Kenosha tribune & telegraph. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1856-1859, 1856-12-11

strates Of common country, peacefully subsist-
ing under the protection of one well constituted
union. Thus here also, aggression was follow
ed by reaction, and the attacks upon the con-
stitution at this point did but serve to raise new
barriers for its defence and security.
The third stage this unhappy sectional canirovs
In connection with the Organization Of territorial
msnts, and the ADHESION OF sates into tie Union
When il proposed admitthe State Of rane by sep
aration territory that Of hassacS nse and the
State OF Missouri formed out of portion of the territory
ceded by France TO the United sate in
Congress objected 20 the admission Of the latter unless
with conditions suited 20 pariicuis views public policy
The imposition of such cond successfully
ed but At the period. th question proposed
Imposing restrictions be residue Of the territory ced
ed France That quest was for the time disposed
by the adoption OF gr ographba line Of limitation II
his connection shouS not be forgotten that France
her accord reso' ed for considerations of the most fa
sighted sagacity to eede Louisiana 70 the United States
that eession was accepted by tn United States. The lat
ter expressly ngagsd that inhabitants Of esded TERRITORY
should DC Incorporated into the Union Of the United States
and admitted possible according to the princi
piss OF us Federal Constitution TO the enjoyment OF all III
rights advantages and mmunes OF citizens Of the Unte'
states sn in the meantime they should be ant
projected in the free enjoyment Of their liberty properly
Ald the religion which they prefessed. -
That is to say, while It remained in territorial condition
its inhabitants maintained and protected IN the ire
free enjoyment Of their liberty and property with RICH
thence pass the condition Of States on footing
perfect equality with the origin states the enactmen
which established restrictive geographical line
quesced than approved by the States Of the Union
II stood ON the statute book however, for number
years. people OF the respective States acquiesee
in the resnacten of the principle applied TO the Stat
Of Texas, and was proposed acquesce its further ap
plcston to the Territory acquired by the United State
from Mexico but this proposition successfully
by the representatives Of the Nshern States who regard
less statute line Unlisted applying restriction to tn
territory generally whether lying North South OF
thereby repeairg egs y'iye compromise and on tn
part OK the North persstenty sapg the compact fcom
pact there
Thereupon; this enactment sed have binding vrtu
in sense whether the North the South
and effect il treated The occasion OF the admis
sion OF the State Of CALIFORNIA; and the organization OF tb
Territories II New Mexico, Utah and Washington, Sucl
was the state OF this question whe the time arrived for tn
territories Of Kansas and Nebraska Ia the progress
constitutional inquiry and reflection, It had eng
be clearly that Congress does possess
ttuona power impose ofthis character
n any present future State III the Union.
In a long series of decis ions on tho fullest ar
gument, and after the mes; deliberate consider
alton, the Supreme Court of the United States
had finally determined thi point in every form
under which tho question could arise, whether
affecting public or private rights, or question.
o. the public domain or religion, navigation OF
of servitude The several States Of the Union
are by force of the Constitution, coequal in DO
nestle legislative power, Congress cannot
change law of domestic relation in the State oil
Maine; no more can it in the State of Missouri.
Any statute which proposes to do this is a
mere nullityi it takes away no right-it coHfers
nCne-if it remains on tie statute book unre.
pealed it remains there only as a monument OF
error, and a beacon ofwarning to the legislator
and the statesman; to repeal it will be only to re-
move impereclion from the statutes without af-
fecting either il the sense of permission OF
prohibition, the action of tho States or of their
citizens. Still whea the nominal restriction OF
this nature, already dead letter in law, was re-
pealed by the last Congress, in clause of the
Act organizing the Territories of Kansas and Ne
braska, that repeal was made the occasion OF a
wide Pread and dangerous agitation.
1t was alleged that the original enactment be-
ing a compact OF perpetual moral obligation, its
repeal constituted an obvious breach of faith
An act of Congress while i. is unrepealed, more
especially if it be constitutonally valid in the
Judgment of those public functionaries, whose
duty il is to pr )nounce on that point. is I'M
binding on the conscience of each
good citizen of the Republic; but in what sense
can it be asserted that tho enactment in question
was invested with perpetuity, and entitled to the
respect of a solemn compact Between whom
was the compact No distinct contracting powers
of the gOvernmsnt-no separate sections of the
Union, treating as such, entered into the treaty
stipulation on the subject.
1t was mere clause of an act of Congress,
md like any other controvertod matters of iegis-
alton received its final shape and was passed by
Of conflicting opinions or sentiments
It the members of Congress- but if it had moral
over mems consciousness, to whom did
his authority attach! Not to those of the north
Who had repeatedly refused to confirm it by ex
ension, and who had sed,lously striven to es
ablish other and Incompatible regulations upon
he subject, and if, as it appears, the supposed
compact haS no obligatory force, as to the North,
Vt course it could not have any as to the South,
or all such compacts must be mutual and of re-
.iprscal obligation.
1t has not unfrequently happened that law
rivers. with undue estimation of the value of
he law they give, or in the view Of imparting
10 II peculiar strength, make 1t perpetual IN
erms but they cannot thus bind the conscience,
The Judgment and the will of those who may sue
iced them, invested with similar responsibilities
and clothed with equal authority. More careful
Investigation may prove the law unseund N
principle, experience may show it to be imper-
Get in detail and impractica able i'll execution, and
hen both reason and RICH: combine, not merely
10 Justify, but to require its repeal.
The Constitution, supreme as it is over all
he departments of the Government, legislative,
executive and judicial, is open to amendment
BY its very terms, and Congress or the States
may in their discretion propose amendments to
/, solemn compact, though it in truth is between
The sovereign States of the Union In the pres
3nt instance a political enactment which had
,eased to have legal power or auth Gritty of any
kind was repealed. The position assumed that
Congress had no moral RIG hit to enac such a re-
peal was strange enough and singularly so in
those who openly refused obedience TO existing
laws of the land, having the same popular des-
gnation and quality as compromise acts; nay
more who unequivocally disregarded and con-
lemned the most positive and obligatory nJunc-
lions of the Constitution itself, and sought by
,vsry means within their reach to deprive por-
lion of their fellow citizens OF the equal enjoy
nent of those rights and privileges guaranteed
alike to all, by the fundamental compact of our
Union.
This argument against the repeal Of the stat
ute line in question, was accompanied by anoth-
er of congenial character and equally with the
former destitute of foundation III reason and
truth. 1t was imputed that the measure erlgl-
mated in the conception of extending the limits
Of slave labor beyond those previously assigned
10 1t, and that such was its natural as we'll as IN
tended effect, and those bascless assumptions
were made in the Northern States, ground OF
assault upon constitutional right
The repeal in terms of a statute which was NJ
ready obsolete and null for uncunstitutioaaity,
could have no influence to obstruct or promote
the propagation of conflicting views of political
or social institutions.
When the act organizing the Territories of
Nebraska and Kansas was passed, the inherent
effect upon thatportion Of the public domain thus
opened 10 legal settlement was to admit settlers
from all the States of the MEN alike, each with
erest, there TO found in their discretion subject
10 such limitations as the Constitution and acts
of Congress might prescribe, new States hereaf-
ter to be admitted into the Union-it was a free
field open alike TO ail-whether the statute line
Of assumed restriction was repealed or not
That repeal did not open to free competition of
he diverse opinions and domestic institutions,
a field which without such repeal would have
been closed against them. 1t found that field
Of competition already open in fact and III law.
All the repeal die, to relieve the statute
book of in Objectionable enactment unconstitu-
tional in effect, and injurious in terms TO q large
portion Of the States. Is il the fact that in al
unsettled regions of the United States, ifemisra-
ton he left free TO act in this respect fer itself
without legal prohibitions either side, slave
labor viii go spontaneously every where in
preference to free laborl Is il fact that the
peculiar domestic institutions of the Southern
States possess relatively so much vigor that
W heresoeyer an avenue is freely open to all the