Bradford reporter. [volume] (Towanda, Pa.) 1844-1884, 1856-12-04
States and in several instances of their Gov


sons held to service in the Southern States,
and to prevent their extradition when reclaim
ed according to law and in virtue of express
provisions of the Constitution. To promote
this object, legisla tive enactments and other
means were adopted to take away or defeat
rights which the Constitution solemnly guaran-
teed. In order to nullfy the then existing act
of Congress concerning the extradition of fugi-
tives from service, laws were enacted in many
States forbidding their officers, under the Sc
verest penalties, to participate in the execution
of any act of Congress whatever. In this way
that system of harmonious cooperation be-
tween the authorities of the United States and
of the several States, for the maintenance of
their common institutions, which existed in the
early years of the Republic, was destroyed
conflicts of jurisdiction came to be frequent
and Congress found itself compelled, for the
support of the Constitution, and the vindca-
tion of its power, to authorize the appointment
of new officers charged with the execution of
its acts as if they and the officers Of the States
were the ministers, respectively, of foreign go
vernments in state of mutual hostility, rath-
er than follow magistrates of common cOun-
try, peacefully subsisting under the protection
of a well-consttutioned Union Thus here,
also, aggression was followed by reaction and
the attacks upon the Constitution at this point
did but serve to raise up new barriers for its
defense and security.
The third stage of this unhappy controversy
was in connection with the organization of
Territorial Governments and the admission of
new States into the Union. When it was pro-
posed to admit the State of Maine, by separa-
| ton of territory from that of Massachusetts,
and the State of Missouri, formed of portion
OF the territory ceded by France to the Unni-
| ted States, Representatives in Congress ebjec-
ted to the admission of the latter, unless with
conditions suited to particular views of public
policy. The imposition of such a condition was
successfully resisted But, at the same time,
the question was presented of imposing restric-
tions upon the residue of the territory ceded by
France. That question was, for time, disposed
of by the adoption of a geographical line of
limitation
In this connection, it should not be forgot
ten that France, of her own accord, resolved
for considerations of the most far-sighted sa-
gacity, to ccde Louisiana to the United States,
! and that accession was accepted by the United
States, the latter expressly engaged that /" the
inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be
incorporated in the Union of the United
States, and admitted as soon as possible, ac-
cordng to the principles of the Federal Con-
stltutlOn, to the enjoyment of all the rights,
advantages and immunties of citizens of the
United States and in the mean time they
shall be maintained and protected in the free
enjoyment of their liberty, property, and the
religion which they profess that is to say,
| while it remains in territorial condition, its
inhabitants are maintained and protected in
the free enjoyment of their liberty, with right
then to pass into the condition of States on
footing of perfect equality with the original
States
The enactment which established the restric-
tive geographical line was acquesced in rather
than approved by the States of the Union 1t
stood on the statute book, however for num-
Der of years and the people of the respective
States acquesced in the reenactment of the
principle as applied to the State of Texas :;
and it was proposed to acqriesce in its further
application to the territory acquired by the
United States from Mexico. But this propo
sition was successfully resisted by the Repre-
sentatives from the Northern States, who, re-
gardless of the statute line, insisted upon ap-
plying restriction to the new territory general
y, whether lying north or south of it-thereby
repeating it as legislative compromise and,
on the part of the North, persistently violating
the compact, if compact there was
Thereupon this enactment ceased to have
binding virtue in asy sense whether as respects
the North or the South and so in effect it
was treated on the occasion of the admission of
the State of California, and the organization
of the Territories of New-Mexico, Utah and
Washington.
Such was the state of this question, when
the time arrived for the organization of the
Territories of Kansas and Nebraska. In the
progress of constitutional inquiry and reAec-
ton, 1T had now at length come to be seen
clearly that Congress does not possess consti-
tutional power to impose restrictions of this
character upon any present or future State of
the Union. In long series of decisions, on
the fullest argument and after the most de-
llberate consideration, the Supreme Court of
the United States has finally determined this
point, in every form under which the question
could arise, whether as affecting public or pri-
vate rights-in questions of the public do
main, of religion, of navigation, and of SER
vitude
The several States of the Union are, by
force of the Constitution, co-equal in domestic
legislative power Congress cannot change a
law of domestic relation in the State of Maine:
no more can it in the State of Missouri. ANY
statute which proposes to do this is a mere
nullity it takes away no right, it confers none.
If it remains on the statute book unrepealed,
it remains there only as monument of error,
and beacon of warning to the legislator and
the statesman. To repeal it will be eny to
remove imperfection from the statutes, with
out affecting, either in the sense of permission
or of prohibition, the action of the States, or
of their citizens
Still, when the nominal restriction of this
nature, already dead letter in law, was, in
terms, repealed by the last Congress, in
clause of the act organizing the Territories of