The Hillsdale standard. [volume] (Hillsdale, Mich.) 1851-1909, 1857-10-06


ritoral government and laws of Kansas as
genuine government and valid laws, you have
perverted to general principle upon which
You rest your vindication, and have violated
its essential spirit and meaning.
That general principle may be thus stated:
When rules OF action, claiming to be valid
laws, present on the first aspect evidence that
they proceed from rightful law-making
power, it is the duty Of the people and exe-
cutors Of law to recognize them as authorta-
tive. To this, as general principle, your
memorialists subscribe. 1t is the only means
of giving practical authority to law, and Of
preventing violence and anarchy; nor do they
yield to any man or class of men higher
estimate of its Importance, or firmer deter
mnation to adopt and defend it, than them
selves cherish. But to say that all govern
ments and all laws claiming to be valid must
be recognized, executed and obeyed as such,
is as preposterious as to deny the general
principle ITSELF To mistake the general rule
for an universal rule, the condition for an
unconditional principal, must lead tc false
reasoning and to practical conclusion of the
most dangerous character. This In the
view of your mtmorialists, who believe that
none are To wise or too good to err, is what
(they trust Inadvertently have done.
In recognizing tho territorial government
and laws as authoritive, have you not viola
ted the whole spirit and meaning of the gen.
eral principle laid down? Have you not
wholly disregarded the essential condition,
that the only government which it is your
duty to sanction must present some evidence
of rightful authorityG You recognise tho
territorial laws as valid. What is This but
to act upon the principle that, when the So
called government and laws came before you,
without tho shadow of evidence of their pro.
ceeding from a rightful law making power,
but with the most decisive and overwhelming
proof that they have originated in pal
pable and violent unsurpation-that even
then, even in case so fragrant, it is your du-
ty to sustain and execute them, even by the
armies OF the United States.
Your memoralists are here anxious to call
your attention to an important distinction,
which you appear entirely to overlook. They
redy concede that, in case of no unfrequent
occurrence one government may properly re-
cogni another as authoritative, or gov
ernment de fdcto, on very low degree OF
evidence, without rigidly investigating its
authority, or even considering its origin.
For example, the government of Great Brit
tain, when Lewis Napoleon was enthroned IN
France by the army of the empire, and with
the acouiesence and consent of the people,
lad no right to interfere with government
thus established" The British, as foreign
government, had no right Of question or OF
control in the matter. But does 1t follow
because the government OF Ureat brit'aih
had no right to interfere with what was an
undcniable usurpation in foreign kingdom,
that the government Of the United States
he'd no right and were not bound to interfere
and put down in one of their own territories,
n rufian unsurpation from Missouri!
In respect to France, there was reason
enough why other nations, for purposes OF
national intercourse, should recognise its pre-
sent Government as an established govern
ment." But is not the constitution OF the
United States the supreme law of the land
Has not our government the right to author
ize and regulate the government OF It's own
territory? Can Congress or the President
abandon this right or the duty which ARISES
from il? IF this government owes any duty
whatever to the country, is 1t not most sa
credly bound to protect both State and Ter
ritorv against the imposition Of government
and laws by ruffian and violent INVASION
from another State? Your memorialists then
strenuouslv insist that the only prlnclpie or
which recognition can ever be justified is, thai
there is some evidence, be il more or less
that the government proceeds from an auth
orized law-making power. And they furth
er insist. that when such government, Is with
in our own borders, under the supervisor
and control Of the federal government, ano
claiming to derive all its sanction from Law
of Congress, the evidence of its authority
must be clear and decisive. But how IS !
when there is no such evidence? How is
when all the evidence is strongly agant 1t
authority9 How is it when there is the hes
evidence the case admits Of, even decisive un
+ ouestioable proof, the so-called governmen
had no other authority than ruflianIsm am
outraged Is such government to o
= practically recognized, and that. too, within
; The limits of our own republic! There sure
: ly may be cases in which 1t would DC gro'
= wrong to sustain territorial governme,,
which has no authority. And now' VIC as'
what government could you refuse TO sustain
; if not one that had its origin solely IN vlolei
invasion of ruffians from another Statc :
: This fact, in the precent case can DC denle'
q SO can God when his sun shineth IN the ne
vens.
Il This usurped government cannot DO san
}. toned by the law of Congress authorizing g. u
formation of a territorial government. In
v law declares that "the true intent and mea
:. iuq of this act is to leave the people (oi !,
N territory perfectly free to regulate their s;a
s. mestic institutions in their own way sucle
IS only to the Constitution of the United States
ID To the people, and them alone, it express
to gives the right to make their own gove,
q ment and laws. Here is no sanction, no
90 ,bori,v. for a government not framed by 7
N people, but founded solely on invasion. =
N this law enthronc in rightful sovereignty, b'
" dts from noighboring statel AS well 8
" that il authorizes them to seize every acre
" Kansas for their own use and behoof.
nc can as we'll deprive the people OF one r,t +