with the civility due between

in our political history than 1854, where I can successfully commence to show the hypocritical partisanship of the Locofoco party leaders, by advocating slavery and slavery-extension in the South, and half-way slavery and anti-slavery at the North. It is a matter known to every man, especially those of the North, that when it was proposed to repeal the Missouri compromise a storm of universal indignation pervaded the entire free States. Petitions and remonstrances by the hundred thousands were sent here, protesting against the injustice of the act. Public meetings were held in all the towns, cities, and school districts of the free States, in which the members of all parties participated; and resolutions were passed, sufficient to fill a large volume, in denunciation of the attempted outrage.

But, sir, for some reason or other, the remonstrances of the people were disregarded, and their petitions unheeded by the political parties of that day. Not only the Democratic leaders, but the Whig leaders, participated in the repeal of the Missouri compromise. When this storm was coming thick and fast, the Democratic party became alarmed, disorganized and disbanded at the North, and their flag was left dragging in the dust. Then it was they were bound to apply all of their ingenuity and all their inventive powers to bring before the country issues never before known, not recognized before, never proclaimed before by any party, North or South. It was a kind of afterthought on the part of these politicians. It was a

thing never dreamed of by any party, until they saw the burning, withering, damning indignation of an insulted and betrayed people, and found it necessary, for the purpose of success, that they should get up some swindle to deceive the people, and thereby succeed. The Democratic party of the North commenced creeping and crawling, and dared not show their drooping faces before the people, until they had got up some excuse for the extraordinary course of Pierce's administration on the slavery question. As soon, however, as they recovered from the first shock, they began to preach Free-Soilism. They commenced to tell the freemen of the North that the KansasNebraska bill was the great measure of freedom, and that the North would be vastly benefited, and the area of freedom extended by the repeal of the slavery restriction. This I then regarded as a mere hypocritical pretense, and my mind has not undergone any change since.

Why, sir, I heard it publicly proclaimed by the Locofoco stump speakers in Ohio that it was the

35TH CONG....1ST SESS.

peculiar province of the Democratic party to extend the area of freedom, and that the KansasNebraska bill was the first step in that great programme; that by means of the repeal of the Missouri compromise, and the inauguration of the new doctrine of popular sovereignty, we of the North would gain at least three new free States out of the territory now contained within the boundaries of the State of Texas. We were told this, too: that if we left all these questions to the people of the Territories, then, as a matter of course, the free States of the North would have all the new States that would come into the Union; that no slave State could be ever again admitted under this new doctrine of popular sovereignty. Well, that plausible doctrine gave the Democratic party considerable strength with the people, and they again showed their faces and gave battle to the faithful friends of the country. Although the Locofoco party had violated faith, yet I must say it always had a facility for making attacks on the Opposition, and showing the plausibility of their course, so as to meet the approbation of the people when it was unmerited. It always had the means of argument to use to the people; it had the means of persuasion in discussion which were always formidable, and, in my judgment, dangerous to the best interests of the country.

Well, sir, the campaign of 1854 came on, but the people were not satisfied with the pledges and promises of that so-called Democratic party, nor were they satisfied that the idea of popular sovereignty was just exactly what it was represented to be; nor did they believe, although they had been often so told, that in the doctrine of popular sovereignty the people would have perfect security against the aggressions of what they believed to be a great wrong in the country-the extension of slavery. The party was overthrown in every free-State, and all its forces were put to flight in 1854. Eighteen hundred and fifty-five came on, and by that time their appeals had been heard, long and loud and effectively, in many of the States, and although they had been, in 1854, overthrown, perfectly demolished, yet they had such power of attraction about them with their declarations of leaving the people of the Territories to do just as they pleased, not alone in regard to slavery, but in regard to everything else, that they again rallied, and gave battle to the Opposition. That doctrine, I must confess, is a very popular doctrine, and very readily commended itself to the people. I would like that way of doing business myself. I would like right well to have things just as I want them, and have nobody interfere with me; and I judge that all people have the same feeling. Therefore the doctrine of popular sovereignty was very formidable to the Opposition party, and indeed the only argument that could be used against it effectually was that the so-called Democratic party would not in good faith carry out its pledges, the truth of which is now fully

Political Organizations-Mr. Leiter.

1852, and rightly applied to the organization of Territories in 1854.

"3. That by the uniform application of this Democratic principle to the organization of Territories, and to the admission of new States, with or without domestic slavery, as they may elect the equal rights of all the States will be preserved intact; the original compacts of the Constitution maintained inviolate; and the perpetuity and expansion of this Union insured to its utmost capacity of embracing in peace and harmony, every future American State that may be constituted or annexed, with a republican form of Government.

"Resolved, That we recognize the rights of the people of all the Territories, including Kansas and Nebraska, acting through the legally and fairly expressed will of a majority

of actual residents, and whenever the number of their inhabitants justifies it, to form a constitution with or without slavery, and be admitted into the Union upon terms of perfect equality with the other States."

We are informed by this pamphlet that the reading of these resolutions "was followed by long continued and enthusiastic applause, in which every delegate joined in the most earnest

manner."

Here was a time of great rejoicing and universal applause, demonstrative of the deep feeling that animated that august body of political schemers, on the adoption of a platform to be repudiated by their party before the first year of

the administration of James Buchanan had terminated.

Good faith and fair dealing, as well as consistpledges and promises, and their failure to do so ency, required that they should carry out these is a violation of every principle of right and justice, and convicts them before the country of hypocrisy and false pretense in making them, all the delegates" of that convention upon their notwithstanding the enthusiastic applause of

adoption.

A violation of good faith has received the condemnation and denunciation of the virtuous and

good in all past time, and will continue to do so, while truth and integrity have a votary.

For the purpose of showing how James Buchanan held those who violated their pledges and promises to the people, I will read an extract from a speech made by him, in 1841, in the United States Senate. Then he had no regard for those who made pledges and disregarded them, and made the following emphatic record, to which I invite your and his attention, and particularly the attention of the country:

"If you go into the sacred walks of Christianity-Christianity, the purest and best gift which ever descended from heaven upon man-and you there find its professors preaching what they never practice, and never intended to practice, what would be your conviction of the sincerity and true character of such professors? What would you think of that man if, with the principles of this sublime doctrine on his lips, bis life gave the lie to his professions? You would not hesitate to pronounce him guilty of the grossest hypocrisy? All mankind would unite with you in calling him a hypocrite."

It might have been well for him and his party if he read this speech before his wanton violation of his platform. He saw fit to adopt the very familiar word " hypocrite," and I propose appro

verified. Well, sir, 1856 came on. The time for the pres-priating it freely in my remarks, and make a idential election was approaching, and it became proper application of it in my arraignment of his necessary then for political parties again to make Administration. When they adopted their platdeclarations of their principles; and, true to its in- form, they knew that there was no danger of a stincts, the Locofoco party was ready again to dissolution of the Union, yet they found it necesmake any and every kind of pledge in order to sary to make a "Union-saving" plank for their succeed. I hold in my hand the platform and platform, for the purpose of bolstering up their pledges of that party in the official proceedings of rotten cause, under the hypocritical pretense that the Cincinnati convention-the convention which the Union was in danger. They found that popnominated James Buchanan as the Locofoco can- ular sovereignty was not strong enough to carry didate for President of the United States. On their party through the presidential election, and, pages twenty-five and twenty-six I find the fol- therefore, they adopted this "Union-saving" reslowing resolutions declaratory of their supposed olution, hypocritical as it was, for the purpose of principles: alarming the people, and thereby gaining support to their tottering party.

"Resolved, That claiming fellowship with, and desiring the cooperation of, all who regard the preservation of the Union under the Constitution as the paramount aim, and repudiating all sectional parties and platforms concerning domestic slavery, which seek to embroil the States and incite to treason and armed resistance to law in the Territories, and whose avowed purpose, if consummated, must end in civil war and disunion, the American Democracy recognize and adopt the principle contained in the organic laws establishing the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska as embodying the only sound and safe solution of the 'slavery question,' upon which the great national idea of the people of this country can repose in its determined conservatism of the Union-non-interference by Congress with slavery in States and Territories, or in the District of Columbia.

"2. That this was the basis of the compromises of 1850confirmed by both the Democratic and Whig parties in national conventions, ratified by the people in the elections of

HO. OF REPS.

peo

believe that but a very small portion of the ple, either North or South, are, in good faith, in favor of a dissolution of the Union. And yet, in order to make their dogma of popular sovereignty stick and be effective, it was necessary to put this Union-saving plaster upon it. Well, sir, after they get through with the saving of the Union, they come in with the declaration of popular sor ereignty-that doctrine which was dug up after the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska bill, as I have heretofore shown, for the purpose of appealing to the freemen of the North by telling them that the people of the Territories could regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, and bring in all Territories as free States. If any gentleman had then said that this party ever intended to digress in the least to the right or to the left, or to permit a violation of any single jot or tittle contained in that resolution, he would probably have been branded as a traitor to his country, as a disunionist.

These men themselves violated their own platform, which was given to the people as a panacea for all their evils, and a certain remedy against slavery extension at the North, where that is unpopular with the masses. Yes, sir; that resolution was "adopted amidst applause, in which every delegate in that convention joined." The doctrine was popular; it was a hard doctrine to combat; it was a correct doctrine; and the only mode we had of combating it was, to tell the people that these men did not intend, in good faith, to carry out the principles laid down in their platform. Well, they succeeded; and in their success it was implied that they would carry out the prin ciples laid down in that platform. On the 4th day of March, 1857, James Buchanan was inaugur ated here, at the east portico of this Capitol; and there, in the presence of the vast multitude of assembled citizens, he said:

"What a conception, then, was it for Congress to apply this simple rule-that the will of the majority shall govern -to the settlement of the question of domestic slavery in the Territories!

"But be this as it may, it is the imperative and indispens able duty of the Government of the United States to secure to every resident inhabitant the free and independent expression of his opinion by his vote. This sacred right of each individual must be preserved!"

Prior to that time he had said to the country that he stood upon the Cincinnati platform, and would not add one plank to it, nor take one from it. He stood pledged, then, to carry out in good faith the doctrines laid down in the platform, and I say that it became his solemn duty to do so. Good faith to the country required he should do so. The doctrine was established. The princi ple was settled. The country relied on the pledges of these men that nothing should hinder or delay them in carrying out the principle which they had thus warmly advocated, and which had thus been applauded by the intellect congregated in the Cin

cinnati convention. It became necessary, in the course of events that some action should be taken in regard to matters in Kansas, and then the Pres ident again reiterated this same doctrine, in his instructions to Governor Walker, of that Territory.

Why, sir, the old gentleman had become eloquent-absolutely eloquent. The enthusiasm with which that resolution had been adopted in the Cincinnati convention, had kindled such a fre in his soul that he could not avoid belching forth his patriotic sentiments, when he sent forth his instructions to the Governor of the Territory of Kansas. Hear him:

"Freedom and safety for the legal voter, and exclusion and punishment for the illegal one, these should be the great prisciples of your administration." Again:

"

Freedom,"" safety for the legal voters," and This was sound doctrine; and the people of the the "exclusion and punishment of illegal ones. country had a right to expect that this President, their Chief Magistrate, sworn to administer the laws of the country in accordance with the prin ciples of the Constitution, thus pledged by the Cincinnati platform which, in party organization. is higher and deeper and wider than all constitu tions, thus pledged in his inaugural address and in his instructions to Governor Walker-I ask what had the country a right to look for at the hands

35TH CONG....1ST SESS.

of the President? Nothing but good faith and fidelity. Governor Walker, as a faithful servant of the people, considered himself bound, not only by these instructions coming from his superior officer, but by his oath, the Constitution, the law of the land, and the pledges of his party, to see that the people of the Territory of Kansas should be protected in their rights and privileges as American citizens. And what has been the sequel of all this? Nothing more nor less than treason to every pledge made by the Administration, which authorizes me in branding it as hypocritical, in the language of the President in 1841! Why, sir, Governor Walker could not have survived a day had it been known that he intended to do just what the President told him he should do.

Popular sovereignty had by this time taken a new turn. The party found it necessary to change front, as they had done on the Kansas-Nebraska bill. They were playing a double game. It was a two-faced party, having one face for the North and another for the South. It had a South wing and a North wing; but the latter was unsound, and broke in our contest. When it was found that the free-State men had taken possession of the Territory, and that upon a fair and proper vote there would be a repudiation of the institution of slavery, all of a sudden, when the Administration party had its face turned to the right, and in the right direction to carry out popular sovereignty, where do you find it? Without a moment's notice, this political engineer who had hold of the machinery of the Government made a sudden halt, and the word was, " right about face," and away went the great mass of people one way and this Locofoco Juggernaut the other. Thank God! it did not go the same way the people did, or it might have rolled over them all; as it is, the people will crush them. Where then were your leading Democrats? Where then was the gallant DOUGLAS, who had stood by you in 1856-57, and elected James Buchanan President, and a majority of Locofocos to this Congress? Where was your Wise, who had immortalized himself in his campaign against Sam? Where were your men of the North, and of the South, who had been preaching the doctrine of popular sovereignty? They stood firmly by popular sovereignty, and are now denounced as traitors; and if they remain in this party, they must do service in the rear ranks. Why, sir, the President's guillotine was put to work taking off the heads of the friends of the very men who had been put upon the track of popular sovereignty by this same political organization called the Democratic party.

Now, I say these are very unkind acts in the President. If he intended to change front, he should at least have given a little notice. He should have at least given as much notice to his friends, as we have to give a man in the State of Ohio to turn him out of our premises. But, sir, I can imagine an orator in our country addressing an assemblage of Democrats, upon the stump, dilating upon the beauties of popular sovereignty, when a horseman comes up at a high speed, in the middle of the speech of the stump orator, bearing the intelligence that the party has changed front. That the Administration at Washington have decided that, instead of popular sovereignty being a good institution, although it had pleased all our people all over our country, North and South, it had become a most abominable heresy; and every man engaged in that kind of preaching was to be ostracized, and forever held in disrepute by the party. Think of the surprise of the stumper at such an announcement. Yet this is illustrative of the course of the Administration. No matter if they were men who had always stood by the party even in its evil days; even in days when many good men had left it they had stood by with the hope of reforming it; because they would not abandon a doctrine of the party, a doctrine which had been preached so long, so loud, and so effectively to the people. One single day swept them out of existence; and the great misfortune is that they have got to go down to posterity as delinquents and political renegades. They can never recover from such a shock unless they join the Republicans, and make themselves useful to the country by adherence to correct principles. There are a great many of them good men.” I know a

Political Organizations-Mr. Leiter.

great many Democrats, good and true men, who are included in this class.

Well, sir, during the time these things are taking place in the General Government, we, the people in the States, who, though we were at first suspicious about its origin, had pretty much made up our minds that this doctrine of popular sovereignty, as proposed to be carried out by the President, in the first place, was a reliable and good doctrine. The Democratic party in the State of Ohio, in 1857, became highly elated with the doctrine; they made it the watch word of the party, and with it they made the party stronger than it had been since 1854, because they adhered more closely to principle. In 1857, that party met in State convention at Columbus, and nominated Henry B. Paine for Governor. Their candidate, an eloquent man and a man of learning, came out and made them a speech, from which I will read a short extract, which shows conclusively where they stood, if they were honest, and if not, that they are of that peculiar class called hypocrites. He went on to eulogize the Administration; but that was before the Administration changed front on this popularSovereignty doctrine.

It was before popular sovereignty had become a heresy in the Democratic party. He says: "Under his administration Kansas, protected alike from New England and the South, is working out the peaceable results of righteousness. At a day not distant or doubtful, as from the beginning had been predicted, Kansas will be admitted into the galaxy of States, with a free-State constitution, by the votes of her own people; abolishing forever slavery in her midst, thus furnishing an application of practical Democratie doctrines."

Here you see it declared again that it is the destiny of Kansas to be admitted as a free State, by the votes of its own people, under the auspices of the Democratic party. This is called the "practical results of righteousness." This is just what was "predicted from the beginning." There the Locofocos are anti-slavery, here pro-slavery. It was upon that doctrine that this Democratic candidate for Governor of the State of Ohio went into the canvass, and received a very large and complimentary vote. If he had avowed any such doctrines as are practiced by northern Locofocos here, he would not have received one third the vote he did, and would have been a disgraced man. Yet, with this hypocritical doctrine, he came nigh being elected Governor of the great State of Ohio.

Why, sir, what is the principal Democratic trine? At the South it is the admission of Kansas as a slave State; is it not? Is not that what the Democracy of the South want? At the North they pretend to favor its admission as a free State, and yet their Representatives voted for her admission as a slave State. This I regard as unadulterated Locofocoism.

Ho. OF REPS.

of the affairs of the Territory, by the people at the ballot-
box, in order to create capital for the tottering Republican
rehended."
factions in Ohio and New York, cannot be too severely rep-

Here is an indorsement by that central Demo-
cratic committee, of the doctrine of popular sov-
ereignty, of the right of the people of Kansas to
settle their own domestic affairs in their own way,
without interference from the North or the South,
or any other quarter. That was good Democratic
doctrine in 1857. It was indorsed by the Demo-
cratic party of Ohio. The Democratic candidate
stood upon it in his canvass for the gubernatorial
chair. Then Kansas was to come into this Union
as a free State, "thus furnishing an application of
practical Democratic doctrine."
Here you gen-
tlemen of the South have evidence of the hypoc-
risy of the Locofocos of the North, and their
double dealing on this question. But prior to
the election in Ohio, a convention had been called
to meet in Kansas for the purpose of framing a
constitution, the delegates to which were publicly
pledged to a submission of the constitution to a
vote of the people of the Territory; and this, too,
was urged in Ohio in defense of their position.
That convention, called the Lecompton constitu-
tional convention, met. Mark you; the word must
have been passed around that Kansas should be a
free State, or Mr. Payne would not have made
such a speech; nor would that address have been
published; for he and they are the most arrant
hypocrites that live. Fearful of the results which
would follow the action of that convention, a sud-
den and unexpected change of policy was adopted
by, the convention, and it adjourned its delibera-
tions until after the election in the States were
over. The Republicans in Ohio, and all over the
country, sounded the tocsin of alarm, that treason
again had entered the camp, and that the enemy
were about to usurp the rights of the people of
Kansas.

Boldly and manfully were the rights of Kansas upheld by the Republicans all over the country. The President and his party, instead of carrying out their pledges in good faith, with an unworthy disregard of the rights of the people, cast their promises to the winds, and the hypocrisy of their professions became apparent, and the country now is left to depend upon broken promises and violated faith from them. This Lecompton condoc-stitutional convention met on the seventh of November, and framed a constitution for Kansas. Then the Legislature of Ohio was elected, and all the elections of the State were over. What, then, was done? They framed a pro-slavery constitution for Kansas-a pro-slavery constitution from the beginning to the end, without a mitigating clause for the relief of the people. Yet, pro-slavery as it was, and pledged as they had been, they dared not submit it to a vote of the people of KanBy a system of political thimble-rigging and legerdemain they expected to entrap the free-State men in that Territory. It was all the time claimed, however, by them, that this Lecompton constitution was not a pro-slavery constitution. It was said that portions of the constitution could be stricken out; but the villainy of the thing was too apparent to deceive.

Mr. SMITH, of Virginia. I will answer the gentleman, if I can get the floor.

Mr. LEITER. You will have to answer your own Democratic Governor first, who will hold you up in your true light in Virginia.

Mr. SMITH, of Virginia. I will answer you first, and him afterwards.

Mr. LEITER. Well, you will have a nice job of it. Now, sir, that this doctrine might be fully disseminated in Ohio, it became necessary to have more than the speech of their Democratic candidate for Governor, and on the 7th September, 1857, the Democratic State central committee of Ohio issued an address to the people; and there is some tolerably good reading in that address. I commend it to the consideration of my Democratic friends on this floor. I will read a short extract from it:

"The committee point with pride to the firm and statesmanlike attitude of the President and the Administration in reference to the affairs of Kansas. The determination of Mr. Buchanan to use all his constitutional power, to secure to the people of the Territory the free exercise of their suffrages upon the adoption of the State constitution, meets the unqualified approval of the whole national Democracy, North and South. In the North it could demand no more; in the South it could claim no less. The position taken by Virginia at this juncture is sufficient to arouse the exultation of her sons, wherever they may be found within the limits of the Union, and should be enough to excite the emulation of Ohio to take a stand of equal patriotism. In the eloquent language of one of her Democratic organs, Virginia will pray that the Union, as its affairs are now administered, may, in duration, exceed that of the Egyp tian pyramids, which, after the lapse of forty centuries, still stand erect and unshaken above the floods of the Nile." The obstacles interposed to prevent a peaceable settlement

sas.

That that constitution is preeminently pro-slavery no fair-minded man will gainsay or controvert; yet it was, and is, claimed by some that such is not its character; and that the people, by the vote provided, could make it a free State. I must dissent from all such constructions of that instrument. I deny that it is susceptible of any such construction; and charge that it is pro-slavery, and pro-slavery only, be the vote what it may. In this opinion I am confirmed by the following extract from the speech of Mr. Randolph, a member of that notable convention from Atchison:

"Now, what was this scheme? What is said? Why, here we have two constitutions-one for slavery, and one without. Well, that's a good one. [Laughter.] Yes, you may laugh; it's just humbug. The fact is, it's a slave. State constitution, and a slave State constitution. That's it; you may laugh. I'll tell you, the world will soon be laughing at us. This is a grand humbug. It's NOT fair. It is supposed by some of the gentlemen here that they are awful smart, or that the Abolitionists are awful fools. We expect them to vote for a slave State in this way. They are not such fools as you suppose. But let us suppose that they are such foots. Is it right to swindle them in this way? It isn't fair; I won't do it. If we are to submit it at all, submit it fair; let them have a free-State constitution if

they vote to beat us, or do not submit it at all. I tell you this scheme of swindling submission will be the blackest page in your history; and we will never hear the end of it."

This gentleman has spoken like an honest man, pro-slavery as he is, and denounced this scheme of submission as "scoundrelism and humbuggery," intended to defraud and deceive the freeState men of Kansas. I commend this extract to the special consideration of gentlemen here, who claim that the people of Kansas had an opportunity of making a free State, and obstinately refused.

But, sir, this is not all. I have other evidence to prove that instrument pro-slavery. Another gentleman, a member of that convention, and who assisted in forming the constitution, has also spoken on this subject; and I now direct the attention of gentlemen to the following extract from his speech; I allude to Mr. Mobley, a proslavery delegate, who said:

"He was a pro-slavery man, and wanted to take steps to make Kansas a slave State. He denounced the trick of the majority report. There were but two ways of making

a State constitution. One of them was to submit, and the other was to send direct to Congress. He denounced the majority report. It is a swindle-a monstrous fraud. It wears falsehood on its face in letters of brass. It pretends to submit the constitution, and does not. This is a glaring fraud. It was concocted, not by the pro-slavery party, but the political Democracy. It is a lie, a cheat, a swindle. He is a pro-slavery man. He wants to make Kansas a slave State. He, therefore, puts in the clause requiring the oath. Their enemies will not take that oath. They will thus proceed in a straightforward, regular manner. What! do you expect to catch the Republican party of Kansas with that bait? You can't do it. I tell you, if you adopt that report, there will not be five hundred votes for the constitution. The Republicans will never touch it. The true pro-slavery men will forsake it. Where will it be? You can't induce the free-State men of Kansas to vote under such a cheat."

It is to be presumed that this gentleman knew what he was doing, and what he was speaking; and no man will venture to say he was an Abolitionist, determined to make Kansas a free State, or had any motive to do anything less than make a slave State of Kansas. He brands this submission scheme as "a monstrous fraud, a lie, a cheat, a swindle," and a pretended submission of the constitution, when it did no such thing. Notwithstanding these bold and manly declarations, men are found here from the free States of the North who claim that this swindle is a bona fide submission, and that the people are bound by it, and should have voted. These gentlemen, representing free State constituencies, voted to force this fraud, cheat, and swindle, without any change or modification whatever, upon a patriotic and free dom-loving people who had rejected it by an overwhelming majority; and now these gentlemen, with an unparalleled audacity, set themselves up as rulers and lawgivers for the Democratic party, with power to read Jeffersonian Democrats out of the so-called Democratic party, for refusing to force upon that unwilling and greatly injured peo ple a repudiated constitution.

I congratulate the country upon the fact, that notwithstanding all the schemes and machinations of these Locofocos, they were unable to force the Lecompton constitution upon the people of Kansas. Being foiled in this, their favorite scheme, they applied themselves to getting up another swindle, by which to cheat and defraud that people. The English bill was the result of their deliberations, as the last resort, to make a slave State of free Kansas-a favored scheme of these

men. That bill is no less a fraud and cheat than the submission scheme proposed in the Lecompton constitution. We have, in this case, the first trick of the kind ever attempted by any party to influence the people to vote for slavery in consideration of a land bribe and their admission into the Union as a sovereign State, with a pro-slavery constitution and forty thousand population, while they had the penalty for refusal held out to them in the proposition, that, if they did not accept it, they should not be admitted into the Union until there should be a population within that Territory of from one hundred and ten to one hundred and twenty thousand. This is the first instance of an infliction of punishment for the love of freedom, since the days of George III. and the American Revolution. I specially call the attention of this House and the country to this matter, and now, in my place here, give the slave-Democracy notice

that I shall hold them responsible before the people for this flagrant outrage upon the people of Kansas, and their usurpation of the rights of the freemen of the United States. This disparagement of free institutions, by these pretending Democrats, shall be published throughout the whole length and breadth of the land, and upon it we will go before the country and take the judgment of the people at our coming elections.

We have again the humiliating spectacle of free Kansas in the North, and slave Kansas in the South, that was so hypocritically and shamefully practiced upon the people of those sections of the Union, with only this difference: that it is now submission of the Lecompton constitution under the English bill in the North, and non-submission in the South; thus playing off the same old game of fast and loose that was too successfully played under the Kansas-Nebraska act.

The Lecompton Locofocos of the North are now placing themselves upon the high ground of submission, and that party at the South put them selves upon the opposite ground, and claim there is no submission; and, with this important decision upon an essential question, they are now before the country claiming to be a national party, with principles harmonious in both sections, while, in truth, their principles are antagonistical and diametrically opposite. Let them settle this inconsistency. They dare not submit it to a vote of the people of Kansas, and they know it.

The December election was held, at which there were some twenty-five hundred legal votes polled -I say nothing of the fraudulent votes-and this is now claimed as an indorsement of the swindle by the people of Kansas. The Legislature which was elected in Kansas, being a free-State one, organized and passed a law to submit that constitution to the people on the 4th day of January. The result you have: overwhelming was the condemnation of that fraud and swindle, that attempted usurpation of the rights of the people of Kansas. I will not discuss the legality of the elections of December or January. The facts are before the people. The country understand the position of parties, and they well know how to make up their action with regard to them. Condemned as that constitution was, pledged as Mr. Buchanan and his administration had been to a submission of the constitution to a vote of the people, yet the President, a Democratic President-God save us from all such! -sends to this House a miserable, whining, sickly, regretting message, recommending its adoption, in violation of all the confidence ever reposed in him by an honest people, who had been deceived into his support.

Gentlemen tell me that the men out there would not vote. I admit it. What was the use of their voting? What propriety was there in their voting? None, sir; for if they had voted they would have fared no better than they did without voting; but, in my opinion, worse, infinitely worse. The thing was set upon them. It was prearranged. The programme was fixed. The trap had been set to catch the free-State men in the Territory of Kansas; but they were not caught; this trick, at least, failed.

Mr. COX. I ask my colleague whether he ever adopted the Lecompton constitution? Mr. LEITER. No, sir.

Mr. COX. Did you ever vote for the preamble to the Crittenden-Montgomery bill containing

that sentiment?

Mr. LEITER. My dear sir, there never was a vote taken on that preamble.

Mr. COX. Yes, there was.

Mr. LEITER. There never was a vote taken on that preamble, and I call the attention of the officers of the House to that fact.

Mr. COX. Let me read it. Will the gentleman allow me to explain? I simply wish to call my colleague's attention to it, for I want to have the fact on record, for use in the next campaign. Mr. LEITER. Certainly; I know what the preamble is.

Mr. COX. Let me read it. The preamble is: "Whereas the people of the Territory of Kansas did, by

a convention of delegates called and assembled at Lecomp

ton, on the 4th day of September, 1857, for that purpose, form for themselves a constitution and State government, which said constitution is republican, and said convention having asked the admission of said Territory into the

HO. OF REPS.

Union as a State on an equal footing with the original States-"

Mr. LEITER. But you cannot show that I ever voted for that preamble, and you know it, if you know anything.

Mr. COX. You voted to strike out all after the enacting clause, and that was before the enacting clause.

Mr. LEITER. Exactly; and instead of taking a vote on the preamble as usual, no vote was taken; and you cannot show that there was.

Mr. COX. I can refer the gentleman to the Congressional Globe, showing his vote. He will find it at page 1438.

Mr. LEITER. Show it to me, sir. This vote was not on the preamble, but upon what followed; and I repeat, the preamble was never voted upon, nor was it ever adopted by this House.

Mr. COX. I do not say but my colleague may have done it in mistake.

Mr. LEITER. No, sir; I do not make mistakes in voting. I never voted for that preamble, and I never would vote for it, and I challenge you or any other man to produce the record or vote that will show it. The preamble remained upon the bill by bad engineering, and not by the vote of any one.

RIVER AND HARBOR IMPROVEMENTS.
SPEECH OF HON. I. T. HATCH,
OP NEW YORK,

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
May 31, 1858.

The House being in the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union

Mr. HATCH said:

Mr. CHAIRMAN: I shall ask the attention of the committee for a brief time to the consideration of the subject of river and harbor appropriations.

No general appropriation since the year 1852 has been made for the improvement of harbors on the northwestern lakes, and of the navigation of our north and southwestern rivers.

The millions of property and the thousands of lives lost upon these waters through the neglect of the Government, it would seem, should arrest public attention. The loss of life and property is still annually increasing. It is doubted, now, whether the bill reported by the Committee on Commerce for the mere repair and preservation of the public works on the northwestern lakes will receive any consideration proportionate to the magnitude of the interests involved.

Your Committee on Commerce say, in their re port, they" accept for their guide on this occasion that legislation of their predecessors which, having been now nearly consummated by appropriations, appeals not only to their judgment with the force of a precedent, but presents to their discretion the impropriety of suffering, through neglect, the sa rifice of the millions of money already expended. The vast expanse of commercial enterprise which occupies the extent of the country, and employs the myriads engaged in its pursuits, is well wor thy of the fostering hand of Government, stretched to the utmost constitutional verge." They also say "the fact has been quite apparent that with out some assistance the money now expended at various points along our sea, lake, and river lines,

instances

33

35TH CONG.... 1ST SESS.

The reason assigned by your committee for recommending this limited appropriation is the "retrenching policy." This committee must speak sarcastically when they talk about retrenching river and harbor appropriations! As before remarked, no general appropriation for these purposes has been made for six years. During this period your Treasury was overflowed; now that it is empty, you cannot appropriate, because you must retrench. The resumption of the improvements of the harbors and rivers is not to be determined, as we have seen, by an empty or full Treasury; not as a question of constitutional or equal rights; but, sir, it will have to be determined as a question of political power. Persistent refusal to grant these appropriations, and indiscriminate opposition to them, is forcing on this issue; every new State added to the Northwest hastens and insures the resumption of the public works. My constituency are deeply interested in the inland commerce of the country: and, as their Representative, I am bound to urge these appropriations. I shall only now present the subject briefly, leaving a fuller vindication of their justice to the future.

I believe none will dispute the proposition that the external commerce of a nation is entirely dependent on the internal commerce and trade. Foreign commerce cannot exist without domestic

commerce.

The history of the rise and fall of nations, in past and modern times, attests this truth. There is only one exception among the four Powers of the world, and the colossal wealth of that country has been accumulating from national robbery and conquest throughout the earth.

No nation on this globe has an inland commerce that equals that of this country, either in the grandeur of its geographical characteristics or in the magnitude of its agricultural and mineral wealth. Nowhere can be found such a chain of inland seas-Lakes Champlain, Ontario, Erie, St. Clair, Huron, Michigan, and Superior-all connected by rivers, canals, or ship-canals, and bound to the valley of the Mississippi by a net work of railroads. But, sir, it is only the agricultural and mineral wealth which annually pours through these inland channels of commerce to which I wish briefly to call attention. All the gold that has passed through the golden gates of California since its discovery does not equal one year's value of our inland commerce.

Its origin was the completion of the Erie canal in 1825, which opened the vast wilderness and boundless prairies of the West to an eastern emigration such as never before has been witnessed in any exodus of the human races. Here the industrious poor of the world found homes, and founded States. The products of their labor established an inland commerce, from which has arisen foreign commerce sustaining an ocean marine that rivals British supremacy on the seas.

I shall briefly now, sir, refer to the character, extent, claims, and mode of protection of this inland

commerce.

THE CHARACTER OF INLAND COMMERCE.

Chief Justice Taney says, in 12 Howard, page 452, (1851:)

"These lakes are, in truth, inland seas-different States border on them on one side, and a foreign nation on the other. A great and growing commerce is carried on upon them between different States and foreign nations, which is subject to all the incidents and hazards that attend commerce on the ocean. Hostile fleets have encountered on them, and prizes have been made; and every reason which existed for the grant of admiralty jurisdiction to the Government on the Atlantic seas, applies with equal force to the lakes,"

THE EXTENT OF INLAND COMMERCE.

For the extent of the inland commerce, I refer to the official report.

Andrews, in his Colonial Lake Trade, 1852, says-page 49:

"The whole traffic of these great waters may be now unhesitatingly stated at $326,000,000, employing seventyfour thousand tons of steam and one hundred and thirtyeight thousand tons of sail, for the year 1851. Whereas, previous to 1800, there was scarcely a craft above the size of an Indian canoe to stand against an aggregate marine, built up within half a century, in what was then almost a pathless wilderness, of two hundred and fifteen thousand tons burden."

In 1856, you will find in a report of the Committee on Commerce to this House (No. 316, page 9, vol. 3) an elaborate statement of the tonnage,

I will also add from Graham's official report to the Senate-page 401:

"The States of New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michiigan, Indiana, Illinois, and Wisconsin, and the Territory of Minnesota, have their shores washed by the great inland seas, whose intercommunication, by ship navigation, is much interrupted by the want of a safe and sure channel over these flats.

"The States of New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and a portion of Michigan, on the one side, are crippled in their important commercial relations with the remaining portion of the State of Michigan, and with the States of Indiana, Illinois, and Wisconsin, and the Territory of Minnesota, on the other side, by this intervening obstacle. Something would seem, then, under the purview of the Constitution, to be necessary to be done, in order to regulate the commerce between these States. Viewed in this light, the subject becomes one of great public concern.

"The value of the articles of commerce and navigation which passed over these flats during the two hundred and thirty days of open navigation, in the year 1855-say between the middle of April and the 1st of December-will be presently shown to have amounted to the immense sum of $259,721,455 50; that is to say, two hundred and fifty-nine million seven hundred and twenty-one thousand four hundred and fifty five dollars and fifty cents; or, per day, during the navigable season, $1,129,223 72. The improvement, then, when undertaken, should be executed with a degree of permanency and celerity combined, commensurate with its importance and the magnitude of the interests involved."

Those who wish to make the comparison between the inland and foreign commerce will find that the former always largely exceeds the latter whenever a healthy prosperity exists among the people, and the balance of trade with foreign countries is preserved. Exports are the credits of a nation and imports its debits; internal commerce furnishes its exports. This commerce had received every sanction which could establish its claim for protection from the General Government. The highest tribunal pronounced it identical in feature and substance, in every commercial and national view, with that carried on between nations on the ocean. So large and of such kind was it, that in 1845, from the necessities of trade, Congress was obliged to pass a law extending over it the whole body of the admiralty laws-a system of laws never before made applicable save to the high seas.

The inland commerce, sir, has not only had judicial and legislative recognition, but its general protection has been sanctioned by the practice of the Government until 1852. I add, from a report of Colonel Abert to the Senate, No. 44, Executive Document, second session Twenty-Ninth Congress:

Recapitulation for the construction and repair of roads and improvement of harbors." Under Mr. Jefferson..

Mr. Madison........................................................

Mr. Adams..............................................
Mr. Jackson .............................
Mr. Van Buren.

Mr. Tyler..............................

$48.000 250,000 707,000 2,310,475 10,582,882

2,222.544 1,076,500

I will not stop to comment here upon these appropriations, except to mark the fact that three quarters of the harbor and river appropriations have been made by Democratic Administrations.

The rule which governed these enumerated appropriations was laid down by Mr. Monroe:

"That Congress has a discretionary power, restricted only by the duty to make appropriations to purposes of common defense, and of general, not local-national, not State, benefit."

This was recognized by Jackson. He says: "The practice of making appropriations for light-houses, public piers, harbors, and ports of the United States, to

Ho. OF REPS.

render the navigation thereof safe and easy, had been coeval within the Constitution itself, and been continued without interruption or dispute."

THE CLAIMS OF INLAND COMMERCE. Now, sir, as to the claims of this inland commerce on the General Government.

In the census of 1850 it will be found that more than half the white population of this country was in the lake States.

The increasing population of the Northwest and the advancing immigration have enlarged this proportion. If it be true that the consumer pays the duties, then, sir, the lake regions pay over half your revenues-some thirty millions. They are the consumers and the producers. They are doubly taxed by the delays, the obstructions, and dangers of the navigation of your lakes and rivers. The additional charges for freight and insurance from these causes diminish the value of their proI ductions and increase the cost of articles of consumption. Duty-paying merchandise which they consume they buy dearer, while they sell their own products cheaper, from the neglect of the Government to improve their lines of inland commerce. I will refer again to Graham's report to show the baneful influences which the neglect to improve a single work-the national gateway of the inland commerce of this country-has had upon the people of the Northwest. At page 408, he says:

"Freights over St. Clair flats in American vessels in the year 1855, were $13,761,840; and in foreign vessels trading with American ports $551,256.

"These results are derived by allowing six dollars per register ton as the price of freights upon the amount of tonnage that passed over the flats to and from the ports mentioned in the districts of Chicago, Milwaukee, Detroit, Cleveland, Buffalo, Oswego, and Ogdensburg, as shown in the accompanying statements marked from N. 55 to N. 70 inclusive. These sums are, of course, the gross amounts of the receipts accruing on freights.

"The net proceeds would be the difference between these sums and the expenses of navigation, such as the hire of crews, insurance on vessels, repairs, tugging off St. Clair flats when aground, losses from detention while thus aground, pilotage, harbor fees, &c.

"Among these enumerated expenses, that which arises from the detention, damage, and towage by steam tugs, caused by the obstruction to navigation at the flats, is the one regarded as the most onerous by the navigators, the merchants, and the farmers of the nine States and one Territory beforementioned. They all have to bear a portion of the additional charges which arise from this cause. The farmer, has, however, the most oppressive part of the butden to bear; because the navigator clears himself, in a great measure, by his increased charges for freight, and the merchant by increasing his prices at retail on account of the losses by the detention and risk growing out of this obstruction to navigation. But the farmer is compelled to be governed by current prices for his grain, and the diminution of price allowed him by the shipper, on account of the contingencies due to the want of free navigation over the flats, is a direct tax on the fruits of the farmer's industry.

"The increase on the rates of freights owing to the obstructions, as it now exists, may be estimated at full fifteen (15) per cent., or annually to the sum of $2,064,276. Full two thirds of this amount falls on the farmers. They may, therefore, be said to pay an annual tax on their produce, and necessary articles of consumption, arising from this obstruction, of $1,376,184; which is more than two and a half times the estimated cost of the work upon the most extended plan proposed."

I have referred to the fact that the largest portion of the revenues in this country is paid by those interested in the inland commerce. If this be not true, I ask, sir, to what cause will you

look for the decline of the revenue? The southern staples have gone to market in increased quantities and enhanced prices.

From an overflowing Treasury the Government suddenly becomes a borrower. You will have to look to the decline in the inland commerce for the cause. I add the comparative returns for two years of the Erie canal, in the State of New York, which is the greatest channel for the exchange of the inland and foreign commerce, and has made New York city the merchant carrier and banker of the Union:

Statement showing the aggregate quantity and value of the property transported upon the canals during the years 1856 and 1857.