The spirit of democracy. [volume] (Woodsfield, Ohio) 1844-1994, 1856-12-10

| VIC CouatlLdtlOh at lhis IiolHt ttlu Uut StI'e
| to raise up new barriers for its defence
and security.
The third stage of this unhappy Sec
| tional controversy was in connection with
the organization of Territorial Govern
ments, and the admission of new States
into the Union. When it was proposed
to admit the State of Maine, by separation
Of territory from that of Massachusetts
and the S ate of Missouri, FORMED of a
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 their public policy
The imposition of such condition was
successfully resisted. But, at the same
period, the question was presented of i'm
territory ceded by France. The question
was, for the time disposed Of by the adop-
ton of a geographical line of limitation.
In this connexion it should not be for
gotten that France, of her own accord, re-
solved, for considerations of the most far
sighted sagacty, to cede louisiana TO the
| United States, and that accession was
accepted by the United States, the latter
expressly engaging that 'the inhabitants of
the ceded territory shall be Incorporated
III the Union Of the United States, and
admitted as soon as possible. according
to the principles of the Federal Constitu-
tion, to the enjoyment Of all the rights,
advantages and immunties of citiZen> ofthe
! 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 ofess''-that
is to say, while it remains in territorial
condition, its inhabitants are maintained
AID protected in the free enjoyment of
their liberty and property; with a right
then to pass into the condition of States
on footing of perfect equality with the
original States.
The enactment, which established the
restrictive geographical line, was acquies-
ced in rather than approved by the States
Of the Union. 1t stood on the statue
book, however for number of years;
and the people Of she respective States
acquiesced in the re-enactmcnt Of the prin-
cipe as applied to the State ofTexas; and
7 it was proposed to apply it TO that 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 restrictions to the
new territory generally, whether lying
north or south Of it, thereby repeating il
as a Legislative compromise; and, on the
part of the north, persistently violating the
compact if compact there was. .'ti~.
Thereupom this enactment ceased to
have binding virtue, in any sense, whether
as respects the north or south; and so III
effect it was treated on the occasion oil
the admission of the State of California,
and the organization of the territories ol
New Mexico, Utah, and Washington.
I Such was the state of this question
when the time arrived for the organiza-
tion Of 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 re.
strictions of this character, upon any
In long series of decisions, on the full.
est argument, and after the most deliber.
ate consideration, the Supreme Court o
the U. S. had finally decided this poin,
in every form under which the question
! could rise, whether as effecting public ol
: private rights-in questions of the public
T domain, of religion, Of navigation, and o.
servitude.
The Several States of the Union are
by force of the. Constitution, coequal il
domestic legislative power. Congress.
cannot change Il law Of domestic relation
in the State of MaiEe;a ;ane mure can it il
the State of Missouri. Any statute whicl
proposes to do this is mere nullity; il
, takes away no right, it confers none. /
it remains there it is only monument o.
error, and beacon of warning Il the leg.
islator and to the statesman. To repcaI
it will be. only to remove imperfecticr
from the statutes, without eflec,ing either
in the sense of permission or prohibition
the action of States, or of their citizens.
Still when the nominal restriction ot
this nature, already dead letter in law
was in terms repealed by the last Congress
in clause of the acu'organizing the Ter
ritorits of Kansas and Nebrasks, that re.
peal was made the occasion Of ndt
spread ard dangerous agitation
f 1t was alleged that the 'ginal cE,
actment being q compact of ptrpetua
moral obligation, its repeal constilutet
| an oaius breach of faith . t .
3 An act of Congress, while it remaia;
! unrcpealed, more especially if it lie con
!, tstitutiohally vaIidin the judgement OF ;hos,
u public functionaries whose duly it is t.
| pronounce on that point, is ur;!onbicdl,
: binding On the conscience of each goo,
5 citizen Of the .i;epuh!ic. But in wha
f sense can it he asserted that The enact
t ment in question was invested with per
!, petuity and entitled to the lcspect of
f solemn compact ? Between whom was tn