The weekly Minnesotian. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1852-1858, 1855-05-19
FRIDAY MORNING, NAY Is. 1855.
Bogus "Popular Sovereignty" Again.


Our neighbor is one of those queer anomalies
we come across occasionally, who sustains the
practice of principle. for the good it works
and denounces the abstract theory, to subserve
political ambition.-Democrat of Tuesday.
Had the application of the above sentence
been made- by us to the editor of the Democrat
the public might have seen some point and
force to it. But coming in the opposite direc,
ton, from him to us, it is simply ridiculous
There is this difference between our neighbor
and ourselves on this question: The Democrat
editor supports the abstract theory Of "pop-
ular sovereignty" IN the Territories. but es-
chews the principle in its most essential partic-
ulars. Sovereignty is defined by the lexicog-
raphers as meaning. supreme power; suprem-
scy; the possession of the highest power, or of
uncomfortable power"
The Democrat would whcedle its readers in
to the belief that the Kansas Nebraska act car
res out in principle, this true definition of SOW
ereignty. The adjective, popular" is prefix.
eed by the deceptive authors of the humbug,
for the purpose of conveying the idea that the
people of Kansas are the real sovereigns by vir-
the of the act organizing the Territory.
Yet, upon examination of the provisions of
the organic act of that Territory, we find that
the vital principle is violated, and that the SOW
erignty is retained by the executive branch of
the national government. The supreme pow
er''-the possession of the highest authority
in the government of the Territory, is vested
in the President of the United States and the
Senate Of the United States, acting in its exec
attire capacity. Kansas cannot say who shall
be her Governor, who shall be her Secretary.
or vino shall be the Judges of her Supreme and
District Courts Here, then. is the popular will
rendered nugatory in the choice of two out of
the three CO ordinate branches of the govern
ment, while the third-the legislative-iss sub
ject to be thwarted in carrying out the wishes
OF the people 10y the veto of creature of the
central executive power. This is popular SOW
ereignty'' as illustrated by the Douglas Fab
stract theory" reduced to the practice Of
principle in the Kansas Nebraska act and
haring as worthy champion in Minnesota the
editor of The Democrat. A more fimsy hum
bug the world has never witnessed.
A Republican member of the last House of
Representatives, moved, when the Nebraska
bill was before that body. to insert a clause
fully carrying out the principle If popular SOW
creignty. The amendment provided that the
people OF the Territories should be authorized
to choose. by popular election, their Govern
or, Secretary and Judges, as well as their Leg
isiators. But Richardson and the other cngi-
naorc IF ho soorroct prir cinlu - flaw in RI tho
face and eyes of the mover and his friends, and
the wholesome amendment was summarly vO-
ted down under the gag of the previous ques-
ton. if we recollect rightly. Popular sover-
eighty" could only 60 so far as to place the
people of Kansas at the mercy of Missouri
mob and no farther.
1t is true, as the Democrat says, that We
have sustained the practice OF the principle
of popular sovereignty in the Territories, and
we expect to be found doing so again whenev-
er occasion may require-even to the full ex-
tent of that principle as contemplated by the
amendment of our Republican friend to the
Nebraska bill. But as we have often said, and
still contend, the violation of a solemn nation
al compact for the base purp sc of allowing
Slavery to supplant Freedom is quite differ,
ent principle. The very essence and spirit of
the principle of popular sovereignty is clearly
violated by the act itself, as has been fully
demonstrated "a thousand times over. The peO-
ple understand this matter thoroughly. and
hence the unanimous outburst Of indignation
which has followed the consummatiOn OF the
treachel Gus deed.