The Union and eastern journal. [volume] (Biddeford [Me.]) 1854-1858, 1857-10-02

inc same means by whlcn,as al the world
knows, they were established--by invs-
sion and arms would any citizdns Of the
United States call REINFORCEMENT and
laws except in derision and with loath-
ing! Is bogus govornment-govern-
ment Are bogus laws these Saws enac-
tel !" and yet known TO possess no 9TH
ar higher authority than that derived
from BORDER RUFFIASs Are ave, the
people Of the United States" TO be stul-
tilted into the belief Of such dogma -
For that result, wait at least for the more
absolute dominion Of q tyrant.
Your Memorialists will now present what
they consider the fundamental error Of your
reply. In their view, in recognising the
territorial government and laws Of Kansas
as u genuine government and valid laws,
- you have perverted the general principle up
on which you rest your vindication, and
have violated its essential spirit and mean
ing:
That general principle may be thus sta
ted: When rules Of action, claiming 10 b
valid laws, present on the 6rst aspect, evil
dcnce that they proceed from . rishtful law
making power, il is the duty Of the people
and tho executors Of law, 10 recognize them
Us authoritiye. To tins, as general prin.
eiple, your Memorialists subscribe. Il is
the only means OF giving practical author.
~ to law, and OF preventing violence and
anarchy nor do they yield to any man or
class Of men, higher estimate Of It's impor-
lance, or u drmer determination 70 adopt
add defend it, than themselves CHERISH
But to say that ALL governments and ALL
laws, claiming to be valid, must DO rccog-
nized, executed and obcyed rs such, Is as
preposterous as to deny the general princi-
pie itself. To mistake the general rule for
an unipcrsal rulo. the conditional for IN
unconditional principle, must lead 10 false
reasoning and TO practical conclusions Of the
most dangerous character: This, in New
OF your Memorialists, who believe that none
are too wise or good to err, is what you
(they trust inadvertently have done.
In recognizing tie territorial government
and laws as authoritative, have you not vi.
olated the whole spirit and meaning of the
general principle laid down? Have you not
wholly dis.eylrded the csseptial condition,
that the only government which il is your
iusy 10 sanction, must present'some eridsncs
ofrightful authority? You recognize the
territorial laws as valid. What is this, but
60 act upon the principle that, when tho 50.
called government and laws come before YOU
without the shadow of evidence Of their pro-
eeeding from rishtful aw.msking power
but with the most decisive and oyerwhelm.
Ing proof that they have originated in .
palpable and violent usurpation-that essn
then--even in a case 50 fragrant, il is your
duty 10 sustain and execute them, own by
the armies Of the United States?
Your MemOrialists are here anxious 10
call your attention to an important dis
tinotiOO, which you appear entirely to over
look. They readily coaeedo that, in cases
Of no unirequent occurrence, one govern
ment may properly recognize another rs
authoritative or as goyernment de
Jaefo, on very low degree OF evidence,
Or even considering its origin. For exam
pie, the government Of Great Britain, WIZ n
Louis Napoleon was enthroned IN France by
the army Of the Empire, and with tho &C.
quiescence and consent Of tho people, Fad no
right to Interfere with u government thus
established" The British, as u foreign
Government had no right Of question or Of
control IN the matter. But does II follow.
because the government Of Great Britain had
no right to interfere with what was an un-
deniable usurpatiCn in foreign kingdom,
that the Government OF the United States
had no right, and were not b,uni 10 inter
pose, and put, down. IN ono Of their Orn
Territories, rufhan usurpation from Mis-
souri,? In respect TO France, there was rea-
son enough, why other nations for purpos-
~ OF national intercourse, should recognize
its present government as an Established
government" But is not the Constitution
of tho United States the supreme law of the
land? Has not our government the right 10
authorize aud regulate tho government OF
its own Territories? Can Congress or the
President abandon this right, or the duty
which arises from il Ii this government
owes any duty whatever 10 the country, is il
not most acredly bound 20 protect both
State and Territory against ihe imposition
of "a government and laws by ruihan and
violent invasion from another State? Your
Memorialist,, then strenuously insist, that
the only principle ON which recognition can
ever be justified, is that there is some eyi.
dcncc, be il more or less. that tho govern
Inent PROCEEDS IRON AN AUTHORIZED LAW
MAKING POWER. And they further insist,
that when such government is within our
own borders, under the supervision and con.
troll OF the Federal Government, and claim
ing % derive all its sanction from q law Of
Congress, the EVIDENCE oP Irs AUTHORITY
Nrsr BE CLEAR AND DECISIVE. But how Is 10
when there is no such evidence? How is it
when all the evidence Is strong against its
authority? How Is IL, when there is the
hest evidence the case admits of, even decis-
i've, unquestionable proof, that the so-called
government has no other authority than
rrlLanism and outrage Is such govern
ment'' To be practically recognized, and
that too within the limits Of our own Reput-
lie? There surely, may be cases in which
IL would be gross wrong 10 sustain ter
ritorial government which has no authority
And now, we ask, what government could
YOU refuse TO sustain, IL not one that had its
origin sOLELY in q violent invasion ofrutfians
from another State This fact in the pres
ent case ran be denied so can God, when
his sun shineth in the heavens.
This usurped government cannot be sane
toned by the law Of Congress authorizing
the formation Of a territorial government
That law declared that "the true intent and
meaning of this act is 10 leave the people
(oi the territory perfectly free to regulate
their domestic institutions in their own way,
subject only 10 the Constitution Of the
United States" To rnE PEOPLE, and them I
alone, il expressly gives the right 10 make
their own government and laws. Here is
NO sanction. no authority, for a government
not framed by the people, but founded sole
" on invasion. Can this law enthrone in
rightful sovereignty bandits from a nelghbor-
ing State? AS well say that IL authorized
them to seize every acre Of Kansas, for their
own use and behoof-lt can as well deprive
the people Of one right Us Of another, Of all
rights, as Of one. Is it said, "that Congress
authorized the establishment Of govern.
mcnt9" Yes; but by the people, not by