Western Reserve chronicle. [volume] (Warren, Ohio) 1855-1921, 1856-12-10

preme Court of the United States had
finally determined this point. in every
form under which the question could
arise, whether as affecting public or pri.
va'e riglHs--in questions Of public do.
main, ct religion. OF navigation, and of
servitude.
The several States Of the Union are,
by force of the Constitution. co-equal in
domestic Legislative power. Congress
cannot change a law of domestic relation
in the State of Maine; no more can it in
the State of Missouri. ANY statute which
proposes to do this is a mere nudity /; it
takes away no right. it c%onfers none. IL
it remains, it is only as a monument of
error. and a beacon of warning to the
legislator and the state man. To repeal
it will be only TO remove imperfection
from the statues. without effrciing either
in the sense of permission or prohibition.
the action Of the States, or Of their citi-
zens.
Still. when the nominal restriction of
this nature already a dead letter in law.
was in terms repealed by the last Con
gress. in a clause Of the act organizing
the Territories OF X nSas and Nebraska.
that repeal was made the occasion of a
wide spread and dangerous agitation.
1t was alleged that the original enact
ment being a compact of perpetual moral
obligation. its repeal constituted an obi
Gus breach of fai h.
An &C of Congress, while it remains
~unrepealed. more especially il it he con-
s,i %ulionallv valid in the judgement Of
those public f~unctionaries wi ole duty il
is TO prom 'unce on that point. is unioubt
s1lv binding on The conscience of each
good citizen Of the Republic. Bn in
what sense a it be asserted that the
enactment in question was invested with
p~ripetuity and entitled to the respect of
4 S Iemn compact? Between whom was
the compact? No distinct contending
pIwers of the government. no separate
sections of the Union. treating as such.
entered into treaty stipUla'iOnS on the
suhirct. 1t was a mere clause OF an ac'
Of. Congress. and like any other conrIo-
v-rtcd matter of legislation. received its
Fl ial shape and was passed by compro
mise Of the conflicting opinions or senti
mentS of the members of Congress. But
ii it had moral authority owe men'Sc con
science. TO whom did this authority at
tach =? Not to those of the North. who
had repeatedly refused 10 confirm il by
extension, and who had ~zeliuuSly s%triven
10 establish other and incompatible reg
u~laiions upon the subject. And If. as it
thus appears. the supposed compact had
no obligatory force As to the North. of
course it could not haze had any rs 10
the South, for all such compacts must
be mutual and of reciprocal obligation.
Ii has not unfrequrntly happened that
law giverS, with undue estimation Of the
value of the law they give, or in the view
of impar;inS 10 it peculiar streug b, make
it perpetual in terms ; but they cannot
thus bind the conscience. the judgement,
and the will of those who may succeed
them, invested with similar responsible
ties. and clothed with equal authority.
More careful investigation may prove the
law to be unsound in principle. Expert
ence may show it to be imperfect in de-
tail and impIacticable in execution. And
then both reason and right combine not
merely to justify, but 10 require its re-
peal.
The Consti ution. supreme as j; is wei
all the departments of the Government.
legislative. executive. and judicial. Is
open to amendment by its very terms {;
and Congress or the States may, in their
discretion. propose amendments to it,
solemn compact though it in truth is be-
tween the sovereign States of the Union.
In the present instance. a political enact
ment, which had ceased to have legal
power or authority OF any kind. "a re-
peaied. The position assumed, that
Congress had no moral right to exact
such repeal. was strange enough. and
singularly so in view Of the fact that the
argument came from those who openly
refused obedience to existing laws OF The
land. having the same popular designa
ton and quality As compromise ac;s-
nav. more. who unequivocllly disre-
garded and condemned The m st POSITIVE
and obligatory injdncIionS Of the ConSti
tn ion ilsel and sought. by every means
within their reach. 10 deprive IA portion
of their fellow citizens of the equal en
joyment of those rights and privileges
guaranteed alike to all by the fundamen.
tai compact of our Union.
THIS argument against the repeal of
the statute line in question, vas accom-
panied by another Of c%ongenial charac
ter, and equally with the former deSti-
tu;e of foundation in reason and truth
1t was imputed that the measure nrigina-
ted in the conception of ex ending the
limits of slave labor beyond those previ-
ously assigned to it, and that such was
lis natural as well as intended effect: and
these baseless assumptions were made.
in the northern States, the ground %
u~nceasing assault upon constitutional
right.
The repeal in terms Of \ statute. which
was already absolete. and also null for
unconstiluiionally, could have no inilu
ence to abstruct or to promote the prop
agation of conflicting views Of political
or social institution. When The act or
ganizing the Territories of Kansas and
Nebraska was passed, the inherent effect
upon that portion OF the public domlin
thus opened TO legal settlement, was 10
admi. settlers from all the States of the
Union alike, each with his convictions Of
public policy and private interest. there
10 found in their discretion, subject to
such limitations as the Constitution and
acts Of Congress might prescribe. new
States, hereafter to be admitted into the
Union 1t was a free field, open alike To
all, whether the statute line OF restriction
were repealed OF not. That repeal did
not open to free competition OF the di-
verse opinions and domestic Institutions