The weekly Minnesotian. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1852-1858, 1857-04-11
NUMBER 80. ,s, z,
. sgJatcoo ~
(From the st. Anthony RepubfesnsJ
Constitutional ConvSGfaEig gs
NUMBER /

constitutional ConvSGSsEkgssis 81
. -..s NUMBER 1.-ro ssJgf ~ y
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. tstls zse- -i.et 90
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
terial aohich 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
unhesitatingly, make it strict party vote.
Let the issne be square and distinct, from
now henceforth, between the party of 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. .t... --
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
ry, 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 Oonvention2f ID
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 t.
First: What are the rights of Congress
and of the proposed new State in the mat
ter? As matter. of pure natural right, un-
doubtedly the people-that is, the majority
Of the people of any communicative the
right to entire se!fgOuznment. 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
"why do ye so?'' from any one. aar
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 its
territories. 1t has established of portion
of the territory of Minnesota, the territory
of Dakota. Minnesota, if bounded on the
North by an East and West line, somewhere
between 45o 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
U. S. constitution thus to appropriate por-
ton of what Congress has erected into q
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 by Con-
gress would it be advisable to exercise that
right?
Mr.. Rice, Mr.. Douglas, Mr.. Toombs, and
others, supposing Minnesota sure to be q
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-
daries established by the Enabling Act. the
Democratic [! majority in Congress have
not even the shadow of an excuse for refus-
ing our admission, whatever our politics.
If, however, we adopt different boundaries.
and knock for admission with Republican
Senators and representatives, 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 T? II
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-
lish our own boundaries, If contested bv the
United States, should be insisted on only in
the most pressing emergencies, as in such
case, insisting upon it, would become seuo-
haiona'y. Our fathers insisted once upon Z
similar right, and secured it, in spite Of dfsss
Britain. SO, If Congress, with no reason.
should for many years arbitrarily refuse to
admit us as State, and should exercise des-
potic control over us, against our will. it
m'yM 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 rebelsn would
have been hung, had their undertaking
failed.
But such contingency need hardly be
supposed. We shall be admitted as q State
any how, whatever our boundaries, if our
politics please "the powers that be.n 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 policv
SO to comply, and thus secure a speedy ad-
mission into the Union? n