The true Democrat., 1856-12-16

laws were enacted in many States, forblddlng their officers, under the severest penalties to participate in the execution of any act of Con- gress whatever
 In this way that system of harmonious CO., operation between the authorities of the United States and of the several States, for the man- tenance of their common institutions which existed in the early years of the republic, was destroyed; and Congress found itself compelled, in support of the constitution, and the vindi- cation of its power, to authorize the appoint meut of new officers charged with the execu- ton of its acts, as if they and the officers of the States were the ministers. respectively, of
 foreign governments in astate of mutual hos tllity, rather than fellow magistrates of com mon country, peaceably subssling under the protection of one well constituted Union.- Thus here, also aggression was followed by re-actlon; and the attacks upon the constltu- ton at this point did but serve to raise up new barriers for its defense and security. The third stage of this unhappy sectional controversy was in connection with the Orga- nization of territorial governments and the ad- mission of new States into the Union. When it was proposed to admit the State of Maine, by separation of territory from that of Massa- chusetts, and the State of Missouri, formed of portion of the territory ceded by France to 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 con- dition was successfully resisted. But, at 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, disposed of by the adoption of geological line of limitation
 In this connection it should not be forgotten that France, of her own accord, resolved, for considerations of the most far sighted sagacity, to cede Louisiana to the United States, and that accession was accepted by the United States, the latter expressly engaged that "the inhab- tants of the ceded territory shall be incorporat- ed in the Union of the United States, and ad- mittel as soon as possible, according to the principles of the federal constitution, to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages, and mmunities of the 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'-that is to say, while 1t remains in a territorial condition its inhabitants are main- taiued and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty and property. with right to pass into the condition of States a foot ing of perfect equality with the original States.
 The enactment, which established the re- strictive geographical line was acquiesced in rather than approved by the States of the Union. It stood on the statute book, however for a number of years; and the people of the respective States acquiesced in the enactment of the principles as applied 10 the State of Tex as; and it was proposed to acquesce in its fur ther application to the territory acquired by the Tinted States frop, Mavico Rut thiS nroDn- stion was successfully resisted by the represen- ,atives from the northern States, who, regard less of the statute line, insisted upon applying restrictions to the territory generally, whether lying north or south of it, thereby re- peaing it as d legislative compromise, and on the part of the north, consistently violating the compact, if compact there was.
 IhereupOn this enactment ceased to have binding virtue in any cause, whether as respects the north or the south; and so in effect 1t was treated on the occasion of the admission of the State of California, and the organization of the territories of New Mexico, Utah and Wash ington.
 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 seen clearly that Congress does not possess constitutional power to impose restrictions of this character npon any present or future State of the Union. In a long series of decisions, on the fullest ar gument, and after the most deliberate conside- ration, 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 or private rights-in ques- tions of the public domain, of religion, of na- ylgatlon and of servtude
 The several States of the Union are by force Of the constitution, co-equal in domestic Legislative power. Congress cannot change law of domestic relation ID the State of Maine; no more can it in the State of Missouri. Any statute which proposes to do this is a mere null lltv; 1t takes away no right, 1t cOnfers none. If it remains on the statute book uurepealed, It remains there only as a monument of error, and beacon of warning to the legislator and statesman. To repeal it will be only to re- move impcrfection from the statutes, without affecting, either in the sense of permission or of prohibition, the action of the States or of their citizens.
 Still, when the nominal restriction of this na- turc, 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 occa-
 
 It was alleged that the original enactment being compact of perpetual moral obligation, Its repeal constituted all odous breach of faith.
 An act of Congress, while it rem ains unre- peaIed, more especially if it be constitutionally valid n the judgment of those public function- aries whose duty 1t is to pronounce on that point, Is undoubtedly binding on the conscience of each good cltlzen ot the republic But in what sense can It be asserted that the enactment in question was invested with perpetuity and en- tticd to the respect of a solemn compact? Be- tween whom was the compact? No distinct cohtendng powers of the government. no sepa- rate sections of the Union, treating as such entered into treaty stipulatons on the subject. 1t was mere clause of an act of Congress, and like any other controverted matter of legisa- ton, received its final shape and was passed by compromise of the conflicting opinions or senti- mentS of the members of Congress. But if it had moral authority over mems consciences to whom did this authority attach? Not to those of the North, who had repeatedly refused to confirm It by extension, and who had zealous- iy stnven to establish other and incompatible regulations upon the subject. And if, as it thus appears, the supposed compact bad no obligatory force as to the North, of course it could not have had any as to the South, for all such compacts must be mutual and reciprocal obligations.
 It has not subsequently happened that law gvers, with undue estimation of the va,ua of the law they give, or in the view of impart- ing to 1t peculiar strength, make it perpetual in terms; but they cannot thus bind the conscience the judgment, and the will of those who may succeed them, invested with similar responsi- biities, and clothed with equal authority. More careful investigation may prove the law to be unsound in principle Experience may show 1t to be imperfect in detail and impracticable in execution. And then both reason and right combine not merely to justify, but to require its repeal.
 The Constitution, supreme as it is over all the departments of the government, legislative, executive and judicial, is open to amendment by It's very terms; and Congress or the States may, in their discretion, propose amendment to