Raftsman's journal. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1854-1948, 1856-12-10


constitutional inquiry and reflection, IL had now
! at length come to be clearly that Congress
does possess constitutional power to impose re-
stricions of this character upon any present or i
ture State of the Union. In long series OF deer
sions, the fullest argument, and after the most
deliberate considt ration. the Supreme Court OF the
| United State. had finally determined this polat
| in every form under which the question could a
! rise, whether affecting public or private rights
| in questions of the public domain: of religion,
of navigation, and of seryitude.
The several States of the Union are, by force OF
| the Constitution, co-equal in domestic legislative
| power. Congress cannot change law OF domes-
tic relation in the State OF Maine; no more can II
| in the State of Missouri. ANY statute which pro-
] poses to do this is mere nullity; 1t takes away
no right, it confers none If it remains On the
statute-boek unrepeaed, it remains there only as
a monument of error. and beacon Of warning 70
the legislator and the statesman. To repeal II Will
/ be only TO imperfection from the statutes
without affecting, either in the sense OF permission
or of prohibition. the action of the States or OF
their citizens Still. when the nominal restriction
of thisnature already dead letter in law, was in
terms repealed by the last Congress IN c ause OF
the act organizing the Territories OF Kansas and
| Nebraska, that repeal was made the occasion of a
| widespread and dangerous agitation It was al
| legged that the original enactment being compact
of perpetual moral obligation, its repeal constitu-
| ted odiOus breach of faith.
An act of Congress. while it remains unre-
! pealed, more especially if it be continually
valid in the Judgment OF those public function
! aries whoss duty 1t is 10 pronounce on that
!
! science OF each good citizen OF the Republic.
| But in what sense can it be asserted that the
enactment in question was invested with per
| petuity and entitled to the respect Of a solemn
| compact? No distinct contending powers of
/ the government, no Seperatc sections of the
! Union, treating as such, entered into treaty
| stipulations on the subject.
1t was mere clause of an act of Congress,
and like any other cOntroverted matter OF legis-
lation, received its final shape and was passed
! by compromise of the conflicting opinions or
/ sentiments Of the members of Congress. But
| if it had moral authority over mems conscien-
ces, to whom did this authority attach Not
| to those of the North, who had repeatedly re-
| fused to confirm il by extension, and who had
| Zealously striven to establish other and incom-
| patible regulations upon the subject. And If,
| as it thus appears, the supposed compact had
| no obligatory force as to the North, of course
it could not have had any as to the South, for
| all such compacts must be mutual and of recip
rocal obligation.
1t has not unfrequcntly happened that law
| giyerS, with undue estim alton OF the value OF
the law they give, or in the view of imparting
| 20 it peculiar strength, make it perpetual in
terms; but they cannot thus bind the con-
science, the judgment, and the viii OF those
who may succeed them, invested with similar
responsibilities, and clothed with equal author
ity. More careful investigation may prove the
law to be unsound in principle. Experience
| may show it 10 be imperfect in detail and i'm
| practicable in execution. And then both rea-
| son and right combine not merely TO justify,
! but to require its repeal.
The Constitution, supreme as it is over all
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 amendment TO
it, solemn compact though it in truth is be
tween the States of the Union. In the present
instance, political enactment, which had
ceased to have legal power or authority OF any
kind. was repealed The position assumed,
that Congress had 10 moral right to enact such
repeal, was strange enough, and singularly 50
in view of the fact that the argument came
| from those who openly refused obedience TO
existing laws of the land, having the same pop
ular designation and quality as compromise
acts--nay, more, who unequirocally disregdr'
d-d and condemned the most positive and OBJ
ligatory injunctions of the Constitution itself.
and sought, by every means within their reach,
to deprive portion of their fcllow-cItlZcDS Of
the equal enjoyment of those rights and prvi-
lcges guaranteed alike to all by the fundamental
compact OF our L MON.
This argument against the repeal of the stat
ute line in question, was accompanied by an
other of coTgenial character, and equally with
the former destitute of foundation III reason
d'truth. II was imputed that the measure
originated in the conception of extending the
limits of slave labor beyond those previously
assigned to it, and that such was its natural as
we'll as intended effect; and these baseless as
sumptions were made in the northern States
/. the ground Of unceasiug assault upon conStltu-
. tional right.
, The repeal in terms of statute, which was
already obsolete, also null for unconstitution-
: atty, could have no influence to obstruct or to
promote the propagation of conflicting views
of ofpoltical or social institutions. When the
act organizing the Territories of Kansas and
Nebraska was passed, the inherent effect upon
, that portion of the public domain TINS opened
: to legal settlement, was to admit settlers from
all the States of the Union alike, each with his
; convictions of public policy and private inter
est there to found in their discretion. subject
to such limitations the Constitution and
acts of Congress might prescribe, new States
hereafter to be admitted into the Union.
, II was a free field open alike TO all, whether
the statute line of assumed restriction were re
pealed or not. That repeal did not open tc
! free competition of the divers opinions and
domestic institutions, field, which without
such repeal, would have been closed against
: them il found that field of competition alrea
dy opened, in fact and in law. All the repea
did was to relieve the statute book ofan ohjec
tionable enactment, unconstitutional in its eff
feet and injurious in terms to a large portion
of the States.
Is it the fact that, in all the unsettled re
gionS of the United States, if emigration be lef,
free to act in this respect for itself, without
: legal prohibitions on either side, slave-iaboI
d will spontaneously go every where, IN prefer
3 ence to free labor Is it the fact that the pc
o culiar domestic institutions OF the oou'iieIn
! States possess so much ofvigor, that, Whereso-
J ever an avenue is freely open TO all the world
= = thew will penetrate TO the exclusion of those
: | of the Northern Statesi Is Ii the fact that
v the former enjoy, compared WITH the latter
:: such irresistibIy superior vitality, Independent
= d,l1 %tkN 4