Lewistown gazette. [volume] (Lewistown, Pa.) 1843-1944, 1856-12-04


domain Of religion, of navigation, and Of
servitude.
The several States of the Union are, by force
of the Constitution, co-equal in domestic leg
islatiye power. Congress cannot change q
law of domestic relation III the State of Maine;
no more can it in the State of Missouri. Any
statute which proposes to do this is O mere
nullity; it takes away no right, it confers
none. If it remains on the statute-boOk un-
repealed, it remains there only as a moru-
ment of error, and n beacon of warning to the
legislator and statesman. To repeal it will
be only to remove imperfection from the stat.
utes without affecting, either in the sense of
permission or prohibition, the action Of the
States, or of their citizens.
Still, when the nominal restriction of this
nature, already q dead letter in law, was in
terms repealed by the last Congress, in a
clause of the act organizing the Territories of
Kansas and Nebraska, that repeal was made
the occasion of a widespread and dangerous
agitation.
1t was alleged that the original enactment
being compact Of perpetual moral obliga-
ton, its repeal constituted an olious breach
Of faith.
An act Of Congress, while it remains uure-
pealed, more especially if it be constitutions
ally valid in the Judgment of those public
functIonarles whose duty it is to pronounce
on that point, is undoubtedly binding on the
conscience Of each good citizen OF the Repub-
lie. But in what sense can it be asserted that
the enactment in question was invested with
pcrpetuity and entitled to the respect Of
solemn compact? Between whom was the
compact? No distinct contendng powers Of
the government, no separate sections OF the
Union, treating as such, entered into treaty
Supulauons on the subject.
1T was mere clause OF an act of Congress.
and like any other controycrted matter Of le-
glslation, received its final shape and was
passed by compromise OF the conflicting opin-
ions or sentiments Of the members Of Con-
gress. But if it had moral authority over
mems consciences, to whom did this authority
attach =? Not to those of the North, who had
repeatedly refused to confirm it by extension,
and who had zealousIy striven TO establish
other and Incompatible regulations upon the
subject. And if, rs it thus appears, the sup
posed 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 reciprocal obligation.
1t has not unfrequently happened that law
givers, with undue estimation Of the value Of
the law they give, or i'll the view of mparting
10 It peculiar strength, make 1t perpetual in
terms; but they cannot thus bind the con-
science, the Judgment, and the will OF those
who may succeed them, invested with similar
responsi biiities, and clothed with equal au-
thorlty. MSra careful investigation may
prove the law to be unsound in principle
Experience may show it 10 be imperfect in
detail and impracticable in execution. And
then both reason and right combine not mere
ly u justify, but to require its repeal.
The Constitution, supreme as 1t Is over all
the departments Of the government, leglsla
tive, executive, and judicial, is open to amend
ment by its very terms and Congress or the
States may, in their discretion, propose
amendment to it, solemn compact though it
in truth is between the sovereign States Of
the Union. Ia the present instance, polti-
cal enactment, which had ceased to have le-
gal power or authority Of any kind, was re-
pealcd. The position assumed, that Congress
had no moral right TO enact such repeal was
strange enough and singularly so in view Of
the fact that the argument came from those
who openly refused obedience to existing laws
of the land, having the same popular dcsi6,
nation and quality as compromise acts-nay,
more, who unequivocally disregarded and
condemned the most positive and obligatory
injunctions Of the Constitution itself, and
sought, by every means within their reach, to
deprive portion of their fellow w-ctizens Of
the equal enjoyment of those rights and priv
iIeges guaranteed alike TO all by the funda-
mental compact of cur Union.
This argument against the repeal Of the
statute line in question, was accompanied By
another of congenial character, and equally
with the former destitute of foundation IN
reason and truth. 1t was imputed that the
measure originated in the conception of eI-
tending the limits Of slave labor beyond those
previously assigned to it, and that such was
its natural as well as intended effect; and
these basoless assumptions were made, in the
northern states, the ground af unceasing as
Sau!t upon constitutional right.
The repeal in terms Of statute, which
was already obsolete, and also null for un-
constitutionality, could have no influence to
obstruct or TO promote the propagation OF
conflicting views of political or social institu-
tions. When the act organizing the Terrific
ries Of Kansas and Nebraska was passed, the
inherent effect upon that portion OF the public
domain thus opened to legal settlement, was
to admit settlers from all the states Of the
Union alike, each with his convictions Of
puDIic polICy anu pIlNalc interest, iHeIt ~
found in their discretion, subject to such lin
itations as the Constitution and acts of Con-
gress might prescribe, new states, hereafter
to be admitted into the Union.
Il was a free field, open alike 70 all, whe-
thcr the statute line of assumed restriction
were repealed or not. That repeal did not
open to free competition of the diverse opin-
ions and domestic institutions field, which,
without such repeal, would have been closed
against them it found that field of competi-
ton already opened, in fact and in law. All
the repeal did was to relieve the statute book
Of an objectionable enactment, unconstitu
tional in effect. and injurious in terms to
large portion of the states.
Is it the fact that. in all the unsettled re-
gions Of the United States, if emigration be
left free to act in this respect for itself, with
out legal prohibitions on either side, slave