And it is _self-erected_, _self-governed_, _independent_, and _irresponsible_. The truth of these statements, we think, is self-evident in all that we intend, or desire to be understood, by them. The first, certainly, is true. For what authority, independent of its component parts, suggested, or sanctioned it? And the second is equally true. For, where is the power, out of itself, that dictates, or controls, its proceedings? The third and fourth are also true. For what authority will they acknowledge, as competent to call them to account? They are, indeed, responsible to public opinion; but the relation we intend to express, is responsibility to some constituted authority; and in this view our proposition is sustained, so far as their designs are concerned. We presume they do not recognize the right of any known authority to call them to account. We think it fair, therefore, to represent this Society as _self-erected_, _self-governed_, _independent_, and _irresponsible_. So far as our individual opinion is concerned, we do indeed believe and hold, that they are responsible to an authority that is competent to act upon them, when a sense of public duty may require it, and that it is sufferance only that screens the action of this Society from uncomfortable rebuke. But we mean only to assert in our proposition, what we suppose is true: that they do not _hold_ themselves responsible; that there is no constituted, or official, connexion between them and a superior power; and that they consider themselves entitled to carry on the operations in which they are engaged, under their present organization, without check, control, or interference of any authority. Moreover, _there is no such connexion between them and the Government of the country_, as is prescribed by constitutional law to popular assemblages, or associations, for political purposes. There is, indeed, no connexion at all. The government is not even advised of the existence of this society by its own official acts; at least we have never heard of it.