The miners' express. (Dubuque, Iowa) 1849-1854, 1854-09-13
THE PRINCIPLE.

As we have before remarked, there is prin
cipfe involved IN the Nebraska act, that is rea'l
dangerous TO the liberties nf our country, IN.
is the in against which we Republican
| must level our artillery Give but the Sou
the recognition OF this princtpie, aud they vii
make Us welcome to a half dozen N.braskns
This principle atiifms the right Of any S'afe o'
Territory to ojnst as it pieases abomt Sarery
nnd makes The duty of The peopie of the non.
sfdreh0tding States 10 acqutesce Tth sfoftd IN
difference, IN the moral and niti0nat result oJ
such action Let tbs prime Pile be once rec"g
nized, and We defy consistent man to make a
legal objection to the rr.opening of the African
slave trade, or to forbid the Southern 5 ltes
from importing their slaves from Africa at 5 l00
head, instead of buying them in the Virginan
home markets at $I0D0.-Dub. Trib.
This is The second time to our knowledge, that
the Dubuque Tribune, since it passed ou, OF
the editorial charge of Mr.. Fiield, has vent
ured to commit itself upon principle, 50 ,hn,
We might take issue with It. The first was, in
defendingthe murderous mob at Bostoa, in the
case of the Fugitive Slave Burns, and the sec
ond we have in the above paragraph, proposing
to abolish state sovereignty A circu Instance
50 important should not bn allowed to pass un
noticed; and therefore we have dete rmned to
take issue with the editor and Poet, upon the
principle he has laid down.
The editor of the Tribune gives it at his de
liberate opinion, that to acknowledge the SOW.
ereignty of the people in the regulation of their
domestic affairs, in State or Territory, is equi
valent to the tegal recognition Of the African
10 fpoAn IL Ill
bring to bear upon this subject, we can per.
ceive no shadow of parallel between the two
cases. What has the institution of slavery in
the United States, or Legislation upon the
subject, to do with the African Slave trade
The fundamental law of this country provides
for Slavery as it exists in the United States,
while it absolutely prohibits the African Slave
trade and makes it penal offence for any
one to engage in it. In view of this fact then,
how can the editor of the Tribune claim, that
the simple declaration Of the principle of Con.
non Intervention upon the subject of
slavery, is legal recognition and justification
of the African slave trade' He might with as
much propriety claim, that the passage of a
law regulating imports, legaIized and justified
which in time of peace is forbid
den by all civilized nations.
But, perhaps the editor in the plenitude Of
his spirituaiism, pays Difference to " higher
laao' than that devised by human intelligence
than the Constitution. If SO, of course no
argument we might submit, based upon the
would, or could reach him
Before we proceed any further then, we
must ascertain whether in the discussion ot
this question, the Editor recognizes the Consti-
tuition as the law governing the case. If he
does not, the subject is at an end; if he does
then our reply is at hand and we think we
can successfully lay him out to dry.
How stands the editor upon the Constitution,
as compared with the "Mgher lawP" Let us
hear from him.