Saint Paul weekly Minnesotian. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1858-1859, 1859-07-16

number, determine definitely the statutes OF
the Territories, and arrogate to themselves
powers more unjust and unconstitutional than
the Missouri Compromise, without its, form of
legality overlooked or Intentionally dis
regarded that part of the Democratic platform
promulgated at Cincinnati in 1856, which re-
iers to popular sovereignty; accurately defines
its meaning, and distinctly points out the
time when the inhabitants of Territory may
exercise it so far as concerns the adoption or
prohibition of the institution of domestic slav-
cry. --.a .-a.-z..f 81. r -gr.aI .
The Constitution in this connection quotes
the resolution from the Cincinnati platform:
"Resoloed, That we recognize the right of
the people of all the Territories, including
Kansas and Nebraska, acting through the le-
gally and fairly will of majority of
actual residents, and wheHeper the number of
their Inhabitants justitaes 1T, to form Con-
stitution aoith or uithout slavery, and be ad-
mitted into the Union upon terms of perfect
equality with the other States"
This language the Constitution holds to be
very clear and farcihle, and it proceeds to
state, that when I" the black line of offensive
discrimination against the Southern members
of the Confederacy THE Missouri Compro-
mise-was forever blotted QUIT was uni
versally understood, even before the Supreme
Court had laid down the law in the case, that
all the Territories were open to the emigration
OF Shareholders with their slaves, and that it
could not be determined whether the Terrific
ry was to be free or slave State, until the
people had acquired State sovereignty, slave
ry existing, of course, in the Territories in
the meantime. This falsehood is stated as
coolly as if it was the truth. The following,
the concluding paragraph Of the article from
which we quote, we commend to the Douglas
Democracy. They may see therein the doc
trine which they must accept as their creed,
or leave the party:
We recommend the unfriendly legisla-
ton" theOrists-who argue that it is the es-
sence of popular sovereignty for Territorial
Legislature, acting under powers derived from
Congress, to exclude or abolish, by direct or
indirect means, property. which is recognized
by the Constitution, and thus exercise pow
er which the authority by which it was crea-
ted does not possess-to read well the plat
form of principles of the party to which they
claim to belong, and particularly that portion
of it to which we have drawn especial atten-
ton, and quoted at length for their benefit
If their peculiar construction of popular SOW
ereignty arises from misconccption or misin-
formation, they will agree with the masses of
the Democratic party who maintain that the
inhabitants of a Territory have the power to
settle tho slavery question at the time of the
formation of the incipient State, and not be-
fore; but if they have originated their pecu-
liar theory for the mischievous purpose Of Gre
ating strife in the ranks of the Democratic
party, and subscribing their own selfish inter-
ests, we cannot expect that truth will convert
them, nor can we wish them any severer or
more isnominious punishment than the con-
tempt with which the intelligent masses of
the people will treat them and their odious
doctrines, and the devotion with which the
great Democratic party will adhere to the Con-
stitutional doctrine of popular sovereignty, as
understood by the people at the passage of
the kansas-Nebraska act, as defined in the
Cincinnati platform, and as interpreted by
President Buchanan in his letter of acceptance
and Inaugural Address