Fremont journal. [volume] (Fremont, Sandusky County [Ohio]) 1853-1866, 1856-12-05

est argument after the most deliberate con
siderations, the Supreme Court of the Uni
ted States has finally determined this point
in every form under which the question
should arise, whether as affecting public Oh
private rights or questions of the public do
main of religion, navigation, or of servitude
The several States Of the Union are by force
of the Constitution equal in domestic leg
islative power. Congress can not change a
law of domestic relation in the State Of
Maine, no more can it in the State of Mo.
Any statute which proposes to do this is
a mere nulity; It takes away no right-iI
confers none if it remains on the statute
book unrepealed, it remains there only as a
a monument of error and beacon of warn
ing to the legislator and the statesman; tc
repeal will be only to remove imperfection
from the statutes without affecting either in
the case of permission or rprohibition the ac-
ton Of the states or of their citizens. Still
when the nominal restriction of this nature,
already dead letter in law, was repealed
by the last Congress, in a clause of the Act
organizing the Territories of Kansas and
Nebraska, that repeal was to make the oc-
easion of a wide spread and dangerous agi-
tation.
Ttwas alleged that the original enactment
being a compact of perpetual moral obliga-
ton, its repeal constituted an odious breach
of faith. An act of Congress while it is
unrepealed, moro especially if it be consti-
tutionally valid in the judgment of those
public flnctionaries, whose duty it is to pro-
nounce on that point is undoubtedly bind
ing on the conscience of each good citizen
Of the Republic; but in what sense can it
be asserted that the enactment in question
was invested with perpetuity, and entitled
to the respect of a solemn compact? between
whom was the compact? no distinct con-
tending power of the government-no sep
crate sections of the Union treating as such
entered in the treaty stipulation on the sub
iect.
1t was mere abuse of an act of Congress,
and like any other controverted matter of
legislation received final shape and was pass
ed by compromise of=confieting opinions or
sentiment of the members Of Congress; but
if it had moral authority over mems conci-
sncies tolwhom did this authority attack /?
Not to those of the number who had re-
Deatedly refused to confirm it by extension,
and who had seduously striven to establish
'ther and incompatible regulations upon
he subject, and if, as it appears, the sup
oosed compact had no obligatory force as
o the North, of course it could not have
lad any as to the South, for all such COM
'acts must be mutual and of reciprocal OBJ
igation.
1t has not unfrequently happened that
aw givers with undue estimation of the
alue of the law they give, or in the view
f imparting to it peculiar strength make
perpetual in terms, but they cannot thus
ind the conscience, the judgment and the
I'LL of those who may succeed them, inves-
ed with similar responsibilities and clothed
18th equal authority. More careful inves-
gation may prove the law unsound in prin-
ple-experience may show it to be imper-
,ct in detail and improbable in execution,
nd then both reason and right combine not
lerely to justify but to require its repeal.
The Constitution, supreme as it is over
i the departments of the Government
gislative, executive and judicial is open to
nendment by its very terms, and Congress
: the States may in their discretion propose
nendments to it so long asolemn compact, +;
lough it is between the sovereign States of
le Union, in the present instance politi- {
j enactment which had ceased to have le- {
Il power or authority of any kind was re- {
saled. The position assumed that Con- {
'ess had no moral right to enact such re- t
,al was strange enough and singularly so {
view of the fact that the argument came t
om those who openly refused obedience
existing laws of the land having the g
me popular designation and quality as '
acts; nay, more, who unequivo-
lily disregarded the most positive and OBJ '
,atory injunctions of the Constitution itself S
d sought by other means within their r
ach to deprive portion of their fellow f
.izens of the equal enjoyment of those i
yhts and privileges guaranteed alike to all t
the fundamental compact of our Union. Q
This argument against the repeal of the u
ltute line in question, was accomplished c
another of congenial character, and, 9
ualIy with the former, destitute in founda-
n in reason and truth. 1t was imputed il
1T the measure originated in the concep- Il
n of extending the limits of slave labor Y
yond those previously assigned to it, and b
1t such was its naturala as well as intended il
ect, and those baseless assumptions were n
lde in the Northern States-the ground t
unceasing assault upon constitutional b
ht-the repeal in terms of statute which a
S already obsolete and also null, for un- tt
could have no influence to
;truct or promote the propagation of CON o
ting views of political or social institu- g
rs. a
When the act organizing the Territories a!
Kansas and Nebraska was passed, the c(
lerent effect upon that portion of the pub fc
domain thus opened to legal settlement eC
5 to admit from all the States of the P
lion alike, each with his convictions of N
bic policy and private interest, there he b;
nd in their discretion subject to such al
Iitations as the Constitution and acts of b
lgress might prescribe new States hereaf- tc
to be admitted into the Union-it was IL
e field open alike to all. Whether the pi
tute line of assumed restriction was re- ry
lied or not, that repeal did not open a
e competition of the diverse opinions and to
nestle institutions. q field which without in