Marshall County Republican. (Plymouth, Ind.) 1856-1878, 1871-08-03
The Reeve Letter on the N. Y.

or social enjoyment" 1t may not direct
| ly have raised the question of freedom OF
conscience or the exercise of a guaranteed
right in relation to religion but the ques
ton is none the less a guaranteed right
and if permitted in one instance to be VIC
lated, the moral and social relation would
be disturbed; and that liberty which the
Times correspondent wishes 10 secure by
using the power of the government &c
prevent men assembling to celebrate an
anniversary, lest somebody else would be
melted TO mob, would be liberty nc
longer, but rather tame submission To
INSCRIPTIONS law.
Natural liberty consists in doing as one
sees fit without restraint, unless by the
law of nature: but under this law the
weak had no protection against the
strong, hence for the. better protection OF
the weak against the powerful, society
was organized, and when man entered into
the organization, he il is true gave up apart
of his natural Ii ,erty rs the price of SO
valuable purchase, but whatever natural
liberty has not been surrendered for the
benefit of the whole, is yet retained by
the individual What rights are retained :
All that he had by nature except such as
are given up. What rights are given up.
Just such as are stated in the great social
compact and made the subject of positive
law. And every right not taken from the
citizen or person who places himself IN
der the protection of this government re-
tains the same under special guarantee
from the government.
We admit, that low depraved nature
would permit parties to shock the senses
of the refined, but we have advocated no
theory that would permit any such thing.
There is no necessity for V oudouism here
for if we have citizens base enough to ex-
hibit themselves indecently i'm public we
have a positive law 10 suppress it; and if
it be shocking to large number of citi-
Zens to work on the Sabbath day, we
have Il positive law to prevent that The
only safe theory for the preservation OF
American liberty is, that the citizen re-
tains all his natural righ.s, limited only
by positive law that when there is not
law prohibiting an act ii is dangerous fol-
any authority to undertake to suppress
it,unless the republic is endangered by the
act. The Government has positive law
10 suppress mobs, and to punish men foI
melting mobs, but the premise that the
Orangemcn intended to incite To mol
is false, hence the conclusion is false.
Ii is true that he who incilcs to a mob
Is guilty of a crime, and we have positive
law to prevent such an offense, but to be
the inciier of mob the parties must in
tend ii. No person or persons have any
right to bc excited nor melted to commit
crime by any act of another allowed
hi =. by positive law. The Orangemcn
were exercising right allowed them
hence there was no warrant for mob.
Ii m alters not whether the act was Ia
celebrate feud or q foreign victory"
and if this form of reasoning be romance
we are sustained in it by moral and prac-
teal ethics, and also by the fundamental
law But romance sometimes l. the most
forcible manner by which TO impress the
truth, and we trust that the great truth,
that the liberties of all American citizens
native or adopted, are only restrained by
positive law (and that only So far as is
necessary to the general good) be firmly
impressed on every mind
Bnt how runs the form of reasoning by
the Times correspondent. Here is his
syllogism'
lie Who incites 20 a mob is as guilty as
the mob.
The Orangemcn did incite to mob.
Hence he concludes, the Orangemcn are
guilty of the crime.
Now the above conclusion is correct
according to the premises but the premise
being false the conclusion must also be
false.
lie might as well have stated thus &c
arrive AT the truth
All men are white.
Touissant was man.
Hence Touissant was white Yet Touis
SAINT was as black as Egyptian night
If this is the logic we are atlmonishcd
not to attack, we refuse to accept the ad
monition, though brains should knock
ed in romantic manner This Govern
ment has no right, unless in time of war
and the safety of the nation require it, to
prohibit the act of any persons not pro.
hibited by law; and though we expect
this TO conclude the controversy, we yet
defy the logic of any one to explain away
even a single right without being detect
ed by the American people; it matters
not what form of reasoning be adopted
and as we are sustained in ourposition b.
written aw and ethics, we have no fear:
of our romance until law is enacted 70
hibiting the celebration of feuds.