The south-western. [volume] (Shreveport, La.) 1852-1870, 1856-12-17

the United States and that accession accepted by
the United States the latter expressly engaged that
the inhabitants Of the coded territory shall be ncor-
porated in the Union of the United States and admit
ted as soon possible, according to the principles of
the federal constitution, to the enjoyment of all the
rights advantages and inmunties Of citizens of the
United States and in the meantime they shall be main
tanned and protected in the free enjoyment of their lib
erty property and the reli gion which they profess
that is to say, while remains territorial condi-
tion its inhabitants maintained and protected in
the free enjoyment Of their liberty and property, with
right then TO pass into the condition of States on
footing Of perfect equality with the original States
The enactment, which established the restrictive
geographical line, acquiesced in rather than ap-
proved by the States Of the Union It stood on the
statute book however for number of years: and the
people Of the respective States acquiesced in the re-
enactment of the principle applied to the State of
Texas and it proposed to acquiesce in its further
application to the territory acquired by the u States
from Mexico. But this proposition vas successfully
resisted by from the northern States
who, regardless ofthe statute line insisted upon apply
ing restriction to the territory generally whether
lying north orsouth oft, thereby repeating leg
lative compromise and the part of the north, per-
slstenty violating the compact, if compact there
| 1hefetpon this Enactment ceased To have binding
VIRTUE any whether respects the north the
south, and in effect Vt treated the occasion Of
the admission OF the State of California and the organ
isatlon OF the territories Of New Mexico, Utah and
Washington. ..t- ....... l
Such the state of this question when the time
arrived for the organisation Of the territories Of Kansas
and Nebraska In the progress of constitutional IL
qury and reflection, it had at length come to be
clearly that congress does not possess consttu-
tlonal power to impose restrictions Of this character
upon any present or future State Of the Union In a
long series of decisions the fullest argument and
after most iberateconsdertion the supreme court of
the United States had finally deternnedt this point in
every form under which the question could arise
whether as affecting public orprvate rghts-in ques-
tons of the public domain OF religion of navigation
and of servitudc. II" .0..r
The several States of the Union by force of the
constitution, coequal in domestic legislative power
Congress cannot change law of domestic relation in
the State OF Maine it III the State of Mis-
souri, Any statute which proposes to do this is mere
nulllty; 1t takes away right, it confcrs If it
remains on the statute book unrpealed it remains there
only us n monument of error, and beacon of warning
to the legislator and the statesman To repeal it will
be only mperfection from the statutes with
out Affecting either IN the of PERMISSION of pro-
hiUtion the action of the States or of their citizens
Still when the nominal restriction Of this nature, al
ready dead letter law was in terms repealed by the
last congress, III clause OF the act organising the ter
rtorles Of Kansas and Nebraska that repeal was made
the occasion ola widespread and dangerous agitation
lbWas alleged that the original enactment being Il
compact of perpetual moral obligation its repeal con
stituted an odious breach of faith
An act OF congress, while it remains unrepealed
especially if it remains constutionally valid in
the Judgment otthose public unctionaries whose duty
it to pronounce on that point undoubtedly binding
the conscience Of each good citizen of the republic
But IN what sense can 1t be asserted that the enact
ment in question invested with perpetuitv and
entitled to the aspect solemn compact? Between
whom was the compact? No distinct contending pow
ers OF the government 10 separate section the Union
treating such, entered into treaty stuations on the
SUBJECT 1t was a mere clause OF act of congress-
ana like any other cOntrovered matter of slation
received It's nal shape and passed by conlpronRe
OF the conflicting opinions sentiments Of the mem
bers OF congress- But if it had moral authority over
mems conscences, to whom did this authority attach?
Not to those OF the NORTH who had repeatedly refused
to confirm 1t by extension, and who had Zeloslv stry
Fen to establish other and incompatible regulations
upon the subject And if, it thus appears this COM
pact had no obligatory force the north of course
1t could not have had any to the south for all such
conpacts must be mutual and of reel procal obligation
1t has not untrequently happened that law svels
with undue estimation othe value OF the law they give
or in the view Sof lmparng to it peculiar strength
nader perpetual i'll terms but they cannot thus bind
the conscience the Judgment and the will those who
may succeed them, invested with similar reponsibiIi
ties, and clothed with equal authority More careful
investigation may prove the law to be unsound in prill-
cpe Experience may show it to be imperfect in de-
tail and impractlcable i'll execution. And then both
and right combine not merely to Justify h1t ia
require its repeal.
The constitution, supreme is all tn depart
ments Of the government-legisatiye, executive and
judcial-ls open to amendment by its verytcms; and
congress or the States may, in thir discretion propose
amendment to it, solemn compact though it in truth is
between the soverei States ofthe Union In the pre-
sent instance political enactment which had ceased
to have legal power authority of any kind re-
pealed The position assuWed, that congress had no
moral right to enact such repeal, strange enough
aud singulay 50 in view Of the fact that the argu-
ment came from those who openly refused obedience
to the existing laws of the land, having the SAME pop
ular designation and quality compromise acts-nay
more, who uneluivocally disrvgarded and condemned
Il ,f+l,
stitution itself and sought by every within their
reach to deprive portion their fellow citizens ofthc
equal enjoyment of those rights and privileges caran
teed alike to all by the fundamental compact of our
Union.
This argument against the repeal of tie statute line
in question: accompanied by another of congcnal
character and equally with the former destitute of
foundation in reason and truth. 1t nputsd that
the originated in the conception of extending
the limits of slave labor beyond those previously as
signed to it, and that such was its natural as well as
intended effect and these baseless assumptions We're
made in the northern States the ground of unccasng
assault upon constitutional right.
The repeal In terms OF statute, which already
obsolete and also null for uncons ui6nality, could
have influence to obstruct to promote the proa-
cation of conflicting views Of political or social nsti
buttons. When the act organising the territories of
Kansas and Nebraska passed, the inherent effect
upon that portion Of the public domain thus opened to
legal settlement, to admit settlers from all the
States of the Union alike, each with his convictions of
public policy and private interest, there to found in
their discretion, subject to such lmta sns the
sstution and acts of congress might prescribe new
States, hereafter to be admitted into the Union. II
free field, open alike to all, whether the statute
line Of assumed restriction repealed not That
repeal did not open to free competition Of the diverse
opinions and domestic institutions a field, which,
without such repeal, would have been closed against
them; it found that the field of competition already
opened, in fact and in law. All the repeal did was
to "eeve the statute book ofan oectona enactment
unconstitutional in effect, and Injurious in terms to
large portion Of the States
Is it the fact that in all the unsettled regions of the
United States if emigration be left free to act in this
respect r itself without legal prohibitions either
side, slave labor will spontaneously 60 everywhere in
preference to free labor? Is it the fact that the pecu
liar domestic institutions Of the southern States pos
relatively much of vigor, that, wheresoever
avenue is freely open to all the world they will pene
to the exclusion Of those of the northern States?
Is it the fact, that the former enjoy, compared with the
latter such irresstby superior vitality, independent
of climate, SOIL and all other accidental circumstances
to be able oproduce the supposed result in |te OF
the assumed moral and natural obstacles to its accom-
plishment and of the population of the
northern States? The argument Of those who advo-
cate the enactment of new laws of restriction, and
denim the repeal of old ones, in effect AYERS that their
a,ra