American union. [volume] (Morgantown, Va. [W. Va.]) 1855-1859, 1856-12-13

tacks upon the Constitution at this
point did but serve to raise up new
barriers for its defence and security.
The third stage of this unhappy
sectional controversy, was in connec
tion with the organization Of terrific.
rial governments, and the admission OF
new States into the Union. When il
was proposed to admit the State OF
Maine, by separation of territory from
that of Massachusetts, and the State
of Missouri, formed of portion of the
territory ceded by France to tho Uni.
ted States, representatives in Congress
objected to the admission Of the latter,
unless with conditions suited to partic-
ular views ofpublic policy. The impo-
sition of such condition was success
fully resisted. But, at the same peri
cd, the question was presented of i'm
posing restrictions upon the residue of
the territory ceded by France. That
question was, for the time, disposed of
by the adoption Of a geographical line
of limitation.
Iniss connexion il should not be forgot
ten that France, of her own accord, resolv-
ed, for considerations of the most iar.sish,ed
sagaeity, to cede Louisiana TO the United
States, and that accession was accepted by
the United States, the latter expressly enga.
ged that 'the Inhabitants of the ceded ter
ritory shall be incorporated in tho Union of
the United States, and admitted as soon as
possible, according to the principles of the
Federal Constitutions, to the enjoyment Of
| all the rights, advantages and immunilies
OF citizens Of the United States; and in the
meartime they shall be maintained and pro-
tected in the free enjoyment OF their l;beriy,
| property. and the religion which they pro-
tess'-that is TO say, while ii remains in q
| territorial condition, it's Inhabitants are
maintained and protected in the free enjoy
ment of their liberty and property. with a
right then to pass into the condition of
States on footing Of periec, equality with
the original States
! She enactment, which established the re-
strictiye geographical line was acquiesced in
rather than approved by the States of the
| Union. IL stood on the statute books, how
ever, for number of years; and the people
Of the respective States acquiesced in the
re. enactment OF The principle as applied to
the State of Texas; and it was proposed to
acquiesce in i,s further application to The
| territory acquired by the United States from
Mexico. But this proposition was success
fully resisted by the representatives. from
the northern States, who, regardless Of the
statute line, insisted upon applying restric.
.ion 10 the new territory generally, whether
lying north or south OF il, thereby repeating
II as a legislative compromise, and on the
part OF the north, persisten,ly violating the
| compact, ii compact there was.
Thereupon this enactment ceased to have
binding virtue in any sense, whether as ro-
spects The North or the South; and so in ef.
iect II was treated on the occasion Of the ad-
mission Of The State Of California, and the
organization OF the Territories of New Mcxi.
CO, Utah aud Washington.
Such was the state Of this question, when
| the time arrived for the Organization OF the
! territories of Kansas end Nebraska. In the
progress of constitutional inquiry and refec.
ton, it had now at length come 10 be seen
clearly that Congress does not possess con.
sli'utional power to impose restrictions Of
this character upon any present or future
I State OF the Union. In a long series Of de-
cisions, on the fullest argument, and after
the most deliberate consideration, the Su.
preme Court Of the United States had finally
determined this point, in every form under
which the question could arise, whether as
affecting public or private rights--n ques-
tons of the public domain, Of religion, OF
navigation and Of servitude.
The several States OF the Union are, by
force Of the Constitution, coequal in 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 Missouri. Any statute which proposes
to do this is mere nullity; it takes away
! no right, II conIeTs none. lf il remains on
the statute book unrepealed, it remains there
only as monument oil error, and beacon
OF warning to the legislator and the states.
man. To repeal il will be only to remove
imperfecton from the statutes, without aC.
iecting, 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 repealed by the last Congress, in a
clause Of The oct organizing the terr tories
OF Kansas and Nebraska that repeal was
made the occasion of wide spread and
dangerous agitation.
II was alleged that the original enactment
being compact OF perpetual moral 0bliga-
tion, its repeal constituted an odious breach
of faith
An act Of Congress, while il remains un.
repealed, more especially if IT be cons,itu-
lionally valid in the judgment Of those pub
lie functionaries whose duty il is 10 pro
nounce on that point, is undoubtedly bind.
ing on the conscience Of each good citizen
Of the Republic. But in what sense can il
be asserted that the enactment in question
wes invested with perpe,uity and entitled
to the respect Of solemn compact? Be-
tween whom was the compact? No distinct
contending power OF tile government. no
separate sections Of the Union, treating as
such, entered into treaty stipula,ions on the
subject. II was mere clause Of an act of
Congress, and like any other controvet,ed
matter Of legislation, received it's finat shape
and was passed By compromise Of the con
flicting opinions or sentiments Of the mem.
teB Of Congress. But il it had moral au.
Ilhority over mems conscences, 10 whom did
| ibis authority attach? No, 10 those of the