Daily Wabash Express, Volume 17, Terre Haute, Vigo County, 21 February 1868 — Page 4

»%^®.-wiar

[CONTINUED TBOM FIEST PAGE.] the discretion of the Court, not exceeding ten days, and if the fine was not paid within five dava after conviction, it was

made

the duty of the Sheriff to hire out the convict to any person who would for the shortest period pay said fine and all

^Look for one moment at the beauties of this Democratic acquiescing legislation, passed by men who had the oath to support the abolition of slavery fresh upon their lips and upon their souls.

It embraces three propositions, viz:— First, Colored persons must have homes

or

be outlawed but lest they should get homes, tbey aro prohibited by law from rentiDg houses or lands. Second, If they have not homep, tbey must have some lawful employment or business but the law prevents them from having a lawful employment or business, unless thoy are licensed or bound to 6erve some white man in a written contract that makee them worse than the slaves of their employers. Third, If they have no lawful employment or business, tbey are vagrants and punishable by a fine not exceeditg fifty dollars, and to pay the fines and costs the man or woman is put upon the block and sold into temporary bondage.

Even Indiana Democrats would acquiesce in such a result of tbe war as would Btill permit tbeir Southern brethren to sell colored people on the block for the dreadful crime of being black and haviog no license to live and to labor issued by some rebel Democratic official.

Again, by the sixth section of this same vagrant act, it was made the duty of the police authorities of each county to levy an annual special poll tax of not exceeding one dcliar on every colored person, \male and female, between the ages cf eighteen and sixty years, to constitute a

Freedman's Pauper Fund and by the seventh section, a failure to pay this tax was made evidence cf vagrancy, and it was made the duty of the Sheriff to arrest the defaulting tax payer and (without trial) proceed at once to hire him or her out to any one who would for the shortest time pay the tax with the accruing costs. Assessing a poll tax upon a womun, and then lev} ir:g upon the woman and selling her on the block to pay the tax, affords evidence of financial genius and acquieg' cicg loyalty tbat c&n not fail to command universal admiration.

The tux juet mentioned, be it remem ed, was a special poll tax only applicable to colored persons, and applicable to these without regard to sex. Besides this, colored men with all male inhabitants of the State, between the ages cf twenty-one and Bixty, were sulject to a State poll tax of one dollar per annum, and if it waB rot paid the Sheriff was to compel the delinquent to work six days on any public road or bridge or other public work and if there was no fuch work in the county to be donr, the Sheriff was to hire the defauling tax payer for six days to any person who would pay the one dollar tax and ono dollar additional for cost- This law in terms applied to white persons as well as black, but any one can see tbat it was aimid chiefly at the defenceless freedmen, it being well understood tbat none of the white chivalry of the South could or would be made to submit to the performance of six days of compulsory labor to pay a ^polltaxof one dollar.

The crowning evidence of the entire acquiescence of the people of Mississippi in the results of the war is, however, to be found in an act, approved November 29, 1865, entitled "an act to punish certain offences therein named and for olhor purposes."

By tbis act a penalty of not less than ten nor more tban one hundred dollars is denounced against every freedman, free negro or mulatto who shall exercise the functions of a Minister of the Gospel without license from a regularly organized church, and should he fail to pay the fine and costs for the space cf five days after conviction, ho shall be hired out by the Sheriff or other officer, at public outcry, to any white person who will pay such fine and costs and take such convict for the shortest time.

Such was a part of the diabolical ingenuity whidh those reconstructed rebels employed to evade the amnesty oath they had Just taken, and to show their entire acquiescence in the results cf the war. Is it not marvellous that Mr. Hendricks, in searching for evidence of the acquiescence of the Southern people in the results of the war, should ignore these solemn, legislative records, and instead thereof rely upon the opinion of General Grant, formed on a flying railroad trip made through the Southern State?, and oc:upying, as it did, but a few days Is it not still more strange, that the Senator should turn aside from this and similar legislation, and adduce as conclusive evidence of acquiescence, the opinion of his distinguished colleague in the Senate, expressed more tban a month before this legislation bad been inauguraed?

Among lawyers, it is accounted to be a sure sign of a weakcace, when the barrister reBorts to inferior, secondary, or hearsay evidence, in support of his cause, where the beet evidence is attainable. Such a cause may enable the advocate to exhibit his Bkil), and occasionally to make a sharp point on his adversary, and may have victory, but cannot have truth for its object.

I present you not tho opinion of this distinguished General, or that eminent statesman, as to what he supposed to be the temper and spirit of the people of the South, as regarded their yielding respect to the authority of the United States, and acquiescing in the results of the war but as infinitely better and highor evidence, I submit to you what these people, themselves, said and did in their legislative assembles.

Mr. Hendricks, in the speech to which I have alluded, for the purpose of working the passions and prejudice* of his party against a despised and injured race, drew a fancy skotch, with which he was so well pleased that he subsequently held it up, in anotber'speech to tho admiring aze of the Senate of the United States, this sketch, ho depicted the atrocious conduct of the colored men of the South waging a war of barbariaus against the property and persons of tho white people, and in presecuting this cruel purpose, he exe'aimed:

f,

"Whatever may be the sympathies of the North on thequesticn of freedom from slavery, you need nut think thoy will be with the nrgro in this horrible contest, now imminent for when the Northern man seen tho mother and children escaping from the burning house that has sheltered and protected them when he hears the screams of beauty and innocence, in tho flight from pursuing lust if he ever venerated a mother, or loved or a sister or wife, his heart and hand will be for the pale-faccd woman, and for the child of his own race."

As a work -f art, this picture lacks but one element to make it a master-piece. That lacking element is its utter want of truthfulness. It ought tohavo been remembered, in drawing this picture, tbat a change of figures was necessiry to moke it true to actual life. The brown-faced woman ought to have been plactd in the fore ground, with the Confederate white man, brutalized by the contact and practice oT slavery, in hot pursit.

Such scenes as this have not of been of infrequent occurrence in tho South and if we may judge of results by the number of people in that section who aro neither black nor white, the pale-faced man was generally successful in the chase.

Gratitude for the kind treatment extended by the colored men of the South to the wives and little ones of Southern Democrats, when they were engaged in a cruel and atrocious war waged to perpetuate the bondage of these sable sons of toil, and to overthrow the Government ought to protect them from ouch un-

wholly from fancy, but which might have taken place under the legislation to whi I have called your attention, had not that legislation ieen strioken from existence by the enactments of Congress and the strong arm of military power.

Suppose a discharged Union soldier with the uniform of his country still upon his back, but laboring under the double misfortune of having given one of his limbs to his country, and of haying a black skin, to be & resident of Mississippi, aad to be sseessld with the special, poll tax of which mention has already been made. Suppose him not to have the money with which to pay this tax and uppose an other discharged soldier wearing the Confederate grey, to have been elevated, in consequebce of his devotion to the rebel cause, to the office of Tax-Col-lector, by his admiring fellow rebels.—

Behold the rebel soldier clutch the black man dressed in blue, and place him upon the block and expose him to sale, to-pay a tax from which tho rebel auctioneer is exempt.

In witnessing such a scene as this, think you that the heart or hand of the Northern man who venerates a mother, or loves a sister or wife, would be in favor of the rebel manseller.

But again, I think I see in Mississippi two discharged white soldiers, both maimed by wounds received in battle, the one still wearing the loyal blue, the. other the Confederate grey each was faithful to the cause for which he fought the man in grey, because of his fidelity to rebellion is exempt from paying a poll tax, and has been elected Sheriff of- the county. Behold him march off tbeUniou soldier, to perform six days of enforced labor to raise a fund, oue-flfth of which is to go to the man in grey, and other disabled rebels, to compensate them. for their sufferings in attempting to destroy the government to which both alike owe&allegiance. In whose favor would the heart and nand of the Northern man be, under such circum stances, if not himself at haart a traitor? Would he not, amid such surroundings, sing.

1

We'll rally 'round the flag, bov#, We'll rally once aln," before we will tolerate the perpetration of such outrages under color of law?

But I must proceed to other questions of fact Involved in the issue. The Democracy assert, and we deny that the PEOPLE of all the Southern States adopted the President's recommen datiens, and elected delegates to conven tions, constitutions were made, submitted, voted upon, and ratified. How stand the facts There are two classes of rebei States that are still without representation in Congress. In the first class is Virgin ia, Louisiana and Arkansas, in each of which there was some sort of State organization claiming to be the legitimate gov« ernment of the State at the time Mr, Johnson commenced his work of reconstruction. As to these three States, he appointed no provisional governors, and provided for no conventions, but recognized the organizations existing at the close of the war as the legitimate govern meats of these Sta'esTespectively.

The convention which amended, pretended to amend the constitution of the State of Virginia, met in Alexandria in the summer of 1864,. at a time when the greater portion, of that State was in the possession of the rebel armies. The record shows that the vote on the amendment abolishing slavery stood, ayes, 13 to one nay. So tbat this grand constitution al convention of Virginia consisted 14 members, who represented the peo pleof Richmond, then the seat of govern' ment of the rebel Confederacy, as well as all other portions of the State then under rebel control. To call such a meeting a convention of the people of Virginia is to misrepresent its character, and to trifle with the intelligence of the public, and aver that the action of this convention never was submitted to, voted upon, or ratified by any portion of the people of Virginia, not even by the people of the city of Alexandria. Can a. constitution so made or amended be binding on any person? And yet this is the constitution un der which it is insisted that the present VirginiaStateorganization must be recognized.

What are the facta in relation to Louisiana? In 1864 Gen. Banks issued a mili itary order providing for the election of constitutional convention at a time when a great portion of the State was held by rebel armies, and the convention which assembled under this military order fram ed the constitution which the Democratic party insist must now bo recognized by Congress, because the President has seen proper to treat the State organization formed under it as the legitimate State government of Louisiana. Congress had more than once, before Mr. Johnson took upon himself to recognize this organization, repudiated the whole thing, and Mr, Hendricks, by his votes and speeches in the Senate, had concurred iu this action

After the Presidential election of 1864, a joint resolution was presented to the Senate, declaring that the revolted State* which, including Louisiana, were named in the preamble, Were not entitled to be represented in the electoral college for the choice of President, and Vice President of the United States, for the term of office, commencing on the 4th day of March. 1865.

A motion was made to except Louisi ana from the operation of the resolution by striking the name of that State there from, and thereby permit her people to vote for President and Vice President The amendment did not prevail, and Mr Hendricks, subsequently, in 1866, in ex planing his vote against striking the name of Louisiana from the preamble, said: "I voted against striking it out, for I did not think the government established there by General Banks at the point of the bayonet, was such a government aB we ought then to recognize." "What has occurred sinc«t I

agk

to

mako it more worthy of recognition? It still has tho same constitution formed at tbe point of the bayonet, and one which does not repudiate the debt created in aid of rebellion. If the people of Louisiana were not in a condition, to participate in a Presidential election in November, 1864, by what process of reasoning can it be shown that they were in a condition to frame or amend a constitution in April, 1864?

At the election for Governor, heid under this organization in 1864, only 10,725 votes were cast in the entire State, and yet this constitution and government is said to rest on the broad oasis of tbe sovereign will of the people of LouisianaA glance at the facts is sufficient to negative any such pretense.

Tbe State organization in Arkansas, stands on HO better or broader popular foundation.

The other clas* of revolted States, still unrepresented in Congress, consists of those for which Mr. Johnson appointed Provisional Governors,'viz: Noath Carolina, Misslasidpi, Georgia, Alabama, South Carolina, Florida and Texas.

How stands tbe fact .as to tbe people of these States electing delegates to these convontidns which named the constitutions under which recognition is demanded?

I answer that in no one of these seven States did tbe great body of the people participate in the elections by which these conventions were called. Not more than one-third of the^ white men in each of th-se States who would have been entitled to vote, had they never been guilty of rebellion, took part in these elections and the great majority of those who did vote, were covered all over with treason, while the loyal black men were allowed no voice in the choice of delegates.

Can a convention wbich rests on so narrow a popular basis as this, be said to represent the sovereign will of the people of either of these States? But waiving this, if you please, did all these States

founded assaults from any Democrat of repudiate the debts contracted in aid of the Chicago platform persuasion. rebellion? Did each oneof them, as is As an offset to this"imaginary picture, so confidently asserted, expressly abandon stood, but is let me present to you another, not drawn the right of secession in the moat solemn1 would be to

manner, and repudiate ana declare invalid their several ordinances of secession? I assert that the record shews that the South Carolina Convention never did re» pudiate Jher rebel debt, and that neither South-Carolina nor Georgia ever did expressly or,ftaplie(ily jn.,a solemn or unsolemn m&nner, .ejjandon the right of se* cession, or repudiater or declare invalid their respective ordinances of seaeesion.— On the contrary, the record shows that both of these States simply repealed their respective ordinances of secession, just as your Legislature might repeal an'-act at ono session and revive the" same act at any subsequent session.

Each of these cooventifins did insert a clause in the several constitutions adopted prohibiting slavery, but it was done un» der Presidential coercion as is manifest from the fact tbat their subsequent le$is« lation disregarded all snoh inhibitions.

How then, ja the next place, were these constitutions submitted, approved and ratified according to forms always respected, as is alleged in the complaint of the Democratic party?

I affirm, and the record of these conventions proves the fact, so to be that not one of these constitutions, [except perhaps Texas,] was eVer submitted to a vote of any portion of the people for which it was framed nor was any attempt made at such submission.—

Leaving Texns out of the question, (as to which I am not advised,} the only fact which doea exist that could give even the color of truth to the allegation that they were submitted, voted upon and ratified, is the circumstance that, in the single State of "North: Carolina, one solitary clause prohibiting slavery, was submitted and approved by a majority of those who were permitted to vete, and who did'vote upon the question.- "And in :this same Horth Carolina convention, a proposition was. made to r^fer in like banner to a popular vote the ordinance, repudiating the debt contracted in aid of the rebellion, and it was promptly'voted down, because it was known that the people whom Mr. Johnson permitted to vote, would not ratify it. ., fH

But, it is said that these constitutions were not only rati fled according to the forms always respected, but that they were acceptable to the people, both North and S: utb. Wbere is the evidence of the truth of this allegation I reply that it is disproved by the fact that these States, (Texas excepted,) sought admission for tbeir Senators aod Representatives into the Congress of the United States in December, 1865, and admission was denied them and the people of the loyal States at tho election (n 1866, sustained the action of Congress.

I now confidently submit tbat I have disproved every count in this Democratic declaration, and, that on the facto, we are entitled to n, verdict, and that judgment should follow tha verdict unless there is something in the law of the case that ren^ ders a contrary judgment necessary.

Let us now considor the question of law at issue between us' and' our political adversaries. I thus tt ite them, 1st. We insist, in the language of Mr. Johnson's proclarofttiens,thatthe rebellion which was waged by a portion of the peo* pie of tho United State* against the properly constituted authorities of the government in the most violent and revolting form, deprived the people of each of the revolted States of all civil government Or in other words, that tbe only civil governments these Ejiateis had, became, and were part and purcol of the rebellion, and perished with it. 2d. We further insist that these revolted States, being uttorly-destitutp of any civil governments,...iters not competent to restore themselves, irpr "was. it competent for the President tqrestore them to their practical relations to the government but they having sought to destroy the nation, and being overthrown in the attempt, the nation alone through its law making power, can, and must prescribe, (or at least sanction), the terms and conditions of restoration.

The Democratic- position as I .under stand it, is the reverse of those I have laid down. 1st. They say civ$ government was not destroyed in the revolted States by tbe rebellion and its oucLthrow, and that these States, by their own acts could place themselvelves in a position to demand, as a matter of right, admission to represen tation in both Houses of Congress. 2d. That if anything Was necessary to be done by the Federal Government to enable these States to accomplish thair restoration, it was an executive act, to be performed by the President, and not a legislative act to be done by Congress, and it being an executive act, the decision of the President is conclusive and binding on the other Departments of the Government.

In his recent speech in tbe Senate, Mr. Hendricks said, that, ''upon questions of policy and propriety, men may be educated by passing events. We may change our opinion in regard to questions of policy and propriety according to the changing scenes that are passing before us but so far as the lawjof tho country is concerned, especially the higher law of the land, the constitution, itself, how are we so readily to change our opinions. Events do not change tbat. We. are not allowed to be educated by passing events in regard to the proper, meaning of the constitution ot the United States.1'

Suppose we subject Mr.'Hendricks' own1 opinions as to the jegal and constitutional status of theso revolted States to the teBt he here lays do.^ya and .see whether he is not in process oT education on these grave questions. In his speech made in the "circle," at Indianapolis, on the 8th day of August, 1866 and reported in the Indianapolis Daily Herald of tbe next day, speaking of the status of the rebel States, he then said, "I believe that during tbe whole period of the rebellion the govern ments of thfjStateia continued to exist, and I look for tbe time when tho Supreme Court of ttie United States will «sy thrit the acts of the State governuiynts during the entire period of tho revolution, which were not political in thefr character, and which were not to contribute aid to the rebellion, were legal and valid, and that the acts of the confederate government, so called, wore ab initio void For myself, I do not believe that the President of tbe United States had spy occasibn to re-or-ganize the State governments. That was my opinion about ir, but he thought it to be his duty, and tho people accepted his proposition, and the people gave validity, power and authority to that to which he oould contribute neither."

Hero you will perceive that the Senator uses the word government in Its proper sense, not to Bi'gnify a mere inanimate constitution or lrame work of govern ment, but, a? a vital, living organization, baring power to make, execute and apply laws to *11 the affairs of life. He furthermore maintains that legal, living organisations of thiB character existed tn all the rebel States during the entire period of the revolt, and that all their acts of government, legislative, executive and judicial. throughout tho entire rebellion, were legal and valid, save only-such as wore political or in aid of the rebellion.

Hence when the war closed, according to our Senator, Georgia for instance, bad a legal and valid Executive, a legal and valid legislature and a legal and valid ju« diciaiy and *il she bad to do w«i» to trans* fer ber Senators from tha Confederate Senate to tho United States Senate, tbe same legislature which elected them to the one Meeting them to the other.

On this theory, these Senators while ia the rebel Senate were there by virtue of an election by a valid" legislature^ but the act of thfeir election .being Void aot, they were void rebel Senators, aod, upon the election of the same men by the same legislature to the United Stated Senate,, tbey becomo proper and valid Senator* of the United States.

This theory is simple and easily under* about as reasonable as it contend that tha acts of a

I'A^."-v '«.. .'i w!^3 i- ^V.TVwiiflfe..

woman who had deserted her husband atid lived in adultery with another were legal acts as against her husband, except only the single act of violating the seventh commandment and this violation being illegal And void she could, df her own* motion, restore herself to the home and bed of her outraged husband and he be bound to receive her.

If it is true that the rebel States had legal'and valid governments, including legislative, executive ane judicial departments, at the close of the war, it follows as Mr. Hendricks says "that, there was no occasion to re-organize their State governments."

It must be admitted that Mr. Hendricks does not stand alone in this view of the subject, as appears from the fact that Governor Brown of Georgia, on the 3d day of May 1865, issued his official proclamation calling an extra session of the Legislature of that State to convene on the 22d day of the same month. The President did not agree with ^Senator Hendricks and Governor Brown, as is manifest from the fact that, on the 14th day of May 1865, the President through his subordinate, Major General Gillmore, issued an order annulling the proclamation and prohibiting tbe meeting and afterwards oh the 13th day of June, 1865, Mr. Johnson issued his proclamation, appointing a provisional Governor for Georgia,in which he said "that the rebellion had deprived the people of tbat State of all civil government."

The Republican party then said, and still insist, that the President was right and Mr. Hendricks and Governor Brown were WBng, on this question se far as the validity of the State Government of Geor gia was concerned. That that State had been deprived of all civil government, and that the President only did his duty in annulling, by military orders the official acts of Governor Brown.

But where stands the Senator now, has he not so far progressed in hin 'education" in constitutional law as to now stand on the President's platform Let his speech delivered in the Senate, as printed in the Herald of this city, issued on the 4th day of this month, define his present position.

In speaking of the President's reconstruction measures, he says: "His purpose then was to aid the people by giving them the support of an organization just as Congress, without any constitutional provision on the subject, gives the people of a territory an enabling act, not because Congress has power as an original thing to establish a territorial government, but because CongresB haB power to admit new Slates into the Union. Con gress may do that which will enable the people to form State governments. So the Executive in this case, in my judg ment, very properly did that which would enable the peoplo to bring.their State into practical relations with the Govern ment." That is, according to the speech of August 8, 1866, the President over threw, by military orders, the valid legal State government of Georgia which exist ed at the close of the war, appointed a provisional Governor, instead of a valid existing Governor, and directed a conven tion to be called to form anew govern ment, and in doing all this he did a very proper thing to enable the people to bring tbeir State into practical relations to the Government and the new State govern ment built upon the ruins of the old, valid State organization which was overthrown by military orders, has suddenly become valid also, and it is a gross out rage that Congress does not recogniae it as such.

Verily here is progrees but I am unable to understand how it was attained without a change of opinion on question^ involving fundamental principles of gov ernment.

If, Georgia, at the close of the war had a valid government, consisting of an executive, a legislature and judiciary, which was competent to perform valid, non-political acts all through the war, why could not this valid organization en able, the people to bring that State into practical relations to .the Government and what right had the President to overthrow it? and when did the great body of the people ever ratify that overthrow?

To avoid the dilemma in which these different positions taken by our distin guished Democratic Senator at different times places him, be now resorts to a new definition of government. It is not now a living, moral and political organism having the power and the instrumental! ties .wherewith to make, execute and ad minister laws but on the contrary, it has become an inanimate constitution or

If the Senator will tell me, as a question of law, what become of these govern ment organized under these constitutions, I will tell him what become of the houses or shells in which they lived, moved and had tbeir being. I think they both went

As well

cause they wereinanimato objects and in-1 Constitution and thereby destroy the capable of treason Are we told that compact, and cease to be within the Union, ?till may amend its Constitution aad thereby amend the national compact or the Constitution of the United States.

everything done to amend the Conetitu tion of South Carolina so as to make it the instrument of treason, or to pervert it to thecauseof rebellion, was illegal and void and that this Constitution is therefore of unimpared validity I reply, so was every act of Governor Magratb, of South I Amend the compact under which the Na Carolina, done in aid of the rebellion, il«

The treason that was so general and so atrocious as to destroy the- living organ-

ism, dragged down to tbe.grave with it tution or form of government,' Ac. the Inanimate parchment which constitu- In 1849 the people of the State called ted tbe house or shell in which the vital I another Constitutional Convention to organism called the Government of South "amend, alter or revise" the Constitution Carolina lived, moved and had its being. of 1816, and that Convention met in 1850,

tell me that he body lives when I (Mr. Hendricks being a member of it,) the spirit has departed, as to make me be-1 and made the present Constitution of the lieve that a mere inanimate frame work State, which was, in 1851, ratified by the of Government can survive after its soul I people. has beeh politically damned for the black est of treason.

But again, Mr. Hendricks" says:- "A State Constitution is the bond of its or-

hould cease to'have a Government, (if I hay so express what seems to be a paradox,) that the people would still be onder the law and authority of the Federal Government to the extent of tho jurisdiction of that Government. Bat, sir, a State to bo a State in the Union must be apolitical organization.

The words "political organization" are here used by Mr. HendrickB not to signify a Government in actual operation under a constitution, but to signify the constitution itself. For immediately afterward he says: "Then, sir, when a State Constitution is once formed, and the State under that Constitution is admitted into the Union, that State organization is not a separate and independent thing, but in its organization becomes a part of the Federal Union. The Constitution of the State, when the State has been thus ad* mit ted, becomes a part of the Satumal Union and compact, and I deny that the people of that State have a right to destroy their State Government and thus cease "to be within the Union. I deny that a Convention of the people, that the Legislature of the State, or any assemblage of the people whatever can voluntarily terminate the existence of a State Government, and thus cut off their connection with the Federal Uaion. That, in my judgment, oan only be accomplished with the consent of all the States. Take the case of Louisiana. The people formed her State Government under that Government and Constitution she was admitted into the Union.' Is that Constitution of hers, (subject to her amendment and her modification of oourse,) not a part of the Federal system when she is thus admitted »nd Is it possible that that bond of society, that means of political organization can cease to exist, and that there is no longer any State of Louisiana

I have made this lengthy quotation from Mr. HendrickB' last speech, so that his position may be fairly stated so that you may not misunderstand, and that I may not misrepresent him by making a partial extract

He says that he "does not very clearly understand how a state can be in tbe Union without a State government," here again using the word Government, not to signify a legislature, an executive, and a judiciary, operating under a Constitution, but to mean simply a Constitution,

A State certainly cannot be a State in the Union complete and perfect in all its parts without having both a Constitution and an organized government in actual existence, performing its functions under that Constitution. But if we can understand how a State may be a State in the Union, and be in a condition of anarchy for the want of all existing machinery by which laws can be enacted, executed and administered, can we not as easily under* stand why this anarchy may have gone one step further and left the State not only without a governmental organization, but also without a Constitution?

A State in the Union without an organized government, in a condition to perform its proper functions is just as valuable, practically to tbe people of the State and of the Union without a Constitution hs with it. A State Constitution without a government organized and in operation to carry out its provisions is of no more value than is faith without works which we are assured on the highest authority, "is dead being alone."

But Senator Hendricks says, "I do un derstand that if a State should cease to have a government (if I may express what seems to be a paradox,) the people would still be under the law and authority of the Federal Government to the extent of the jurisdiction of that government." "But, Sir," continues he, "t State to be a State in the Union, must have a political organization.

It is not as much of a seeming paradox that, a State should cease to have a legislature, an executive, and a judiciary, and still be a State, as it is to conceive of a State without a Constitution But Mr. Hendricks assures us that a State to be a State in the Union must have a political organization. If he means by this that a State must have an organized government under a Constitution to be a State in the Union, then manifestly the rebel States during the war had 110 political organizations under their State Constitutions exoept such as were rebel through and through, and leading and bending all the power of these State organizations to the purpose of destroying the government and dismembering the nation. If this is what he meane, the result of the

logic is, that a rebel legislature, a rebel ex ecu tive, and a rebel judiciary, area better bond of union than no legislature, no ex-

frame work of government, a dead parch- ecutive, arfd no judiciary at all. Is not ment into whioh, with proper President I that another seeming paradox tial aid, it is possible for the people of the I But suppose when it is said that a State to breathe the breath of life and state, to be a State in the Union, must make it a living political souL But lest I bave a political organization, an organiI should do injustice to the Senator, let zed government, under a Constitution, is him speak for himself. Thus ha is re ported: "1st. I deny that at the close of the war there were no State governmants in the Southern States. What was the ex act fact in regard to that matter? No one disputes that. at the commencement

not meant, but simply a Constitution or frame-work of government. Then I say this is a mere assertion and I ask the Senator why, if a State may be a State in the Union without a legislature, an executive, or a judiciary, it may not be a State in the Dcio,n without a Constitu-

of the war there were legal State govern- tion ments in the ten States now excluded I The Senator gives his reasons in the fiom representation. These governments I extract already quoted, and in doing so were organized under constitutions which ghows that he has progressed so far in his the people had adopted. I submit to I education as to propound an entirely new Senators then, as a question of law, what I theory—-one which Madison, Hamilton, become of tbe constitutions at the com-1 Jay, Marshall, Story and Webster never mencement of the war."

dreamed of That theory is that a State Constitution is not only the bond of political organization in the State, but to some extent the bond that holds it to the Federal Union. That the Constitution of a State, when the State has been admitted into the Union "becomes a part of

together to the place where all bad rebels I the National Union and compact," and, go. I therefore, while tbe State may amend or Tbe same logic that will destroy the I modify its Constitution, it cannot abroorganizpd machinery of the government I gate or destroy it. I deny this whole because of its participancy in rebellion, theory. I deny that the Constitution of will reach the frame work of the Govern ment itself when it too was perverted to the same criminal use. The Constitution of South Carolina was just as muph part

any Stato in the Union everwa3 a part of the Constitution of tbe United States. If our government is formed upon a compact at all (a question about which ju

and parcel of the rebellion as tho guns I rists and statesmen have differed), that which that State owned before tho rebellion, and which she employed to demol ish Fort Sumter.

Will anybody tell me tbat these guns after being captured by the National forces, and after tha suppression of the rebel lion, as a matter pf right immediately be

came the_property of South Carolina be-1

compact is contained in tbe Constitution of the United States and nowhere else.— According to the theory I am now combatting, a State Constitution becomes, by the admission of the State, a part and portion of the compact—that is, a part of the Constitution of the United States

ftnd

such a State, whilst it cannot destroy

Was ever such a theory of government broached before? A single State amend the Constitution of the United States

tioa

exists

Ieg3l and void. If so, the rebellion being I in the year 1816 the people of the Tersuppressed, and the Governor having ritory of Indiana, in pursuance of an en* ceased all opposition to the constituted I abling act of Congress, called a Constituauthority of the nation, and the tional Convention. That Convention Constitution of South Carolina being no I framed the Constitution under which our longer used as an instrument of rebellion, gtate was admitted Into the Union. The why does the one cease to be a valid Gov-1 languaage of the preamble to that Conernor and tbe other continue to be a val id Oonstitution

atilution was as follows "We, the representatives of the people of the Territory of Indiana," fcc.,4c." "do ordain and establish the following Consti-

The Constitution, which Mr. Hendricks assisted to make, does not purport to be, and in no proper sense is, an amendment of the old one bat it purports to be, and

ganization not only tho bond of political I essentially is, a new-instrument. The organization in the State, but, to some ex-1 language is not the language of amendtent, the bond that holds it to the Federal ment, but the language of creation. It Union. I do not very clenrly understand says in the preamble "We, the people of (continues the Senator) how a State can the State of Indiana," Ac., Ac, "do orfat ia the Union without a State Govern- dain this Constitution." The schedule to meat I de understand that if a State the new Constitution of 1861, says, "this

Constitution, if adopted, shall take effect on the first day of November, 1851, and shall supercede the Constitution of 1816."

I adduce these facts to show that tho power to amend includes the power to abrogate, according tfi tho decision of the Convention of 1850, of which Mr. Hendricks was a member and in whose action he concurred. With these facts before us, it follows that this State, in 1851, stole amarch on the Nation and quietly slipped out or withdrew the bond or ligament which bound it to the Union, and substituted, or slipped in the place of it, a new bond or ligament intended to perform the same office without so much as saying to Uncle Samuel, "by your leave, Sir," or, indeed, without the old gentleman being aware that the operation was being performed.

The doctrine that the people of a State cannot, in their sovereign capacity, entirely abrogate a Constitution, which is wholly the work of their own hands, whilst they may amend it, and the other doctrine that the abrogation of a State Constitution would be a dissolution of the Union, aro both utterly without foundation in either reason or authority. The Constitution of a State is no less the crea« ture of the people of that State than is the Legislature, the Executive, and tbe Judiciary, and, as a question of power, if the one may be destroyed, so may be the other, end still the Union be unimpaired, and the jurisdiction of the United States over the Territory and people of that State be as complete as if no such wicked and foolish act had been committed.

And here allow me to notice the oft repeated assertion, that those who acknowledge the power of tbe people of a State to destroy its government, including not only its organization of the several departments of government, but also its constitution upon which the organization is based, thereby concede the power of secession. The advocates of secession in the South fought for no such abstraction as that involved in the question, whether a state without a State constitution and government was a State in tho Union, or no State at all but on the contrary, they battled for the right and tbe power to withdraw, by their own State action, tbeir territory ana people from all obligations of allegiance to the government and people of the United States.

Mr. Hendricks says he does understand that if a State should cease to have a government, that its people would stiii be under the law and authority of the Federal Government to the extent of the jurisdiction of that government.

I respectfully submit that this is not the sort of dissolution of the Union, for the achievement of which the rebellion was inaugurated and {prosecuted and that a person may well believe that a State government maybe destroyed without becoming a secessionist. I believe that the governments of the revolted States have been utterly destroyed, and yet I designate them as States in the Union. During the war there were States in the Union, but at the same time, States in rebellion. Since the close of the war they are States in the Union, but by reason of the war, States in anarchy, except so far as order has been preserved by the paramount authority of tne United States.

tories, I shall not quarrel with them about names because we both agree that they did not succeed in throwing off their allegiance to the United States, and are still completely within, and subject to the lawmaking power of the nation, to the oxtent of its jurisdiction under the Constitution.

A new exposition of the guarantee clause of the constitution is also resorted to by the Democratic party in its efforts to exalt rebellion, and to restore political power to the hands of the men who for four years waged a most atrocious war against the government to destroyit.

The entire section iu which the guarantee clause is found, contains three distinct clauses, each of which imposes a distinct duty on the United States. It reads as follows: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in the Union a republican form of government and shall proteot them against invasion and on application of the Legislature or of the executive, (when the Legislature cannot be convened,y from domestic violence."

In giving an exposition of this section, in his late speech in the Senate, Mr Hendricksras8umes these positions, 1st. That the duty of executing the guarantee contained in the first clause, rests upon the Government of tho United States. 2d. That the clause imposing tbis duty is addressed to each department of the Government, and if the act to be done to enforce the guarantee is judicial, then tbe duty is upon the judiciary if a legislative act, then it is upon the legislative department, and if it be an executive act, then the duty rests upon the executive. 3d. He treats the three distinct clauses of the section as one entire clause imposing a single duty, and says the clause itself contemplates existing State governments, having a Legislature and an Executive Department, and that it sienply imposes the duty on the Government of the United States to protect, maintain and defend the existing republican form of government.

I admit that the duty of enforcing the entire section rests upon the Government of the United States, but deny that it is addressed to each department of tbe Government, for the simple reason that neither of these duties can be performed without the exercise of legislative powers.

True, Congress may, [as it has in relation to the third clause,] empower the President to perform the duty, but in doing so he acts not by virtue of authority granted by the constitution, but in execution of the law of Congress.

Let us test the doctrine, that, the duty of guaranteeing a republican form of government is addressed to each of the three departments of the government.

If the doctrine is true, of course each separate department must decide and act for itself. Now suppose there are two, or if you please, three, rival governments in a State, each claiming to be tho legitimate government of that State. The clause iu that case, will or may, according to this doctrine, speak to eacn department of,the general government separately, and so speaking, it may require of tbe President a duty, executive in its character, aad, in tbe performance of his duty he de'eides that government "JL," if you please, is the true government, then, the clause speaks to Congress, requiring it to perform a legislative act as to the same question, ana Congress decides that gov* ernment "B," is the legitimate one then again, the same clause speaks to the Supreme Court to pertorm a judictal duty as to the same matter, and it decides that government "C," is the real "Simon pure" old Dr. Jacob Townsend.

Here you have three conflicting decis ions made by the three separate departments of the government, as to the same matter, and for ought that Mr. Hendricks has shown us, no possible means of reconciling this '"irrepressible conflict."

Tou have Congress, for instance, admitting Senators elected by a Legislature that is repudiated by the President and the Supreme Court and you have the Supreme Court recognizing courts as legitimate courts of the. State, the Judges of which, are elected by a Legislature which Congress and the President both repudiate and you have the President recognizing as Governor of the State a person whom Congress and the judiciary denounce as a usurper.

But our Senator has saved .me the trouble of refuting this theory, by doing the work himself. In another part of his speeoh in commenting upon the Rhode Island case (Luther vs. Borden and others, 7th Howard, page 1,) he says that case "establishes this proposition that the Executive of the United Statee havlag recognized a State governrnment, the Stato having once been in the Union,

"I

that recognition is binding upon the judiciary." Now, although the Court in that case established no such proposition, let us for the sake of the argument suppoee it did, and what is the effect of that doctrine upon the other position that this section of the Constitution is addressed to each department of the Government. Is it not manifestly absurd to say that tbe language speaks to each department, and yet that the decision of the Executive department is conclusive on the Courts.— Suppose tbe Courts should first decide one way and tbe President afterward make a decision, thon we should have the spectacle of the President overruling the Supreme Court.

But Mr. Hendricks does not state the doctrine established in the Rhode Island case correctly. In that case there were two rival Governments, each claiming to be the legitimate government existing at tne commencement of the Revolutionary war, and known as the "Charter Government," and the other a new Government, known as the "Dorr Government." An appeal was about to be made to the sword to settle the question which was legitimate. Governor King, the acting Governor under the old Government, applied to the President for aid to protect the State from domestic violence threatened by the Dorr party, not because the Constitution itself gave the President power to grant such aid, but becauso Congress, by an act passed in 1795, had expressly authorized and empowered the President "in case of an insurrection in any State against tbe Government thereof, on application of the Legislature of such State, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be eonvened) to call forth such number of the militia of any other State or States as might be applied for, or a3 the President might judge sufficient to suppress such insurrection."

The President recognized this call, and in doing so recognized Governor King as the legitimate Governor of Rhode Island. The question was fairly presented to the Supreme Court in this cas* whether the "Charter' Government or fhe Dorr Government was the legitimate Government of the State of Rhcde Island.

Now the Court had to decide whether that question was a political question or a judicial question. If it was a judicial question, the Court itself was bound to decide it without reference to what any other department had decided or might decide.

The Court in terms decided that it was apolitfcol question and not a judicial question and that the Constitution of the United States, in the section containing the guarantee clause, had placed the power to decide all such questions between rival State governments in the hands of the political department, that is, in the hands of Congress. But that because Congress had passed the act of 1795, giving the President tho power of deciding whether the exigency had arisen upon which the Government of the United States was bound to interfere, his decision was conclusive on the Courts.

The Court expressly say that Congress might if they had deemed it most advisable to do BO, have placed it in the power of a Court to decide when the contingen-

But if any body else shall contend that oy had happened which required the Fed they are reduced to the condition of terri- eral Government to interfere. But Con-

gress had thought otherwise, and had given tbe power to the President. That he is-to act upon the application of the Legislature or Executive of the State, and consequently he musjt determine .what body of men constitute! the Legislature, and who is Governor, before he can act. And that his decision, because Congress had given him the power to decide, was binding on the Judiciary.

I have said that this section contains three distinct clauses, each imposing a distinct duty on the Government of tin United States. Theyare as follows: 1st. To guarantee to every State the Union a ^Republican form of govern ment. 2d. To protect each State against inva sion. 3d. On application of the Legislature or Executive to protect each State from domestic violence.

I have insisted, too, that these three dis tinct duties are primarily political or leg islative duties addessed to the political or legislative department of the government^ and can never, under any circumstances be Jperformed by the President, or by the Courts, except as Congress shall give them power to act.

Let na teat this by a few question!. How ia the President or a Court to protect State from Invasion without authority from Congrei* to act? Can the President by virtus of hia official levy and anbsiat troopi Will the Conrta iaioe writ* of Capiat adrrqpondindum and arrest the iuvaders How can either of theae department* anppreaa an insurrection, or take one step in that oirection without an act of Congress? Or anppoae a ma jority of the people of a State ahall, by a Conven tion duly called, abrogate their Bepablican Con atitntion and, witbent violence, erect a monarchy onita ruina, in the heart of the Bepnblic, can the President, or the Judiciary, emit* the bastard thing aa it deserve* to be smitten Clearly, reaaon, aa well as authority, ahows that all theae are political dutiea which must be performed by Con gresa, or by its authority.

But again, look at the position that the duty of guaranteeing a republican form of government only appliea to present existing republican governments. What would be the result if a State ahould abrogate her Conatitntion without dopt ing another? Where, then,'II your existing State government Does that which destroy! the State government also destroy with it the duty of the United States to guaran .ee to each State )vernment republican in form

OrTuppoae that by repeated amendmenta tbe State government is gradually Dut surely converted into a monarchy Would the duty of the United Stateacease becauae the very thing had occurred which this clause waa deaigned to pre' vent

This is one of the very caaea in which it would be the duty of Congreaa to overthrow such an antl American government.

Or suppose a State to be without an organised government, and if you pleaae, without a Consti' tution, doea the duty of the Cnlted States to pro' tect it from Invasion ceaae at the very time when protection may be most needed?

Mr. Hendrlcka la mistaken then, when he iaya that the duty or guaranteeing a republican form of government contemplate* an txittmg Slate government republican in form.

It is true, as he aaya, that Mr. Madiaon, Mr. Hamilton, and Judge ritory do all teach that this clause don* contemplate a prt-.x'Ming State government, republican in form but a "prttziMng State government, republican in form, 1* one tuing, and an existing State government, republican in form, ia another, and a different thing. A republican government may have pre-exiited, or once existed, and may now be *upplauted by a monarchy, and that ia one of the very caae* in which the clause muat be executed.

I now confidently submit, that I have clearly established, that under the law and the facta, it ™as the right and the duty of Congreaa to Intervene in the restoration of the revolted Statea, by overthrowing the disloyal anti-republican organizations called into being by the mandate of ltfr. Johnson, and by providing the means which would enable the great body of the people of those Statea to re-organize lecal governments In harmony with the government of the United States. I do uot propose to show tbat the action which Congress did actually take to accomplish theae ends waa right, constitutional and proper, for that has been so recently done by Governor Morton in the Senate, with a perspicuity of style, a purity of diction, and a power of argument, which It would be a vain thing for me to attempt to imitated That speech haa never been answered, and nerer will be answered, for the almple reaaon tbat it is unanswerable. The premise* on which he built tbat grand, logical structure, are as firm aa tbe "everlasting hills," and hia conclusions are as inevitable as one of the demonstrations of Euclid, Long may he live an ornament to tbe Senate, honored of the nation, and the pride of hi* Stat*.

CITY affairs and the third page.

business notices on

C. E. Buggies is closing out his

stock of Boots and Shoes a cost. ard2w

THE TBOST is rapidly coming out of tbe ground and the roads leading to this city will soon be next to impassible.

A BELATED LOT of one hundred hogs were cut up at the Beiman pork house last Tuesday.

W. SAOE suffered, by theft, tbe loss of a set of new harness, a few nights since.

JEtav. MB. BLACK, formerly pastor of the Christian Church, is assisting in the revival meetings now progressing in that chuieh. .eail itfi* iev.

AH xcLirai of the sun occurs to-mor-row—invisible globe.

on this portion of the

MCDONALD, of the P. O. News Depot,!* is already in receipt of Godeys Lady's Book, for March,—a superb nnmber.

AMIS T. MOOBK and Asa B. mere of this city, are among the latest## applicants for the benefits of the baak-i* rupt law.

I1

J. A. FOOT*, of the| seed store, has laid on our table bis third annual deacriptive catalogue of garden, field and flower^ seeds, now ready for gratuitous distribution. It contains beside the catalogue much interesting and useful information.^ Call on him and get a oopy.

THI Journal hears of two or three far-e» mers, who removed from this county to Illinois within the last two or three years, who„*re coming back to Vigo, fully impressed that there is no better region in the west in which to live and make, money. 1 (»,

AFTER all tbe bluster made by the Democracy in regard to building the poor asylum, under the direct superintendence of the former Republican Board of Couo-A miasioner, we learn the present Demo-7 cratic Board is puriuing precisely the same course, in building a bridge over Honey Creek. "Oh, consistency"

MF Thompson's patent "Glove Fit--tf-ting" corsets "for comfort and elegance are a decided improvement."—Harper's Basar.

31

Must become fashionable."—Qodry, Dec., 1867. Call and see these admirable corsets at the agents', Saxton & Walmsley. -fvn It

SHADS TRIIB.—The time is near at hand for the transplanting of trees, and we hope to see an extra effort made on the part of our citixens to plant shad* Scarcely anything else will eo and to improve the appearance ot jotf property. Our city is liberally supflM, we know, but then there are many Ml whoee fronts are barren of this usefalMd •nftmen t»l shade. Let all the vaeaat 1!a(M be filled tbis spring. ~s

A CHANOK.—Mr. S. A. Sanaa baa purchased of Depew ft Clatfeltor their entire stock boots and shoes. Mr. Barras ii well known in this city aa a first-class .. workman, and having bad soase twentyfive years experience in tbe business, feels confident of giving satisfaction to all who' may favor him with their patronage.— We invite attention to his advertisement elsewhere. 'r'!

HAUNTED Houai.—The old County^ Poor House, on the Bloomingtoh Road,' recently vacated by the paupers, is re-"y ported as haunted. At least tbe family occupying it refuse to remain iu the building al night, and each evenlng as the shades of night gather, they lock the house and remain over night at some the neighbors, asserting that fearful and unearthly noise* are heard, caused, th«y~' suppose by some disturbed spirits. Thi"' head of the family, who appears to be man of good, sound sense, tells of a head-*" less man, who perambulatee the house at** pleasure, regardless of locks, bolts or fast-"* enings and on one occasion, Jtmratbsf open a door that had been firmly nailed We suggest that our spiritual Meads take this case in charge.

If you want a cheap pair of Boots

or Shoes, go to the Clearance Sale at

3

21d2w C. £. BvoctLxa.

C. E. Buggies is selling French"

Calf Boots of his own manufacture at* $8,00. 21d2w

SPIRITUAL LECTURE.—Miss Susie M: Johnson will lecture again on Sunday^' evening next, at 7 o'clock, at Pence Ha Tbis will be the last lecture by Miss John-^ son at this time, as she will leave ia af few days to fill an engagement in Michigan. Those who desire to hear her «iwtf avail themselves of this opportunity.— Seats free. 31dlt

The Telegraph.

The dispatches received last night were exceedingly meagre and unimportant.— Our full report of the State Convention allows only a brief synopsis of the news,: and the following embraces all the items ot any importance

Latest advices from Spain report'' ftiai*a^ revolution has been effected against the authority of Queen Isabella in the north The insurgents have taken up arms and some skirmishes have taken place. The movement appears to be the remit of a. well planned organization.

The whisky metre committee will teet metres and instruments next Monday, t» learn their practical value

4,6

There was intense excitement af Mm-*

treal over the departure of Papal Zouaves for Bome. An immense audience was present at special services held in Notre Dame Cathedral in connection with the event.

Washington specials state the letter from Gen. Sherman has reached the PWsident. It courteously indicatee preference for service out of Washington, roira'irtii'

Semi-official telegrams from ATsbastss indicate tbat it is not yet certain 't Meade's headquarters whether the new Constitution has or has not been ratified The Bepublican Congressional Executive Committee admits it has been lost by at least 4,000 votes.

The majority of the Committee oft Elections will report in favor of MorganV right to a seat from the 18th Ohio .district.

The House passed the Army Approprl* ation bill yesterday. In the Supreme Court, New York, yet* terday, a citizen of New York sued a firm in Texas for recovery of certain goods drf livered during the war. The plaintiff was non-suited on the ground that bit/ contract was treasonable and unlawful.

It is generally understood Bev. Dc Tyng will be fonnd guilty, and veoeiveadmonition for violating caaons ci ther Episcopal Charch."

y.

"j ffl

A Washington dispatch says very few of the members of the National Democratic Committee have arrived up to last even-" ing, but it is expected nearly all absent will reach the city to day, when ing for consultation will be held prelimi-« nary to one on Saturday, for fixing Use time and place of holding theJDenjjxjrfjJi^. National Convention. ..7.K .rumt ii* tt

a meet£*