The weekly Minnesotian. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1852-1858, 1854-11-25
TUESDAY MORNING. NOVEMBER 21, 1854
Effect & the Repeal Of the Missouri Comprom-
ise upon the ''OId Louisiaaa" Portion Of Min.


Effect e the Repeal Of the Missouri Comprom-
ise upon the sold Louisiaaa, Portion Of Min
hesota.
The Mnnesotian expresses fears thut colo
ny of Nirgnians will emgrate to Minnesota
with their slaves. Well. suppose they do does
the Minnesotian believe that slavery will gain
a foot-hold in our Territory; Suppose :'the
leaders of the Administration in the Territory
dare not oppose the movement what then
Will not the people take the matter into their
own hands ?-Times.
The Douglas Southern argument upon this
head is, that Slavery existed by law in that
portion of Minnesota Territory situated west
OF the Mississippi River at the time it passed
from France into the possession Of the United
States; that the Missouri Compromise inter
dicted Slavery in the old Louisiana Territory
north of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes, but
that said interdicton is now repealed by the
Nebraska Kansas law, by which act that por-
ton of Minnesota once portion OF Louisiana,
is again brought to the same footing it stood
upon when the United States acquired it by
treaty from Napoleon Bonaparte in the year
1903. We have not heard this argument di-
rectly applied to Minnesota but it has been
applied to portions of the Louisiana purchase
included within Nebraska. Immediately west
OF Minnesota, and separated from us only by
the Missouri river. and of course, if it holds
good there, it must also hold good in the Lou
lslana acquisition now part Of Minnesota
There is more force in this new legal tack of
Southern politicians to propagate their "pecu-
liar institution" than in the bold doctrine of
Calhoun, that Slavery was national institu-
tion, and had right to plant itself in any new
Territory without the previous sanction of law.
So far as Minnesota is concerned, the Southern
reasoning would run thus: The organic act
ofyour Territory does not prohibit Slavery; it is
true it was passe;! at time when the Missouri
Compromise prevented Slavery being car
ried within your borders but that act is now
repealed the repeal is subsequent act to the
organic act, and must take precedence of any
implied intent which Congress might have had
at the time of the passage Of your organic act.
Now, let US get up a case We will presume
that the rumor which we heard from certain
quarter on the West side of the river, proves
true. Mr.. F. F. v. Smith. for example, comes
on next spring from the wheat growing region
of Virginia with five strapping "human chat
tells" and sets them at their old occupation in
the Valley of Root river-consdered about the
best country for wheat growing in Minnesota
Smith takes section of land to operate upon
and when the farm commences to look pros
perously, Smiths neighbors hailing from
Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts,, &C., begin to
enquire into matters. Neighbor Jones asks
"How much do you pay those 'darkies' a
month ~ ''O,' says Smith, Il only clothe and
feed them-they are my slares." Jones is
thundcrstruck "What Slavery in Minneso-
ta!" And the fact is soon known to every
settler in Houston County. "The people have
taken the matter into their own hands, as the
Times suggests they will, should such an out
rage happen upon Minnesota soil.
Well, Mr.. F. F. V. Smith has his "niggers"
run off by Jones and neighbors. The matter
comes into court before any of our Judges. The
Judges may all be upright and honorable men.
but the lac point rests upon the single hair as
to whether the repeal of the Missouri Comprom-
isc does or does not place the institution of Sla-
very upon the same footing in the Louisiana por-
ton of Minnesota that it occupied prior to the
enactment of the Compromise. The Executive
power of the nation, as at present constituted,
holds that it does. and the Judges of Minnesota
are removable at the will of the Executive as
precedent here has shown. We intend no dis
| respect to our Judiciary. and do not suppose
for moment any one of the Judges would
make decision conscentiously wrong to hold
place Of thrice the pay and emoluments.-
But the color of legal right in the supposed
case would certainly be on Mr.. Smiths side.
as the law is construed by the powers that be,
and he would be very apt to recover his slaves,
or damages
And thus comes in forcible illustration of
the humbug which has been attempted to be
practised upon the people in regard to the
Douglas doctrine of popular sovereignty in the
Territories The law which gives back to Mr..
Smith his slaves is a law of Congress, and be-
yOnd the reach of the people of the Territory.
They could have no voice in enacting it. and
can have none in annulling it. The Court
which remands these human beings back to
slavery is a tribunal also created by the Ma
tional Legislature, and entirely beyond the
reach Of the people of the Territory. How,
then. would the Times have the people of the
Territory "takc the matter into their own
hands?' By mob violence? We can see no
other way.
We have no very great fears that slavery will
ever gain foot-hold in Minnesota as a State
institution. Should a thousand slaves be held
within our borders while we are Territory,
they might all have to be carried back to Old
Virginia." or some other genial quarter, after
the formation Of our State Constitution. But,
under our present rulers, We believe slavery
can exist west of the Mississippi while We are
Territory and until the Missouri Compromise
is re-enacted, it would be sustained by the pre-
sent regime.
| And here rests one of the great and cardinal