New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1857-08-31
Nsu:uork Daily Ghiba,ts
KANSAS.
GOV. ROBINSON ACQUITTED
Fron, Oar Speeisi Correspondent

FroI Oar Special UespOndtnt
LAWRENCE, K. T., Aug 81, 1857.
The Lecompton Jury have brought in q verdict
Of "Not Guilty" in the case Of Gov. Robinson.
TIE first political trial has resulted in an acguittal.
The Jury wss long time in arriving at this conclu.
.iop and it was BY no means unanimous. 1t was
directly in the teeth Of Judge Cato's charge and
written instructions. All that the Federal appoint
ees could do TO secure conviction was done. A
Federal Judge ruled against the prisoner in defiance
of all established rule, and had bis ruling and hisiu.
structions been accepted by the Jury the conviction
wouh have been inevitable. His Instructions to the
Jury were: IF it appears that the prisoner has
sat any time assumed to act as the Governor of
"the STATE of Kansas you will brig him in guilty"
The prisoner never for moment attempted TO
depy that he had done so. The only point made in
hs favor was that the formation of State Govern.
ment and the completion of all it's details prepara-
tory TO being admitted into the Union, was a right
the people OF Territory hare. That neither Gov.
Robinson nor any other of the State officials had
ever interfered with Territorial functonaries, or
pretended to do any acts appertaining to them. 1t
will be seen that here was the whole point. 1t in
VOWED the whole Of the lauded doctrines of Squat
ter Sovereignty" and even of better things than
"Squatter Sovereignty" On this point, then,
Buchanans appointees, with the United States
army at their back, proceed to try man for helping
TO initiate the forms OF a State Government.
Buchanan and the party in power thus declare EN-
phstically that the people of territory shall not
have the right to determine their institutions as
State, Federal Governor sustains those pr0secu.
tions with the army. "A Federal Judge rules against
the prisoners contrary to legal maxims in order to
bring about this result With all this the Admins
tration are directly chargeabc. 1t is their policy
in Kansas. II is no fne-spun theory 1t is a matter
of hard fact. 1t will thus be perceived that the
Lecompton Jury is not so intensely Border Rufiin-
sh as the Federal officers and that the attempt to
ensIaye Kansas receives its chief dRimuS from
Washington.
RThe manner IN which such jury so instructed,
arrived at such conclusion, is little remarkable.
Being able to state what transpired in the jury
room, I will explain the mode OF obtaining such
result. immediately after they retired, one Of their
number said:
"WeT, the question is whether the prisoner has
assumed 10 act as Governor of the State of Kansas"
mo" said PrOSavery man from Northern
State (ObiO), lawyer; 81 think the first question
to determine is whether there is State Of Kansas.
If there not it to me impossible to convict
any enc Of usuIping the office Of State Governor"
And thus the main question at issue was brought
up in the Jury-roOm. The fre-eaters of course
Jury declared that conviction was impossible, and
would he absurd unless it was State 1t was also
assumed that verdict of guilty would be equivalent
to declaring it State under the Topeka Constltu-
ton, merely calling in question Gov. Robinson
right to act as Governor of it. This was bard
bore for the Border Ruffans to gnaw. Most OF them
were bent on conviction if possible. Three hours
after they had retired, they concluded that they
would get along better with more testimony. Only
one witness had been examined. They had no
notes Of his testimony, and after the jury had de-
bated for some time part of them maintained that
the witness had said one thing, and part another
thing In one case his testimony testimony, 10
the other it was no testimony at all. 1t was in this
ticksh situation that they sent in message to the
Court requesting to have the case again opened, and
TO have more testimony. Like Oliver Twist, they
wanted "some more.' Singuary enough, the
Court" refused to comply with this very ridiculous
proposition. The jury could arrive at no conclusion
ss to what the testimony was, or whether they had
ann testimony. For hours they debated. A day
passed in stormy and useless discussion, followed by
a verdict of mot guilty." l might suggest some
thing further as to how this result was obtained but
respect for "LecOmpton jury" puts seal on my