New Orleans daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1851-1866, 1856-12-08

s se ~ the admission Of the latter unless with cond
tons suited to particular views OF public PelSy. lug
imposition of such condition was successfully resist
cd. But at the same period, the question was pre- I
sented of imposing restrictions upon the residue o.
the territory ceded by France. That question was,
for the time disposed of by the adoption OF geogia
phical line of limitation. :
France her own accord resolved for consideration
of the most farsighted sagacy to cede Louisiana 70
the United States, and that accession was accepIe9
Nv the United States the latter expressly engaged
That the inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be
incorporated in the Union Of the United States, ana
admitted as soon as possible, according to the prln
cipes of the Federal Constitution 10 me ;1
of all the rights advantages and lmmunltles OF cltl-
IONS of the United States and in the meantime they
shall be maintained and protected in the tree ENJOY
ment of their liberty property ano the Religion wnlen
thew profess'-that is to say, while it remain IN
territorial condition, its inhabitants are maintained
and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty
and property, with right then to pass into me Inc
condition of States on footing OF periec' eq'''''
with the original States.
The enactment which established the restrictive
geographical line was aequesced IN Iather 1''s t p
proved by the States of the Union. II sIoou oil NC
statute book however, for number OF years, anu tlle
people of the respective States acqulescea N tne re-
enactment of the principle as applied to the State OF
Texas and it proposed TO acque?ce III h us tha
ther application to the ter5oty ac4eu y was
successfully resisted by the representatives. rom te
Northern States who, regardless OF the statute me
insisted upon applying restriction to the new tei
tory generally whether lying north or SCUM Vi ~
thereby repeating it legislative compromise, ana,
on the palt Of Thea North persistently violating the
compact, if compact there was.
Thereupon this enactment ceased 10 nave plliIns
virtue in any 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 MeS
co. Utah and Washington.
arrived for the organization of the Territories OF Kan
sas and Nebraska In the progress OF colS''.u.lol
inquiry and reflection 1t mad no" at leiisull coic W
he seem clearly that Congress does not possess constr
tutona power to impose restrictions OF tins character
mon any present or future State of the Union In
long series of decisions, the fullest argument and
after the most deliberate consideration the supreme
Court of the United States had finally determined
This pont in every form in which the question could
arise whether as affecting public or private rights
in questions of the public DOMAIN, OF reNSloh, Vi
navigation and Of servitudc.
The several States of the Union are, by force OF
the constitution, co-equal in domestic legislative
: power. Congress cannot change a law OF oomestlc
relation in the State OF Name no more can ~ III INC
State of Missouri Any statute which proposes to do
this is mere nulity it takes away no right II con
e fers none If it remains the statute book unre-
peaed, it remains there only as monument OF error
C and beacon of warning to the legislator and the
statesman To repeal it will be only to remove lmpe
l. lection from the statutes without affecting, either in
the sense of permission or of prohibition tho acton
i of the States or Of their citizens
It, already dead letter in law, was III terms repeated p
lie the last Congress, in clause Of the act orsanze
the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska, that rcpea
10 was made the occasion of widespread and DANCE
" rous agitation.
IN It was alleged that the original enactment, being
es compact of perpetual moral obligation, its repea
I'd constituted an odious breach OF faith.
An act of Congress, while it remains nnrepealed
is more especially if it be consttutionay valid in the
ID Judgment of those public iunctonalies whose duty
n is to pronounce that point is undoubtedly binding
fl on the conscience of each good citizen of the epub
lic But in what sense can 1t be asserted that the en-
a. actment in question was invested with perpetlt.
~ and entitled to the respect OF a solemn compact
IT, Between whom was the compact? No distinct con
he tending powers of the Government no separate sec
he tons Of the Union, treating as such entered int
80 treaty stimations the subject 1t was q Iler
of clause of an act of Congress- and like any other con
Mt troyerted matter of legislation received its final shap
e. and was passed by compromise OF the conflicting
lily opinions or sentiments of the members of Congress;
But if it had moral authority mems conscences
IS, to whom did this authority attach Not 10 those
re- the North who had repeatedly refused TO confirm
in by extension and who had zeaousy strven to estat
sh other and incompatible regulations upon the sui
IS, iect And it, as it thus appears, the compact ha
of no obligatory force to the N0rh of course coui
do not have had any as to the south Tor al sufh con
nd 1t has not unircquently happened that aW-glVer
he with undue estimation Of the value Of the lazy the
nd rive or in the view of ilnparting to it pecuh3
strength make it perpetual in terms; but they canlt
a thus bind the conscience the judgment and the Wi
he of those who may succeed them, invested with sim
nd lar RESPONSIBILITIES, and clothed with equal AUTHORITY
ey More careful investigation may prove the aW 70
mt unsound in principle Experience may show it to
be imperfect in detail and impracticabc in execution
g And then both reason and right combine not mere
it, to Justify, but to require its repeal
Oh The constitution supreme as it IS over all the d
ed partmens Of the government legislative, eXecutiy
tn and judicial is open to amendment by its very term
he and Congress the States may, IN their dscIello
q propose amendments to it, solemn compact though
Int,yr M
os In the present instance political enactment, Wht
nd had ceased to have legal power or authority OF al
EN- kind was repealed. The position assumed, that Co
nd rress had no moral right to enact such repeal, W
nd Strange enough and singularly in view Of the ia
of that the argument came from those who openly
nd fused obedience to existing laws of the land havl
are the same popular designation and quality as comp
md mise acts-nay more who unequvocalIy Disregard
the and condemned the most positive and obligatory
in functions of the constitution itself, and sought,
ws every means within their reach, to deprive portl
the of their iellowcitiZens OF the eqnal enloymenI
ice those rights and privileges guaranteed alike TO all
ed, the fundamental compact OF our unlon
me. This argument against the repeal of the statv
line in question: was accompanied by anothef
rife congenia character, and equaly WIN Ile 1otln
nv destitute of foundation in reason and truth 1t
into imputed that the measure originated IN the conc'
itu- ton of extending the limits OF slaveabor beyo
in. those previously assigned to it, and that Snch
heir its natural as well as intended effect ana tht
fall baseess assumptions were made, in the Northt
tive States the ground OF unceasng assault upon COLE
to tutOna right.
ider The repeal in terms of statute, which was
be ready obsolete and also null for unconstitutional
could have no influence 10 opSllGt OF 10 p'Vole
an. propagation of conflicting views of political or 500
VIC. institutions When the act organizing the Terri
Mch res of Kansas and Nebraska was passed. the NH
1cal ent effect upon that portion Of the public dom
they thus opened to legal settlement, was to admit
and tiers from all the States Of the Union alike, ei
tack with his convictions Of public policy and private
the teres there to found il their discretion, subject
1uth such limitations the constitution and acts OF
that gress might prescribe, States, hereafter to
now admitted into the Union. 1t was free field, o.
m of alike to ALL whether the statute line OF assumed
nent stricton were repealed or not. That repeal dd
pcd open to free competition Of the diverse opinions
domestic institutions q field which, without $
those repeal, would have been closed against them
erey found that field OF competition already opened
They fact and in law. All the repeal did WAS to relieve
hor statute book of objectionable enactment, Hncol
war; tutiona in effect and injurious in terms to IA
Is no. portion Of the States.
and Is il the fact that in all the unsettled regions OF
pro- United States, if mgTaton be lett free to act III
zee of respect ror ITSELF without legal prohibitions eli
con- side slave labor will spontaneous go everywhere
which preference to free abor Is ii the fact that tho
IL and cuar domestic institutions OF the southern States
what sess relatively much Of ygOr that whcresoCvc
act az avenue is freely open to all the world they will
nearly tratc to the exclusion OF those OF the Northern Sta
Is it the fact, that the former enjoy, compared
~ the the latter such rreSistihy superior vitality nde