Plymouth Weekly Banner

The Missouri Mobocrats in Kansas.

We are much gratified to see the question mooted, as to whether the Executive is under obligations to interfere with the local or legislative authority of Kansas. If that body was legally constituted, and its members were the legitimate representatives of the actual settlers and bona fide voters of the territory, there would be no difficulty in deciding as to the legality of their acts. President Taylor, in his message to Congress, January 21, 1850, states that the instructions given to the government officers were "that all measures of domestic policy adopted by the people of California must originate solely with themselves;" and that his aim had been to avoid any interference with the election of delegates. Here the true principles of territorial organizations were adhered to; and we presume the present executive still endorses them to the fullest extent; but it is his duty, and it is so conceded by his most zealous organs—the Boston Post as one of the number—that the President is made by the constitution the executor of the laws of the land, yet at the same time they seem to think he has not the right to interfere with the affairs of Kansas as they have heretofore been, and are still managed. Were the members of the Kansas legislature elected by the bona fide voters of the territory, according to "the laws of the land," and in conformity to the spirit and intent of the Kansas Nebraska act? No one pretends to contend affirmatively. Then how can that body as at first organized, act authoritatively and in accordance with the laws of the land? It is simply ridiculous to contend that the President has no right to interfere. If an armed force is necessary to protect the real settlers of Kansas against the brutal and villainous assaults and encroachments of the Missouri mobocrats, it should be promptly furnished, and unless the act organizing these territories is executed in good faith, and in accordance with the spirit which gave it vitality and a living existence at this day, it will prove nothing less than an insufferable humbug and a base imposition. We are devotedly attached to the principle of popular sovereignty, but we will not wear it as a cloak to cover up a swindle of either portion of the Union. But a few days ago, 25 or 30,000 Indianians met in Convention at Indianapolis, and made similar resolves—men too who had favored the passage of the bill; and we doubt not they will live up to them.