The Hillsdale standard. [volume] (Hillsdale, Mich.) 1851-1909, 1856-12-09

8 the Territories OF Kansas and Nebraska. In
the progress of constitutional inquiry and re-
0 Election, it had now at length come to be
. clearly seen that Congress does not possess
, constitutional power to impose restrictions Of
this character upon any present or furture
} State of this Union.
In long series of discussions on the fullest
, argument, and after the most deliberate con-
siderations, the Supreme Court of the United
States has finally determined this point in
every form under which the question should
arise, whether as affecting public or private
rights, or question of public or domain, or re-
ligion, navigation, or servitude. The several
States Of the Union are by force the Constitu-
tion co-equal in domestic legislative power
Congress cannot change a law Of domestic re-
lasion in the State of Maine, nor can it in the
State of Missouri.
Any statute which proposes to do this is
mere nulity it takes away no right-It con-
fers none; if it remains on the statute book
unrepealed, it remains there only as monu-
ment of error and bacon of warning to the
legislator and statesman; to repeal will be
only to remove imperfection from the statues
without affecting either in tho cause Of per-
mission or Of prohibition, the State or Of their
citizens. Still, when the nominal restriction
Of this nature, already a dead letter in law,
was repealed by the last Congress, in clause
OF the Act organizing the territories of Kan
sas and Nebraska, that the repeal was to make
the occasion of wide spred and dangerous
agitation.
1t was alleged that the original enactment
being compact perpetual moral obliga
tion, its repeat constituted an odous breach of
faith An Act of Congress while it is unre-
pealed, NOSE especially fit be constitutionally
valid in the judgement ofthose public function
aries whose duty is TO pronounce on that
! point, is undoubtedly binding on the concience
of each good citizen of the Republic; but in
what senco can it be assertained that the en-.
actment in question was invested with perpe-
tuity, and entitled to the respect of a solemn
compact? Between whom was the compact
No distinct contending power of the govern
ment-no seperate sections on the Union,
treating as such, entered in the treaty stipu-
lation on the subject.
1t was mere abuse Of an Act of Congress,
and like any other controverted matter of
legislation, received final shape and was passed |
by compromise Of conhiction opinions of sem
timents Of the members Of Congress; but if it |
~
to whom did this authority attacks Not to
those of the number who had repeatedly re-
fused to canfirm it by extension, and who had
sedulously striven to establish other and in
competaple regulation on the subject; and if,
as it appears, the supposed compacts and no
obligatory force as to the North, of course it
could not have had any as to the South, tor
all such compacts must be mutual and Of re-
cipfocol obligation.
1t has not frequently happened that law
gvcrs, with undue estimation of the value of
the law they give, or in the view of impar,ing
to its peculiar strength, make it perpetual in
terms, but they cannot thus bind the con-
science, tho judgement and the will of those
who may succeed them, invested with similar.
responsibilities and clotded with equal author
lty. More carful investigation may prove
tho law unsound in principe-experenc
may show it to be imperfect in detail and i'm
practable in execution, and then both reason
and right combine not merely to testify but to
require its repeal.
The Constitution. supreme as it is over all
the departments Of the Governmhnt, legisla-
tive, executive and judicial, is open TO amend
ment by its very terms, and Congress or the
|
mendments 70 it, so long solemn compact
though it is between the sovereign State of
the Union, in the presnt instance politician
enactment which had ceased to have legal
power or outherity of any kind was repealed.
The position assumed that Congress has no
moral right to enact such repeal was strange {
enough, and singulrly so in view of the fact
that the argument came from those who {
openly refused obedienie to existing laws of !
the land having the same designation and {
quality as compromise acts; nay, more, who
unequivocaly disregarded the positive obli-
gatory injunctions of the Constitution itself,
and south by other means within their reach &
to deprive portion of their fellow citizent of I
the equal enjoyment ofthose rights and prv- I
leges guaranteed rlike to all by the fundamen- ,
tai compact of our Union. &
This argument against tho repeal Of the j
statue line in question, was accompanied by
another of congeniel character, and equally G
with the former, destitute Of foundation in
reason and truth. 1t was imputed that the @
measure originated in the conception Of cx- n
tending the limits of slave labor beyond those I
previous assigned to it, aud that such was its I
nature rs well ms intended effect; and those v
baseless assumption were made in the North n
ern States-the ground of increasing assault "
upon constitutional right-the repeal in terms c
Or statute which was already obsolete and "
also null, or constitutonally could have no in n
iuence to obstruct or promote propaganation
Of conflicting views Of political or social ns.- il
Lutions. Il
When the Act organizeing the Territories of y
Kansas and Nebraska was passed. the inher- b
INT effect upon that portion of the public do g
main thus opened to legal settlement, was to r,
admit from all the States in the Union alike, a
zach with his convictions Of pnblic pilicy and a
private interest, there to found in their discre-
'tion subject to such limitation as the Consti- tc
uton and acts of Congress might prescribe
lew States hereafter to be admitted into the o
mont was free field open alike to all. q
Whether the statue line of assumed restrictions al