The Kansas herald of freedom., 1855-10-27

but to notification and resistance to the
enforcement and execution of them are
unauthorized, and calculated to produce
riots, breeches of the peace. disorders OF
the most alarming and fearful character,
and to lead TO measures subyersive OF the
yery framework of civil government
It was in view of movements OF this
kind that I remarked in my Westport
speech, that regretted TO see a DISPOSE
ton on the part of some of the citizens
of the Territory to nullify the Legislature
and all the laws passed by that body
As an Executive oficerI have nothing
to do with the expedieney or inexPedi-
ency of laws that have actually oeen
passed by competent authorIty'-tha'
belongs to the Legislature. NOT to either
tie Judicial or Executive Departments OF
the Government. If laws have been
passed by the Legislature which are not
within the scope of their legality, the
Judicial department furnishes plain and
adequate remedy. If they have passed
laws within the scope of their legal pow
ers, but which are expressive, the RENEE
dy is to be found at the ballos-box.-
Nothing will Justify revolutionary
movement unless it is great and extFaoF-
binary oppression, and then, only after
all peaceful remedies have been tried and
failed.
| have now said all desire to say Ia
relation TO my remarks at Westport, and
in vindication of their correctness: My
sole object is to set myself right before
the public. l am willing, and expect to
be held answerable, at the bar OF public
opinion for what l say, and the principles
that avow; but not for everything that
may be attributed to me by designing
politicians.
The same paper that contains the pre-
tended report of my Westport speech,
contains also two other statements wholly
untrue, in reference to myself, which L
to correct. You say, in COM
on an article in the Washington
City Star, touching my appointment as
Governor of this Territory, that few
men possess the tact to change the vote
in single Congressional District, in two
years, SO as to have 1000 majority in
1852 in his favor, and by his superior
changed that vote so as to
have 1900 majority against him, two
years AFTER Now. | am willing to be-
lieve that this is not willful misrepre-
sentation on your part, but that you have
been led to believe it true from having
seen the same thing substantially stated
in other papers.
The charge is that in 1852 l was cleo
ted to Congress by majority of 1000
votes, and that my course in Congress
was such that in 1854 l was defeated BY
2, 900 votes.
Now, sir, there is not one word of truth
in this, except that in 1859 was elected
to Congress, and, if | recollect correctly
my majority was about 1850 votes. l
was not candidate in 1854. The facts
are these: In 1859 the Democratic party
in my district-composed of four coun-
Convention to nominate some
one to be supported by the party for
Congress. Although it was believed
that the district was Democratic yet it
had been represented in Congress the
our preceding years by a Wing. 1t
was further believed that the defeat of the
party had been entirely owing to the ri
falry existing between the different coun-
sies-each county pressing its own man,
Ind being unwilling to support a candi
late from any other This was the state
IF things when the Convention met in
July, 1859. attended that Conyen-
:ion-not as candidate, for | had utter
y refused to be one-but for the sole
purpose of reconciling the difficulties be-
tween the different counties. With that
view procured a resolution to be offered
that each county in the district should
have but single turn until all the coun-
lies had had a chance. advocated this
resolution and it was passed, and the del
egates from the different counties were
pledged to its support. Col. Walton, my
friend, was then nominated, but in about
ten days died. The same Convention
was assembled, and l was nominated
and in accepting that nomination allu
ded to the above resolution, and the
agency had had in its passage, and sta
ted that should adhere to it in good
faith, and that under no circumstances
would | be candidate for reelection.
In the spring of 1854, latter had
voted for the Nebraska bill, received
letter from some friends III an adjoining
county, desiring TO know if | would not
consent to be candidate for reelection.
In reply, again referred to the above
and the agency had in pro-
curing its passage, and informed them
that l had not the slightest wish to be
but if had, honor would
strictly forbid it. This correspondence
was published in several papers at the
time. SO that you viii see that not only
was not candidate in | 1854, but two years
before had publicly declared that would
not be. The allegation, therefore, that l
was defeated by 1000 votes in seeking
reelection is wholly untrue.
Having disposed of this matter, and
while have your paper before me, l
will notice another falsehood in it, in ref
erence to myself. l entirely acquit you
Of originating this story. All the COM
plant have to make against you is, that
it appears to give you such exquisite
pleasure to publish the article from the
Rock Island Advertiser, aud TO endorse
the editor as having formerly resided in
Ohio, and 'knew me like book" As
you do not give the name OF the editor of
the Advertiser, l cannot say whether l
ever had the honor of his acquaintance
Dr. not. If he really is from OHIO, | con-
slider that as making out prima .facia