The Bedford gazette. [volume] (Bedford, Pa.) 1805-current, 1856-12-12

the latter expressly engaged that 'the inhabitants
OF the ceded Territory shall be incorporated 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 mean
time they shall be maintained and protected in
the free enjoyment of their liberty, properfu,
and ths religion which they proiess'-ihat is to
say, while II remains in territorial condition,
It's inhabitants are maintained and protected in
the free enjoyment Of their liberty and proper
ty, with right then 10 pass into the condition
OF States on footing of perfect equality with
the original States.
The enactment, which established the res
trctive geographical line, was acquiesced in
rather than approved by the States Of the Un-
ion. 1t stood on the statute books, however for
number of years and the people OF the res
pective States acquiesced in the re-enactment
of the principle as applied to the State of Tex
ass and il was proposed TO acquiesce in its fur
ther application to the territory acquired bv the
United States from Mexico. But this PROPOSE
tion was successfully resisted by the represen-
tatlveS from the Northern States, who, regard
less of the line, insisted upon applying restric-
ton to the new territory generally, whether ly-
ing North or South Of it, thereby repeating it as
a legislative compromise, and, on the part otthe
North, persistently violating the compact, if
compact there was.
Thereupon this enactment erased to have
binding virtue in any sense, whether as respects
the North or the South and so in effect il was
treated on the occasion of the admission of the
nj oil nd fbeo off ha
Territories of New 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-
gress does not possess constitutional power 10
impose restrictions Of this character upon any
present or future State of tie Union. In long
series of decisions on the fullest argument, and
after the most deliberate considerations, the Su-
preme Court of the United States had finally
determined this point, in every form under
which the question could arise, whether as ai-
ftctlng pubiic.or private rights-in questions of
the public dopain, of religion, OF navigation,
and of Servtudp.
The several States of the Union are, by force
OF the Constitution, eo-equal in domestic legis-
laiye power. Congress cannot change law OF
domestic relation in the State OF Maine; no
more can il in the State of Missouri. Anv
statute which proposes 10 do this is a mere null
llty: IT takes away no right, il conferS nome
If ii remains on the statute book unrppealed, it
remains there only as monument of error, and
a beacon of warning TO the legislator and the
statesman. To repeal il will be only 10 remove
imperfection from the statutes without affecting,
either in the sense of permission or of prohibit
ton, the action of the States, or Of their cti-
Zens.
Still, when the nominal restriction Of this
nature, already dead letter in law, was in
terms repealed by the last Congress, in clause
Of The act organizing the Territories of Kansas
and Nebraska, that repeal was made the occa-
sion Of wide spread and dangerous agita-
ton.
1t was alleged that the original enactment
being a compact OF perpetual moral obligation,
its repeal constituted an odious breach of faith.
An act of Congress, while it remains unre-
Peaed, more especially if it BE- constitntionaIIy
valid in the judgment of those public function
aries whose duty it is TO pronounce on that
point, is undoubtedly binding on the conscience
of each good citizen of the Republic. But in
what sense can it be asserted that the enactment
in question was invested with perprtulty and
entitled TO the respect of solemn compact =
Between whom was the compact? No dis
tinct contendng powers of the government, no
sePerate sections of the Union, treating as such.
entered into treaty stipuations on the sub
ject.
it vas mere clause of an act of Congress,
and like any other controverted matter OF Ipgis-
lation received its final shape aud was passed
by compromise Of the conflicting opinions or
sentiments of the members OF Congress. But
If it had moral authority over mems conscien-
ceS, TO whom did this authority attach? Not to
those ofthe North, who had repeatedly refused
to confirm it by extension, and who had zeal
ouSlv striven to establish other and Incompatl-
bic regulations upon the subject. And If, as II
thus appears, the supposed compact had no OBJ
ligatory force as to the North, Of conrSe il
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 law
givers, with undue estimation OF the value OF
the law they give, or in the view OF impartrg
to it peculiar strength, make it perpetual IN
terms but they cannot thus bind the con-
science, the judgment, and the will Of those
who may succeed them, invested with similar
responsibilities, and clothed with equal authorl-
ty. More careful investigation may prove the
law TO be unsound in principle Experience
may show it to be imperfect in detail and i'm
practicable in execution. And then both rea-
son combine not merely to justify, but to re-
quire its repeal.
The Constitution, supreme as it is over all
the departments of the government, legislative,
executive and judicial, is open TO amendment
by its very terms and Congress or the States