Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1856-12-06

halt of the thirty one States.
10 the long series Of acts OF indirect aggression
the first was the strenuous agitstoa, bg citzeus |
Of the Northern States, In Congress- and on. of it.
OF tne question OF negro emancipation in the |
Southern States.
The second step 10 this path Of evil consisted of
acts Of the people of the northern States asd sin
several instances OF their governments aimed TO
ischtste the escape OF persons held to service in
the southern States and to prevent their extradi.
ton when reclaimed according to law and in viz.
tue of express provisions of the Constitution To
promote this object legislative enactments and
other means were adopted to take away or defeat
rights, which the Constitution solemniy gusrsn-
tied. 10 order to nulify the then existing act of
Congress concerning the extradition of fupitives
from service, laws were enacted in many States
forbidding their officers under the severest penal.
ties, to participate in the execution of any act of
Congress whatever. In this way that system of
harmonious co operation between the authorities
OF the United States and of the several States for
the maintenance of their common institutions,
which existed in the early years of the Republic,
were destroyed; conflicts of jurisdiction came to
be frequent; ind Congress found itself compelled,
for the support of the Constitution, aud the vim
dication of its power to authorzs the appoint
ment of new officers charged with the execution
of lis acts as if they and the officers of the States
were the ministers respectively, of foreign Govern
ments in state of neutral hostility rather than fol-
low magistrates of common country, peacefully
subsisting under the protection of one well con-
stituted Union. Thus, here aso, aggression was
followed by reaction; and the attacks upon the
Constitution ct this point did not serve to raise up
new BARRIERS for its defence and security.
The third stage of this unhappy sectional con-
troyersy was in connexion with the organization of
territorial governments, aud the admission of new
States into the Union. When it was proposed to
admit the State Of Maine by separation of terrific.
~ from that of Massachusetts, 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 condition
was successfully resisted. But at the same period,
the question was presented of imposing restrictions
upon the residue of the territory coded by France.
That question was, for the time, disposed of by the
adoption of q geographical line of limitation.
In this connexion it should not be forgotten that
France of her own accord, resolved for considers.
toes of the most far sighted sagacity, to cede
Louisiana to the United States and that accession
was accepted by the United States, the latter ex-
pressly engaged that "the inhabitants Of the coded
territory shall be incorporated in the Union Of the
United States, and admitted as soon as possible,
according to the principles of the Federal Constitu
ton to the enjoyment of all the rights. advantages
and immunties of citizens Of the United States;
and in the meantime they shall be maintained and
protected in the free enjoyment OF thtir liberty,
property, and the religion which they profess
that is to say while it remains in territorial con-
dton, its inhabitants are maintained and protect.
ed in the free enjoyment of their liberty and prep
erty with right then pass into the condition
of States on footing of perfect equality with the
original States.
The enactment, which established the restrictive
geographical line, was acquiesced in rather than
approved by the States of the Union. II stood on
the statute book, however, for number of years;
and the people of the respective States scquesced
in the re-ensctment of the principles as applied to
the State of Texas; and it was proposed to &C.
quiesce in its further application to the territory
acquired by the United States from Mexico But
this proposition was successfully resisted by the
representatives from the northern States, who re-
CARELESS of the statute line, insisted upon applying
restriction to the new territory genera y whether
lying north or south of it, thereby repeating it
legislative compromise, and, on the part OF the
North, persistsnty violating the compact, if COM
pact there was.
Thereupon this enactment ceased to have bind
ing virtue in any sens, whether as respects the
North 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
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 con-
stitutional inquiry and reflection, it had now at
length come to be seen clearly that Congress does
not possess constitutional power to impose restric-
tons 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 deiber
ate consideration, the Supreme Court of the United
ll,, 1aka ir,a1f ina
form under which the question could arise, wheth
er as affecting public or private rights-ir ques-
tons of the public domain of religion, of navigs'
ton, aud of servitude.
The several States of the Union are, by force
of the Constitution, co-equal in domestic legisls-
tive power. Congress cannot change law OF do.
nestle relation 10 the State of Maine; no more can
it in the State of Missouri. Any statute which
proposes to do this is a mere nullty it takes away
no right, it confers none. If it remains on tie
statute book unrepea 3D. it remains there only as
monument of error, and beacon of warning to
the legislator and the statesman To repeal it
will be only to remove imperfection from the stat
utes, without affecting, either in the sense of Per-
mission or of prohibition, the acton Of the States,
or of their citizens.
Still when the nominal restriction eff this ma
ture already dead letter in law, was IN terms re-
peaed by the last Congre ss, in clIse of the act
organizing the VI haoSaS auu AN0OIAS'
ka, that repeal was made the occasion OF q wide
spread and dangerous agitation.
1t was alleged thatthe original enactment, being
q compact of perpetual moral obligation, its repeal
constituted an odous breach of faith.
An act of Congress, while it remains uarepeal
ed, more especially if it be constitutionsIy valid
in the Judgment of those public functionsries
whose duty it is to pronounce on that point, is
6oubteilY binding on the conscience of each good
citizen of the Republic. But in what sense can it
be asserted that the enactment in question was in
vested with perpetuity aud entitled to the respect
of a solemn compact? Between whom was the
compact No distinct conteniing powers of the
Government, no separate sections of the Union,
treating as such, entered into treaty stipuations
on tie subject 1t was mere clause of an act of
G Jngress, and like any other conIoVeTted matter
OF legislation, received its final shape and was
passed by compromise of the conf citing opinions
or sentiments OF the members of Congress. But
if it had moralsuthority over mems conscences to
whom did this authority attach2 Not to those of
the North who had repeatedly refusedto cod6rn it
by extension, and who had zsslousy striVen to es.
tablish other and incompatible regulations upon the
subject And if, as it thus sppesrs, the compact |
had no obligatory force as to the North of course
il could not have had any as to the South, for all
such compacts must be mutual aud of reciprocal |
1t has not unfrequently happened that law CIV |
ers with undue estimation of the value of the law
they give, or in the view of impsrting to it pecu
liar strength, make it perpetual in terms; but they
cannot thus bind the conscience, the Judgment,
and the will Of those who may succeed them, in
81 op,fIar md OH