, 1858-04-02

organize the whole free state party into vol
unteers, and to take the names Of all who
refused enrolment. The proposed object
was to protect the polls at the election il
August of new insurgent Topeka state
legislature The object in taking the names
of all who refused enrolment is to terrify
the free state conservatives into submission
This is proved by the recent atrocities com
mitted on such men by the Topckaites.-
The speedy location of large bodies of reg
ular troops here with two batteries is nee
essary.
The Lawrence insurgents await the dc
velopment of this new military organiza
tion. In the governors dispatch of the
9th be says-"Lane and his staff every
where deny the authority of the territorial
laws, and counsel total disregard Of these
enactments." Without making any further
quotations Of a similar character from 9th
er dispatches of Gov Walker, it appears
by reference to Secretary Stantou's com
munication to Gen Cass, 9th December
last, that the important step of calling the
legislature together was taken after Gov.
Walker had become satisfied that the eee.
ton ordered by the convention on the 2lst
inst could not be conducted without coils
ion and bloodshed
So intense was the dsloyal feeling among
the enemies Of the government established
by congress, that an election which afford.
ed them opportunities, il in the majority,
Of making Kansas free state, according
to their own professed desire, could not be
conducted without collision and bloodshed
The truth is, that till the present moment,
the enemies of the existing government still
adhere to their Topeka revolutionary gov.
ernment.
The very first paragraph Of the message
of Gov Robinson, dated 7th Dec, to the
Topeka legislature now assembled at Law
renee, contains an open defiance of the laws
and constitution Of the United States.
The governor says that the convention
which framed the Topeka constitution, or
iginated with the people Of the Kansas
Territory They have adopted and ratified
the same twice by direct vote, also indi-
rectly through the election of state officers
and members of the state legislature. Yet
it has pleased the administration to regard
the whole proceeding as revolutionary.
The Topeka government adhered to with
such reasonable pertinacity is govern
ment in direct opposition to the govern
mont as presented and recognized by con.
gress. 1t is usurpation of the same char
acter as it would be for portion of the
people of any state to undertake to estab-
lish separate government within its limits
for the purpose of redressing any grievance,
real Or imaginary, Of which they might
complain against the legitimate state gov
ernment Such principle, if carried into
existence, would destroy all lawful authori-
ty and produce universal anarchy.
From this statement of facts the reason
becomes palpable. The enemies of the
government authorized by congress, have
refused to vote for the delegates to the
Kansas constitaiional convention, and also,
afterwards, on the question Of slavery sub
mitted by it to the people. 1t is because
they have ever refused to sanction or rec
ognize any other constitution than that
framed at Topeka. Had the whole lie
compton constitution been submitted to the
people, the adherenls of this organization
would doubtless have voted against it, be-
cause if successful they would then have re-
moved the obstacles out of the way OF
their own revolutionary constitution. They
would have done this, not upon the consid-
Grafton of the merits Of the whole or part
of the Lecempton constitution, but simply
because they have ever resisted the author
ity of the government authorized by con-
gress from which it emanaIed,
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 patiently
to submit to the Topeka usurpation, or to
adopt the necessary measures to establish
q constitution under the authority of the
organic law Of congress?
That this law recognized the right of the
territory without an enabling act of con-
gress to form a state constitution, is too
clear for argument. For congress to leave
the people Of the territory perfectly free in
framing their constitution to form and reg
ulate their domestic institutions in their
own way, subject only to the constitution
of the United States, and then to say that
they should not be permitted to proceed
and frame the constitution in. their own
way, without express authority from con.
gress, appears to be almost contradiction
CT terms. 1t would be much more plausi-
bic to contend that congress had no power
to pass such an enabling act, than to argue
that the people of territory might be
kept out Of the Union for an indefinite
period, and till it might please congress to
permit them to exercise the right of self.
government. This would be to adopt not
their own way, but the way which congress
might prescribe.
1t is impossible that any people could
have proceeded with more regularity in the
formation Of q constitution than the people
of Kansas have done. 1t was necessary to
FIRST ascertain whether it was the desire oI
the people to be relieved from territorial
dependence, and establish u state govern
,,,nnt Eor thi- t,urnoca tho tarr;tor,ol Loo