The north Iowa times. [volume] (M'Gregor [i.e. McGregor], Iowa) 1856-1857, 1856-12-19


public or private righ:s-in questions of
public domain. of religion, of navigation,
and of servitude.
The several States Of the Union are, BY
force OF the constitution, co-equal in do
nestle legislative power. Congress can
not change a law of domestic relation in
the Safe OF Maine no more can it in State
of Missouri. Any Statute which pro-
poses to do this is a mere nullity it takes
away no right, it confcrs none. If it re-
mains on the statute-book unrepealed, it
remains there only as monument of or
ror. and beacon Of warning to the legis
lator and the statesman. To repeal it will
be only to remove imperfection from the
statutes, without affecting. either in the
sense of permission or of prohibition, the
action of the States, or of their citi-
ZenS. 4. r.#
Still, when the nominal restriction OF
this nature. already dc,d les.er in law
was in terms repealed by the last Con
grcss, in a clause of the act organizing
the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska,
! that repeal was made the occasion of a
widespread and dan ,erous agitation.
1t was alleged that the original enact.
msnt being a compact of perpetual mora
obliga ion, is repeal constituted an odious
breach of faith. 't'.. T.. ...
An act of Congress, while it remains
unrepealed, more especially if it be con.
stitutionally valid in the judgment ofthose
public f,,nctionaries whose duty it is to
pronounce on that point, is undoubtedly
binding on the conscience of each good
citizen oftke republic. But in what sens.
can il be asserted that the enactment in
question was invested with perpetuity and
entitled to the respect of n solemn com.
pact? Between whom was The compact
No distinct consending powers of the
government, no separate sections Of thc
Union, treating as such, entered into trea
ty stipulations on the subject. 1t was =
mere clause of an act of Congress, and
like any other controverted matter of leg
islation, received its final shape and was
passed by compromise of the conflicting
opinions or sentiments Of the members O
Congress. ae -. e
But if it had moral authority over mems
conscicnces. to whom did this authority
attach :? Not to those of the North, who
had repeatedly refused to confirm it by
extension, and who had zealously strivel
to establish other and incompatible regu
lations upon the subject. And it,. as i
thus appears. the supposed compact hac
no obligatory force as to the North, o
couase it could not have had any as to the
South, for all such compats must be mu
tual and of reciprocal obligation.
i 1t has not unireqaeu.ly happened tina
| law givers, with undue estimation of tht
value Of the law they give, or in the view
of impariing to j. peculiar strength, make
it perpetual in terms but they canno
thus bind the conscience, the judgment
and the will of those who may succeed
them, invested with similar responsible
ties, and clothed with equal authority
More careful investigation may prove tho
law to be unsound in principle. Expert
ence may show it to be imperfect in detail
and impracticable in execution. Ant
then both reason and right combine
not merely to justify, but to require is
repeal. ,.......... ..... .... 0.......
The constitution, supreme as it is over
all the departments OF the government
legislative, executive, and judicial, is oper
to amendment by lis very terms ant
Congress OF the States may, in their dis
erection, propose an amendment to i, sol
emn compact though in truth it is between
the sovereign States of the Union. II
the present instance, a political enactment.
which had ceased to have legal power OF
authority of any kind, was repealed
The position assumed, that Congress hat
no moral ri ght to enact such repeal, was
strange enough, and sin sularly so in view
of the fact that the argument came from
those who openly refused obedience to ex
listing laws OF the land. having the sam,
popular designation and quail y as com
promise acts-nay, more, who unequivo
cally disregarded and condemned The
most positive and obligatory injunction.
of the constitution Itself, and sought, b,
every means within their reach. to depriv,
a portion of their fellow citizens of tn,
equal enjoyment of those rights and priv
ileges guaranteed alike TO all by the fun
damental compact of our Union.
T This argument against the repeal of thu
statute line in question was accompanied
by another of congenial character, ant
equally with the former destitute of foun
da;ion in reason and truth. 1t was impu
ted that the measure originated in the con
ception of extending the limits of slav>
labor beyond those previously assigned te
it, and thai such was It's natural as wei
as intended effect and these baseiess as
sumptions were made, in the norther,
States, the ground Of unceasing assault
upon constitutional right.
/ The repeal in terms of Statute which
was already obsolete, and also null for un
eonstitutionality, could have no influence
to obstruct or to promote the propagation
of conflicting views of political or socia
institution. When the act organizing Tho
: Territories Of Kansas and Nebraska wa
passed the inherent effect upon that por
ton of the public domain thus opened te
legal settlement was to admit settlers from
all the States Of the Union alike, each