The Carolina Spartan. [volume] (Spartanburg, S.C.) 1852-1896, 1856-12-18

10 the State OF Texas: and it was proposed
TO acquiesce in its furtherappication 10 the
territory acquired by The United States from
Mexico. But this proposition was success.
fully resisted by the representatives from
the Northern States, who, regardless of The
statute line, insist !! upon applying res,ric.
ton to the new territory generally, whether
lying north orsouth oft, thereby repeating
1t rs legislative compromise, and. on the
part OF the North, persisten,ly violating the
compact, if compact there was.
! Ihereupon this enactment ceased TO have
binding virtue in any sense whether as
respects the North or the South: and so in
effect 1t was treated on the occasion of the
admission Of the State of California. and
The organization 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 Kansas and Nebraska. In
the progress of constitutional INQUIRY and
reflection, ii had now at length come 10 be
seen clearly that Congress does not possess
constitutional power to impose restrictions
OF this character upon any present or future
State OF the Union. In long series OF de.
| clslons, on the fullest argument, rnd after
the most deliberate consideration, tue Su-
preme Court of the United States had final.
ly determined this point, in every form un .
der which the question could arise, whether
as affecting public or private rights-in
questions of the public domain, of elicion,
OF navigation, and of servitude.
The several States of tue Union are. by
force of the Constitution, co-equal in do.
mesiic legislative power. Congress cannot
change a law of domestic relation in the
State of Maine; no more can it in the State
o' Missouri. Any statute which proposes
to do this Is mere nuliity; it takes away
no light, II con(ers none. Ii it remains on
the statute book unrepealed. it remains
/ there only rs monument of error. and n
beacon OF warning TO tho legislator and the
statesman. To repeal it will be only TO re.
move impev'ec,ion from the statutes, with
out affecting, either in The sense of perniis
sion or of prohibition, the action of thc
States or of their citizens.
Sui, when the nominal restriction OF this
nature, already Il dead letter in law, was in
terms repealed by the last Congress, in a
clause OF the act organizing the Territories
OF Kansas and Nebraska, ;hat repeal was
made the occasion Of wide spread and
dangerous agitation.
Il WAS alleged that the original enact.
men, being compact OF perpetual moral
obligation, lis repeal constituted an odious
breach of faith
An act of Congress, while it remains un
repealed, more especially If it be consiitu
tionaIIy valid in the judgment of those pub
Hc iuncilonarieS whose duty it is TO pro-
nouhce on that point, is undoubtedly bind.
ing on the conscience Of each good citizen
OF the Republic. BIT in what sense can i,
be asserted that the enactment in question
was invested with pcrpetuity and entitled
10 the respect of a solemn compact BE.
tween whom was the compactl No dislinc,
cohiendng powers of the government, no
separate sections Of the Union, treating as
such' entered into treaty siipulations on the
subject. II was a mere clause Of an act of
Congress, and like any other con,roverted
matter OF legislation, received its final shape
and was passed 10y compromise of the con.
Ihcing opinions or sentiments of the mem
oers OF Congress. But if il had moral au-
monty over mems conscenccs. 10 whom
did this authority attach? Not 10 those OF
the North, who had repeatedly refused 10
confirm II by extension, and who had zeal.
ouSly stiiven to establish other and incom.
pat'b'e regulations upon the subject. And
H. As 1t 'hus appears, the supposed compact
had no obligatory force as To the North. OF
course 1t could not have had any as to the
South, for all such compacts must be mutu.
al and of reciprocal obligation.
1t has not unfrequcnuy happened ,ha,
iaw'glvcrS, with undue estimation of the
value OF the law they give or in the view
al impartng to 1t peculiar strength, make
IL perpetual in terms; but they cannot thus
"nd The conscience, the judgment. and the
wi'I of those who may succeed them. in
vested with similar responsibilities. and
clothed with equal authority. More care.
tai investigation may prove the law to be
unsound IN principle. Experience may
show 1t to be imperfect in detail and i'm
practicable in execution. And then both
reason and right combine not merely to
justify but TO require its repeal.
The Constitution, supreme rs it is over
all the departments of the government.
legislative, executive, and judicial, is open
greSs, or the States, may, in their discretion
propose amendment to it, solemn compac,
/ 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 singuIarly SO in view of the fact tha,
The argument came from those who openly
refused obedicuco TO existing law, Of the
land, having the same popular designation
and quality ms compromise acts; nav more,
who unequivocaIly disregarded and con.
demned the most positive and obligatory
in5uucuons Of the Constitution itself. and
sought, by every means within their reach,
to deprive portion of their fellow citizens
OF the equal enjoyment Of those rights and