Staunton spectator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1849-1896, 1856-12-10

aries whose duty it is to pronounce on that poiil,
is undoubtedly binding on the conscience OF each
good citizen of the Republic. Butin what sense
can it be asserted that the enactment IN questloh
was invested with perpetuity and entitled 10
the respect of solemn compact! Between
whom was the compact9 No distinct contend
ing powers of the government no separate sec
tions of the Union, treating as such, entered IN
to treaty stipulations on the subject. IL was a
mere clause of an act of Congress, and like any
other controverted matter of legislation, recelv-
ed its final shape aud was passed by compromise
of the conflicting opinions or sentiments OF the
members of Congress. But if it had moral au
thority over mems consciences, to whom dld thls
authority attach? Not to those OF the North,
who had repeatedly refused to confirm it by ex-
tension, and who had zealouSly striven to esta0-
lsh other and incompatible regulations upon the
subject. And if, as it thus appears, the suppoS-
ed 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 in the view of imparting to 1t
peculiar strength, make it perpetual IN terms !;
but thew cannot thus bind the conscience, the
judgement, and the will Of those who may sue
ceed them, invested with similar responsibilities,
and clothed with equal authority. More careful
investigation may prove the law to be unsound
in principle. Experience may show Tito De I'M
perfect to detail and impracticable in execution.
And then both reason and right combine not
merely to justify, but to require its repeal.
The Constitution, supreme as it is over all the
departments of the government, legislative, exc
cutive and judicial, is open to amendment by It's
very terlns and Congress or the States may, IN
their discretion, propose amendment to II, SOL
emn compact though it in truth is between the
sovereign 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was repealed The position assumed, that Oon'
cress 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 designation
and equality Es compromising acts-nay, more,
who unequiyocally 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-ctiz of the equal enjoyment
of those rights and privileges guaranteed ailxe 10
all by the fundamental compact of our Union.
This argument against the repeal OF the stat
ute line in question was accompanied by another
of congenial character, and equally with the for
mer destitute of foundation in reason and truth.
1t was imputed that the measure originated III
the conception of extending the limits OF slave
labor beyond those previously assigned to 1t, and
that such was its natural as well rs intended ef-
feet: and these baseless assumptions were made,
in the northern States the ground OF unceaslhg
assault upon constitutional right.
The repeal in terms of statute, which was
already obsolete, and also null for unconstltu-
tionality, could have no influence to obstruct or
to promote the propagation of conflicting views
of political or social institution. When the act
organizing the Territory of Kansas and Nebras-
ka was passed, the inherent effect upon that por-
ton of the public domain thus opened to legal
settlement, was to admit settlers from all the
States of the Union alike each with his conyic-
tions of public policy and private interest, there
to found in their discretion, subject to such ml-
tations as the Constitution and acts of Congress
might prescribe new States hereafter to DO ad-
mitted into the Union. 1t was free held, open
alike to all, whether the statute line OF assumed
restrictions were repealed or not. That repeal
did not open to free competition OF the diverse
opinions and domestic institutions, field which,
without such special repeal, would have been
closed against them; it found that field OF com.
petition already opened, in fact and in law. All
the repeal did was to relieve the statute-book OF
an Objectionable enactment, unconstitutional III
effect, and injurious in terms to largo portion
Of the States.
Is it the fact, that in all the unsettled region
of the United States, if emigration be left free to
act in this respect for ITSELF without legal prohl-
btions on either side, slave labor will spontane.
ously 60 everywhere in preference to iree laoor
Is it the fact that the peculiar domestic instltu-
tions of the southern States possess relatively 80
mnch of vigor, that, wheresoever an avenue Is
freely open to all the world, they will penetrate
TO the exclusion of those northern States! Is II
the fact, that the former enjoy, compared WIN
the latter, such irresistby superior vitality, IN
dependent of climate, OF soil, and all other acci-
dental circuinatances,as to beable 10 produce Tue
supposed result, in spite of the assumed mora,
and natural obstacles to its accomplishment, ano
of the more numerous population OF northern
States?
The argument of those who advocate the en-
actnent of new laws of restrction,an condemn
the repeal of old ones, in effect AYERS that thelr
particular views of government have no sell ex'
tending or self-sustaining power OF their OWL
and will go nowhere unless forced by act OF Ooil-
gress. And if Congress do but pause for mo-
ment in the policy of stern coercion II IL ven
ture to try the experiment of leaving men to
Judge for themselves what institutions Will oesl
suit them if it be not strained up to perpetual
legislative exertion on this point; If Congress
proceed thus to act in the very spirit OF liberty,
il is at once charged with aiming to e1teno
slave lanor into all the new Territories OF the u
nted States.
Of course, these imputations on the intentions
OF Congress in this respect, conceived as they
were in prejudice, and disseminated IN passion
are utterly destitute of any Justification III the
nature of things, and contrary to all the iunda-
mental doctrines and principles of civil liberty
and selt-government.
While therefore, in general, the people OF the
northern States have never, at any time, arroga-
ted for the federal government the power 70
interfere directly with the domestic condlnon
of persons in the southern States, but on the con-
trary have disavowed all such intentions, ano
have shrunk from conspicuous athlliaton with
those few who pursue their fantastieal objects a.
vowedly through the contemplated means OF rev
olutionary change of the government, and with
acceptance of the necessary consequences CIV
il and servile war-yet many citizens have sui
fered themselves to be drawn into one evanes
cent political issue of agitation after another,
appertaining to the same set of opinions, and
which subsidized as rapidly as tarose when it came
to be seen, as it uniformly did, that they were
incompatible with the compscts of the Constitu-
tion and the existence of the Urion. Thus,
when the acts of some of the States !. nullify
the existing extradition law imposed upon Con-
gress the duty of passing new one, the coun-
try was invited by agitators to enter into party
organization for its repeal; but that agitation
speedily ceased by reason of the impracticability
of its object. So when the statute restriction
upon the institutions of new States, by q geo.
graphical line, had beeen repealed the country
was urged to demand its restoration, and that
nrn;ect also dial almost with It's hirth Then