The star of the north. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1849-1866, 1856-12-10

| here, also, aggression was followed by re-
action; and the attacks upon the Constisus
tion al this point did but 10 serve 10 raise up
new barriers for its defence and security.
The third stage Of the unhappy sectional
controversy was in connection with the Of
gauizaiion of territorial governments, and
the admission of new States into the Union.
When IT was proposed to admit the State ol
Maine, by separation of territory from that
of Massachusetts,, and The Stats Of Missouri,
formed of a portion of the territory ceded by
France The United States, representatives
in Congress objected to The admission of the
latter, unless with conditions suited to par
tcular views of public policy. The impnsi-
ton OF such condition was snccessfnlly re-
sisted, But, a, the same period, the ques-
ton was presented of imposing reslriclions 8
upon the residue of the territory csded by
France. That question was, for the time,
disposed of by the adoption Of geographi.
cal line Of limitation.
In this connection Il should moi be forgot
ten that France, OF herown accord, resolved,
for considerations of the most iar-sighted sa.
gacity, 10 cede Louisiana 10 the United
States, the latter expressly engaging that "the
Inhabitants OF the ceded territory shall be in-
corporaled in ths Union of the United States,
and admitted as SOON as possible, according
10 the principles Of the Federal Constitution,
10 the enjoyment of all the rights, advanta-
ges, and immunities Of citlzens OF the United
States; and in the meantime they shall be
maintained and protected in the free enjoy
ment of their liberty, property, and the reli-
gion which they profess'--lhai is 10 say,
while il remains in territorial condition, lis
inhabitants are maintained and protected in
The free enjoyment of their liberty and prop.
erly, with right then TO pass into the con.
dition of States on footing of perlec.equal-
ity with The original States.
The enactment, which established the re-
strictive geographical line, was acquiesced
in rather than approved by the States of the
Union. II stood on the statute book, how
ever, for number OF years; and the people
of the respective States aequiesced in the 70.
enactment of the principles as applied 10 The
Stale Of Texas and it was proposed 10 &C.
qnescs in it's further application 10 the ter.
rlory acquired BY the United States from
Mexico. Blu, this proposition was success.
fully resisted by the representatives from the
Northern States, who, regardless OF the stat.
ute line, insisted upon applying restrictions
Q the new ierritery generally, whethef -Iyins
north or south of il, thereby repeating il Us a
legislative compromise, aud, on the part OF
The North, persisten,ly violating the compact
If compact there was.
| Thereupon this enactment ceased to have
binding vivtue in any sense, whether as re.
specls the NORTH or the South and SO in eff.
feel j, was lresIed on The occasion Of the sd.
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 ihe
progress of constitutional inquiry and reflec.
tion, il had now ct length come to be seer
clearly that Congress does moi possess consii
tutional power 10 impose restrictions of ihi,
character upon any present or future State o.
the Union. In long series of decisions, on
the fullest argument, and after the most de
Iberate consideration, lhe Supreme Court of
the Julted States had finally determined this
point, in every form under which the ques.
tion could arise, whether as affecting public
or private rghts--in questions of The public
domain, of religion, of navigation, and o.
serviiude.
The several States Of the Union are, by
force of The Constitution, co-equal IN domes.
tic legislative power. Congress cannot change
Law OF domestic relation in the State oil
Malne; no more can il in the State of Mis-.
souri,. Any statute which proposes to do
this is \ mere nuliity it takes away no
right, il confsrs none. Il remains on the
statute book unrepealsd, il remaios there
only as monument of error, and beacon
of warning to the Legislator and statesman
To repeal il will be only, to remove imper.
fection from the statutes, without affecting
either in the sense of pc rmission or OF prohi.
biiion, the action OF me States, or of rheiI
citizens.
Still, when the nominal restriction OF this
this nature, already dead letter In Law, was
an terms repealed by the last Congress, in q
clause of the act organizing the Territories Of
Kansas and Nebraska, that repeal was made
The occasion Of a widespread and dangerous
agitation.
II was alleged that the original enactment
being compact OF perpetual moral obliga.
lion, its repeal constituted an odious breach
of faith.
An &C, Of Congress, while il remains un
repealed, more especially II il be consti:u
lionally valid in the judgment Of those public
funelionaries whose duty il is TO pronounce
on that poirL is undoubtedly binding on ths
conscience OF each good citizen OF The BE
public. But in what sense car it be ASSERTED
that the enactment in question was investst
with perpetuiiy and entitled TO the respect o
a solemn compacis Between whom wa
the compact? No distinct conlsnding pow
ers of the government, no separate sections
Of the Uaion, treating as such, entered into
treaty slipula,ions on the subject. Ii was {
mere clause Of an act of Congress, and like
- - III -