Cooper's Clarksburg register. [volume] (Clarksburg, Va. [W. Va.]) 1851-1861, 1856-01-09

These restrictions were. in the estima-
ton of many til fought full men, nal from
the beginning, unathorized By the cons til
tution' : contrary to the treaty stipulations
for the concession of Louisiana, and in
with the equality OF the States.
They had been. stripped of all mortal
by persistent efforts to procure
their indirect repeal through contradic-
tory enactments. They had been practi-
cally abrogsted by 'he legislation anen-
ding the organization of Utah, New Mex
leo, and Washington. If any vitality re-
NAMED in Them, il would have been taken
away, in effect, by The new territorial acts,
in the form originally proposed to The Sem
ate at the first session ofthe last Congress.
II was manly ingenious. as we'll as patri-
otic and just, to do this directly and plain
", and thus relieve the statute~book of an
act which might be of possible future in
jury, but of no possible future benefit; and
ths me asure of It's repeal was fnai consum-
nation and complete recognition Of Che
principle, thai no portion of the United
STATES shall undertake, thai no portion Of
the United States shall undertake, through
assumption of the general government, TO
dictate the social Institutions of any ether
portion.
The scope and effect Of the language
of repeal were not left in doubt. 1t was
declared, in terms, to be "the true intent
and meaning of this act DOT to legislate
slavery into any Territory or State, nor
to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the
people thereof perfectly free to form and
regulate their domestic institutions in their
own way, subject only to the constitution
of the United States"
The measure could not be witlstood
upon its merits alone. 1t was attacked
with violence, on the false or delusive pre-
text, that it constituted q breach of faith.
Never was objection more utterly desti>
tute of substantial Justification. When,
before, was it imagined by sensible men,
that q regulative or declarative statute,
whether enacted ten or forty years ago,
is irrepealable, that an act Of Congress
is above the constitution ? If, indeed,
there were in the facts any cause to i'm
pute bad faith. it would attach to those
only, who have never ceased, from the
time of the enactment Of the restrictive
provision to the present day, to denounce
and to condemn it who have constantly
refused to complete it by needful supple
mentary Legislation who have spared no
exertion to deprive it of moral force who
have themselves again and again attempt
| ed its repeal by the enactment Of incom-
patible provisions and who, by the inev-
table roactionary effect Of their own vio-
lence on the subject, awakened the couu-
try to perception of the true constitution
al principle, of leaving the matter involved
TO the discretion of the people Of the re-
spective existing or incipient States.
It'll not pretended that this principle,
or any other, precludes the possibility of
evils in practice, disturbed as political ac-
ton is liable to be by human passions
No form of government is exempt from
Inconvenience but in this case they are
the result of the abuse, and not Of the le-
gitimate exercise, of the powers reserved
or conferred in the organization of Ter
ritory. They are not to be charged to
the great principle of popular sovereign>
lty !: on the contrary, they disappear be-
fore the intelligence and patriotism of the
people, exerting through the ballot-box
their peaceful and silent but irresistible
power.
II the friends Of the constitution are TO
have another struggle, its enemies could
not present more acceptable issue, than
that Of State, whose constitution clear
~ embraces republican form of gov
ernment," being excluded from the Union
because its domestic institutions may not
in all respects comport with the ideas of
what is wise and expedient entertained in
some other State. Fresh from groundless
imputations of breach of faith against
others, men will commence the agitation
of this next question with indubitabIs VIC.
latlon of an express compact between the
independent soereign powers Of the Uni
ted States and Of the republic of Texas,
AS we'll as of the older and equally solemn
compacts, which assure the equality of all
the States.
But, deplorable as would be such a
violation OF compact in itself, and in all
ITS direct consequences, that is the very
least Of the evils involved. When sec
tlonal agi!ators shall have succeeded, in
forcing on this issue, can their pretcnsons
TAIL 10 be met by counter pretensions? Will
not different States be compelled respec-
tlvciy to meet extremes with extremes Z?
And, if either extreme carry its point,
what is that SO far forth but the dissolu-
ton of the Union? II a new State. form
ed from the territory of the United States,
be absolutely excluded from admission
therein, that fact OF itself constitutes the
disruption Of union between it and the
other States. But the process Of dissolu-
ton could not stop there. Would rot a
sectional decision. producing such result
by majority of votes, either northern or
southern, of necessity drive out the ops
pressed and grieved minority. and place