Marshall County Republican. (Plymouth, Ind.) 1856-1878, 1857-10-08

Napoleon was cntnrOned IN France by the
6 army Of the Empire, and with the acquies-
cence and consent of the people, had no
right to interfere with a government thus
established The British as foreign
I Government had no right of question OIL
of control IN the matter. But does it fol
low, because the Government Of great Brit
ain had no right to, interfere with what was
an undeniable usurpation in foreign
king lonl, that the Government OF the Uni
ted States had no right, and were not bound
to intcrpose and put down in one Of theil
own Territories, a ruflian usurpation from
! Missouri? In respect to France, there was
reason enough why otheraations for purpose
of national intercourse should recognize its
. present government as an "establshel
government" But is not the Constitution
of the Unitel States the supreme law OF
; the land? Has not our Government the
right to authorize and rfgulate the govern
ment of its own Territories? Can Con
gress or the President abandon this right
or the duty which arises from it? If this
Government owes any duty whatever to
the country, is it not most sacredly bound
to protect both State and Territory against
the imposition of q government and laws
by ruffian and violent invasion from an
other State? Your Memorialists, then,
strenuously insist that the only principle
on which recognition can ever be justified,
is that there is some evidence, be it more or
less, than the government PROCEEDS FROM
AN AUTHORIZED LAW MAKING POWER. And
they further insist, that when such govern
ment is within our own borders, under the
supervision and control of. the Federal
I Government and claiming TO derive all its
sanction from law of Congress, THE Ev
IDEScE OF ITS AUTHORITY MUST BE CLEAR
AND DECISIVE. BSt how is it when there
is no such evidence? How is it when al
the evidence is strong against its authority?
How is it when there is the best evidence
the case admits of, even decisive, unaues-
tionable proof, that the so-called gov
ernment has no authority than ruflianism
and outrage-Is such government to
be practically recognized, and that too
within the limits of our own Republic?-
There surely may lie cases in which it
would be gross wrong to sustain Terrific
rial Government which has no authority.
And now, we ask, what government could
you refuse to sustain, if not one that had its
origin SOLELY in violent invasion of ruff
fans from another State? This fact in the
present case cdn be denied; so can God
when his sun shineth in the heaYens. ...
The .usurped Government cannot be
sanctioned by the law Of Congress author
izing the formation of Territorial Gov
ernment. That law declares that sfhe
true intent and meaning of this act is to
leave the people (of the Territory perfect
" free to regulate their domestic institu-
tions in their own way, subject only TO the
Constitution of the Unitcl States. . To
the people, and them alone, it expressly
gives the right to make their own govern
mint and laws. Here is no saiction, no
authority, for a government not framed
by the people, bnt founded solely on inva-
sion. Can this law .enthrone in rightful
sovereignty bandits from a neighborins
! State? As well say that it authorized them
!, to seize every acre of Kansas for their
own use and behoof. 1t can as well de-
prlve the people of one light as of another,
OF all rights as of one 1t is-said "that
Congress authorized the establishment of a
Z government. Yes; but by the people. not
by marauders. 1t is futher said. ..that we
j must adhere toa general principle -
What principle? Why, as your whole
argument implies, that a government es-
tablished'' is. a government to be .recog-
! nized. We deny such government in
= Kansas. Beware how you stretch gene,-
al principle, and make it universal
!. Though one may safely pass the Niagara
. River at all other points and places, none
but mailman would attempt the passage
!, in the verge of the. cat.ract! =
4 Yonr Memorialists urge, therefore, that
the so-called Government of Kansas can
claim no sanction from the act of Congress.
4 The evidence was all against it-eYidence
2 known to the whole civilized world, appa
3 rent ON the very faccefthe trancacton, and
I which must have challenged your attention
J long before yoWhad takensthe oath Of office
The very fact that. the. so-called Goven-
ment required support from the Federal
! Executive was the strongest evidence that
4 it'di'l not come from the people and had
no lawful authority. This shows, at once,
/ that this Government was not, in the low
est sense, what you call an established
! Government; for it shows that it was
not and could not be established without
United States army; and, therefore. the
army was sent, not, as you pretended, to-
sustain an establishing Government y but
j for the purpose of established what was
not established-a government of ruf6an
I authoritv.ed Holl stf.' oWi tsA1 = y
~, =