The daily Gate City. [volume] (Keokuk, Iowa) 1855-1916, 1856-04-28

must the proofs be : Manliestlv only such
as the circumstances of the case viii permit
to exist. Not engrossed documents, authen-
tcated by executive, judicial, or legislative
officers. The transactions occurred in an IN
organized country. All the authorities sub
y sequently established in the Territory are
implicated, all the compliments diSfranchis-
ed. Only prrsumptive evidence derived
from the cuntcmporanGous statements ana
actions Of the parties concerned, can be re-
CURED.
Such presumptve evidence is derived from
the nature and character Of the Presidents
defences. Why did the President plead at
all on the 3lst Of December last. when the
new State of Kansas was yet unorganzed,
| and could not appear here to prefer her ac-
cusations until the 23d Of March Why, if
! he must answer so prematurelv, did he not
| plead n general and direct denial Ii he
must plead especially, why did he not set
forth the facts, instead of Withholding all
| actual information concerning the case
| Why, since, instead of defending himself, he
must implead his aceuser, did he not state.
at least, the ground on which that accuser
| claimed to Justify the conduct of which be
complained? Why did he threaten to ''oyer-
come and Suppress the people of Kansas,
as insurrectionists, if he did not mean to
tcrrify them, and to prevent their appearing
here, or ut least to prejudice their cause
Why did he mock them with u promise of
| protection thereafter, against interference
| by citizens of other States, if they should
| deport themselves peacefully and submissive
! ly TO the Territorial authorities, if no cause
| for experimenting such interference had al
ready been given by previous invasion? Why
| did he labor TO embarrass his accuser by
4 will no pf
abolition of Slavery and stigmatize her sup
| porters with opprobrious epithets, and i'm
| pute to them deprayed and seditious motives
| Why did he interpose the false and imperti-
nent issue, whether one State could inter-
vene by its laws or by force TO abolish Slay-
cry in another State? Why did he dstort
the Constitution, and present il as expressly
guarantying the perpetnity Of Slavery? WHY
did he arralgn so unnecessarily and so un-
| Justly, not one, but all Of the original North
ern States Why did he drag into this case,
| where only Kansas is concerned. a studied.
partial, and prejudicial history Of the past
engagements Of the national domain, and Of
the past contests between the Slave States
and the Free States, in their rivalry for the
balance Of power
Why did not the President rest content
with one such attack on the character and
conduct Of the State Of Kansas, in antici-
pating her coming, if heSfelt assured she
really had no merit on which to stand WHY
did he submit second plea in advance !?
Why in this plea does he deplore the DELAYS
which prevented the Missouri borderers from
eflecting the conquest of Kansas, and the es-
adjustment Of Slavery therein. ut the
time Of the Congressional election,
held in November 1854, in fraud Of The
Kansas law, and Of justice and humanity?
Why, without reason or authority Of public
or of national law, does he denounce Massa-
chusetts, her Emigrant Aid Societies, and
her emgrants? II S'propagandist" emigra-
tons must be denounced, why does he spare
the Platte Self-Defensve Association? Why
does he charge Gov. Reeder with 'sfailing 10
put forth all his energies TO prevent or coun-
teract the tendencies TO llegaiitv which are
found TO exist in all imperfectiv organized
and newly associated countries" If indeed
no s'illegalty'' had occurred there? While
thus, by implication, admitting that such IL
legality had occurred in Kansas, why does
he not tell its nature and extent? Why,
when Gov. Reeder was implicated in person
nj conduct, not criminal, but homogeneous
with his official relations, did the President
retain him in Office, until after he had pro-
claimed at Easton that Kansas had been SUBJ
jugated by the borderers of Missouri, and
why, after he had done so, and had denounc-
ed the Legislature, did the President remove
him for the same pre-existing cause only 2
Why does the President admit that the cleo
! ton for the legislative bodies of Kansas
was held under circumstances inauspicious
TO a truthful and legal result, If nevertheless
the result attained was indeed "a 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 no other quarter Of such COM
plants made by the party that prevailed? If
there We're such mutual accusations. and
even if they rested on probable grounds.
would that fact abate che right of the people
OF Kansas to government Of their own,
securing "A safe and wel-erdered freedom 7
Why does the President argue that the Gov
. ernor, Mr.. Reeder,) alone had the power
70 receive and consider the returns of the
election Of the Legislative bodies, and that
he certified those returns in fifteen out of the
twenty-five districts, when he knows that the
. Governor, being his own agent. gave the Ger
tfcates on the ground that the returns were
technically correct, and that the ilegalitv
4, complained Of was in the conduct Of the
elections, and in the making up Of the re-
turns by the Judges and that the terror Of
c the armed invasion prevented all complaints
OF this kind being presented to the Governor
Why does the President repose on the fact
that the Governor, on the ground Of infor-
malty Of the returns, rejected the members
who We're chosen in the seven other districts,
and ordered new elections therein, and GER
+ titled IN favor Of the persons then chosen.
when ne knows that the ,aajority elected III
the fifteen districts, expelled al once the per-
4 sons chosen at such sections and elections
e and admitted those originally returned rs
: elected in these seven districts, on the ground
that the Governors rejection Of them, and
the second elections which be ordered, were
unauthorized ana Illegal.