The western Democrat. [volume] (Charlotte, N.C.) 1852-1870, 1856-12-16

posed 10 acquicSc in its further application
to the territory acquired by the United
! States from Mexico. But this proposition
was successfully resisted by the representa-
! tives from the northern States, who, regard
less of the statute line. insisted upon ap-
plying restrictions to the new territory gen
orally, whether lying north or south of it,
thereby repeating it as n legislative com
promise, and, on the part of the North, per
sistcntly violating the compact, if compact
! there was.
Thereupon this enactment ceased to have
! binding virtue in any sense, whether as
respects the North or South and so in eff
! feet it was treated on the occasion Of the
! admission Of tno State of California and
! the organization of the Territories Of New
| Mexico, Utah, and Washington.
| Such was the state of this question when
! the time arrived for the organization of the
| Teri itories of Kansas and Nebraska. In
the progress Of constitutional inquiry and
reflection, it had now at length come to 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 long series OF
! decisions, on the fullest argument, and af-
ter the most deliberate consideration, the
finally determined this point in every form
under which the question could arise, whcth
er as affecting public or private rights-in
questions Of public domain, Of religion, of
navigation, and Of scrvitude.
The several States of the Union are, by
force of the constitution, coequnl in aomes
tic Legislative power. Congress cannot
change a law ST domestic relation in the
State of Maine no more can it in tie State
of Missouri. Any statute which proposes
to do this is a mere nullity; it takes away
no right, it cOnters none. If it remains on
the statute book unrepcaled, it remains
there Onl Y as a monument of error, and
beacon of warning to the legislator and the
statesman. To repeal it will be only to
remove impcrfcction 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terms repealed by the last Congress, in
clause Of the act organizing the Territories
of Kansas and Nebraska, that repeal was
made the occasion of a widespread and
dangerous agitation.
1t was alleged that the original enact
mcnt being compact of perpetual moral
breach of faith.
An act Of Congress, while it remains un-
repealed, more especially if it be constitu-
tionally valid in the Judgment of those
public functionarics whose duty it is to pro-
nOunce on that point, is undoubtedly bind
ing on the conscience of each good citizen
Of the republic. But in what sense can it
be asserted that the enactment in question
was invested with pcrpctuity and entitled
to the respect Of Il sOumn compact Be
tween whom was the compact No dis
tnct contcnding powers of the government,
no sepcratc sections of the Union, treating
as such, entered into treaty stpulatiOns on
the subject. 1t was mere clause of an |
act Of Congress, and, like any other con
trOvcrtcd matter of legislation, received its |
final shape and passed by compromise of |
the conflicting opinions or sentiments of
the members of Congress.
But if it had moral authority over mems |
conscicnccs, to whom did this authority |
attach Not to those of the North, who |
had repeatedly refused to confirm it by cx-
tension, and who had zealously striven to
establish other and incompatiblcrcg regulations
upon the subject. And if, as it thus ap-
pears, the supposed compact had no obi
gatory 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 unfrcGucntly happened that
law-givcrs, with undue estimation of the
value of the law they give, or in the view
of impartng to it peculiar strength, make
it perpetual in terms but they cannot thus
bind tie conscience, the judgment, and
the will of those who may succeed them,
invested with similar responsibilities, and
clothed with equal authority. More care
full investigation may prove the law TO be
unsound in principle. Experience may
show it to he imperfect i'll detail and i'm
practicable in execution. And then both
reason aud right combine not merely tC
justify, but to require its repeal.
The constitution, supreme az it is over
all the departments of the government,
legislative executive, aud judicial, is open
to amendment by its very terms and Cor
-rcss or the States may, in THEN. discretion.
propose amendment to it, solemn compact
though il in truth is between the sovereign
States Of the. UHion. In the present in
stance. Il political enactment which had
ceased to have Legal power or authority of
any kind, was repealed. The position as
sumcd. that Congress had no moral right 10
enact such repeal, and strange enough,
and singularly 50 in view of tn" fact that
,hc argument come from those who openly
refused obedience to existing laws Of the
and, having the same popular designation
and quality as compromise actS--nav, more
Hho unequivocally dsregardrd and con
lomcd the most positive and obligatory in
functions of the constitution it-clf and
sought, by every means within their reach, {
% deprive a portion Of th"r fellow citizens
If the equal enjoyment Of those rights and
1ri ilce,t.S Guaranteed alike f1 all by tE.. | :
fundamental compact Of our Union.
This argument against the repeal "f the
;tatute line III que, ton WAS accompanied hv
mother Of congcnial character, and cquai-
' with the former destitute of foundation I
u reason and truth. II was imputed that
he measure originated in the conception
# extending the limits of slav" labor be
gond those previously assigned 70 i. ard
hat such was itS natural Is we'll a. intend ,
a cffcrt: ana these ha-clo<~ assumptions
we're made. in the northern States, the {
ground Of u4ccasirg assault nPon const;-
utionaI right.