Weekly hawk-eye and telegraph. [volume] (Burlington, Iowa) 1855-1857, 1856-12-10

.N. "a !. s4sses !. s.ss - ~ ?. als0 q ss
- couasitsaion & shis. pOius did bit serve %
raise new harrsess Tor its dsfsnce sad secnrity.
The third stage of this unhappy sectional
cont-ovsrsy vas II connexion With the osgAnixa-
tim OF eessitosioa govcrnmenfs and The Admis-
sion IL new States into the UNI B. When is
Vas proposed 10 admit TIE Ssase Of Maine by
separation Of her territory froal that Of MAaa-
chusetts, aud the SsAte sf Ais4ousi formed .
portion Of the territory cedsd by France TO the
United States, representatives in Congress OBJ
jecsed 70 the admission Of the latter unless with
conditions suited 10 particular views OF public
policy. The imposition Of such condition Was
Successfully resisted, but the same period the
question was presented Of imposing restrictions
upon the residue of the territory ceded by
France. That question WAS, for the time, dis
posed of by the adoption of geographical line
Of limitation. Inlhis connection It should not
be forgotten that France, Of her own accord,
resolved for considerations of the most lar
sighted sagacity, 10 cede Louislans to the Uni-
ted States, and that accession was accepted by
the United States. The latter expressly en-
gagged that inhabitants Of the cedcd territory
should be incorporated IN the Union Of the q.
States, and admitted rs soon as possible accord
ing to tie principles Of the Federal Cons.itu.
zion, to the enjoyment of all the rights, advan-
tages and immuniiies Of citizens of the United
States, and in the meantime they shall be main
tanned and protected to the free enjoyment OF
their liberty, property and the religion which
they professed.
That is 70 say, VIII lie it remain in the terrific
rial condition, its inhabtan are maintained and
protected in the free enjoyment Of their liberty
and property, with right then to pass into the
condition Of States on footing of perfect equal
ity with the original States. The enactment
had rs<tSr-r
line was acqu'esced in rather than approved by
the States of the Union. 1t stood on the stat
ute-book, however, for number Of years, and
the people Of the respective States acquiesced
in the re-enactment of the principle as applied
to the State Of Texas, and it was proposed to
acquesce in its further application to the terri
tory acquired by the United States from Next
co but this proposition was succ ,ssfulIy re-
sisted by the representatives of the Northern
States, who, regardless OF the statute line, in
sisted OH applying restriction to the new terri
tory generally, whether lying North or South Of
it-thereby repeating it as legislative comprO-
mise, and on the part of the North perssten,ly
violating the compact, if compact there was.
Thereu2on, this enactment ceased to have
binding virtue in any sense, whether as respects
the North or the 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 Washing
ton. Such was the State Of this question when
the time arrived for the organization of the
Territories of Kansas and Nebraska. In the
progress of constitutional inquiry and reflection,
it had now at length come to be clearly seen 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 after the most deliberate consd
Grafton, the Supreme Court of the United
| States had finally determined this point in every
| form under which the question should arise,
| whether as affecting public or private rights or
questions Of the public domain or religion,
navigation or of servitude. The several States
| Of the Union are by force of the Constitution
coequal in domestic legislative power. Congress
cannot change law Of domestic relation IN the
State of Maine, no more can it in the State of
| Missouri.
Any statute which proposes to do this is a
mere nullity; it takes away no right-it con-
| fers none; if it remain on the statute book
unrepealed, it remains there only as monument
| of error, and beacon of warning to the
| legislator and the statesman; to repeal will be
only to remove imperfection from the statutes
without affecting either in the sense of permits
sion or of prohibition in the action of the
States, or of their citizens. Still, when the
nominal restriction of this nature, already "A
dead letter in law, was repealed by the last
Congress, in clause of the Act organizing the
Territories Of Kansas and Nebraska, the repeal
was made the occasion of wide spread and
dangerous agitation. ..a8
1t was alleged that the original enactment
being compact of perpetual moral obligation,
its repeal constituted an odious breach OF faith.
| An act of Congress while it is unrepealed more
/ especially if it be cousttutionally valid in the
| judgment of those public functionaries, whose
| duty it is to pronounce ON at point, is un.
dountedly binding on the conscience OF each
| good citizen of the Republic; but in what sense
can it be ascertained that the enactment in
| question was vested with perpetuity, and enti-
tied to respect of a solemn compact? Between
whom was the compact? no distinct contending
power OF the goyernment-no separate sections
| OF the Union, treating such entered in the
treaty stpulationS on the subject.
| 1t was a mere clause CT an act of Congress,
| and like any other controverted matter OF legis
latlon received its final shape and was passed by
| compromise OF conflicting opinions OF senti
ments OF the members OF Congress; but if it
had moral authority over mems conscienc s, to
whom did this authority attach? Not to those
of the North who had repeatedly refused to con
firm it by extension nd who had sedulously
siriven to establish other and Incompatible reg
ulations upon the subject, and if, as it appears,
| the supposed compact had obligatory force
| as to the North, OF course it could not have had
| any as to the South, for all such compncts must
be mutual and of reciprocal obligation.
1t has not unfrequently happened that law
| givers, with undue estimation of the value of
| the law they give or in the view OF imparting to
it peculiar strength, make it perpetual IN terms
but they cannot thus bind the conscience, the
| Judgment and the will of those who may sue
coed them, invested with similar responsibilities
and clothed with equal authority. More care
full investigation may prove the law ursound in
| principle, experience may show it to be imper
! feet in detail and impracticable in execution,
| and then both reason and right combine not
merely to justify but to require its repeal. r.
The Constitution, supreme as it is over all the
| departments of the Government, legislative, ex-
ecutive and judicial, is open 10 amendment by its
terms and Congress or the States may in heir
discretion propose amendments to its solemn
campact, though it in truth is between the SOW
ereign 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 assumed that Con.
| gress had no moral right to enact such r. peal
was strange enough and snguariy so in view of
the fact that the argument came from those who
openly refused obedience to existing laws of
the land having the same popular designation
and quality as compromise acts; nay more, who
unequivocally dsregarded and condemned the
most positive and obligatory iniunctions of the
Constitution itself, and sought BY every means
within their reach to deprive portion of their
fellow citizens of the equal enjoyment of those
rights and privileges guaranteed alike to all by
the fundamental compact of our Union.
This argument against the repea OF the stat.
ute line in question WAS accompanied BY another
OF congeniai character, and equally with the for
mer dessit tie OF foundation in reason and truth.
1t was imputed that the measure originated in
the conception Of extending the limits of slave
labor beyoni those previously assigned to it, and
that such was its natural as well as intended ef
feet; and those baseless assumptions were made
in the Northern States ground OF unceas;np as.
saalt upon constitutional rights! The repeal in
terms oil a statute which was already obsolete
and also null, for unconsttutionality could have
no influence to obstruct or promote the propaga.
ton OF conflicting views of political or social in
stitutions.
When the act organizing the Territories of
Kansas and Nebraska was passed, the Inherent
effect upon that portion of the public domain
thus opened to legal settlement, was TO admit
from all the States of rio