Ellsworth American. [volume] (Ellsworth, Me.) 1855-current, 1857-10-02

CATION 10 OBEY! It's might may make
it matter of prudence to avoid its wrath
by submission, but can usurpation create
an obligation to obey when more exists ?
Suppose the Great Mogul, or any other
tyrant, had established the same so-cal-
cd government and laws of Kansas by
the same means by which, as all the
world knows, they were established
by invasion and arms-would any citi-
zen Of the United States call them gov
eminent and laws, except in derision
and with loathing: Is bogus govern
ment government? Are bogus laws
laws: Is this government esta ablishcd,
and are these laws enacted and yet
known to possess no other or higher
authority than that derived from Bon
DER RuFFIASs Are We, the people
of the United States, to be stultfad in
to the belief of such dogma : For
that result, wait at least for the more
absolute dominion ofa tyrant.
Your Mcmorialists will now present
what they consider the fun amental error
of your reply. In their view,In recogniz-
ing the Territorial Government and laws
of Kansas as a genuine Government and
valid laws, you have perverted the
general principle upon which You rest
your vindication. and have violated its
essential spirit and meaning.
That general principle may be thus
stated: " hen rules of action, claim
ing to be valid laws, present on the
first aspect, evidence that they procc ccd
from rightful aw-making power. it is
the duty Of the people and the execu-
tors Of law to recognize them as au.
thoritativc. To this, as a general prin-
2ipie, your Memoriaists subscribe. 1t
is the only means Of giving practical au-
tholity to law, and Of preventing vio-
lenee and anarchy: nor do they yield to
any nan or class Of men higher esti-
mate t is impnrtlnce, or a firmcr de-
termination to adopt and defend it, than
themselves cherish. But to say that ALL
goygnm nts and ALL laws, claiming to
BE yalil, mist BE- recognized, executed
aal 81, ,yed az such, is as prapos.eroas as
70 ,eny the seaHra principle itself. To
m.=take the ge1i raj rule for an aH1rcrSdi
rai6. thr coG titional for an uneondition.
al pf:.ciPie, must lead to false reasoning
an3 t3 practical conclusions Of .he most
dang sr1us character This, in the view
Of yenr Memnralists, who believe that
none are too wise or good to err. is VIII It
yoa they trust Inadvertently have done.
In recognizing the Territorial Govern
ment and laws rs authoritative. have
you not violated the whole spirit and
meaning of the general principle laid
down? Have you not wholly disro gar1-
cd the essential condition. that the ONLY
government which it is your duty to
sanction must r sent some eYid encc of
rightful authority? You recognize the
Territorial laws as valid. What is this.
but to act upon the principle that. when
the so-called government and laws come
before you, without the shadow of evi-
dcnce Of their proceeding hom right
tul law-makins power, but with the
most decisive and overwhelming proof
that they have originated in a plIpab c
and violent usurpation-tnat even then
even in case SO fragrant. it is your
duty 10 sustain and execute them, even
by the armies Of the United States?
Your Mcmorialists are here a~xious
to call your attention to an important
distinction, which you appear entirely to
overlook. They readily concedc that.
in cases Of no untrequent occurrence, one
government may properly recognize
another as authoritative, or as govern
ment ne facio; on very low degree OF
evidence, without rigidly investigating =
its authority. or even considering lis
origin. For example, the Government
Of Great Britain, when Louis Napoleon
was enthroned in france by the army
Of the Empire, and with the acquicscenee
and consent of the people, had no right
to interfere with government thus cstab-
Eshel. The British as a foreign Gov
crnment had not right of question or of
control in the matter But docs it fol-
low, beclus the Government Of Great
i'4iNoii i4Nt NJ II8ut W iulcTltTc Win
what was undeniable usurpation in a
fore On kingdom, that the Government
Of the United States had TO right. and
were not bonnd to interpose and put
down in one Of their own Territories, a
ruffian usurpation from Missouri ! In
respect to France, there was reason
enough why other nations for purposes
Of national intercourse should rccog-
nlzo its present government as an
established government. But is not
the Constitution of the United States
the supreme law of the land +? Has not
our government the right to authorize
and regulate the government of its own
Territories Can Congress or the Presi.
dent abandon this right, or the duty
which arises from it 1t this Govern
ment owes any duty whatever to the
country, is it not most sacredlv bound
to protect both State and Territory
against the Imposition of government
and laws by rullian and violent inva-
sion from another State? Your Me-
monalists, then, strenuously y insist that
the only principle on which recognition
can ever be justified, is that there is some
evidence he If mcra or lnCs that tho