Worcester daily spy. [volume] (Worcester [Mass.]) 1850-1888, 1856-12-03

proceeded thuS tar IN that direction in conse-
quence of the successive stages of their pro-
gress having consisted OF series of secondary
issues, each ofwhich professed to be confined
within constitutional and peaceful limits but
which attempted indirectly what few men
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 ofindireet agrees
sion, the first was the strenuous agitation, by
citizens OF the northern States, in Congress
and out lit, of the question ofnegro emanci-
patton IN the southern States.
The second step in this path of evil consist
ed OF acts OF the people Of the northern States,
and In several instances of their governments,
aimed to facilitate the escape of persons held
to service in the southern States, and to pre-
vent their extradition when reclaimed accord
ing to law and in virtue of 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 solemnly guaranteed. In Or
der to nullity the then existing act of Con-
gress concerning the extradition of fugitives
from service, laws were enacted in many
States, forbidding their officers, under the
seyerest penalties, to participate in the execu-
ton OF any act of Congress whatever In this
tAAot JStStu VI llHliuOnlDAS CO-ODtTdIlOu
between the authorities of the q. S. 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 jurisdiction came to be frequent;
and Congress found itself compelled, for the
support OF the Constitution and the vindi-
cation OF its power, TO authorize the appoint
ment OF new officers charged with the execu-
ton OF its acts, as if they and the officers of
the States were the ministers, respectively,
OF foreign governments in state of mutual
hostility, rather than fellow magistrates of
common country, peacefully subsstlng 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 defence and security.
The third stage of this unhappy sectional
controversy was in connection with the organ
ization Of territorial governments, and the aG-
mission 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 theState of Missouri, formed
of portion of the territory ceded by France
to the United States, representatives in Con-
gress objected to the admission of the latter,
unless with conditions suited to particular
'AS"o "a POOAAS pOAASJs iAO llhpOoAllOu Vi
such a condition was successfully resisted.
But, at the same period, the question was pre-
scented of imposing restrictions upon the resi-
due of the territory ceded by France. That
question was, for the time, disposed of by the
adoption of a geographical line Of limitation.
In this connection it should not be forgot
ten that France, of her 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 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 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 relig-
ion they profess that is to say, while it re-
mains in territorial condition, its inhabitants
are maintained and protected in the free enjoy
ment of their liberty and property, with
right then to pass into the condition of States
or footing of perfect equality with the orig
inal States
The enactment which established the re-
strictive geographical line, was acq uiesced in
rather than approved by the States of the
Union. 1t stood on the statute book however,
tor number of years; and the people Of the
respective States acquiesced in the 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 gem
orally, whether lying north or south of it,
thereby repeating it legislative compro-
mise, and on the part of the North, persist
emily violating 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 eff
feet it was treated on the occasion Of the ad-
mission of the State of California, and the or
ganization 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 Kanzas and Nebraska. In the
progress of constitutional inquiry and reaec-
ton, it had now at length come to be seen
clearly that Congress does not possess consti-
tutlonal power to impose restrictions of this
character upon any present or future State in
the Union. In long series Of decieions, on
the fullest argument,and after the most dehb-
crate consideration, the Supreme Court of the
United States had finally determined this point
in every 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 domes-
tic legislative power. Congress cannot change
a law of domestic relation in the State of
Maine no more can it in the State of Mis-
souri,. Any statute which proposes to do this
is mere nudity it takes away no right, it
confers none. If it remains on the statute
book unrepealed, it remains there only as a
monument of error, and beacon of warning
to the legislator and the statesman. 10 re.
peal 1t Will be only to remove imperEecton
from the statutes, without 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, already dead letter in law, wasin terms
repealed by the last Congress, in clause
of the act organizing the territories of Kan
zas and Nebraska, that repeal was made the oc.
casionofa widespread and dangerous agita-
ton.
1t was alleged that the original enactment
being compact of perpetual moral obligation,
its repeal constituted an odious breach of
faith.
An act of Congress, while it remains unre.
pealed, more especially if it be constitution.
ally valid in the judgment of those public
functionaries whose duty it is to pronounce
on that point, is undoubtedly binding on the
conscience of each good citizen of the Re-
public. But in what sense can il be asserted