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 to the approval and ratification of the people of the proposed State,” may be followed on future occasions.  I took it for granted that the convention of Kansas would act in accordance with this example, rounded, as it is, on correct principles, and hence my instructions to Governor Walker in favor of submitting the constitution to the people were expressed in general and unqualified terms.

In the Kansas-Nebraska act, however, this requirement, as applicable to the whole constitution, had not been inserted, and the convention were not bound by its terms to submit any other portion of the instrument to an election except that which relates to the “domestic institution” of slavery.  This will be rendered clear by a simple reference to its language.  It was “not to legislate slavery into any Territory or State, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way.”  According to the plain construction of the sentence, the words “domestic institutions” have a direct, as they have an appropriate, reference to slavery.  “Domestic institutions” are limited to the family.  The relation between master and slave and a few others are “domestic institutions,” and are entirely distinct from institutions of a political character.  Besides, there was no question then before Congress, nor, indeed, has there since been any serious question before the people of Kansas or the country, except that which relates to the “domestic institution” of slavery.  The convention, after an angry and excited debate, finally determined, by a majority of only two, to submit the question of slavery to the people, though at the last forty-three of the fifty delegates present affixed their signatures to the constitution.