The Hillsborough recorder. [volume] (Hillsborough, N.C.) 1820-1879, 1856-12-10

sighted sagacity, to cede Louisiana to the
United States, and tEat accession was ac-
cepted by the United States, tie latter
expressly engaged that 6 the inhabitants ol
the ceded territory shall be incorporated in
the Union Of tie United States, ard admitted
as soon as possible, according to the princi-
pies of the Federal Constitution, 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 enjoy
ment Of their liberty, property, and tie re.i-
gion which they profess that is to say,
while it remains in territorial condition,
its inhabitants are maintained and protec ted
in the free enjoyment Of their liberty and
property, with right then TO pass into the
condition of States on footing 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. II stood on the statute book, how
ever, for number of years and the people
Of the respective States acguieeeed in the
re-enactment Of the principle as applied to
the State of Texas and il was proposed to
acquiesce 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, regardless Of
the statute line, insisted upon applying re-
striction to the new territory generally,
whether living north or south Of il, thereby
repeating It as legislative compromise, and,
on the part Ct the north, persstcntly yio-
lating tie compact, if compact there was.
Thereupon this enactment ceased to have
binding virtue in any sense, whether as re-
spects the North or the South; ard 50 in
effect il was treated on the occasion Of the
admission of the State Of California, and the
organization Of the Territories of New
Mexico, Utah, and Washington.
Such was the state Of this question, when
the time arrived for the organization Of the
Territories of Kansas and Nebraska. lii
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 upon any present or future
State Of the Union. In long series of de-
cisions, on the fullest argument, and after
i the most deliberate consideration, the Su-
preme Court Of the United States had finally
determined this point, in every form under
which this question could arise, whether as
affecting public or private rights--in cues
/ tions of the public domain, Of religion, OF
navigation, and Of servitude.
The several States of the Union are BY
force Of the Constitution, co-equal in do
nestle legislative power. Congress cannot
change law of domestic relation in the
State of blaine; no more can it in the State
of Missouri. Any statute which proposes
/ to do this is mere nullity; it takes away
no right, it confers none. II it remains on
the statute book unrepealed, il remains there
only as q monument Of error, and beacon
of warning to the legislator and the states
man. To repeal it will be only to remove
limperfection from the statutes, without af.
] fccting, either in the sense Of permission oi
of prohibition, the action Of the States or o.
their citizens.
Still, when the nominal restriction of thi:
nature already dead letter in law. was il
terms repealed by the last Congress in ;
clause Of the act organizing the Territorie
Of Kansas aud Nebraska, that repeal wa
i made the occasion Of wide spread an'
dangerous agitation.
Ii was alleged that the original cnactmen
being compact Of perpetual moral oblisa
, tion, its repeal constituted an odious breaeI
Of faith.
An act Of Congress. While il remains un
repealed, more especially if it be constitu
! tionally valid in the Judgment Of thos
public iunctionaries whose duty IL is {
{ pronounce on that point, Is und0u5tedl
, binding an the conscience Of each goo
citizen of the Republic. But in what sens
, can ii be asserted that the enactment il
! question was invested with pcrpetuity an,
, entitled to the respect Of a solemn compact
{; Between whom was the compacti No dis
tinct contending powers ~ tie government
no separate sections oil the Union, treatin
} as such, entered into treaty stipdations d
] the subject. Ii was D mere clause 0f al
, act Of Congress, aud Ike any other contro
yrrtcd matter Of legislation, received il
final shape aud was passed By compromise Q
J conflicting Opiu.aus Or sentiments uf th
members ul Congress. But il il had mora
authority over mems COnsCicnres, IT, Nh0r
\ did this authority attach Not to those q
the North, who had repeatedly refused {
y confirm ii by extension, and who had zeal
ousls stri,cn TO establish other and incom
patible regulations upon tie subject. An
II, as il thus appears, the supposed compaC
/ had no obligatory force as 10 the NORTH. 7
/. course it could not have had anv as to Il,
/ South, for al such compacts mast BE- Etatg.
!. aud of reciprocal obligation.
f lthas not unlrequently happened that las
I giycrs. with undue estimation at the salu
i Of the law they giyc, or n the view oi in
! parting 10 il peculiar strength, make Il pei
! pciual iu terms; but they caunot thus bin
! The conscience, tie judgment. and the vi
!. of those Who may succeed them, insesta
|. with similar responsibilities, and cIothe
! with equal authority. More careful iaFest
2 CATION may prove the law to be uns0uad
J. nrincinIe. Experience may shnw h -