Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, Va. [W. Va.]) 1852-1859, 1856-12-04


shrink with unaffected horror from any con-
sciousa act ofdisunion or civil war. But they have
Y entered into path which leads nowhere, un-
less it be TO civil war and disunion, and which
4 has no other possible outlet. They have pro-
lcceded thus far in that direction in consequence
of the successive stages Of their progress hay
ing consisted of n series of secondary issues,
each of which protested to be confined within
constitutional and peaceful limits, but which at
tempted indirectly what few men were willing
to do directly, that is to against
the constitutional rights of nearly onc-half OF
the thirty-one States.
si@ Iuthe long series of acts of indirect aggrcs-
sion, the first was the strenuous agitation, by
citizens of the northern States, in Congress and
Tout of 1t, of the question of negro emancipation
in the southern States l4tet3 i x u
The second step in this path of evil consisted
of acts of the people of the northern States, and
lin several instances of their governments aimed
TO facilitate the escape fpersors held to service
in the Southern states, aud to prevent their ex-
tradition when reclaimed according to-law and
in virtue of express provisions of the consttu-
ton. To promote the object, legislative enact
ments and other means were adopted to take
away or defeat rights which the Constitution
lsolemnly guaranteed. In order to nullify the
then existing act of Congress concerning the ex-
L tradition of fugitives from service, laws were
lenacted in many States, forbiddiEg their officers
under the seyerest penalties to participate in
In this way that system of harmonious co.ope-
ration between the authorities of the y. States
Land of the several states, for the maintenance of
their common institutions which existed in the
early years of the Republic, was destroyed; con-
tiicts of jurisdiction came to be frequent; and
Congress found itself compelled, for the support
of the constitution, and the yindicationao of its
power to authorize the appointment of new Off
cers charged with the execution of its acts as if
they and the officers of the States were the min
listers, respectively, of foreign governments in a
state of mutual hostility rather than fellow mag
lstrates of n common country, peacefully sub
sisting under the protection of one wel-constitu=
ted Union. Tins here also aggression was fol-
Ilowed by reaction; and the attack upon the con-
lstitution at this point did but serve to raise up
new barriers for its befence and security.
The third stage of this unhappy sectional con-
ltroversy was in connection with the organiZa-
ton of Territorial Governments, and the ndmis-
sion of new States into the Union. When it
was proposed to admit the State of Maine, by
separation of territory from that of Massachu-
Sets and the State of Missouri, formed of aporf
ton of the territory coded by France to the
United State, Representatives in Congress obiec-
ted 10 the admission of the latter, unless with
conditions suited to particular views of their
Ipublic policy. The imposition of such a cond-
ton was successfully resisted. But, at the same
lperiod, the question was presented of imposing
irestrictions upon the residue of the Territory
coded by France. That question was, for the
time, disposed of by the adoption of geograph-
ical line of Limitation.
In this connection it should not be forgotten
that France, of her own accord, resolved, for
considerations of the most far-sighted sagacity,
to cede Louisiana to the United States, and that
accession was accepted by the United States,
the latter expressly engaged that .the inhabit-
ants of the ceeded territory shall be incorpora-
ted in the Union of the United States and adj
mitted as soon as possible, according to the prin-
cples of the Federal Constitution, to the en-
ljoyment of. all the rights, advantages and i'm
munities of citizens of the United States; and
i in the meantime they shall be maintained and
protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty,
property, and the religion which they profess"
-thatis to say, while it remains in n territorial
condition, its inhabitants are maintained and
protected In the free enjoyment of their liberty
and property, with right then to pass into
the condition of States on a footing of perfect
equality with the original States.
The enactment, which established the restric-
tive geographical line was acquiesccd i'll rather
than approved by the States of the Union 1t
stood on the statute book, however, for num-
Der of years and the people of the respective
States acquieSced in the rc-enactinent of the
principle as applied to the State of Texas; and
was proposed to acquiesce in its further appli-
cation to the territory acquired by the United
States from Mexico. But this proposition was
soessaf,iiy resisted by the representatives from
tute line, insisted upon applying restriction to
the new territory generally, whether lying north
or south oft thereby repeating it as a legisla-
tive compromise and on the part of the North,
persistently violating the compact, if compact
there was.
Ihereupon this enactment ceased to have
binding virtue in any sense, whether as respects
the North OF South; and SO in elect it was trea-
ted on the occasion of the admission of the
State of California, and the organization of the
Territories offNew Mexico, Utah, and WASH
ington.
Such was the state of this question, when the
time arrived for the organization of the Terri
tories OF Kansas and Nebraska. In the progress
of constitutional inquiry and reflection it had
now at length come TO be seen clearly that Con-
gross does not possess constitutional power to
Impose restrictions of this character upon any
present or future State of the Union. In n long
serious ofdecisions on the fullest argument, and
alter the most deliberate consideration the SUI
preme Court of the U. S. had finallydecided
this point, in every form under which the qnes-
ton could rise, whether rs affecting public or
private rights--in questions of the public do
main, of religion, of navigation and of servitude
The several States of the Union are, by force
OF the Constitution, coequal In domestic leeisia-
tive power. Congress cannot change law of
domestic relation in the State of Maine; no more
can 1t the State of Missouri. Any statute
which proposes to do this is mere nullity: il
takes away no right, it confers none If it re-
mains there only as a monument of error, and a
beacon of warning to the legislator and to the
statesman. To repeal it will be only TO remove
lmperfcction from the statutes, without etfecting
eitherln the sense of permission or prohibition,
the action of the States, or of their citizens
Still when the nominal restriction of this M.
ture, already dead letter in law, was in terms
repealed by the last Congress, in a clause of the
act organizing the Territories of Kansas and Ne
braska, that repeal was made the occasion of q