Orleans independent standard. [volume] (Irasburgh, Vt.) 1856-1871, 1856-12-12

nv i'upeiiec'lon from Tie :
without affecting, either in d. :
permission or of prohibition, a, 70,
of the States, or of their ei,i'., ! + on
Sill, when the nominal rs,,s pc
this nature, already a dead lsl,.. Of
was in terms repealed by tbs l.. uI
gress, in clause of the &c, .. to
the Territories of Kansas and \
that repeal was made the oe,s. re
wide spread and dangerous api,< tic
1t was alleged that the Orisi,.l its
ment being compact ofpepstD,, So
obligation, its repeal constituls3,. ey
breach of faith. Is
An act of Congress, while i ;, IN
unrepealed, more especially ifat 3
stitutionally valid in the india. "
those public functionaries who's
is to pronounce on that pa,,
doubtedly binding on the coD..,
each good citizen of the Repu5rs -
in what sense can it be assere5s
enactment in question was ipvesI
perpetuity and entitled to the 49,
a solemn compact? BetweeDrb. :,
the compact? No distinct c,,, =
powers of the government, No. =,
sections of the Union, treating
entered into treaty stipulation, i
subject. ;,
1t was mere clause of an scg. :,
gress, and like any other cODtn
matter of Legislation, received f. .
shape and was passed by comprs u,
the conflicting opinions or seatrs 81
the members of Congress. Butt. n,
moral authority over mems coags c,
to whom did this authority attach, m
to those of the North, who had rg Sc
ly refused to confirm it by eztenm IL
who had zealously striyen to 81 u
other and incompatible regulation, C
the subject. And if, as it thus aa 81
the supposed compact had no o5Es a
! force as to the North, of course Il n
not have had any as to the Souhs
such compacts must be mutual an3t tt
ciprocal obligation. c.
1t has not unfrequently happas d
law-givers, with undue estimata. II
value of the law they give, ui Il
view of imparting to itpecu!iarss Ia
make it perpetual in terms; BIT y
cannot thus bind the conscience
ment, aud the will of those FAl 0
succeed them, invested with saz q
sponsibilities, and clothed with ga .
thority. More careful inyestigm
prove the law to be unsoundmFa =
Experience may show tito be in =
in detail and impracticable in exc "
, And then both reason and rightn
not merely to justify but to req ;.
repeal.
The Constitution, supreme asH4
all the departments Of the govern
legislative, executive, and judo :
open to amendment by its ver!e
. and Congress or the States maEa ;
discretion, propose amendment :
. solemn compact though it in trui' !;
q tween the sovereign States Of dal
E In the present instance, political /;
q ment, which had ceased to Lar
f power or authority Of any kiHi,H !
f pealed.
The position assumed, that Cg
had no moral right to enact sub ,
+. was strange enough, and siDgugg
view of the fact that the arguna'
- from those who openly refusedda
= to existing laws of the land, haa
. same popular designation andla
compromise acts-nay, more v
equivocally disregarded and ci5
the most positive and obligatoF
tons of the Constitution l9
sought, by every means Eia
reach, to deprive a portion Of D
low-citizens of the equal eng5
. those rights and privileges g.
:, alike to all by the fundamentiI'
. of our Union.
This argument against the 2
= the statute line in question, W.
panied by another of cODgenial'D
and equally with the former O.,
foundation in reason and tra1
imputed that the measure d9
> the conception of extending D
slave labor beyond those pr
= signed to it, and that such vs.
as well as intended effect
" baseless assumptions were DE-
~ northern States, the grOuna
al ing assault upon constitutions
The repeal in terms OF ''S~
was already obsolete, and aS
4 unconstitutionality, could D'N
sr ence 10 obstruct or to pron'a