ject. Everywhere throughout the Union they publicly
pledged their faith and their honor that they would cheerfully submit
the question of slavery to the decision of the _bona fide_ people of
Kansas, without any restriction or qualification whatever. All were
cordially united upon the great doctrine of popular sovereignty, which
is the vital principle of our free institutions. Had it then been
insinuated from any quarter that it would be a sufficient compliance
with the requisitions of the organic law for the members of a convention
thereafter to be elected to withhold the question of slavery from
the people and to substitute their own will for that of a legally
ascertained majority of all their constituents, this would have been
instantly rejected. Everywhere they remained true to the resolution
adopted on a celebrated occasion recognizing "the right 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."

The convention to frame a constitution for Kansas met on the first
Monday of September last. They were called together by virtue of an
act of the Territorial legislature, whose lawful existence had been
recognized by Congress in different forms and by different enactments.
A large proportion of the citizens of Kansas did not think proper to
register their names and to vote at the election for delegates; but an
opportunity to do this having been fairly afforded, their refusal to
avail themselves of their right could in no manner affect the legality
of the convention.

This convention proceeded to frame a constitution for Kansas, and
finally adjourned on the 7th day of November. But little difficulty
occurred in the convention except on the subject of slavery. The truth
is that the general provisions of our recent State constitutions are
so similar and, I may add, so excellent that the difference between
them is not essential. Under the earlier practice of the Government no
constitution framed by the convention of a Territory preparatory to its
admission into the Union as a State had been submitted to the people.
I trust, however, the example set by the last Congress, requiring that
the constitution of Minnesota "should be subject