Indiana American. [volume] (Brookville, Ind.) 1833-1861, 1856-12-05

Thereupon this enactment ceased 10
have binding virtue In any sense,
whether as respects the North or the
South; and so in effect il was treated
on the occasion Of the admission Of
the State OF California, and the organ
ization OF the Territories Of New
Mexico. Utah. and Washington.
Such was the state OF this question.
when The time arrived for the organi-
cation Of the Territories of kanaas
and Nebraska. In the progress OF
constitutional inquiry and reflection. il
had now at length come to be seen
clearly that Congress does not possess
constitutional power toimpose restric-
tons OF this character upon any pres
ent or future State OF the Union. In
a long series Of decisions. on the full
est argument. and after the most de.
liberate consideration. the Supreme
Court OF the United States had finally
determined this point, in every form
under which the question could arise.
whether as affecting public orprivaic
rights--in questions Of the public do.
main, Of religion. Of navigation. and
OF seryitude.
The several States Of the Union
are, by force Of the Constitution. CO.
equal In domestice Legislative power.
Congress cannot change law of do
mestic relation in the State Of Maine;
no more can II In the State Of Missou-
ri. Any statute which proposes to do
this is a mere nullity; it takes away
no right. il confers none. II IL re.
mains on the statute book unrepealed.
il remains there only as a monument
Of error, and beacon Of warning to
the legislator and the statesman. To
repeal il will be only 10 remove i'm.
perfection from the statutes. without
affecting, either in the sense of per-
mission or Of prohibition. the action Of
the States. or of their citizens.
still, when the nominal restriction
Of this nature, already dead letter
in law. was in terms repealed by the
last Congress. in clause Of the act
organizing the Territories Of Kansas
and Nebraska, that repeal was made
the occasion OF widespread and
dangerous agitation.
II was alleged that the original en-
} actment being compact of perpetual
. moral obligation. its repeal constituted
an odious breach Of faith.
An act Of Congress, while 1t re-
mains unrepealed. more especially il
it be constitutionally valid in the judg-
, ment Of those public functionaries
whose duty it is to pronounce on that
! point, is undoubtedly binding on the
conscience Of each good citizen of the
Republic. But in what sense can il
be asserted that the enactment in ques.
} ton was invested with perpetuiiy and
entitled to the respect OF a solem com.
pact? Between whom was the com.
! pact? No distinct contending powers
Of the government. no separate sect.
ions OF the Unior, treating as such
. entered into treaty stipulations on The
subject. Il was mere clause OF ar
, act Of Congress, and like any other
: controverted matter Of legislation, re-
r ceived its final shape and was passed
a by compromise Of the conflicting opn.
5 ions or sentiments OF the members o
Congress. But lift had moral aulho
: rity over mems consciences. TO whom
!. did this authority attach? Not &c
4 those Of tho North. who had repeated,
: ly refused to confirm II by extension
!, and who had zealously striven to es
Il tablish other and incompatible regula
j. tons upon the subject. And il. n
= It thus appears. the supposed compac
: had no obligatory force as to th'
i North, Of course IL could not have lait
}. any as TO the South. for all such com
II pacts must be mutual and OF recipro
i cal obligation.
I. Il has not unfrequently happened
J. that law. givers, with undue eslima
l. ton Of the value Of the law they give
I. OF in view Of imparting to 1t peculia
a strength. make It perpetual in terms
j. but they cannot thus bind the consci
l. ence. the judgment. and the will o
}, those who may succeed them, invested
!; with similar responsibilities. and cloth
n ed with equal authority. More care
p ful Investigation may prove the law un
l. sound in principle. Experience ma,
show 1t 10 be imperfect II detail AM
y impraciicable in execution. And thel
!. both reason aud right combine no
}. merely to justify. but to require It's re
n peal.
q The Constitution. supreme as it
II over all The departments Of the gov
N ernment, legislative, executive, AM
of judicial. Is open to amendment by II
:. very terms; aud Congress and tn
d States may, In their discretion. propos
- amendment to It. solemn compact tho
II II 10 truth Is between the sovereig
r States Of the Union. In the presen
10 instance. a political enactment. whic
Is had ceased u have legal power or au
10 thority Of any kind, was repealed
4. The position assumed, that Congress
10 had no moral right to enact such re
Q. peal, was strange enough, and singu
8. larry so In view Of the fact that th
0. argument came from those who open
ly refused obedience TO the existin
30 laws Of the land having the same pop
0. ular designation and quality rs comp
Of romise acts--nay. more. who unequiv
10 ocally disregarded and condemned tn
ID most positive and obligatory injanc
,e tons Of Constitution itself, and sought
a. by every means within their reach. {
10 deprive portion Of their fellow Cit
ID Gems Of the equal enjoyment Of thos
ID rights and privileges guaranteed alik
4. 10 all by the fundamental compact Q
nj our Union.
N This argument against the repeal G
4. the statute line in question. was accom-
$; panied by another Of congenial char
% acter. and equally with the former des
20 tute Of foundation inreason and truth
y, II was imputed that the measure orig
n mated in the conception Of extendin
0. the limits OF slave-labor beyond thos
70 previously assigned to II. and tina
&c. such was its natural rs well rs intend