The weekly Portage sentinel. [volume] (Ravenna, Ohio) 1854-1861, 1856-12-11

ton, II had now at length come to be seer
clearly that Congress does not possess con
stitutionsl power to impose restrictions o
#, this character upon any present or future
Sta'e Of the Union. In long series of de.
cisions, on the fullest argument, and aitei
the most deliberate consideration, the Su
preme Court Of the United States had finally
determined this point, in every form undel
which the question could arise, whether as
affecting public or private riQhts-in ques
tons OF the public domain, of religion, o
navigation, and of servitude.
The several States Of the Union ore, BY
fCrce ofthe constitution, CO o-equal in domestic
legislative power. Congress can not change
law OF domestic relation in the State oil
blaine; no more can il in the State of Mis-
souri,. Any statute which proposes to dc
this is mere nullity; It takes away no right
it confers none. II il remains of the statute
book unrepealed il remains there only as
monument Of error, and beacon warning tt
the legislator and the statesman. To re-
peal it will be only to remove imperfectior
from the statues, without effecting, either ir
the sense of permission or of prohibition
the action of the States, or oil their cit
Zens.
Still, when the nominal restriction of this
nature, already dead letter in law, was il
terms repealed by the last Congress. in a
clause of the act organizing the territories
OF Kansas and Nebraska, that repeal was
made the occasion Of a wide.s spread and dan
gcrous agitation.
1t was alledged that the original enact.
ment being compact OF perpetual moral
obligation. its repeal constituted an odious
breach of faith.
An act Of Congress. while it remains un
repealed, more especially il il be coustitu-
tionaly valid in the judgment of those pub
lie iunctiUnaries whose duty it is to pro-
nounce on that point, is undoubtedly binding
on the conscience OF each good citizen Of
the repCblic. But in what sense can it be
asserted lhat the enactment in question was
invested with perpetuity aid entitled to the
respect of n solemn compact Between
whom was the compact No distinct con-
tending pow ers OF the government, no Sc
parate sections Of the Unlun. treating as
such, entered INTO treaty stipulatiOns on the
subject. 1t was mere clause Of an act of
Congress, and like any other contrGverted
matter OF legislation, and received its final
shape and was passed by compromise Of
the conflicting opinions or sentiments o.
the members OF Congress. But if it had
moral authority over mems consciences, to
whom did this authority attbch Not to
those OF the North, who had repeatedly re.
fused to confirm it by extension, and who
had zea'ously striven to establish other and
incompatible regulations upon the subject.
And il, as it thus appears, the supposed
compact had no obligatory force as to the
North, Of course it could not have had any
as to the South, for oil such compacts must
be mutual and of reciprocal obligation.
1t has not un'reqncn ly happened that law,
glvcrs, with undue eslima tion OF the value OF
the law they give, or in the view of mpar,-
ing to it peculiar strength, make it perpet-
ual in terma; but they cannot thus bind the
conscience, the Judgment, and the will OF
those who may succeed them, invested with
similar responsibilities, aud clothed with
equal authority. More careful investigation
may prove the law to be unsound in princi.
pie. Experience may show it to be impcr.
feet in detail and impracticable ia txecu,ion.
And then both reuson nnd right combine not
merely to justify, but to require its repeal,
The Constitution, supreme as 1t is over
all the departments of the government, leg
islatvc, executive, and judicial, is open to
amendments by its very terms; and Con-
gress or the States may in their discretion
propose amendments to it, solemn compact
though it in truth is between the sovereign
States Of the Union. In the present in
stance, political enactment, which had
ceased to have legal power or authority of
any kind, was repealed The position as
sumed, that Congress had no moral right to
enact such repeal, was strange enough, and
singularly so in view Of the TACT that the ar.
gument came from those openly refusing
obedience 10 existing laws OF the land, huv.
ing the same popular designation aud quail
ty as compromise net may, more, who an.
equivocally disregarded and condemned the
most positive AMI obligatory injunctions OF
the Constitution itself, und sought, by every
means within their reach, to deprive por
ton Of their fellow. citizens of the equal en-
joynent OF those rights and privileges guar
anteed alike TO all by the fundamental COM
pact Of our Unior.
This argument against the repeal of the
statute line in question, was accompanied by
another OF congenial character, and equally
with the former destitute of foundation in
reason and truth. 1t was imputed that the
measure originated in the conception Of tx
tending the limits of slave labor beyond
those previously assigned to it, and that such
was its natural as vel as intended effect;
and these baseless assumptions were made
in the northern States, the ground of un-
ceasing assault upon constitutional right
The repeal in terms of a statute, which |
was already obsolete, and also null for un.
constltutiGnality, could have no influence
to obstruct or to promote the propagation
Of conflicting views of political or social in
sttution. When the act organizing the
territories of Kansas and Nebraska was pass
ed, the inherent effect upon that portion al
the public domain thus opened to legal set. |
tlement, was to admit settlers from all the
States of the Union alike, each with his I
OF public policy and private in |
terest there to be found in their discretion,
subject to such limitations as the Constitu, |
ton and acts of Congress might prescribe, T
new States hereafter to be admitted into
The Union. 1t was free field, open alike to
all, whether the statute line OF assumed re.
striction were repealed or not. That repeal
did not open TO free competition the diverse
opinions and domestic mstitutins field, which
without such repeal, would have been clos;
ed against them; it found that field Of COM
petition already opened, in fact and lay
Allthe repeal did was to relieve the statute
book of an Objectionable enactment, uncon
stiut icnal in effect, and injurious in terms
to q large portion Of the States.