Minnesota weekly times. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1854-1859, 1857-04-04

L. M. FgLLRRroN, Esq,-Dea, Sr,-Your letter
in the Pioneer of March 9th, in reply to mine in
the Times of the Goth, has been carefully perused
but 6rd little in it worthy of my special atten-
ton. Had you simply given it as your opinion
"that under the law Of the United States colored
persons are not citizens, and consequently are not
pre-emptors," then there would have been no oc-
casion for reply from me, but when you step
out Of your way to slur those who advocate the
rights of Humanity-when you gloat over the un-
righteous decision of the Five Shareholders of
the United States Supreme Court--when you
bury all your finer feelings in the mud-pool of
politics and disgrace your calling as Minister
OF God--when you throw your influence and the
influence of your position in the scale of Slavery
in order to outweigh Liberty-when you treat
the Declaration of Independence as mere foot
ball, to be kicked about at your leisure-when
you ignore the teachings of Christ, smother the
best promptings of the heart and 'scrush outs
every noble aspiration for Freedom on the part of
the colored men-when sir, you give me to under
stand that the clash of their chains would be mu-
sic to your ears--that this is not free country,
but blasphemous and damnable abortion, then
do consider myself fully justified in tearing off
the Aimsy covering that hides your hypocrisy and
placing you fairly before the public gaze. re-
peat, had you simply called "Inquirer's'' atten-
tion or my own, to the fact, that seven of the
nine judges of the United States Supreme
Court had "decided that your opinion was
correct" without exhibiting q .fendiah delight
that such a decision had been made, should
have passed your letter by without comment, but
the exultation with which you treated that decis-
ion-the manifest JOY at your triumph, and the
triumph of the Slavery OIigarchy, coupled with
the appant allusion to ssInquirer," was sufficient
evidence to my mind, and would be to the mind
OF any reasonable man, that you sympathize if
not fully and emphatcally uphold the Institution
OF Slavery. Now, sir, let me ask, "Are you not
an advocate of Slavery? Do you not approve
OF the late decision Of the Judges of the United
States Supreme Courtp Do you not believe that
it would be wrong to allow s'persons of African
descent" to become citizens of the United
States?" Until these questions are answered you
will allow me to entertain the belief, formed from
your previous letters, that have not done you
injustice in placing you among the defenders of
an institution at variance with the word of God
and antagonistic to every law of nature.
In my last reply to you chose such language
as would best convey the tone and scope of your
letter. That letter was "pedantic," "exultant,"
"boastful" and s'triviaP' in its character, and If
in the employment of these words, to give it's
meaning, have given you offence, have only to
say, it was not intended on my part, but legit-
innate result Of well digested provocation. In
conclusion you state, that MIR. McClelland's reply
to Mr.. Lawrence was based uron the sentence of
that gentleman which is as follows ssSir,-I
am q citizen Of the United States, of African de-
SCENT" leaving the reader to infer that Mr.. Nc
Clelland, taking it for granted that Mr.. Lawrence
sras citizen of the United States, at once deci-
ded that he had the right of pre-emption. But
this is not the point. Mr.. MoClelland states ex-
plictly-" that there is nothing in the laws of the
"United States which could prevent you, as
/" free man, of African descent, from settling
upon public land in the Territory of Minneso-
"ta, and acquiring right of presumption"
You decided or gave it as your 'opinion" that
there was--seven Slave-holding Judges of the Su-
preme Court upheld you in that "opinion," and
as "6nals'' you speedily informed ''Inquirer"
and myself Of the result in a spirit which smack
ed more Of exultatien than either regret or hu-
initiation. cannot reconcile such q spirit with
your former ministerial career and am still forced
to the conclusion that your love for Office and
your love for party paramount to your love for
God or your love for Humanity.
am, Sir,
Respectfully Yours,
THOMAS M. NEwsoN.