Montgomery County sentinel. [volume] (Rockville, Md.) 1855-1974, 1858-02-12
On the 10th july, 1857, Gen. Lane,

VentlOn, undertook, as UOV. w alker H.
forms us, "to organize the whole free
State party into volunteers, and to take
the names of all who refuse enrolment
The protested object is to protect the
polls at the election in August of the new
insurgent Topeka State Legislature. -
"The object of taking the names of all
who refuse enrolment is to terrify the
free-State conservatives into submission
This is proved by recent atrocities COM
mitted on such men by Topekaites. The
speedy location of large bodies of rcgu-
lar troops here, with two batteries. is
necessary. The Lawrence insurgents
await the development of this new revo-
lutionary military organization" &c.
In the Governors despatch of July
9th, he says that "Gcn. Lane and his
staff everywhere deny the authority of
the Territorial laws, and counsel a total
disregard Of these enactments."
Without making further quotations of
a similar character from other dispatches
of Gov. Walker, it appears, by refer
ence to Mr.. Stanton's communication to
Con. Cass, of the 9th December last,
that the important step of calling the
Legislature together was taken after |
he had become satisfied that the election
ordered by the Convention on the Dist
inst. could not be conducted without col
lision and bloodshed. SO intense was
the disloyal feeling among the enemies
of the government established by Con-
gress, that an election which afforded
them an opportunity, if in the majority
of making Kansas free State, accor-
ding to their own protested desire, could
not be conducted without collision and
bloodshed
The truth is, that up till the present
moment the enemies of the existing gov
eminent still adhere to their Topeka rev.
dictionary constitution and government.
The very first paragraph of the message
of Gov. Robinson, dated on the eth of
December, to the Topeka Legislature
now assembled at Lawrence, contains an
open defiance of the Constitution and
laws of the United States. The Gov
ernor says: "The convention which
framed the constitution at Topeka, origi-
mated with the people of Kansas Terri
tory. They have adopted and ratified
the same twice by direct vote, and also
indirectly through two elections of State
officers and members of the State Lcgis-
lature Yet it has pleased the Admin
istration tsxegard tile wnoio proceeding
revolutionary" This Topeka govern
ment, adhered to with such reasonable
pertinacity, is government, in direct
opposition to the existing government,
prescribed and recognized by Congress
1t is usurpation of the same character
as it would be for portion of the people
of any State of the Union to undertake
to establish a separate government within
its limits, for the purpose of redressing
any grievance, real or imaginary, of
which they might complain, against the
legitimate State government. Such a
principle, if carried into execution, would
destroy all lawful authority and produce
universal anarchy.
From this statement of facts, the rea-
son becomes palpable why the enemies
of the government, authorized by Con-
gress, have refused to vote for delegates
to the Kansas Constitutional Convention,
and also afterwards on the question of
slavery submitted by it to the people,
1t is because they have ever refused to
sanction or recognize any other consti-
tuition than that framed at Topeka. Had
the whole Lecompton constitution been
submitted to the people, the adherents Of
this organization would doubtless have
voted against it, because, if successful,
they would thus have removed an obsta-
Gle out of the way of their own rcvolu'
tionary constitution. They would have
done this, not upon consideration of
the merits of the whole or any part of
the Lecompton constitution, but simply
because they have ever resisted the au-
thority of the government authorized by
Congress, from which it cmanatcd.
Such being the unfortunate condition
of affairs in the Territory, what was the
right as well as the duty of the law-abiding
people? Were they silently and patient
ly to submit to the Topeka usurpation,
or adopt the necessary measures to estab-
fish constitution under the authority Of
the organic law of Congress
That this law recognized the right Of
the people of the Territory, without any
enabling act from Congress, to form a
State constitution, is too clear for argu-
ment. For Congress "to leave the peo-
pie of the Territory perfectly free" in
framing their constitution, "to form and
regulate their domestic institutions in
their own way, subject only to the con-
stitution of the United States, and then
to say that they shall not be permitted
to proceed and frame a constitution in
their own way without an express au-
thority from Congress, appears to be al
most contradiction Of terms. 1t would
be much more plausible to contend that
Congress had no power to pass such an
enabling act, than to argue that the peo-
pie of Territory might be kept out of
the Union for an indefinite period, and
until it might please Congress to permit
them to exercise the right Of self-gov-
eminent. This would be to adopt not
"their own way" but the way which
Congress might prescribe.
1t is impossible tina. any people could
have proceeded with more regularity in
the formation Of constitution than the
people of Kansas have done. 1t was ne
cessary, first, to ascertain whether it was
the desire of the people to be relieved
from their Territorial dependence and