Cooper's Clarksburg register. [volume] (Clarksburg, Va. [W. Va.]) 1851-1861, 1856-12-12

raise up new barriers for Its defence and
, security. rt,
The third stage Of this unhappy Sec
| tiOnal controversy was in connexIon with
the organization of territorial governs
. ments, and the admission of new States
{ into the Union. When it WAS proposed
| to admit the State Of Maine, by sepal alton
. OF territory from that Of Massachusetts.
t and the State Of Missouri, formed Of a
e portion Of the territory ceded by France
? 10 the United States. representatives in
Congress objected to the admission Of the
! latter, unless with conditions suited To-
, particular views of public policy. The
= imposition Of such a condition was sue
5 crssfulIy resisted. hut, at The same Pc
Rod, the question was presented OF impo
, sing restrictions upon The residue Of the
i territory ceded by France. That ques
= tiun was. for the time. disposed Of ty the
adoption Of geographical line If limita.
; ton.
/. In this connexio1 it should not be for
gotten that when France, Of her own &C.
cord, resolved, for considerations of the
most far.sighted sagacily, to cede Louisi-
and to the United States, and that acces.
sion was accepted by the United States.
the latter expressly engaged that " the
Inhabitants OF the ceded territory shall be
incorporated in the Union of the United
States. and admitted as soon as possible,
according to the principles of the federal
constitution, 10 the enjoyment of all the
rights. advantages, and immunities OF
citizens of the United States and in the
mean time they shall be maintained and
protected in the free enjoyment Of ;hier
liberty, property. and the religion which
they profess is to say, while it re-
mains in a territorial condition, it's inhab
itants are maintained and protected in the
free enjoyment Of their liberty and pro.
perty. with light then to pass into the
condition of States on footing Of perfect
equality with the original States.
The enactment, which established the
restrictive geographical line, was acqui-
eSced in rather than approved by the
States Of the Union. 1t stood Oh the
statute. book, however. for a number OF
years and the people OF the respective
States acquiesced in the re enac nent ot
the principle as applied TO the SAFE ol.
Texas ; and, it was proposed to acquiesce
IN its further application TO the territory
acquired by the United States from Mex,
leo. But this proposition was successful
~ resisted by the representatives from
the northern States. who, regardless Of
the statute line. insisted upon applying
restrictions to the new territory generally.
whether lying north or south of it. there
by repeating it as q Legislative compro>
mise. aud. on the part Of the North. per.
sistentIy violating the compact, if CONS
pact there was.
Thereupon this enactment ceased 10
having binding virtue in any sense. whe
ther as respects the North or South and
so in effect it WAS treated on the occasion
Of the admission Of the 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 organiza>
tlUn Of the Territories Of Kansas and Ne
braska. In the progress Of constitutional
inquiry and reflection, it had now at
length come to be seen clearly that Con.
grsss does not possess constitutional pow
er TO impose restrictions Of this character
upon any present or future State Of the
Union. In a long series Of decisions, on
the fullest argument. and after the most
deliberate consideration. the Supreme
Court Of the United States had finally de.
termined this point in every form under
which the question could arise. whether
as affecting p.bic or private rights i'm
questions OF public domain. of religion. Of
navigation, aud Of servitude.
The several States Of the Union are, by
force of the constitution, cocqual in do
mestic Legislative power. Congress can
| nnf Nl, Ia, = Il .loESE in
the State of Maine no more can it in the
State of Missouri. Amy statute which
pre- poses 10 do this is a mere nullity ii
takes away no right, it cVnfers none. II
it remains ON the statute>buok unTepeal
ell, II remains there only as a monument
Of error, and beacon of warning to the
legislator and the statesman. TO repeal
it WILDE only 10 remove imperfecIion tIUm
the statutes. without affecting. either III
the sense of permission or OF prohibition,
the action OF the States, or OF their ciIi.
zrns.
Slll, when the nominal restriction Of
this nature, already a dead letter in law,
was in terms repealed by the last Con.
gress, in a 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
meht heing a compact of perpetual moral
obligation, its repeal constituted an odious
breach OF faith.
An act of Congress, while it remains
unrepealed. especially if it be constitution
ally valid in the judgment Of those public
functionaries whose duty it is TO pro-
nounce on that point, is undoubtedly bind
ing on the conscience Of each good citi-
Zen of the republic. But in what sense