Nashville daily patriot. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1855-1857, 1856-12-06

In the long series of acts of indirect aggres-
sion, the first was the strenuous agitation by
citizens of the Northern States, in Congress
and out of it. of the question of negro eman-
cipation in the Southern States.
The second step 10 this path of evil consist
ed of acts of the people of the Northern States
and in several instances of their govern
ments. aimed to facilitate the escape of per-
sons held to service in the Southern States,
and to prevent their extradition when re-
claimed according to law and in virtne of ex-
press provisions of the Constitution. To pro-
mote this object; legislative enaetments and
other means were adopted to take away or de-
feat rights, which the Constitution solemnly
guaranteed. In order TO nulify the then exis-
ting act of Congress concerning the extradition
of fugitives from service, laws were enacted
in many States, forbdding their officers under
the severest penalties, to participate in the ex-
ecution of any act of Congress whatever. In
this way the system of harmonious co-Opera-
ton between the authorities of the United
States and of the several States, for the main
tenance of their common institutions which
existed in the early years eff the Republic, was
destroyed; conflicts of jurisdiction came to J..
frequent; ana Congress found itself compelled,
for the support of the Constitution, and the
vindication of its power, to authorize the ap-
pointment of new officers charged with the ex-
ecution of its acts as if they aud the officers OF
the States were the ministers, respectively of
foreign governments in state OF mutual hos
tility, rather than fello W. Magistrates of a COM
mon country, peacefully subssting under the
protection of one well constituted UniOn.-
Thus here, also, aggression was followed by
reaction, and the attacks upon the Constitu-
ton at this point did but serve TO raise up new
barriers for its defense and security.
The third stage of this unhappy sectional
controversy was in connection with the or
ganization of territorial governments, and the
admission of new States into the Union. When
it was proposed to admit the Suite of Maine,
by separation of territory from p of Massa-
chusetts, 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, unlEs
with conditions suited to particular views of
public policy. The imposition of such con-
dition was successfully resisted. But, st the
same period, the question was presented of inI-
posing restrictions upon the residue of the ter
ritory ceded by Ftance. That question was,
for the time, disposed of, by the adoption Of a
geographical line of limitation.
la this connection it should not be forgotten
that France, of her own accord, resolved, for
considerations of the most far-sighted sagaci-
ty, to cede Louisiana to the United States, and
that accession was accepted by the United
States, the latter expressly engaged that "the
inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be in
cOrpOrated in the Union of the United States,
and admitted as soon as possible, according to
the principles of the Federal Constitution, TO
the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages,
and immunities OF the citizens of the United
States, and in the meantime they shall be
maintained and protected in the free enjoy
ment of their liberty, property, and the relL
gion which they profess" that Is to say,
while it remains in territorial condition, its
inhabitants are maintained and protected in
the free enjoyment of their liberty and pro-
perto, with a right then to pass into the con-
dition of States on footing of perfect equali-
ty 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 stood on the statute book, howev-
er; for a munger of years; and the people OF
! the respectiveStates acquiesced inthe re-enact-
ment of the principle as applied to the State
! of Texas; and it was proposed to acquiesce in
its further application to the territory 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 restriction to the new territory gen.
orally, whether lying nor or south of it, there
by repeating it as a legislative compromise,
and, on the part Of the North, persistently vio-
lating the compact, if compact there was.
ThereupOn this enactment ceased to have
binding virtue in any sense, whether as re.
| spects the North or the South and SO in effect
it was treated on the occasion of the admission
of the State of California, and the organization
of the territories of New Mexico, Utah and
| Washington.
Such was the state of this question when
! the time arrived for the organization of the
| territories of Kansas and Nebraska In the
| progress of constitutional inquiry and rehec
| ton, it had now come TO be seen clearly that
! Congress does not possess constitutional pow
er TO impose restrictions Of this character up
on any present or future State of the Union
| In long series of decisions, on the fullest ar
| gument, and after the most deliberate consid.
Grafton, the Supreme Court of the United
| States had finally determined this point, in ev-
| cry 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 force
! of the Constitution, CO equal in domestic leg
islative power Congress cannot change law
of domestic relation in the State of Maine; no
more can it in the State of Missouri. Any
J statute which proposes to do this is q mere
| nullity; it takes away no right, IL confers none
If it remains on the statute book 71repealcG, il
remains there only as a monument of error,
and beacon of warning to the legislator aud
the statesman. To repeal it will be only to
remove imperfection from the statutes, with
out affecting either in the sense of permission
or of prohibition, the action of the States, or
of their citizens.
Still when the nominal restriction Of this
nature, alreody dead letter in law, was in
terms repealed by the last ConGress,iu a clause
of the act organizing the territories Kansas and
Nebraska, that repeal was made the occasion
Of wide spread and dangerous agitation.
IL was alledged that the original enactment
being compact of moral obligation, lis repeal
constituted an odious breach of faith.
An act of Congress while it remains unre-
pealed, more especially if it be constitutionally
valid in the judgment of those public function
aties whose duty il is to pronounce on that
points undoubtedly binding on the conscience
OF each good citizen of the Republic. But In
what sense can it be asserted that the enacts
ment in question was invested with perpetuity
aud entitled TO the respect of a solemn com
pact
No distinct contendng powers Of the govern
meut, no separate sections Of the Union, treating
as such. entered into treaty stipulatons the SUBJ
lect IL was a mere clause OF sn act OF Congress,
aud Ike any other conlroverIod matter OF egisa-
ton. received its final ships aud passed by
compromise Of the conflicting opinions or sent,
ments OF the members OF Congress. Butif it had
moral authority over mems conseiences, TO whom
dii this authority attach? Not TO those OF the
North, who had repeatedly refused to confirm it by
extension and who had zealousy strven TO estab-