Page:The History of Slavery and the Slave Trade.djvu/811

 absence of any census of the inhabitants, there is reason to apprehend that the territory does not contain sufficient population to entitle them to demand admission under the treaty with France, if we take the ratio of representation for a member of congress as the rule."

In accordance with the foregoing views, I remarked in my first message to your body, that "the durability and imperative authority of a state constitution, when the interests of the people require a state government, and a direct popular vote is necessary to give it sanction and effect, will be the proper occasion, once for all, to decide the grave political questions which underlie a well-regulated commonwealth." And in another portion of the same message, I said: "Justice to the country and the dictates of sound policy, require that the legislature should confine itself to such subjects as will preserve the basis of entire equality; and when a sufficient population is here, and they choose to adopt a state government, that they shall be 'perfectly free,' without let or hindrance, to form all their domestic institutions in their own way, and to dictate that form of government, which, in their deliberate judgment, may be deemed proper."

The expressions, "requisite number of inhabitants," "sufficient population," and others, of similar import, can have no other meaning than that given them by our leading statesmen, and by the common judgment of the country, to wit: "the ratio of representation for a member of congress."

The present ratio for a member of congress is 93,420 inhabitants. What, then, is the present population of Kansas; or what will it be on the 15th of March next? as after that time, no person arriving in the territory can vote for a member of the convention under the provisions of this bill.

At the last October election, the whole vote polled for delegate to congress was four thousand two hundred and seventy-six (4276); while the vote in favor of a convention to frame a state constitution, was but two thousand six hundred and seventy (2670).

It is a well known fact, to every person at all conversant with the circumstances attending the last election, that the question of a state government entered but little into the canvas, and the small vote polled for a convention is significantly indicative of the popular indifference on the subject.

No one will claim that 2670 is a majority of the voters of this territory, though it is a majority of those voting, and it is conceded that those not voting are bound by the act of those who did.

The bill under consideration seems to be drawn from the bill known as the Toombs' bill; but in several respects it differs from that bill, and in these particulars it does not furnish equal guarantees for fairness and impartiality. The former secured the appointment of five impartial commissioners to take and correct the census, to make a partial apportionment among the several counties, and generally to superintend all the preliminaries so as to secure a fair election, while by the present bill all these important duties are to be performed by probate judges and sheriffs, elected by and owing allegiance to a party. It differs in other important particulars. The bill of Mr. Toombs conferred