Marshall County Democrat. (Plymouth, Ind.) 1855-1859, 1856-12-11

firm it by extension and had sedulously
striven to establish other and incompatible
regulations upon the subject, and if, as it
appears, the supposed compact had no OBJ
ligatory force, as to the North, of course it
could not have had any as to the South.
for all such compacts must be mutual and
of reciprocal obligation.
1t has not unfrequently happened that
laws ivers. with undue estimation of the
value of the view they give, or in the view
ofimparting to it peculiar strength, make
it perpetual in-terms, but they cannot thus
bind the conscience, the judgment and the
will of those who may succeed them, in
vested with similar responsibilities and
clothed with equal authority. More care
full investigation may prove the law un-
sound in principle, experience may show
it to be imperfect in detail and impractical
in execution, and then both reason and
right combine not merely to justify but to
require its repeal.
The Constitution, supreme as it is over
all the departments of the Government, leg
islative, executive and judicial, is open to
amendment by its very terms, and Con-
gress or the States may in their discretion
propose amendments to its solemn compact,
though it in truth is between the sovereign
States of the Union. in the present in
stance political enactment which had
ceased to have legal power or authority of
any kind was repealed. The position as
sumed that Congress had no moral right
to enact such repeal was strange enough
and singulsrly so in view Of the fact that
the argument came from those who openly
refused obedience to existing laws Of the
land having the same popular designation
aud quality as compromise acts; nay. more
who unequivocally disregardel and CON
demned the most positive and obligatory
injuctions of the Constitution itself, and
sought by every means within their reach
to deprive portion ofther fellow citizens
of the equal enjoyment of those rights and
privileges guaranteed alike to all by the
fundamental compact of our Union.
This argument against the repeal of the
statute line in question was accompanied by
another of congenial character, and equal
ly with the former destitute in truth. 1t
was imputed that the measure originated
in the conception ofextending the limits of
slave labor beyond those previously as
signed to it, and that such was its nat
ural as we'll as intended effect. and those
baseless assumptions were made in the
Northern States ground of unceasing as
sault upon constitutional right. The repeal
in terms of statute which was already OBJ
solete and also null, for unconstitutionality ,
could have no influence to construct or
promote the propagation ofconflicting views
of political or social institutions.
When the act organizing the Territories
of Kansas and Nebraska was passed, the
inherent effect upon that portion of the
public domain thus opened to legal settle
ment, was to admit. settlers from all the
States of the Union alike, each with his
convictions of public policy and private
interest, there he found in their discretion
subject to such limitations as the Consti-
tutions and acts of Congress might pre-
scribe, new States hereafter to be admitted
into The Union--it was a free field open
alike 10 all. Whether the statute of as
sumed restriction was repealed or not, that
repeal did not open free competition Of
the diverse opinions and domestic institu-
tons, field which without such repeal
would have been closed against them. 1t
found that field of competition already
open in fact and in law. All the repeal did
was to relieve the statute book of an OBJ
jectionable feature, unconstitutional in
effect, and injurious in terms to large por-
ton of the States. Is it the fact that all
the unsettled regions of the United States,
If emigration be left free to act in this re-
spect of itself, without legal prohibitions
on either side. slave labor will spontane-
ously 60 everywhere in preference to free
labor? Is it the fact that the peculiar in
situations of the southern States possesses
relatively so much of vigor that whereso-
ever an avenue is freely open to all the
world they will penetrate to the exclusion
of thoseo of the northern States?
Is it the fact, that the former enjoy com
pared with the latter, such iIresistably su.
perior vitality, independent of soil, climate
and all other accidental circumstances, as
to BE- able to produce the supposed result
in spite of the assumed moral and natural
OBJ tacles to its accomplishment and Of the
more numerous population OF tie Northern
States? The argument of those who al
vocate the enactment of new laws Of re
striction and condemned the repeal Of old
ones, in affect AYERS that their particular
views of government have no self-extend-
ing or self sustaining power of their own
and will 90 nowhere unless forced by act
of Congress. And if Congress do but
pause for a moment in tho policy of stern
coercion, lift venture to try the experiment
|, of leaving men to Judge for themselves
what institutions will best suit them, if il
be not strained up to perpetual Legislative
exertion on this point. If Congress pro-
ceedsthus to act in the very Esprit of Lib
erty, is at once charged with aiming te
extend Slave labor into all the Territories
of the United States.
Of cource these imputations of the inten-
, tons of Congress In this respect, conceiv-
. ed as they were in prejudice. and dissent
mated iu passion, and utterly destitute o.
any justification in the nature of things,
land contrary to all the fundamental doc
trines and principles Of civil liberty and
self-government. While therefore in gen
, eral the people of the Northern States have
never at any time arrogsted for the fedora
government the power to interfere directly
With the domestic condition of persons in
L. IL