Democrat and sentinel. [volume] (Ebensburg, Pa.) 1853-1866, 1856-12-10

private rights-in questions of the public do
main. of religion. of navigation, and of sur
yitudc.
The several States of the Union are, by
| force OF the Constitution. co equal Ia domes-
tic legislative power Congress cannot change
a law of domestic relation in the State of
Maine; no more can it in the State of Missou-
ri. Any statute which proposes to do this is
mere nullity; it takes away no right, it con-
fers none If it remains on the statue book
unreRealed, it remains there ouly as a monu-
AeAt oYserror, and beacon of ,varniDe 70 tho
Legislator and the statesman To repeal it
will be only to remove imperfection from the
! statutes without 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 iepealed by the last Congress, in
clause # the act organizing the Territories of
Kansas and Nebraska, that repeal was made
the occasion of a wide spread and dangerous
agitation.
1t wal alleged that the original enactment
being compact of perpetual moral obligation,
its repeal constituted,an odious breach of faith.
An ac' of Congress, while it remains unre-
pealed, more especially if it be constitutional
y valid il the judgment of those public func-
honaries whose duty it is to pronounce on
that point, is undoubtedly binding on the
consci ente of each good citizen of the Repub-
lie. But In what sense can it be asserted that
the enactment III question was invested with
perpetulty and entitled to the respect of SOL
emn compact? Between whom was the COM
pact? No distinct contending powers of the
government, no seperate sections of the T.
MON. treating such, entered into treaty
stipulatioos of the subject.
1t wasa mere clause of an act of Congress,
and like any other controverted matter of leg
islation received its final shape and was pas,
sed by compi omise of the conflicting opinions
or sentiments of the members of Congress
But If 1t had moral authority over mems con-
sciences to whom did this authority attach
Not to those of the North who had repeated
ly refused to confirm it by extension, and who
had zealously striven to establish other and
incompa tible regulations upon the subject
And if, as it thus appears, the supposed COM
pact 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 impair
ting to it peculiar strength, make it perpet-
ual in terms but they cannot thus bind the
conscience, the judgment, and the will of
those who may succeed them, invested with
similar responsibilities, and clothed with equal
authority More careful investigation nav
prove the law to be unsound in principle Ex-
pcrlencc may show it to be imperfect in de-
tail and impracticable in execution. And
then both reason and right combine not mere
ly 70 Justify. but to require its repeal.
The Constitution, supreme as it is over all
The departments of the government legisla-
tive. executive and judicial, is open to amend |
ment by its very terms ; and Congress or the
States may in their discretion. propose amend |
ment to 1t, solemn compact though it be be-
tween the sovereign States of the Union. In !,
the present instance, Political enactment,
which bad ceased TO have legal power or au-
thority Of any kind. was repealed The posi-
tion assumed, that Congress had no moral
right to enact such repeal, was strange enough
and singularly so in view of the fact that the
came from those who openly refus- !,
ed obedience to existing laws Of the land, hav-
ing the same popular designation aud quality /
as compromise acts-nay, more, who unequiv ,
ocally disregard and condemn the most posi- ,
tive and obligatory injuncti,ns Of Tie CoaSti- !
tuition itself, and sought, by every cans with
In their reach, TO deprive portion of their
tel!ow-citizens of the equal enjoyment of those
rights and privileges guaranteed alike to all
by the Fundamental compact of our Union.
This argument against the repeal of the
statute line in question. was accompanied oy
another of congenial character. and equally
with the former destitute of foundation ia
sou and truth. Il was imputed that the meas
ure originated in the conception Of extending +,
fha fStax 81 i,a. 81,
ously assigned to i aad that such was its nat |
ural as well as INTENDED effect; and these base
less assumptions were made. IN the Northern
States, the ground of unceasing assault upon
constitutional right.
The repeal in terms of statute, which was
already obsolete, and also null for unconstitu-
tionaEty, could have no influence to obstruct
or to promote the propagation ofconfictiug I,
views of political or social institution. When
the act organizing the Territories of Kansas
and Nebraska was passed. the inherent effect
upon that portion of the public domain thus
opened to legal settlement /, was to admit set
tiers from all the States of the Union alike,
each With his convictions Of public policy and
private Interest, there to found in their dis
erelon, suh;ect to such Limitations as the !
Constitution aud acts of Congress might pre-
scribe i,ew States. hereafter to be admitted |
iuto to Inc tTnior
II vas a ffee field, open alike to all, wheth- /,
sr the statute ike of assumed rcslricticr were
repealed or not That repea! didnot open to
free competition OF Tie diverse opinions and
domestic institutions field, which, without
such repeal. would have been closed against
theu: found that field OF competition already
opened, in fact and in law. All the repeal
did was to rehevsssthe statute book of an objec-