Burlington free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1827-1865, 1854-04-07
ll)eeItlp free Dress.
The Sentinel and the Peoples Rights.
BURLINGTON, FRIDAY, APRIL :, 1854

The Sentinel and the Peoples Rights.
Just now the Sentinel reminds US of an
answer given by one who was asked what sort
of man a certain noshbor, very fair spoken
but rather slippery in his dealings, was
Why, Godward," said he, {" tho man is
very well, but MAYNARD he is a little tr'st,-
eo1."
The Sentinel is mainly a courteous and
PLEASANT neighbor, and if it is little twisti-
cal now and then in the way Of political
deal, we suppose allowances ought to be
made. Little oblisuities we should give no
heed to but its last number displays such
decided kinks, that we mutt do something to
straighten it out,
Its chief article is headed " The Peoples
Rights - and its ostensible purpose is to
demolish our leader Of March LIST. In that
we said that the few journals in the free
States which favor Mr.. Douglass bill. avoid
plain discussion of the points of the case,
but have great deal to say about letting the
people decide for themselves what sort OF
institutions they will have. The Sentinel
denies that, 50 far as its knowledge of demo
cratic papers goes, but asserts it Of the Wing
papers, and says They have studiously
endeavored to keep tho only point in the case
as far out of sight as possible"
We thought it possible, ALSO that some
Of the papers referred to by. us, were sat
isfed with thoir own argument, though
we doubted it Of all. We did not aim
-, ~,
in particular. Our remark was a general
one, and We see no need to alter it yet
Every paper coming within its scope, may
take for itself just as much ms it feels to be
its due and no more. The charge Of false
hood which the Sentinel makes against Wing
papers, in what they may have said about
Mr. Douglass bill, each one Of them is also
AT liberty to admit. as far as it sees proper.
For ourselves we take not particle Of it.
We hadn paragraph on the point that slave
y could not 50 into any state where it WAS
not already sustained by the law of the State,
and .aid the STAKEHOLDER is to be allowed to 60
into the territory with his slaves, and to car
ry all his rights and privileges as a sayehold-
er with him. Ciherrise he ,rou'd not take
them, unless he U,fendc9 10 make then, free By
siGt act The Senhnei quotes the first clause,
and asks " How is he 10 be thus allowed
What law or what section Of the Nebraska
lill authorizes a stakeholder to carry all his
rights and privileges into the territory -
And then it goes of for n half column to
prove Just phdt ire said in the last clause,
which it took care not to quote. Further Oh
it gives that very satisfactory reason why
slavobollers did not 20 to California and the
other free territories, because thers was no
law there to hold their slaves under! There
certainly was no need of such display OF
argument from the Sentinel To establish our
ON r,,.c Of the ctso,
II WIS not the object nf our remarks to
lgscrt OF to prove that the oppressed aim Of the
hi was 10 give the 7lNvchuler the siyilcge
sb,ve spoken Of, aud that evident to
ev ~ reader of our article, tie SsnhHd
anon. the rest That such is the m'caton Of
tie oriGinators and abetturs Of the scheme in
Congress, think beyond serious question
But the ScHnpel means to have its opinion
taken 10 be that no such Consequence" will fol.
that in its innocence, it supposos this great
effort Of Shareholders to get the restrictive
clause Of the act of 1890 repealcd, is made to
have til smeelvcs left just where they are nou,
VIZ, 9c5arred from holding slaves in Nebraska
and Kanzas
We conclude, though the Sentinel does not
ely 50 in terms, that it is Mr.. Badger 6
amendment (put into the bill by the bye,
after our article was printed) that makes the
Bill such harmless ahlir in its eyes, and
leaves The new territories in the same relation
u existing slavery that Of the free states
viz, such, that a stakeholder taking his slaves
into them, must, ipso facto, make them free
men. II the Sentinel believes that, it is more
than the Southern advocates Of the repeal OF
the compromise act believe, IL tAo S..,rei
does not know that the Southern doctrine has
hoCn, that the slaveholder has by Unphcation
it no: by express terms, in the Constitution,
and in the treaty wl,t France, Alright to carry
his slaves with him as sGges into the TerritJ-
rics where slavery 10 not eJpresslY inhibited
and TINT it was not so inhibited in the terrific.
ny acquired from France, except by the act Of
1920, it will do well to extend the range oil
its political reading.
Why Mr.. Badger himself argued for tht
repeal d! the restrictive clause Of 1920, becous
the Slavoholder could not take his slaves, t,
whom he might be ever 30 much attached, no
oy tie nurse of his childhood, whom he still
called " nanny" into the territory Mr.
Wade stated the difficulty more truly as bein.
not that he could not tdts the old woIna,
there, but that he could not be allowed t., sci
hcf when he got her there Was Mr.. Badge
such io)l as to bring into the bill an amend
mont on purpose to destroy the very obiec
" ioN he wished to attain by the repeal
he" is Mr.. Badgers amendment Pro
Nt1d that nothing herein contained shall b
construed to revive or put in force any regu
la-ion which may have existed prior to tn
act Of 9th Of Nlrc3, 100, ci...r Protect
ing, prohibiting, esta lisAing, Or aLolishin
slavery and it has as smooth look as
cats foot when the claws are kept out {