The Cadiz Democratic sentinel. [volume] (Cadiz, Ohio) 1854-1864, 1856-12-10

Indirectly What lcN lien were Nl4nils 70 10 III
rcctly that Is, 10 act asgreSsiyely against the
constitutional rights Of nearly one half Of the
thirty-on States.
In the long series Of acts Of indirect aggTes-
SION the first was the strenuous agitation, by
citizens of the northern States, 10 Congress and
out Of Il, Of the question Of negro emancipation
in the Southern States.
The second step in the path of evil consisted
OF acts of the people of the Northern States and
In several instances of their governments, aim
cd to facilitate the escape of persons held to ser
vice in the Southern States, and to prevent
their ex.Tadition when reclaimed according TO
law aud in virtue OF express provisions OF the
constitution. 10 promote this object, legisla-
tive enactments and other means were adopted
to take away or defeat rights, which the Con-
Stitution solemnly guaranteed. In order to null
hiy the then existing act Of Congress concern
iug the extraditicn of iugitives from service,
laws were enacted in many States, iorbdding
their officers, under the severest penalties, to
participate in the execution of any act of Con-
gress whatever. In this way that system of
harmonious CO. operation between the authori-
ties 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, was destroyed; conflicts Of jtTis-
diction came tc be frequent; and Congress found
itself compelled, for the support Of the consti-
tuition, and the vindicaticn Of its power TO au-
thorize the appointment of new officers charged
with the execution of its acts, as if they and the
officers Of the States were the ministers, respec-
tive, of foreign governments in a stateof mutual
hostility rather than fellow magistrates of a
common country, peacefully subsstng under the
protection of one well-eOnsttuted Union. Thus
here, also aggression was followed by reaction;
and The attacks upon the Constitution at this
point did but serve to raise up new barriers for
its defence and security.
The third stage of this unhappy sectional
controversy was in connection with the organ-
cation of Territorial Governments, and the ad-
mission Of new States into tie Union. When
it was proposed to admit the State Of Maine,
/ by separation of territory from that of Massa-
rchliSettS, and the State of Missouri, formed OF
portion of the territory ceded by France to the
| United States, representatives in Congress OBJ
icc.od to the admission of the latter, unless
with conditions suited to particular views oI
their public policy. The imposition of such a
condition WAS successfully resisted. But, at the
same period, the question was presented Of inn
posing restrictions upon the residue Of the Ter
ritory ceded by France. That question was
FOR the time, disposed of by the adoption Of q
geographical line of limitation.
In this connection it should not be forgotten
that France, Of her own accord, resolved, fol
considerations Of the most far-sighted sagacity
to cede Louisiana to the United States and tha
accession was accepted BY the United States, the
latter expressly engaged that 'the inhabitants o
the ceded territory shall be incorporated in tie
Uni n of the United States, and admitted as soor
as possible according to the principles of the Fed
eral Constitu ion, to the enjoyment of all the
rights, advan' ages, and immunties Of citizens o
the United States; and in the meantime they
shall be maintained and protected in the free
enjoyment Of their liberty, pJypTig, and the reli-
ciOn which they profess that is to say, while il
rema rs in a territorial condition, its inhabitants
arc maintained and protected in the free enjoy
ment Of their liberty and property, with right
then to pass into the condition Of States on foot
ing Of perfect equality with the original States
The enactment which established the restric
tive geographical line, was 'acquiesccd in rather
than approved by the States Of the Union. /
stood on statute book, however, for numbe
Of years; and the people of the respective State'
acQuesced in the re enactment of the prncipt
as applied to the State OF Texas; and it was pro
posed to acquiesco in its further application t
the territory acquired by the nitcd States from
I Mexico. But this proposition was successful,
resisted by the representatives from the north
ern States, who, regardless OF the statute line
insisted upon applying restriction to the new ter
lu,ory generally, whether lying north or south 0
it, thereby repeating it as legislative compro
mise, and, on the part Of the North, persistcntly
violating the compact, if compact there was.
Theroupon this enactment ceased to have
binding virtue in any sense, whether as respects
| tIn nd On in f,ot
ted on the occasion of the admission Of tbs State
of California, and the organization of the terri
tories Of New Mexico, Utah and Washington
Such was the state of this question: when The
time arrived for the organization of the terrific
r;es of Kansas and Nebraska. In the progress
Of constitutional inquiry and reflection, it ha
now at length come to be seen clearly that Cen
gress does not possess constitutional power 4
impose restrictions Of this character upon an
= present or future State Of the Union. In lon
series of decisions, on the fullest argument, til
Supreme Court Of the United States had fnall
determined this point, in every form undo
which the question could arise, whether as affeC
e ting public or private rights-in questions Of tn
e public domain, of religion, Of navigation, and
Y scrvitude.
: The several States of the Union are by fore
It Of the Constitution, co-equal in domestic legi'
= lative power. Congress cannot change a law
IS domestic relation in the State Of Maine; no MOI
S can it in the State Of Missouri. Any statu
d which proposes to do this is mere Hullity;
d takes away no right, it confers none. 1t 1,
d mains there only as a monument of error and
st beacon of warning to the legislator and the state
ii man. To repeal it will be only to remove in
&c perfection from the statutes without etfecting
d either in the sense of permission or prohibitio
Il the action ofthe States, or of their citizens.
e Still, when the nominal restriction OF this ns
o ture, already dead letter in law, was in tern
s. repealed by the last Congress, in clause
r the act organizing the Territories of Kansas ar
n Nebraska that repeal was made the occasion
a. a widespread and dangerous agitation.
&c it was alleged that the original enactmeI
IS being compact of perpetual moral obligation
its repeal constituted an odious breach of fait
j. An act Of Congress, while it remains unr
le pealed more especially if it be constitutional
:, valid in the judgment of those public function
y aries whose duty it is to pronounce on th
u point is undoubtedly binding on the conscienC
d. Of each good citizen of the Republic. But
&c what sense can it be asserted that the enac
IS ment in question was invested with perpetuit
and entitled to the respect ofa solemn compac
l. Between whom was the compact? No distint
Is ccntending powers Of the government no sep
50 rate sections of the Union, treating as sue
Of entered into treaty stpultions on the subject
s, 1t was a mere clause Of an act Of Congress, al
l. like any other controverted matter Of legisl
i tor, received its fnal shape and was passed
L. compromise Of the conflicting opinions or sem
ID ments Of the members Of Congress But if
iy had moral authority over mans conscience,
,t whom did this authority attach? Not to tho
" IF the North, who had repeatedly refused
-boh hnl