The daily Gate City. [volume] (Keokuk, Iowa) 1855-1916, 1856-12-08

dition when reclaimed According N Law and is4vlp
tue VI express provisions Of 10 CsnSsttuttOn. -
promote this ob3sct Legislative e1AssmsnAs and -
means were o4ppted % take aWoD ~ aeleat yiG1D
which the Conssi1 1sisn ssIannly fuaraaissd-'
10 order tonuttify th< Then 6xissing set Of Con
xress eoncernine M sxusditisa 81 fagtsivs~ Sren
sersice Laws wsse enaeted IN naay sassss tcrbid
participate in the execution II sny act Of uongresi
whatever. In this way that system Ut harmoniou,
cooperation between The authorities Of the L. =
AAd Ut the several States, FOR the maintenance oi
their common Institutions, which existed In the ear
iy years Of the Republic Was destroyed. Conflicts
Of Jurisdiction came 10 be frequent, and Congress
foasd itself compelled, for the support Of the Con-
sttutio, and the vindication Of he powers, 10 au-
fhorixe the appointment Of new officers, and the Of
6cers If the States wess H. Ministers charged with
tho execution Of its acts, ~ II they were the minis-
tess respectively Of foreign govern ments, In state
Of mataa hostility, rather than fellow magistrates
the protection of one we'll constituted union. Thus
here also aggression Was followed BY reaction, and
the attacks upon the constitution at this Point did
bu, serve to raise barriers for its defence ard
/ security.
The third stage of this unhappy sectional contro
yersy was In connection with the organization uf
territorial governments and the admission OF new
States into he Union. When il WAS proposed TO
A4ims the State of Maine by separation # her ter
ritory from that Of Massachusetts and the State OF
Missouri formed portion Of tho territory ccded by
France to the =. representatives in Congress OBJ
jected to the admission If the latter unless with
conditions suited To particular views OF public poll,
cy. The imposition OF such condition was suecrss-
fully resisted, but at the period the question
was presented IT imposing restrictions upon the
idue of the territory coded BY France. That ques-
ton vas. for the time disposed OF by the adoption
Of geographical line Of limitation. In this
nect,on It should not be forgotten that France, of
hsr own accord, resolved for considerations " the
most tar sighted sagaeity to cede Louisiana to the
Z. S., and that accession WAS accepted by the T. =
The latter xpresiy engaged that inhabitants Of the
celed territory should b. Incorporated in the Union
Of the u g., and admitted soon ~ possible accor
ding TO the principles Of The Federal Constitution
70 the enjoyment ~ all the rights advantages and
immunities VI citizens Of the 7. ., and IN the
meantime they shall be maintained and protected IN
the free enjoyment Of their liberty, property and
+; the religion which they protested
That Is 70 say, while IL remain in the territorial
condition, its inhabitants are maintained and pro
tected in the free enjoyment OF their liberty and
property, with right then 20 pass into the condi
tiou OF states n footing OF perfect equality with
the original States Tho enactment which establish
ed the restrictive geographical line was acqulesccd
Ia rather than approved by the States VI the Union
1t stood on the statute book, however, for number
OF years and the people Of the respective States ae-
quiesced in the resnaci ment OF the principle a. ap-
piled 10 the State OF Texas, and II was proposed to
acqnesce in it, further application tothe tcrritor,
acquired by the u. s. from Mexico but this prop
ostion SUCCESSFULLY resisted by the representa-.
tres Of the Northern States, who, regardless OF the
statute line, insisted on applying to the
new territories generally, whether lying North OF
south OF it--thereby repeating it asa ieEisl tive
compromise, and on the part Of the North persist
emily violating the compact, il compact there Was
Thcrs0pon, this enactment ceased to have binding
virtue IN any sense whether ~ respects the North
the South, and in effect II WAS treated on the oc
carton Of the admission Of the State Of CAlfornis,
and the organization n The Territories u New
Mexico, Utah ind Washington. Sach was the state
of this question when the time arrived for the or
ganxation II the Territories Of kansas and Neb'M-
ka. In the progress " constitutional inquiry and
reflection, IT had now NJ length come TO be clearly
seen that Congress docs not possess constitutional
power impose restrictions of this character upon
any present future State Of the Union.
In a long series of decisions the fullest arsu
ment and after the most deli beraic consideration
the Supreme Court IT the L. =. had finally deter
minsd this point in every form under which tbs
question shoula arise, whether q. affecting pubic
or private righs or questions Of the pubic domain
or religion, vigation or scrsitude. The severa,
States Of aion are by force VI the Const uiion
coequai In domestic legislative power. Congress
cannot change law OF domestic relation In the
State of Maine, no m ire IL IN the state OF Mis-
souri,.
Any statute which proposes to do this is . mere
nuliity; IL takes away no rght--it s,nfers none
ii IL remain On he statute-boo unrepealed, il re
mains there only monument If error, and
bsacon Of warning to the legislator and the states
Ia repeal will be only to remove mPerf, ctIoD
from the statutes without affecting either la the
sense Of permission of prohibition in the action
OF the states or of their citizens. Still when the
nominal restriction Of this nature. already dead
letter in law, repealed by the last Congress in
q clause Of tho Act organizing the Territories OF
Kansas and Nebraska, the repeal was made the &C
cssion of vide spresd and dangerous agitation.
IL was alleged thatthe original enactment b.ing
. compact II perpetual moral obligation it's repeal
constituted an odious breach Of faith. An act Of
Congress while IL 10 unr.peasd. especially if
IL be enthusiastically valid in the judgnen OF those
public functtonAres. whore duty is to pronounce
on that point, is undoubtedly binding tn. con- |
scicnce VI each good Citizen u the Republic; but ia
what il be iainsd that the enactment
in question vested with perpetnity, and enti-
ticd 10 respect Of solemn compact. Between /
whom the compact No distinct contending /
power Of the gosernmtnt--no separate sections VI
the Union, treating such, catered in the treaty
Anpulatsons Dn the suljst.
Il ~ss mere clause II the act OF Congress, aud /
like any other eon,rovIted matter Of legislation +
recs'yed sts tsai shape and was passed by eamprs-
MISE of conflicting opinions or sentiments of the
mea,bers OF Gongfess but IL IL had moral author
~ over men cs,uscieucts. To whom lid this au ber
ity attach Not ~ hose If the North who had re
Ieateiis refused - confirm n ~ extension and
who had sedulousiy striyen tn establish other and
incompasibe regulations upon the subject ard II, |
as 4 appears. the supposed compact haa no obliga
tory fpfcs, 70 the North, OF course II could mol
have had any e. the south, for all such compact.
East be mutual and OF reciprocal obligation.
IL has not unt.egncn.iy happened that law
gasrs, With undue estimation OF the value Of the
law they give, of II tho view of imparting Il pa
caliar strength, make Il perpetual 10 terms, but
they cannot thus bind the c.-ctense the 5ux ms nj
ACID The will Of those who may succeed them in
vested With similar respauslbail and clothed
with eaaxi authority. More carefnl iu,cstigaiicn
may prove tho Law unsoand in principle, experience
MAY show to b. imperfect ia dessi aud i,npract
bic Ia execution, and then both reason And right
eombine not merely 10 justify but to require IT.
repeal.
The Constitution, supreme il is over all ihe /
departments Of the Gesernnent, legislative exec
atiye and judicial is open 10 aIncndrncn; by it's
terms, ami Congress or the States may IN their dis
erection propose amendments to Its solemn com pact
though IL III truth " between the sovereign States
Of the Union. In tine present instance q political
enactment WHICH had ceased 10 have legal mower or
authority VI any kind was repeAsed. The pss.iipa |
assumed hat Congress had moral right 10 enact
such repeal wa strange enough and Singular, 10
IN view VI the fact that the argument camc from
those who oPeniy refused obedience to xstinx la az
of tho land having the same popular dasignA,,on
and quality compromise acts nay more who nm |
equisocAliy disrcsarded ami eoaie IN ned the m 1T
p,sitiye and obligatory I'M functions III thr Cunst-
luton itself, and sought by every mrans within 1
Their reach - deprive fortionof their fellow cit
zens Of the equal enjoyment II those rights and
privileges guaranteed alike to ali by the fuasIs-
slsntai compact vt our Union.
THIS argument agains' ,.e repeal of the statute
lti4e stl9n A4cnmlii ii hp,i nv snnthar 80