Semi-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1853-18??, 1856-12-06

and peaceful limits but which attempted 1ndlrecty
what few men were Wiling dos that Is, !
Of Of nearly one half Of the thirty one States.
In the long series Of acts Of indirect aggression,
the first was the strenuous agitation, by citizens OF
the Northern States in Congress and out OF i, oil
the question of negro emancipation in the Southern
States. $50
The second step in this path Of evil consisted OF
acts of the people of the Northern States, and IN
several instances, of thor governments aimed to ia
ciitate the escape ofpersons held to service IN the
Southern States, and to prevent their extradltion
when reclaimed according to law and IN virtue OF
express provisions of the Constitution. To promote
this object legislative enactments and other means
were adopted to take away or defeat rights, WINCH
the Constitution solemnly guaranteed. In orocn W.
nullify the then existing act of Congress concerning
the extradon of fugitives from service, laws were
enacted in many States forbiddng their oi1cers un'
der the scverest penalties to participate IN the exc
cution of any act of Congress whatever IN th's way
that system of harmonious cooperation Det"een
the authorities of the United States and OF the sew
era States for the maintenance OF their common IN
st;tutions which existed in the early years OF the
Republic. was destroyed; conflicts OF jurisdiction
came to be FREQUENT and Congress found itself COM
yelled for the support of the Constitution and the
yindication of its power, to authorize the appoint.
mcnt of new officers charged with the execution OF
its acts rs if they and the officers OF the States
"
ments in state of mutual hostility rather than the
fellow magistrates of common country, peacefully
subsistng under the protection of one we'll constitu-
ted Union. Thus here, also, aggression was fol-
lowed by reaction and the attacks upon the Constl
tuition at this point did but serve to raise up new
barriers for its defence and security.
The third stage of this unhappy sectional contro.
versy was III connexion with the organization OF
territorial governments, and the admission OF new
States into the Union. When it was proposed to
admit the State of Maine, by separation OF territory
from that of Massachusetts, and the State Of Missou
ri. formed of portion of the territory coded by
France to the United States representatives in Con-
eress objected to the admission of the latter, unless
with conditions suited to particular views of public
policy. The imposition of such condition was
successfully resisted. But, at the PERIOD the
question was presented of imposing restrictions up
on the residue of the territory coded by France
That question was, for the time, disposed of by the
adoption of geographical line of limitation.
In this connexion it should not be forgotten that
France, of her own accord resolved, for conside,a
tons of the most arsighted sagacty, to cede Lou
isiana to the United States and that accession was
accepted by the United States the latter expressly
engaging that the inhabitants of the coded terrific
~ shall be incorporated in the Union of the United
States and admitted soon as possible, according
to the principles of the Federal Constitution the
enjoyment of all the rights, advantages and imnu-
mites of citizens of the United States; and in the
meantime they shall be maintained and protected in
the free enjoyment of their liberty, property, and
the religion which they profess'-that is to say,
while it remains in territorial condition. its nhab-
joyment Of their liberty and property, with right
then to pass into the conditi, of States foot
ing of perfect equality with the original States.
The enactment which established the restrictive
geographical line acquesced in rather than ap.
proved by the States of the Union 1t stood on the
statute-book, however, for a number of years; and
the people of the respective States acquesced in the
re-enacment of the principle as applied to the State
of Texas and it was proposed to acquiesce in its
further application to the territory acquired by the
United States from Mexico. But this proposition
was successfully resisted by the representatives Of
the Northern States who, regardless of the statute
line insisted upon applying restriction to the new
thereby repeating it legislative compromise, and
the part of the North, persistenty violating the
compact if compact there was.
Thereupon this enactment ceased to have binding
virtue in any sense whether as respects the North
or the South and SO in effect it treated the
occasion of the admission of the State of California
and the organization of the Territories of NcwMex
leo, Utah and Washington.
Such was the state of this question, when the
time arrived for the organization of the Territories
of Kansas and Nebraska. In the progress of con-
stitutional inquiry and reflection, it had now at
length come to be seen clearly that Congress does
not possess constitutional power to impose restrc-
tons of this character upon any present future
State of the Union. In a long series ofdecisions,
on the fullest argument, and after the most deber.
ate consideration, the Supreme Court of the United
States had finally determined this point in every
form under which the question could arise, whether
as affecting public or private rgh.s-in questions OF
the public domain of religion, of navigation, and OF
servitude.
The several States of the Union are, BY force Of
the Constitution, co-equaI in domestic legislative
power. Congress cannot change q law of domes.
tic relation in the State of Maine; no more car
it in the State of Missouri. Any statute which
proposes to do this is mere nullity; it takes away
no right it coners none. It remains on the statute
book unrepealed, it remains there only as monu
ment Of error, and beacon of warning to the leg
islator and the statesman. To repeal it will be only
to remove imperfecton from the statutes, without
affecting, either in the sense of permission or o
prohibition, the action of the States, or of ths;. ct
/ zens.
Still, when the nominal restriction of this nature
already dead letter in law, was in terms repealed
by the last Congress, in clause of the act orean
zing the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska, thai
repeal was made the occasion of widespread and
dangerous agitation.
1t was alleged that the original enactment bein,
compact of perpetual moral obligation its repea
constituted an odious breach of faith.
An act of Congress, while it remains unrepealed
more especially if it be constitutionay valid in tn,
judgment of those public functionares whose duty
it is to pronounce on that point, is undoubtedl,
binding on the conscience of each good citizen o
the Republic. But in what sense can it be asserted
that the enactment in question was invested will
perpetuty, and entitled to the respect of solemn
! compact? Between whom was the compact? N,
distinct contending powers of the government, nc
separate sections of the Union, treating as such
entered into treaty stipulatiens on the subject.
was mere clause of an act of Congress, and lik
any other controverted matter of legislation, recey
ed its final shape, and was passed by compromise o
the conflicting opinions sentiments of the mem
bers of Congress. But if it had moral authorit