Marshall County Democrat. (Plymouth, Ind.) 1855-1859, 1856-12-11


fugitives from service, laws were enacted
in many States. forbiddin., their officers,
under the severest penalties. to participate
whatever. In this way that system of har-
monious cooperation between the authori-
ties of the United States and ofthe several
States, for the maintainence of their com
mon institutions, which existed in the early
years of the Republic, was destroyed Con-
flicts of jurisdiction came to be frequent,
and Congress found itself compelled, for
the support of the Constitution, and the
vindication of its powers, to authorize the
appointment of new officers, and the off,
GERS OF the States were the Ministers char
ged with the execution of Its acts, as if they
were respectively of foreign Governments,
in state of mutual hostility, rather than
fellow magistrates of common country,
peacefully subsiding under the protection
of one well constituted union. Thus here
also aggression was followed by reaction;
and the attacks upon the Constitution at
this point did but serve to raise new barri-
ers for its defence andlsecurity.
The third stage Of this unhappy section
organization Of territorial Governments and
the admission ofnew States into the Union
When it was proposed to admit the State of
Maine by separation of territory from thas
of Massachusetts. and the State of Nilsson
/ II formed portion of the territory ceded
By France to the United States, represen-
taiises in Congress objected to the admis-
sion of the latter unless with the conditions
suited to particular views of public policy
The imposition of such condition was
successfully resisted but, at the same peri
cd the question was presented of imposing
restrictions upon the residue of the terrific
ry coded by France. That question was.
for the time, disposed of by the adoption
of a geographical line of limitation In
this connexion it should not be forgotten
that France, CT her own accord, resolved
for a consideration Of the most far-sighted
sagacity, to cede Louisiana to the United
States. The latter expressly engaged that
inhabitants of the coded territory should
be incorporated in the Union of United
States, and admitted as soon as possible
according to the principles of the Federal
Constitution, to the enjoyment of all the
rights, advantages and immnnities of citi-
zens of the United States. and in the mean
time they shall be maintained and protect
ed in the free enjoyment of their liberty,
property and the religion which they pro-
fessed.
That is to say. while it remains III ter
ritorial condition, It's inhabitants are main
tanned and protected in free enjoyment OF
their liberty and property, with right to
pass into the condition Of States on a foot
ing of perfect equality with the original
States. The enactment which established
the restrictive geographical line, was ac-
quiesced in, rather than approved by, the
States of the Union. 1t stood on the stat
ute book, however. for number of years
and the people of the respective States ac-
guessed in the re-enactment of the princi,
pie rs applied to the State of Texas. and ii
was proposed to acquiesce in its further ap-
i plication TO the territory acquired by the
| United States from Mexico, but this prop
osition was successfully resisted by the
representatives Of the Northern States, who
regardless of the statute line, insisted on
applying restrictions to the new territory
generally, whetherlying North or South OF
THEREBY repeating it as Legislative
compromise, and on the part of the North
persistently violating the compact, if com.
pact there was.
Thereupon, this enactment ceased tc
have any binding virtue many sense. whe
t Their as respects the North or South, and
so in effect il was treated on the occasion o.
the admission of the State Of California
and the organization softhe territories O
New Mexico, Utah and Washington. Such
was the state Of this question when The
time arrived Tor the organization of the
Territories OF Kansas and Nebraska. Ii
the process OF constitutional inquiry ant
reflection, it had now at length come to b.
clearly seen that Congress does not posses,
constitutional powes to impose restrictions
J of this character upon any present or future
State of the Union.
: In long series Of decisions on the full
! est Argument, and after the most deliberat,
| consideration, the Supreme Court of tn
! United States had finally determined Ia!
} point IN every form under which the ques
ton should arise, whether as affecting pub
{ lie or private rights or questions Of th'
: public domain or religion, navigatien, or 0
servitude. The several States of the Tn
ion are by force of the Constitution co-e
quail in domestic Legislative power. Con
gress cannot change law of domestic re
/ lation in the State of Maine, no more can
. in the State of Missouri
q Any statute which proposes to do this il
: amere nullity;it takes away no right
confers none;if it remains on the ssatut
book unrepealed, it remains there only as
monument of erro I'd beacon If warn
| ing to the legisla IF and the statesman; Il
( repeal will be or ! 70 remove imperfectiol
D from the statutes without affecting eithe
j in the sense of permission or of prohibition
THE action of The States or of their citizens
Still, when the nominal restriction of thi
. nature, already a dead letter in law, wa
l repealed by the last Congress, in claus
r of the Act organizing the Territories @
8 Kansas and Nebriska, that repeal was mad
e the occasion of a wide spread and danger
, Gus agitation.
; It was alleged that the original enact
j ments being compact of perpetual mora
s obligation, its repeal constituted an odiou
' brsach Of faith. An act of Congress Will
O it is unfepealed, more especially if it b