Weekly Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1853-1861, 1856-12-11

which leads nowhere, unless Il be to clvl
war and dlsuniou, and which has no othel
possible outlet. They have proceeded thus
+ I r in that direction in consequence of the
successive stages of their progress having
consisted Of a series of secondary issues
each of which professed to be confined with
] in constitutional aud peaceful limits, bu
which attempted indirectly what few mel
were willing to DO directly, that is, to act az
gressively against the constitutional rights
of nearly one half of the thirty one States
In the long series of acts of indirect az
/ gression, the first was the strenuous agitation
! by citizens of the northern States, in Con
gress and out of it, Of the question of negro
emancipation in the southern States.
THE second step m this path of evil con-
sisted of acts of people of the northern
States, and in several instances of their Gov
ernments, aimed to facilitate the escape oi
persons held to service in the southern
States, and to prevent their extradition when
reclaimed according to law and in virtue oi
express provisions of the Constitution. To
promote this object, legislative enactments
and other means were adopted TO take away
or defeat rights, which the Constitution sol.
emnly guaranteed. In order to nullify the
then existing act Of Congress concerning the
exrradition of fugitives from service, laws
were enacted in many States, forbidding
their officers, under the severest penalties
to participate in the execution of any act ol
Congress whatever. In this way that system
OF harmonious cooperation between the au-
thorities of the United States, for the man
tenance OF their common institutions, which
existed in the early years of the Republic,
was destroyed; conflicts of Jurisdiction came
to be frequent; and Congress found itself
compelled, for the support of the Constitu-
ton and the vindication of its power, to au-
thorize the appointment of new officers,
charged with the execution of its acts, as il
they and the officers of the States were the
ministers, respectively, of foreign govern
ments in state Of mutual hostility, rather
than fellow magistrates of common coun-
try, peacefully subsisting under the protec-
ton Of well-constitutioned Union. Thus,
here also, aggression was followed by re-ac-
ton, and the attacks upon the Constitution
at this point but serve to raise up new barri-
ers for its defence and security.
The third stage of this unhappy sectional
controversy was in connexion with the or
ganizatIon of territorial governments and the
admission of new States into the Union
When it was proposed to admit the State of
Maine, by separation of territy from that OF
Massachusetts,, and the State of Missouri,
formed of 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 parti-
cular views of public policy. The imposi-
ton of such a condition was successfully re-
sisted. But at the same period, the question
was presented of imposing restriction upon
the residue of the territory ceded by France.
The question was, for the time, Opposed of,
by the adoption of a geographi ,al line of
Limitation.
In this connexion it should not be forgot
ten that France, of ber own accord, resolved,
for considerations Of the most far-sighted sa-
gacity, 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 in the Union of the
United States, and admitted as soon as pos
sible, according to the principles of the Fede-
raj Constitution, to the enjoyment of all the
rights, advantages and immunities of citi-
zens of the United States; and in the mean
time they shall be maintained and protected
in the free enjoyment of their liberty, proper
ty, and the religion which they proless''-
that is to say, while it remains in territorial
condition, its inhabitants are maintained and
protected in the free enjoyment of their lib
erty 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. 1t staod on the statute book, how
ever, for number of years, and the people
of the respective States acquiesced in the
re-enactment of the principle as applied to
the State of Texas, and it was proposed to
acquiesce in in its further application to the
territory acquired by the United States from
Mexico. But this proposition was success
fully resisted by the representatives from the
northern States, who, regardless of the stat
ute line, insisted upon applying restriction to
the new territory generally, whether lying
north or south of it, thereby repealing it as a
legislative compromise, and, on the part OF
the North, persistently violating the com.
pact if compact there was.
Thereupon this enactment ceased to have
spects the North or the South and so in effeci
it was treated on the occasion of the admission
of the State of California, and the organization
of the Territories of New Mexico, Utah anc
Washington.
Such was the State of this question, wher
the time arrived for the organization Of the ter
ritories of Kansas and Nebraska. La the pro
gress 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 characte
upon any present or future State of the Union
In a long series of decisions, on the fullest ar
gument, and after the most deliberate consider
alton, the Supreme Court of the United State
had finally determined this point, in ever,
form under which the question could arise
whether as affecting public or private rights
in questions of the public domain, of religion
of navigation. and Of servitude.
The several States of the Union are, by fore
Of the Constitution, eo-equal in domestic legis
lative power. Congress cannot change a Law
of domestic relation in the State of Maine n
} more can it in the State of Missouri. AT,
statute which proposes to do this is a mere nul
ity it takes away no right, it confers none.
it remains on the statu;e-book unrepealed,
remains there only as monument oferror, an
beacon of warning to the legislator and tn
statesman. To repeal it will only be to remov
,. imperfectIon from the statutes, without affect
ing, either, in the sense of permission or
prohibition, the action of the States, or of the
citizens.
Still, when the nominal restriction of this n;
, ture, already a dead letter in law, was i
terms repealed by the last Congress. in claus
of the act organizing the Territories of Kan
sas and Nebraska, that repeal was made th
occasion of a widespread and dangerous ag
tation.
1t was alleged that the original enactmer
, being compact of perpetual and moral OF
legation, its repeal constituted an odious breac
of faith
D An act of Congress, while it remains unr,
!. pealed, more especially if it be Constitutional
> valid in the judgment of those pnblic function
aries whose duty it is to pronounce on tn;
point, is undoubtedly binding on the col
J. science Of each good citizen of the Republic
k But in what sense can it be asserted that IL
: enactment in question was invested with pc
!. petuity and entitled to the respect of solem