Nashville patriot. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1858-1860, 1858-04-17


the voice of opposition. Nor is it unreasona-
bic to suppose party would be melted to
frauds on the ballot-box by leaders who have
set themselves up in open hostility to the ex-
listing lawful government, the best on earth,
securing equal rights to all, and have mar
shalled their cohorts to carry out their ambi-
tious designs by the sword ard the bayonet.
Such facts raise strong probability that
faithful investigating committee would make
some startling developments.
But suppose at the election on the 4th of
January, all the votes were given by legal
voters, and that there is actually majority in
the Territory against the Lecompton cOnstitu-
ton: ought the bill for the admission of Kan
sas under 1T to be rejected? | answer no.
The constitution, as have shown, was regu-
larly, legally, properly made, according to
law, TO the forms, nature, and practice of our
governmental system. 1t was ordained by
the convention clothed Nth the entire souereiqnty
Of the people, as the constitution, subject to the
approval or rejection by the people of the
slavery clause. In the exercise of their sove-
reign power they prescribed in the cnnstitu-
ton the time and manner of its approval or
rejection; and they could not be altered by a
legislative assembly, the mere creature of the
organic law of the Territory, without any
sovereign power. If they had power to do it,
they had the same power to alter any other
provision section or article in the cOnstitu-
ton. The establishment of such doctrine
would sap the foundation, and, at one blow,
strike down all constitutional government.
The election of the 4th of January. was.
therefore, without lawful authority. 1t was
mere popular assemblage and expression of
opinion by those who took part in it. No one
would be entitled to legal redress for a re-
usal of his vote, or liable to punishment for an
illegal vote. 1t could not have any legal eff
feet. or be binding on any one. 1t is but
naked absurdty to say it could legally invali-
date or weaken the constitution ordained by
the convention. and ratified by lawful cleo
| ton of the people on the 2lst of December.
But have heard the position assumed that,
inasmuch as the Constitution of the United
States provides that Tlea0 States mag be admit
ted blythe Congress into the Union," it is left to
the discretion of Congress to admit them
not And although the vote of the 4th of
January can have no other force or validity.
it is an argument to Congress to control the
exercise of its discretion. We are asked. will
| You admit the new State under a constitution
which majority of her people have condemn
cd? Especially, will you do it in the face of
the popular sovereignty doctrine of the organ
ic act of the Territory? ! answer. first: 1t is
not the popular sovereignty of a mob, or of
prOmiscuOus voluntary assemblage, brought
together helter-sketer, without the authority
of a valid law, which is recognized by that
act or hy any other; but it is popular sovereignty
according to legal rules. Second: There is not
satisfactory evidence that a majority of the
bona fde inhabitants, being legal voters, have
condemned it. 1t cannot he proved. except
byan election lawfully held. when ali entitled
have an opportunity and legal right to vote,
ard when those who are not entitled are an
swerabe to the violated law for unlawfully
voting. Such an election was not held on the
4th of January.
Third: answer, even if there be a majority
of the inhabitants of Kansas who oppose this
constitution, they are not now entitled to be
heard. They stood mute when they were in
vited to speak. and allowed others to answer
for them, in favor of the constitution. And
especially are they not entitled now to be
heard, because they were and are in open hos
tility and rebellion against the General and
Territorial Governments, disregarding and
resisting the authority of the former, and at
tempting unlawfully to subvert the latter.
We have the evidence of Governor Walker
and Governor Denver, in their official capaci-
ty, that this party has formed a military or
ganizatiOn without lawful authority; that an
enrolment of the militia of the Territory has
been ordered Ivy their leader. and every man
who refuses to be enrolled for duty, to be sep
arately registered; that they have received
arms and munitions of war from the abolition
societies. Their forces have been actually in
the field. marshalled and well drilled, and
ity of Governor Walker that they had estab-
lishcd an insurgent government. in the city of
Lawrence, ''in defiance Of the Territorial gov
eminent, and denying its existence and au-
thOrity - had imposed upon their officers
appointed. the duty of taking an oath to sup
port the Topeka constitution. thereby over
throwing or ignoring the Territorial govern
ment under the act Ct Congress; that they had
distributed handhlls of their proceedings
throughout the Territory, ''tO incite other
cities, towns, and counties to establish insur-
rcctionary governments, thereby placing the
people of the Territory in open conflict with
the Government of the United States" They
have assembled Legislative bodies, under the
Topeka constitution, for the purpose of or
ganiZing a government under il. and have
only been restrained from carrying out their
plans and purposes by the presence of the
United States troops. All this has occurred
since Congress refused to recognize that con-
stitutiOn or the government under it, and
since the United States Government has re-
cOgnized the proceedings instituted by au-
thority of the Territorial! government to form
State constitution. Still more recently,
even since the commencement of the present
session of Congress, and within the last few
weeks their Topeka Legislature has been in
session, for the purpose OF organizing and
establishing their revolutionary government,
in defiance of the United States and the lawful
government und r it. Well and truthully
did the President say in his message of the
I'd Of February, that these people share 6een
IN a state Of rebellion against the Gorerame,a:n
that ''they have never acknowl, dyed, but
have constantly renowned aud defied the
government to which they owe allegiance and
have been all the time in a state of resistance
against its authority" What Is rebellion?
1t is IAN open and avowed remuneration of the
authority of the government to which one
owes allegiance. or the taking of arms traitor
ously to resist the authority of lawful govern
ment." Both of these things have been done
by those people. Aud shall their wishes eX-
pressed even while they are standing boldly out
in open hostility and rebellion against ia, Gov
crumcnt control the discretion Of Congress?
control it in opposition to the wishes of the
loyal. law-abidng citizens who have lawfully
ordained and established constitutional and
republican government, which they ask you
to recognize?
It is wise principle, by which courts ofequi-
" are governed, that when man invokes
their Jurisdiction in his behalf "he must come
nth clean hands Enlightened statesmen will
scarcely hold that it is not broad and compre-
hensiye enough To be enforced by a great POI
litical jurisdiction. The Kansas Frce-soilrrs
aud Topekaites. with their lips and hands
stained with treason and rebellion, invoke our
action for their benefit against the rights of
those citizens whose conduct appears regular
lawful and loyal. hold they should be turn
ed away-d.smissed from court. and the loyal
citizens allowed all the rights and benefits ac-
cruing from their obedience TO law. The u
doption of any other rule would be subver-
sion of all good government, aud would be
the offer Of q bounty to the dsprayed and law
less.
What higher claim upon Congress have
those revolutionary people than have the Nor
mons OF Utah, under the lead of Brigham
Young? Yet hat the other day ty AN almost