The Burlington weekly hawk-eye. [volume] (Burlington, Iowa) 1857-1858, 1857-10-07
n. nCCaANAx ANp Ms Pnpelx !.
PRooRsss ov rHI1R rc1HEsroSDsNcK.'

Il f0U0SHE8 " THINK yV1nn''s =" W -
4 soxs so>p p,,.ss ~ Il, hxsr xIlsAek
! n Rss 6zssikney. Jtnt4 0weAs~sa, Pvssa''
~ az CNite1 N1AtsS ~ Hte eFs~N fsN a
I Il Jaly lass, 1 asnIsf a. sisisosssf fcsebscsl
/. sat aadre1sed 10 yoa - Chief nAglsstate q TIL
Il nation. 1 Memorial "a the affairs of KAnAs.-
II 10 tAio You Psplied, under date Of Aae lS, so
4 II manner which shows that yoa uIeu1det
stood, to some extent, the ground taken ~ ~
II MemoFialista, foP w. would not impuss 70 yo'
II the intsnsion to mlsrepresent then. ~ yc'
have thought proper 70 lay tae Asmes!aI ans
\ reply before The public. slarss part q shs We
/ morialists have confsrrsa, en ths ssejece 49,
you. We would remark, them that the mair
facts alledRed in that msmosiai srs either pas
Cd over without dsalal y explicitly ave~sd 70
your reply. -
1 These facts are two: rrs., 'thAt ne fdnda-
mental principle Of the Constitltien Of the Unit.
ted States and Of eur Political institutions is
that the people shall make their own laws and
elect their own rulers." Secondly, srhas Gov.
walker, of Kansas, openly and avowedly repre-
sents and pfoclaims. that the President Of The
United States j. employing through him, WAX
er,) an army, one parpoee Of which b 70 force
the people Of Kansas 70 obey laws which are
laws which, It is notorius, end estabIished upon
evidence, they never made, and rule1 tAsy
never elected" Asto these two facts, the ma
terial facts alledged by your Msmorialists, and
which chiefly require vindicA.ion from you.
they say that they find NO denial Of them in your
reply. They do not say that you have attempt
ed no vindication Of Jour acts and doings
through Gov. Walker; but only, that they can
find in your reply no plain or explicit denial of
the facts referred to--not even what they con-
slider the shadow Of denial. These facts stand
in the Memorial then, uncontradicted, By What
| you evidently consider asriumphant reply. Why
is thiss Are these assertions, on which the
whole subject at issue depends. untrus-snd yet
no denial Of them-not : word 10 prove them
untrue! Without such denial, what can ron
expect your Memorialists and the country TO
believe and to sayi What but that the facts,
which they allsdge, are notorious and undenia-
BILE? ..1sf 3, ss.s M. IN.
As to the allegation respecting the fanda-
| mental principle of the Constitution, your Ne
| moralists hope that the time IL remote when
the enlightened citizens Of this country will de-
ny that principle; though party zeal. in its in
fatuation, may one day trample il in the dust,
when, in sight of the ruin, Liberty and Religion
10 exile will together weep over the desscra-
ton. : f,
Your formal vindication next demands mo-
tice.
Ofthis your Nemorialists are compelled to
say that, in their view, il 10 entirely groundlsss
and unsatisfactory. , e - 80,
Resting it solely on what you call "the plain
est and most palpable historical facts" you say
that, at the time Of your Inauguration, "you
found, in fact, the, Governments Of Kansas ~
well established as that Of any other Territory
You then ask, was it not my duty to sustain the
pOv0pnmonf-tO IL hnnU nv
turned by force; in the language Of the Con-
sttution, ito take care that the laws be faithful
iy executed" You then add at was for this
purpose that ordered military force to Kan
sas to act as posse conaitdtus in aiding the CIV.
il magistrate to carry the laws into execution"
Here, then, 10 the distinct admission and de-
caration on your part, that you ordered milf
tary force to Kansas for the purpose Of sustain
ing its Territorial laws. So far then, in respect
to one matter Of fact, you admit the assertion
of your Memorialists.
Your vindication, therefore, rests upon the
assertion that there was, in fact, Government
in Kansas-such Government IL was your
duty to sustain. The essential question, on
which the whole controversy turns, 10 thus
raised it is simply this: Was there q Govern.
ment, or we're there laws, in Kansas, In the just,
proper and authorized meaning Of the Ian
guage, "when you entered upon the duties of
the Presidential Office on the 4th Of March
last ?" 4@ go s3Sss
If this can be proved to be true. your Memo.
rialists will know something which they have
yet to learn. If is can be proved not to be
true, sit will present . memorable example Of
the truth, that political prejudice 10 blind even
| to the existence of the plainest and most pal
pable OF historical facts" Nor 10 this al. It
will show that you ordered an army 70 Kansas
to sustain SO called Governments which is not
q Government, and laws which are not laws.
Here your Memorialists take the position,
that NOTHING CAN DE TRULY GOVERNMENT on
| LAW WHICH HAS NO AUTHORITY and that
NOTHING SHOULD BE TREATED As GOVERNMENT
OR LAW WHICH PRESENTS NO EVIDENCE or AU-
rHoRrTY.
Can anything which tramples under foot all
human rights, and is a known outrage upon
| our Constitution and our political institutions,
whatever be its name or form, be justly re-
garded as government or law having authority
| under our Constitution? Can such an outrage
be clothed with authority by President, SEN
ate, Congress, or whole Congress Of Presi-
dents? Can usurpation beget 1 valid govern
| ment or law, or impart that right to govern
which implies An obligation to obey! Its
| might may make it q matter Of prudence to
avoid its wrath BY submission, but can usurpa-
tion create an obligation to obey when none
exists?
Suppose the great Mogul, or any other t.
rant, had established the same so-called GOV
ernment and laws Of Kansas by the same
means by which. as all the world knows, they
we're estabshed-by invasion md arms-would
any citizen Of the United States call them
government and laws" except in derison and
with loathing? Is bogus governmsnt-gov-
ernment! Are bogus !aws-laws Is this
government established and are these flaws
enacted and yet known to possess no other
or higher authority than that derived from
BeRDER RUTgIANs? Are "Wc, the people Of
the United States," to he stultiied into the be-
lief of such q dogma? For that result, wait at
least for the more absolute dominion Of ty.
rant.
/ Your Memorialists will now present what they
| consider the fundamental error Of your reply.
In their view, in recognizing the Territorial
Government and valid laws, you have perverted
the general principle upon which you rest your
vindication and have violated ts 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 tl,ey
proceed from rightful law-making power, il ID
| the duty of the people and the executors OF
law % recognize them ~ authoritative. To this,
as general principle, your Memorialists cub.
scribe. Il is the only means Of giving practical
authority to law, and Of preventing violence
and anarchy nor do they yield to any man OF
class Of men higher estimate Of lis importance
or 6rmer discrimination to sdopt and defend
it, than themselves cherish. But to cay thai
! ALL governments and ALL laws, claiming 70 b
valid, must be recognized, executed and obsyet
a. such, is as prepostsrous - to deny the gen
eral principle itself. To mistake the genera
rule for IN universal rule, the conditional foI
an unconditional principle, must lead 70 falls
reasoning and to practical conclusions Of tn
most dangerous character. This, in the view y
| your Nemorialists, who believe that none sr
too wise or good to err, u what you (they trus
Inadvertently have done.
In recognizing the Territorial Governnen
} and laws - authoritative, have you not violate
: the whole spirit and meaning Of the geners
: principle laid down? Have you not wholly dil
regarded the essential condition, that The onl
government which IL 10 your duty TO sanctio
. must present some evidence Of rightfdl anthol
], ity? You recognize the Territorial laws - valit
Nuva = = 49, -. T. n. H.