M'arthur Democrat. (McArthur, Vinton County, Ohio) 1853-1865, 1858-01-14


can paper we have observed for long
time. ltPrints aportiop OF Senator
Douglas speech on the Kansas ques-
tion-leaying out the most important
lparl-and praises him for his consiS-
tency in advocating popular sovereign
| ity, but declares that it is opposed TO
Senator Douglas and popular soycr.
eighty. Having strenuously contended
from the beginning that all the laws
of Kansas were JoguS, it now pretends
to be indignant because the President
removed Walker and Stanton for up.
holding those very bogus lawsI Ev.
erybody knows that Walker resigned,
and that Stanton was removed, as the
President thinks, for introducing an.
other clement ofdiscord into the terri.
tory, by calling together the Legisla-
ture, which at once proceeded to enact
the most outrageous iaws--worse, if
possible, than those of the "Border
lsufian" Legislature oftwo years ago.
The Journal, having no faith in its
ABILITY to argue, urrcl- knowing tiFut the
facts are all against it, proceeds to
misrepresept, thus:
"Just what We are complaining Of
But, if he (the PresidenO had no right
to interfere, why did he do it, when
Walker and Stanton were carrying
out the well-knoNn wishes of the peO-
pie of Kansas Why did he chop off
their heads because they were deter.
mined to see that the people were pro
tccted against the borlcs Of outside
Missouri rufians who, BY MeW Me-
gal roteS, made and created this cut
HrOat LecOmptOn Contention ~
Now, we want to know what you
care about the "wcll- known wishes of
the people OF Kansas" when you be,
licvc that Congress has sorereiga par
er over the territory for its govern
ment, and not the people thereof .
How do you know that either Walker
or Stanton, or anybody else, carried
out the "well. known wishes ofthc pco.
pie Of Kansas" by obcying and ex
ecuting laws which you declare to be
bogus and void BY what process
have you ascertained that both Walk
or and Stanton were removed because
they were determined to see that tho
people Of Kansas were protected
against hordcs OF Missouri ruflians ?
Did not the President give instructions
to the effect that the Missourians, and
all others, not bona tide residents,
should not be allowed to vote, and was
not the army placed at the disposal Of
the Governor to carry out these in
structions and preserve the peace Of
the territory9 Your lalsehoodS and
your hypocrisy in regard to these mat
ters, Mr.. Journal, are too apparent to
deceive anybody but the most gullible.
You declare, emphatically, that the
Mis8ourians, by their illegal votes,
created the Lccompton Convention.
AS little respect as we have for that
body, We intend to defend it from that
charge by quoting an authority which
even the Journal, we presume, will
not question. Governor Stanton, in
his message 10 the Free State LegiSla,
ture, declares that all the present diff
ticulties in the territory were brought
about by the refusal ofthe Free State
men to vote for delegates to the Le-
compton Convention, and the Kansas
Herald of Freedom, leading anti
slavery paper, confirms what Stanton
said, in the following:
clad the Free State party consult
ed their best interests, instead of
standing on etiquette, as they did in
june last, they would have pitched
in and elected every delegate to the
Constitutional Convention. Then, if
they had wanted the Topeka Consti-
tuition as their fundamental law, they
could have clothed it with legal sane
tion, so far as appearances are con-
cerned; and now we could have been
half way out Of the wood, instead of
being surrounded with difficulties,
which, at times, seem insurmountable.
1t will be seen by the above, that
it was tie refusal Of the free State
men to uoto that gave the pro-slavery
men the majority in the Convention,
and not the "hordes of Missouri ruff
fans" as asserted by the JOurnal.-
The Herald Of fFeedom declares that
a. Il I L i I