Squatter sovereign., 1857-10-24

ion nor lad they any susPlclonInat lnsy
were recognizing It's validity. How TINS
ball can invest an act of nsurpation with r
auitoTuv, your Menoriaiists are unable +
10 discover. What If the Legislature oil
Connecticut had under .he excitement Of
pariy. strife, even by formal acs. reeog-
nIzsd the usurpation which you have sup
posed. might not the Governor Justly iasi
back upon bis own official prerogatiye. call |
Gu, the militia and suppress the rebellion
If he would he would be bound TO reee9-
nize such an usurpation as Government I
having authority, when could he ever sup.
press It without himself becoming rebel
against the very authority which ne re- /
cognizes Apply this illustration 70 the
Presidel,isof the United States, and yeu
will see that the Fundamental. principle ot /
all your reasoning is absolutely suicidal,
and thus renders nugatory your entire VIM |
diea.ion. Did not President jackson, on
his own official responsibility as National
Executive. set al defiance alike tie power
and authority of :. Sovereign State I"
Aud can Territorial Government rank
with an independent Stale Sovereignty
Can Border Ruffianisin, hy any act of Con-
gress, become entitled to respect and sup
port. as righiful law-making power. from
The President Of the United States This
case is too fragrant The facts are toono-
tofious. No truly independent. self-rely-
ing President, who understood his official
| Iprerogaiiye, and his du.u under the Con-,
ssi;ullon, would kaye hesssated to disre-
gard even a direct act of Congress SO ty-
| rannical and oppressive. and appeal TO his
country and the world for his vindlcatlon.
I. But no such trying emergency was here
presented. With the solemn decision of
the House of Representatives, after long
Investigation, that the Legislature oil Kan
sas had no authority, and that Its laws
were no laws-with that direct, positive
aud unimpeachahle evidence before you,
your Melnorialists cannot but express
}! ,heir surprise that you have relied upon
your construction of indirect, inconclusive
acts OF that same body as Evidence OF th e
authority of that Legislature. They know
of no rule of law by which You can set
up constructive, inferential evidence against
direct and positive. evidence from the same
source. But this proof you pass over IN
utter silence. ,1....ss -.
Abiding to the condition of the Terri
tory, you speak. of the course you have
adopted $. as absolutely necessary -
and ask whether ''you would not have
been justly condemned had you left !" what
you assume TO be The, Government and its
administration "impotent," and thus have
suffered it to become an object of con-
tempt in The eyes of the people. Our
frs, reply to this view of the case is, as
before, there was no (TerritoriaD Gov.
ernment in Kansas TO execute, as you
suppose. And again. we say the usurped
!. government ought to have been rendered
Inn potens and to have become an object .o
) contempt in the eyes of the people as il
has become. But further, Gong aess, la:
passed law for the establishment OF a
government in this Territory, with this for
, mai and positive explanation, that The
people in the Territory he left perfectly
free 10 form and regulate their own ins,i
: tutions in their own way. Why thei
5 could not Governor of Kansas have beer
II appointed at any time, acting under ycu
i =. .,ar:ts; I'D SiI q 2 INV under bis con
S nal violence and contention, and - left th
people free to form and regulate their Owl
n domestic Institutions &c, as we'll as EN-
}, ploy the army 10 act the absurd and farci
e cal part OF posse comita!us, to eniorc
d under your direction, Territorial law
l. which had no pretense OF authority g
s. Without saying who were or who wer
e not the originators of the troubles in Kan
d sas, can it be doubted that the Presidel
= long before this by the course now sug
l. gested, or some other, might have put "a
Al end to these troubles Has he not tn
power TO stake care that the laws an
IS of course that the law of Congress Re
e specting Kansas-'be faithfully executed
1t You have introduced several topics IL
l. to your reply. as that of Slavery, the ds
G. cislon of the Supreme Court in the cas-
Is of Dred Scott, with others, on which you
c Memoriaists have said nothing in thei
is Memorial and on which they intend 10 sa
D. nothing now, except to express their dI'
= sent from your opinions.
is II is needless 10 prolong this discussion
Your whole vindication, if it has an
n, grounds. rests, in the view Of your NJ,
re inorialits, upon one 2alpab!y false assuml
lr tion; That whatever claims to be q go,
Of ernment de facto, without pretense of i
y proceeding from any righ.ful law-lna kin
ie power is entitled TO your support. Til
Ill
" this principle would not sanction. IF az
l. opted in the administration of our govern
" tnent il must involve, sooner or later. j
E. destruction.
" Pardon, now, if need be. the plain ah'
d. respectful earnestness of your Menoria
e isis in unfolding what they consider falls
n. principles IN your positions on the presel
lie subject. They speak of no want of hon
r esty in your avowal Of them-of the wal
l. of patriotism on your part. nor yet of tis;
at higher principle which God approves
of They speak only of what they consid,
ch error In your reasonings, and of its COZ
ly sequences in political evils. They jude
1y not the heart. They have not imputed
p you any violation of Your oath of offic
be as you have thought fit to charge. The
II, language shows the, contrary. They sal
in .s By the foregoing you are held up-vi