The miners' express. (Dubuque, Iowa) 1849-1854, 1854-05-10
IOWA WHlGGERY DEFINED.


brssha Bill, 10 the abrogation Of the Missouri
Compromise and the pretended Introduction. OF
slavery into Nebraska; the first objection found
ed in determination to perpe,rate palpab'e
wrong to a section Of the country and the second
founded in an absurdity which the laws OF
climate and soil render apparent The wings
Of Iowa take precisely this ground, besides hav'
ing shown their attachment 10 the Abolition
party, by nominating in their February State
Convention for Secretary of State, the recog
nized head Of the Abolition party, Simeon
Waters, and another individual, whose aboli'
tonsm cannot be questioned. With these facts
stareing the editor of the Tribune in the lace,
will he explain TO us the difference between the
whiggery and aboli,ionism Of 1854! Had The
editor of the e Hawkeye" put forth this doc
trine, we should have had nothing 70 say as
his course has been consistent; but it will be
borne in mind, that the editor Of this journal,
stands pretty much alone among the wing jour
mails Of the State, In opposition to the coalition
nominations.
What rational man, disposed to be just and
the justifyer Of a wholesome system of legis'a'
ton, can in his sober moments, deny to the
people of territory, the right to regulate their
domestic concerns The people are sovereign
all power emanates from them; and the simple
change of location from a State, to Territory,
cannot, consistent with the genius Of our ins'i
tutions, abridge their liberties. None deny, not
even the Abolitionists themselves, that the
people have right to introduce or reject slavery
from Territory, when they apply for admission
into the Union as State. If this right is CON
ceded at one period Of their existence a. Ter
ritory, why should it not be conceded at all
periods Of that existence Is there any justice
or sound reasoning in proposition, which con-
fers sovereignty upon the many and withholds
it from the few, or which Gays that sixty thou
sand persons shall possess sovereign powers.
which thirty, forty, or fifty thousand persons
shall not We appeal to the good sense and
candor Of the editor of the Tribune, to give
direct answer to these interrogatories.
But let us take another view Of this subject.
The doctrine Of this government is, that the
people are the governing power, from which all
authority emana,es and that the Union was
formed for purposes Of convenience and mutual
protection. This Union was formed under the
| solemnities Of compact between the old thir-
teen States, the evidence and result of which,
is the constitution under which we have risen to
be mighty nation. This constitution guaran.
! tees to all the States equal rights, in the adj
minissfa,ion of the general government and a
full participation in the benefits to be derived
from it, legislation. The right Of every State
to participate In the benefits of territory, ac-
quired BY the common blood and treasure of the
country, is a. sacred a. the right Of trial by
jury. Its right resulting from sovereignty
founded in the broadcast principles of justice
and canno, be wrested from the people with
| out palpable infringement Of their liberties
holding State into Territory, belonging alike
and equally to all the States, and by the same
Act, to legislate the inhabitants Of slave hold
ing state out Of said Territory, is direct viola
ton of the spiri, and intention Of the constitu-
ton; 10 . partial and unequal Legislation. which
| operates bene6cially upon one section Of the
country and oppressvely upon another; and
strikes the axe deep and fatally into the very
root Of our government. As well might you
contend that given number of persons enter
ing into a compact to till 4 certain peace OF
land for the production of corn or rye, should
be compelled, after division Of the crop was
made, because Z majority # the parties were
Maine Liquor Law advocates, to dispose Of said
corn, or rye, in such manner as that it should
be manufactured into wbiskey; and because such
an unreasonable and unnatural assumption o.
authority should not be listened to, wrest from
the weaker party the property which his labol
and capital had produced. This would be de.
priving the party Of right inherent in the
natural and constitutional liberty Of the citi
zen, upon the plea-whether conscientiously
or dishonesty adop,ed-that to promote the
traffic and use Of ardent spirits 10 wrong in the
sight Of God and man and injurious TO the pros
perity Of the country. In this case, the mer.
will of the majority, assume arbitrarily to en-
force theory Of their own invention whict
destroys all liberty and justice and VIC
lently wrests from the weaker party hi,
rights and bis property. Precisely 20 is it be
tween the North and the South, in the DISPOSE
ton Of Territory, il the Missouri restriction il
perpetuated.
fth;sMissouriC Compromise line is persisted In
the law governing it, should be 90 modified, il
order to make It's benefits equal that all ,errtor,
south Of the line should be slave territory il
perpetuity. This would give the same advan
tsges 10 the South, a. to the North and woul,
be legislation impartial in ito character, if no
beneficial in i,s results.
But, again-what right has the Abolition
party and the .A6olitionixsd whig party, L
assume, that the passage Of the Nebraska Bill
will make Nebraska slave state. Might they
not as well assume that The Lake Superior coun
try would be slave territory: Does not every
sane man in the country know, that it require,
an extreme southern latitude, to make slavery
profitable; that slavery in Virginia, Maryland
Kentucky and Missouri is improbable ant
would have been abolished before this, had j
not been for the unwise, reckless and shameful
abuse Of slave holders BY Northern Ab olitior
lists and that very large preponderance of tn.
emigration to new territory is from then North
Is not the editor Of the Tribune familiar with
the doctrine laid down by the lamented Webs
ter, that tie physical geos,aphy Of Nsbrsska
preetudss the possibility of its becoming slav,
territory and has he no respect for this higt
authority
The editor makes great flourish over ,
speech by Gen. Miilson, NJ. c. from the Nor
folk district, Va, who has recently made Z
speech 10 his constituents on the Nebrasks
question. lie argues from this speech that the
people Of that district are almost unanimoxsl,
oPposedto the measure. Having access to the
said speech, we conclude that the editor Las
drawn largely on his fruitful Imagination. Gen
Millson takes strong gro und in favor Of the
Nebraska Bill, in favor OF tie abrogation Of the
Missouri Compromise line, dec ares that com.
promise unconstitu,ier al, but objects to the
Badger amendment. The Richmond ENQUIRER
/ one of the stronCest Nebraska nanera in tbs