The weekly Minnesotian. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1852-1858, 1857-04-11
NUMBER 80.
(From the St. Anthony Republican,
Constitutional COnvehtfShl r.

CO0Bt1tut1Ou8I COnV00700I - @
NUMBER L. ssl1t ~ -
AS but little more than two months are
to elapse before this body is to be elected,
it can hardly be deemed premature now to
call attention to it. .. III.
! The first question that presents itself is,
how many members are to be chosen The
Enabling Act seems clearly enough to pro-
vide for just twice as many as there are of
Representatives in our Territorial Legisla-
ture. This would make the number of mem
bers seventy-eight. Some of the St. Paul
newspapers have construed the law differ
emily, and would make the number twice
that of the members of the Territorial Legis-
ture This would make the number one
hundred and eight. 1t is probably less ma
teral achich construction shall be adopted,
than that all should adopt the same construc-
ton. Whichever shall be adopted by Gov.
Medary in his proclamation, will probably
be acquiesced in by all parties.
The next question is, what shall be the
issue in electing these members? We say
unhestatingly, make it strict party vote.
Let the Issue be square and distinct, from
now hcnceforth, between the party Vi free
dom and the party of slavery propagandism.
There can be no middle course He who is
not on the side of freedom, squarely and dis
tictly, is the alder and abettor of the slave
oligarchy.
We earnestly hope that no side issue will
be introduced, to interfere with or to take
the place of this. Indeed, we have heard of
but one question else which is at all likely
to be make test in any part of the Terrific
~, and that is the question of the bounda-
ries of the new State. Ought this to be
made question in the Convention, or at the
election of members of the Convention?
Before the action of Congress, this was
an entirely open question, and no principle
nor policy required its suppression. Is it
SO now, when Congress has by law fixed the
boundaries of the proposed new State2
First: What are the rights of Congress
and of the proposed new State in the mat
ter2 As matter, of pure natural right, I'M
dOubtedly the people-that is, the majoray
Of the people of any communicative the
right to entire sekfgOoe,nmeaat. Minnesota
has the undoubted natural right to fix her
own boundaries, provided they interfere not
with another sovereign community, and to
establish her own government, without a
"why do ye so?'' from any one.
The natural rights however are modified
to some extent by the rights of others
The United States have the right of ?. operty
in large portion of the land now embraced
in Minnesota. The same power has under
the u. S. constitution, power to make all
needful rules and regulations concerning it's
territories. 1t has established of a portion
of the territory of Minnesota, the territory
of Dakota. Minnesota, if bounded on the
North by an East and West line, somewhere
between 450 and 46 Q North latitude, as has
been proposed, reaching from the St. Croix
to the Missouri, would embrace portion of
this new Territory of Dacota. The con-
vention certainly has not the right by the
q. S. constitution thus to appropriate por-
ton Of what Congress has erected into
separate territory. Has it even the natural
right? But
Secondly. Suppose that the convention
would have the natural right to adopt the
East and West dividing line, instead of the
North and South line established bv Con-
eress; would it be advisable to exercise that
right?
Mr.. Rice, Mr.. Douglas, Mr.. Toombs, and
others, supposing Minnesota sure to be
Democratic State, are willing, and even anx-
ious, that she shall be admitted. We pro-
pose, however, that we will elect from MIN
nesota, Republican Senators and Represen-
tatives to Congress. If we accept the boun-
diaries established by the Enabling Act. the
Democratic y majority in Congress have
not even the shadow of an excuse for refius-
ing our admission, whatever our politics.
If, however, we adopt different boundaries,
and knock for admission with Republican
Senators and RepI esentatives, will not the
party in power at once seize the change Of
boundaries as pretext for refusing us ad-
mission? DO we wish, in the present state
of affairs, to be kept out in the cold for one,
two or three years, as the case may be? If
not, let us in our action in forming the State
Government, in all respects conform to the
Enabling Act of Congress.
The right which nature. gives us to estab-
llsh our own boundaries, If contested BIZ the
United States, should be insisted on only ia,
the most pressing emergencies; as in such
case, insisting upon it, would become reco-
laiono'y. Our fathers insisted once upon
similar right, and secured it, in spite Of tTesss
Britain. So, if Congress, with no reason
should for many years arbitrarily refuse to
admit us as State, and should exercise fIes-
potic control over us, against our will. Il
migM become our duty to cut loose and set
upfor ourselves. But in such case we should
run the risk of being hung, if Uncle Sam
should prove too strong for us; George
Washington and the other rebels" would
have been hung, had their undertaking
failed.
But such a contingency need hardly be
supposed. We shall be admitted as State
any how, whatever our boundaries, if our
politics please "the powers that be-" And
we Shall be admitted, whatever our politics.
if we comply in all respects with the Ena-
bling Act. Is it not, then, our true policy
SO to comply, and thus secure a speedy adj
mission into the Union? n