The weekly Minnesotian. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1852-1858, 1854-05-20
THE MINNESOTA N
WEDNESDAY MORNING, NAY II, 1854
Tn. Dubuuue Herald and Nebraska.

The Dubuque Herald and Nebraska.
IT will be born in mind, that some days ago.
we took issue with the editor of the dubuque
Herald upon his somewhat devious course Oh
the Douglass Nebraska bill. He vindicates
himself in late number of his paper, after the
following fashion:
I'VE favor the Nebraska Bill because itrecoS-
nizes the principle that the people are pollitI-
cally sovereign, that the majority may rule
within the limits of the constitution. As to
going back to the first principles, If by this the
Minnesotian means that we have not always
preferred silence on the slavery question III
acts of Congress, it is a mistake we have re-
peatedly expressed ourselves as Deing more IN
favor Of saying nothing ABOUT slavery III tne
Territorial Bill, than to attempt to lcgislate
slavery i'm or out of Territory. We have al
so found fault with the declaratory phrase in
the Senate Nebraska Bill, which assumes and
declares that the Compromise act of 1920 was
superceded and made void by the Compromise
of 1851, not because it may not be so, but be-
cause it is not the business of Congress to de-
clare it, even if it be true i'm law or in fact
But notwithstanding these objections, we are
for the Nebraska Bill, simply, because it rccog-
nizes the constitutional and equal right of the
people of the several States of this Union to
migrate to Nebraska, subject only to such re-
strictions as may be imposed upon them by
the laws of the Territory, and iftherc be no To-
cal law. then subject only to the laws of the
United States and the Constitution of the same.
But it may be said that the laws of the United
States can be so enacted as to subject the citi-
zens Of slave states, migrating to Nebraska, to
such conditions as will virtually prevent them
from locating in that territory. This is the
question at issue precisely, whether such laws
can or cannot be constitutionally passed. We
believe that they cannot, and if they could.
that they ought not, for the simple reason that
the Territory belongs rs much to the South as
it does to the North Silence on the subject OF
slavery in the Territorial Bills would as effect
ually leave it to the people, where we think it
ought to be left to determine, whether slavery
should or should not exist, as the incorpora-
tion to the bill Of declaration of the peoples
rights to regulate their own affals'
There is not after all, any great difference of
opinion between the Herald and ourselves upon
the manner in which this exciting subject
should be treated in the organic acts ofNebras-
ka and Kansas, but as to the after results we
are widely apart. lie has not come up to the
point at issue. We enquircd of him, if he
thought slaves could really be held in Min
nesota, under our organic act, silent, as tits,
upon the subject. In part of his article which
we have not copied, he says he is not in favor
of slavery in Minnesota, but does not answer
the question propoundcd.
Now, that thing Of keeping the bill at pres
ent before the country entirely silent upon the
subject of slavery, is just what the great mass
ofits opponents have been contcnding for all
the while. They arc generally willing to al
low the question to go to the courts, as to
whether the Missouri Compromise has ever
been repealed. They wish Nebraska and Kan
sas to stand upon the same level as that por-
ton of Minnesota west of the Mississippi, shield
cd by that Compromise. The Herald thinks,
If the bill were silent upon the subject entirely,
the people could hereafter decide whether they
would allow slavery Or not; VIC think such 81
lence would forever prohibit slavery in those
Territories as it must in Minnesota. At all
events, if the powers at Washington will only
consent to this say-nothng policy, the oppo-
nents of the Douglass bill are willing to risk
the result and go for the organization of the
Territories forthwith. But will the Herald an
swcr our question, and tell us whether he be-
licvcs really, that the people of Minnesota have
tin their power to legally introduce slavery in
to that part of our Territory which was former
ly, like Iowa, Nebraska, &c. portion of Louis
lana and is covered by the Missouri Comprom-
Use?
This talk Of allowing the people of the Ter
ritories TO regulate their internal affairs has
been demonstrated to be the most hollow
hearted piece of dcmagogism connected with
the Nebraska swindle. If douglass and his
gang are sincere in these views, why do they
not carry them out to their full extent. Why
are we OF Minnesota ruled by Governors, Sec
retaries, &c, sent from abroad with all the
paraphernala of Eastern Satraps or Roman
Consuls, pro-COnsuls and Tctrarchs. PERHAPS
there might be some changes up here in Min
nesota, ifthe doctrine of .'Squattcr Sovereign
ty' could be fully carried out.