Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1856-04-18

wharves II cannot be, therefore that the
mere " ldrgeness Of the numbers of the
Eastern travellers offended or alarmed the
borderers. ! confess my surprise that the
solourners used violent language. II seems
unlike them. | confess my greater surprise
that the borderers were disturbed so deeply
by mere words. Il seems unlike them
Which of the domestic institutions OF Mis-
souri, were those against which the travellers
manifested determined hostility ? Not Ger
tainly her manufactures, banks, railroads
churches, and schools. All these are do
mesilc institutions held 10 high respect by
the men Of Massachusetts. and arc Jus, such
ones as these emigrauts are now establishing
IN Kansas. IL was, therefore, African Sla-
very alone, peculiar domestic institution Of
Missouri, against which their hostility was
directed. Waving a suspicious want Of
proof of the unwise conduct charged aga
inst them, ] submit that clearly they did not
thereby sndanger that peculiar institution in
7 Missouri, for they passed directly through
that State into Kansas. How, then. were
the burdsrers provoked The Missourians
Inferred from the language and demeanor Of
the travellers, that they would nbofiioi-e
Kansas, and thereafter, bv means Of Kansas
eboliuonized, prosecute relentless warfare
against slavery IN Missouri Fdr-seeing
statesmen are these Missouri borderats, but
less deliberate than firsightod Kansas
was not TO be abotionized. IL had never
been Otherwise than aboltionized. Aboh-
| tionlzcd Kansas would constitute no means
'or the prosecution Of such a warfare. MIS-.
souri, lies adjacent to abolltionzed Iowa on
the NORTH and 10 abollonIzed Illinois on the
east, yet neither of those States has ever
/ hn.n rfA &c. 8. d.
fearful enemy prosecute q warfare against
Slavery IN Missouri Only by buying the
plantations Of her citizens at their own pri-
ces, and so qualifying themselves to speak
their hostility through the ballut-hoxes.-
Could applehcnsous SO absurd iustih the in
vasion of Kansas Are the people Of Kan
sas TO be DISTINGUISHED and trodden down by
the President Of the United States, in pun
lshment for any eXtravagancc Of emlgrunts,
"a Missouri, on the way to that Territory
Such is the Presidents second defence, so
fer as It presents new matter in avoidance
of the accusation of the new State Of Kan
sas.
1 proceed, in the third place. to establish
the truth of the accusations OF what sort
must the proofs be Mimfestly only such
as the circumstances of the case permit to
exist. Not engrossed documents, au'henti-
Gated by executive, judicial or legislative
officers. The transactions occurred in an
unorganized county. An the authorities
subsequently, established in the Territory
are implicated, all the cOmplainants disfran
chised. Only prtsumptive evidence, de-
rived from the cOntempoaneous statements
aud actions Of the parties concerned can be
required.
Such presumptive evidence is derived from
the nature and character of the Presdents
defence. Why dld the President plead ot
all on the 3lst Of December last, when the
new State Of Kansas was yet unorganized,
and could not appear here ic prefer her uc-
cusatlons until the 23d Of March ? Way, If
he must answer so prematurely, did he rot
plead a general and direct denial? If he
must plead specially, why dad he not set
forth the facts, instead of Withholding all
actual information concerning the case p
Why, since, instead Of defending himself,
he must implead his accuser, did he not
state, at least, the ground on which the ac-
cuser claimed to justify the conduct Of
"Wrn az CouiP's.~~I9 'Nhy lid h., thrent-
en- " to overcome and suppress the people
/ OF Kansas, as insurrectIonlsts, if he did not
mean to terrlfy them, and 20 prevent their
appearing here, or at least TO prejudice their
cause why did he mock them with
promise Of protection thereafter, against in.
reference by citizens Of other States, # they
should deport themselves peacefully and
and submlssyey to the territorial aithor-
ties, it no cause for apprehending such inter-
ference had already been gwen by previous
invasion? Why Did he labor to embarrass
his accuser by identifying her cause with
the subject of abolition of Slavery, and stig-
matlze her supporters with opprobrlous cpl
thets, and mputp to them depiavsd and So
duious motives Why did he interpose The
false and lmpertinent issue, whether one
State should intervene by lis laws or by force
90 abolish Slavery in another state Why
did he dstort thu Constitution, and present 1t
as expressly guaranteeing the perpetuuy of
Slavery Why did he arraign 50 unneces-
sariy and so uulustly, not one, but all of the
original Northern States WHY did he
drag into this case, where only Kansas ls
concerned, a studied, partial and prejudca
history Of the past engagements of the ma
tonal domain, aud of the past contests be-
tween the slave States and the free States,
~ view Of thelr rivalry for the balance of
power?
Why did not the President rest content
with one such attack on the character and
conduct OF the new State Of Kansas, in an
ticipating her coming, # he felt assured that
she really had no merit on which 10 stand
Why did he submit second plea m ad-
vance Why in this plea does he deplore
the delays which prevented tho Missouri bor-
derers from etiectng the conquest of Kan
sas, and the establishment of slavery there
~, at the time Of the Congressional election
held IN November 1854, in fraud of the
Kansas law, and Of justice and humanity p
Why, without reason, or authority Of public
or ol national law, does he denounce Massa-
chusetls, her Emigrant Aid Society, and her
emlgrpnts? II propagandIsp emlgTatons
must be denounced, why does he spare the
Platte County Sell-Delensiye Association
Why does ho charge Governor Reeder with
failing TO put forth all his energies To pre-.
vent or counleract the tendencies TO lllegall-
" which are found 10 exist IN all lmperlectly
nrganizpd and newly associated countries"
II, indeed, no lllegalty" has occurred here
While thus, by implication. admitting that
such illegally has occurred 10 Kansas, why
does he not tell us It's nature and extent p
Why, when Governor Reeder was mpllca-
ted ~ personal conduct not criminal, but
ncongruous with his Official relations, did
the President retain him IN office until after
had been subiugated by the borderers of
Missouri, aud why, after he had done so,
aud had denounced the Legislature, did the
President remove him for The same pre-ex-
stng cause only? Why does the President
admit that the election for the Legislative
bodies OF Kansas was held under clrcumstan
ces lnauspcious to truthful and legal re-
suit, II, nevertheless, the result attained was
indeed truthful and legal one On what
evidence does the President ground his
statement, that after that election, there
were mutual complaints Of usurpation, fraud,
and violence, when we hear from 10 other
quarter of such complaints made by The
party that prevailed If there we're such
mutual accusations, aud even If they rested
on probable grounds, would that fact abate
theright OF the people to government OF their
own, securing a safe and well ordered free
dom Why does the President argue that