The Wyandot pioneer. (Upper Sandusky, Ohio) 1853-1868, 1856-12-11
by the adoption of geographical line Of

lar slghteo SaSaclty, To- cede LOUISIANA TO
the United States. and that accession was
accepted by the United States, the latter
expressly engaged that "the inhabitants
of the ceded territory shall be incorpo.
rated in the Union of the United States,
and admitted as soon as possible, accord
ing to the principles Of the Federal Con-
stitution, to the enjoyment of all the
rights. advantages, and immunities of
citizens Of the United States; and in the
meantime they shall be maintained and
protected in the free enjoyment of their
liberty, property and the religion which
they profess this is to saw while it re-
mains in territorial condition, its inhab.
itants. are maintained and protected in
the free enjoyment of their liberty and
property, with right then to pass into
the conGition 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 on the
statute 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 acquiesce
in its further application to the territory
acquired by the United States from Mex
leo. But this proposition was success
fully resisted by the representatives from
the northern states. who, regardless Of
the statue line, insisted upon applying no
restriction to the new territory generally
whether lying north or south Of it, there
by repeating it as a legislative compro
mise, and, on the part OF the North, per-
sistently violating the compact, if COM
pact there was.
Thereupon this enactment ceased to
have binding virtue in any sense, wheth
er 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, U ah and Washington.
Such was the State of this question,
when the time arrived for the organiza-
ton 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
gress does not possess constitutional pow
er 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 consideration, the Supreme
Court of the United States had finally
determined this point, in every form un-
der which the question could arise .wheth
er as affecting public or private rights
in questions of the public domain, Of re
sEligion, of navigation, and of servitude.
i The several States ofthe Union are, by
force of the Constitution, co equal in do
mestic legislative power. Congress car
not change law of domestic relation ir
the Stale of Maine, no more can it in The
State of Missouri. Any statute which pro
; poses to do this is mere nullity; it axes
away no right, it confers none. If it re
) mains on the statute book unrepealed, i
: remains there only as a monument OF er
ror. and beacon of warning to the legis
: lator and the statesman. To repeal
: will be only to remove imperfection from
the statutes, without affecting, either il
! the sense of permission or of prohibition
j the action of the States, or of their citi
zenS.,
! Still, when the nominal restriction c
e this nature, already dead letter in law
was in terms repealed by the last Con
e gress, in clause of the act organizin
n the territories of Kansas and Nebraska
: that repeal was made the occasion of
o wide spread and dangerous agitation.
S Itwas alleged that the original enact
: ment being compact of perpetual mora
r obligation, its repeal constituted an cd
: Gus breach Of faith
: An act of Congress, while it remain
y unrepealed, more especially if be const
= tutionally valid in the judgment of thos
: public functionaries whose duty it is I
S pronounce on that point, is undoubtedl
) binding on the conscience Of each goo
! citizen of the Republic. But in VIII;
: sense can it be asserted that the enactmel
s in question was invested with perpetuii
If and entitled to the. respect Of a solen1
5, compact? No distinct contending powt
l. of the government, as separate sections {
IS the Union, treating as such, entered in
is treaty stipulations on the subject. 1t ";
d mere clause of an act Of Congress, ar
'e7 like any other controyerted matter
4 legislation. received its final shape ar
J. was passed by compromise OF the CO..
.hI ficting opinions or sentiments of Il
I'd members of Congress- But if it hi
s. moral authority over mems conscience
is to whom did this authority attach? N
IN to those of the North, who had repeate
y. ly refussd to confirm it by extension, al
c. who had zealously striyen to establi
IS, other and incompatible regulations up
~ the subject. And if, as it thus appear
n the supposed compact had no obligato
to force as to the North, of course it cou
nd not have had any as to the South. for
such compacts must be mutual and o: !
c. ciprocal obligation. Is
th It-bas not unfrequently happened tt
n law giyers, with undue estimation of
,es value of the law they give, or in the VII
ed of imparting to it peculiar strength, ma
on it perpetual in terms; but they canr
is, thus. bind the conscience, the judgme
/ and the will of those who may succe
ice them, invested with similar, responsib
in ties, and clothed with equal authority
he More careful investigation may prove
to law to be unsound in principle. Expe
he ence may show it to be. imperfect in
uc- tail and ilupracticable in execution. A
,e- then both reason and right combine
m merely to justify, but to require its rept
} of !. The Constitution. supreme as it
hat over all the departments of the COVE