Year: 1859




and rowdies, in New York city, inaugu-
rate violence and mob-law as the order of
the day, it was proper that the State gov
ernment and the State troops should veto
the acts of that majority. When a ma
jority in Utah makes pest house of that
beautiful Territory, it is the duty of the
nation, gently or by force to remove that
cancer from the body polite before it cor
rupts the whole.


The principles of right are above ma
jorities as much as they are above kings.
No man has right to infringe upon them,
and ten thousand men have no more right
than one.


The settlement OF Kansas was an or
ganized expression of this principle. The
majority in Kansas and the majority of
her neighbors were in favor of her enslave-
ment, and by the principles of mod
ern politics she was doomed, and accord
ing to modern ideas of politeness, all who
dissented from her fate should either have
avoided her borders altogether, or come
here to acquiesce in the prevailing senti-
ments. But i'll the face of this sentiment
the pioneers of Kansas planted their prin-
ciples and fixed their homes, determined
that right should outlive the supremacy
of wrong. When violence and wrong
seemed to revel in their triumphs, they
stood unshaken, determined to breast the
storm and never yield till dashed in
pieces. Majorities against them, did not
move them, for they felt that right was
the same whether it stood alone or with
ten thousand at its side. Even had these
majorities for wrong been real, instead of
false and fraudulent, believe they
would have stood firm all the same, and
waited in minority till the fearless advo-
cacy of the right had secured its success.
How much more noble is such position
than that expressed by some of the papers
and politicians of Kansas after the ques-
tion in dispute was practically settled
"We shall labor to make Kansas free
State, for We believe a majority of her
people prefer that state of society,""
or that earlier sentiment, personally,
we prefer that Kansas should be free
State, but are willing to acquiesce in the
decision of the majority, whatever
that may be-" as if the decision of the
majority could change the relations of
right and wrong. But the early pioneers
of Kansas had no such respect for majori-
ties, or We should to-day have been living
under slave laws and institutions. We
owe our freedom to-day to their adherence
to right as such, independent of the num-
Der of its advocates.


We are in great danger of forgetting
this lesson of our earlier history. Now
the ballot-box has changed sides, we are
in danger of adopting the principle against
which we have been contending, making
the decision of the majority the standard
of political duty. Let US guard these old
landmarks, for if we allow them to be
removed we place ourselves at the mercy
of any future rabble that may happen, for
the time being, to gain the ascendency.
Remove not the old landmarks which
your fathers have set.


Another lesson we may read in the past
history of Kansas, and one closely con-
nected with that just noticedis, That it is
better to be defeated than gain success By
compromising ,Oith torong. The pioneers of
Kansas expected defeats. They knew
the principles they came to establish were
unpopular and would meet bitter opposi-
tion. They came prepared to meet that
opposition face to face, with the full
avowal of their principles and aims. Had
they purposed to let the vexed question
alone for future years to settle, they might
have purchased quiet for the country and
influence and position for themselves
But it requires no prophet to foresee the
result. As it was, though repeatedly de-
feated, the moral power of their outspoken
principles was more effective than the
ballot-box and bayonet combined, and
Saally enabled them to wrest both from
Che hands of their foes and turn them
tupon their former possessors. Defeated
integrity was more mighty than victorious
compromise could have been.


~ The great idea of the present is success.
Availability is the watchword of the times.
A mans ability and fitness for position
are not incurred into. Is he honest and
capable were formerly the questions. Is
he available ? is now the sole test of fit
ness. Any man is fit for efice if he can
only get it. A man or party, out of
power, is considered useless to the country.
A mans integrity does his country no
good unless he can send it to Congress.
So he will descend to all kinds of mean
tricks to get there, and when he gets there
he has no integrity to take with him. An
honest man can do more at home, watch
ing the proceedings of members of Con-
gress, than he can by sacrificing his integ-
rity to get in among them. And what is
true of one man is true Of thousand,
and what is true of men is true of parties.
There is more moral power in party's
being defeated for adhering to the right,
than in succeeding by the sacrificing of
the right. There is nothing gained by
sacrificing integrity for influence. There
is greatAope of a country so long as it
has party in its border willing to be de-
feated for the sake of right. But it is
time for patriots to put on sackoloth and
ashas whan oil Dart;as .ro t-,;,- A.. -.