Glasgow weekly times. (Glasgow, Mo.) 1848-1861, 1856-12-11


to the State of Texas, and it was proposed
to acquiesce in its further application to
the territory acquired by the United States
from Mexico. But this proposition was
successfully resisted by the Representatives
oil the Northern States, who, regardless of
the statute line, insisted upon applying re-
striction to the new territory generally,
whether lying North or South Of it, thereby
repeating il as Legislative compromise, and
on The part of the North, pcrsistently vio-
lating the compact, il compact there was.
Thereupon this enactment ceased 10 have
binding virtue in any sense, whether as re-
spects the North or the South; and so in eff
feet it was treated OH The occasion Of the adj
mission Of the State of California, and the
organization of the Territories of New Mex
leo, 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 enquiry and
reflection, it had now at length come 10 be
seen clearly that Congress does not possess
constitutional power to impose restrictions
of this character upon any present or future
State Of the Union. In a long series of de-
cisions on the fullest argument, and after the
most deliberate consideration, the Supreme
Court of the United States had finally de-
termined thus point, in every form under
which the question could arise, whether as
affecting public or private rights--in ques-
tions OF the public domain, Of religion, of
navigation and of servitude.
The several States OF the Union are, by
| e ba a., it,,ti Il
tic legislative power. Congress cannot
change law of domestic relation in the
State of Maine; nor more than in the State
Of Missouri. Any statute which proposes
TO do this is a mere nulity; it takes away no
right, it conrers none. II il remains on the
statute book unrepealed, it remains there
only as monument OF error, and a beacon
of warning TO the legislator and statesman.
To repeal it will be only 10 remove imper-
lection from The statutes, without eifecling,
either in the sense of permISs inn or of pro-
hibition, the action Of the States or Of their
citizens.
JUsTIFGCATIoE OF THE nEPEAL OF THE CON-
| PROMISE,
Still, when the nominal restriction Of this
nature already a dead letter in law, was in
terms repealed by the last Congress, in the
clause Of the act organizing the Territories
of Kansas and Nebraska, that repeal was
made the occasion Of a widespread ant
dangerous agitation.
1t was alleged that the original enact.
ment, being compact Of perpetual mora
obligation, its repeal constituted an odious
breach of faith.
An act of Congress, while it remains I'm.
repealed, more especially if it be constitu.
tionally validin the judgments OF those iunc.
tionaries whose duty it is 10 pronounce OIL
that point, is undoubtedly binding on the
conscience Of each good citizen Of the Re.
public. But in what sense can it be asser.
ted that the enactment in question was in
vested with perpetuity and entitled TO the
respect Of solemn compact? Between
whom was the compact? No distinct con,
tending power Of the Government, no sep
arate sections of the Union, treating as such
entered into treaty speculations on the sub
ject 1t was a mere clause Of an act o.
Congress, AMI like any other controverted
matter Of legislation, received lis fna
shape and passed by compromise Of the CON
FLEEING opinions or sentiments Of members
of the Congress. But if it had moral All.
thority over mems consciences, to whom
did this authority attach? Not to those oil
the North. who had repeatedly refused t.
confirm it by extension, and who had zeal.
ously striyen to establish ether and incom
patibe 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 Il
the South, for all such compacls must b
mutual and of reciprocal obligation.
1t has not nni'requcntly happened tha
law -givers with uldue estimation o. tho
value OF the law they give. or in the view
II impartiug TO it peculiar strength, make i
perpetual in terms; but they cannot thu,
bind the conscience, the Judgement, and th'
: will of those who may succeed them, inves
ted with similar possibilities, and clothed
: with equal authority. More careful inves
: tigation may prove the law to be unsound il
principle. Experience may show it TO bt
imperfect in detail and impracticable in ex
execution. And then both reason ant
right combine not merely to justify, but Il
| require its repeal.
The Constitution, supreme as it is owe,
all the departments of the government, leg
islative, executive, and judicial, is open t,
f amendment by its very terms; and Congress
{ or the States, may, in their discretion, pro
pose amendment to t,solemn compact thougl
/ it in truth Is between the sovereign State
= OF the Union. In the present instance
a political enactment, which had ceased {,
] have legal power or authority OF any kind
e was repealed. The position ass umed, tina
= Congress had no moral right 10 enact sucI
e repeal, was strange enough, and sngularl,
SO in view of the fact that the argumen
d came fror those who openly refused obedi
), ence 10 existing laws Of the land, havin
: the same popular designation and quality a
compromise acts-nay more, who unequiv
ocaily disregarded and condemned the mos
= positive and obligatory injunctiohs Of III
: Constitution itself, and ought, by ever
: means within their reach, TO deprive por
d ton of their iellow-ciizens of the equal en-
Y joyment Of those rights and privileges guar
: anteed to all by the fundamental compact {
: our Union.
ri This ar1urnenf AGAINST the renaal Of III