Newspaper Page Text
®bit%rn
Jkcinrkr.
T n e s d a j,
HON LINTON STEPHENS
SPEECH.
We give this week the speech of
lion. Linton Stephens in full, know
ing that the people are anxious to
read it for themselves. This is a
masteily production, well worthy of
the great mind from which it ema
nated. He shows up the follies of
of the Reconstruction Administration
and literally tears into fragments the
14th and 15ih amendments,
Well may the carpel-bsg frater-
nity quail, and cower in the dust un
der the tremendous blows inflicted
by the hand of this Titan in strength;
well may the friends of right and
justice rejoice that an opportunity
was given for this speech to be made,
ibis speech, that so nobly defends
and justifies himself while standing
up for his country.
of the
is the
The Sun, a little paper printed in
Atlanta in the interests of his Bovin
ity and filled with his proclama
tions, has had the supreme impu
dence to cast slurs at the Recorder,
and attempt to represent us as favor
ing assassination, murder, lynch
law &c.
Having given in full our article of
last week, the .Sun comments as
follows:
“It would, perhaps, be better to
let the above article from the Mil-
leugeville Recorder rest in the obscuri
ty which spawned it, ami we would
do so, were it not that there are offi
cious persons in Georgin, who will
place the paper where its sentiments
may be used against the people of
the State. Therefore we reproduce
the article to say, in connection with
it, that we do not believe there are
a dozen men in Georgia, of com
mon intelligence, who, either secret
ly or publicly, coincide with its sen
timent. Georgians are not assassins'!
Georgians are not murderers! We
are not a community of mobbers or
lynchers!
What an impression must the
above article create abroad! We
aie glad, however, that its source is
such as to weaken its influence. The
palid, sickly appearance ol the
Recorder certainly does not indicate
that it is the index of anything ener
getic, or vigorous, and we hope there
fore, that the poison carries with it
its own antidote.
Wc have had no occasion to mod
ify anything that we said in regard
to those effigies. We have yet to
meet the first citizen of Atlanta
who found fault with a single line
that we wrote. The people felt
outraged and indignant that such a
thing was done in their midst. They
feel so still. Their disposition is to
be law-abiding and peaceful. A
man’s life is safe here, no matter
what his politics may be. and we
merely defend the character of our
people when we denounce those
who hung those effigies over the
sidewalk.
We advise the R<c >rder to be more
temporate in its talk hereafter.
Though its circulation is probably
prescribed to the limits of the county
in which it is published, yet it may
chance to get scattered abroad, and
do the people of the State an incacu-
lable injury by falling into the bands
of those who are none too friendly
to us. Let the Recorder be wiser in
future.”
We still maintain that wc were
right in our denunciation ol the per
sons hung in effigy, and in our opin
ion of the character (?) of the Sun.
We know that the people of At
lanta are not altogether gone astray;
ami we know that there are thou
sands, yea, tens of thousands of men
in Georgia that desire to see Bullock
and his whole crew swung up high
er than Hainan. We do not how
ever recommend that this should be
attempted by violence; we did not
intend to countenance any violation
ot law; we regard the hanging in
effigy as simply an expression of the
feelings of the citizens of Atlanta;
and we do say that we and thou
sands of others would rejoice if these
men were really hung.
“There is a bastard kind of con
servatism, which being extended to
all men, regardless of their acts, or
the infamy of their deeds, is as fata]
to society on the one hand, as the
true want of conservatism is on the
other. This milk and water con
servatism, this genteel way of de
nouncing public men who have out
raged th® people and abused pub
lic confidence, falsely termed mod
eration, has a tendency both to
dispirit public virtue and promote
the growth of public evils, aud offer
a premium to public rascality.” The
action of those who hung Bullock,
Blodgett & Co., in effigy was the
natural outburst of an outraged peo
ple.
If the Sun knows anything at all,
it cannot be ignorant of the fact that
the united voice of all the respecta
ble citizens of the State cries for
vengeance to be visited upon the
heads of these public robbers.
We are no advocates of assassin
ation, lynch law, or "anything of this
kind; we want simple justice, if this
is granted, the Sun dares not deny
that lynch law would be totally un
necessary; these scoundrels would
meet their just deserts at the hands
of the law.
The Sun being sensible
truth of our assertion, that it
organ of Bullock, attempts to retali
ate by ridiculing the appearance,
stand and influence of the Recorder.
It insinuates that its circulation is
confined to the limits of the county
where it is published;—intimating
that the Recorder is a small affair.
T he Recorder can show a circulation
in almost every county in the State, is
the official organ of half a dozen
counties, and is read, and known
where the darkness of the Atlanta
Sun never shone
The Sun is greatly indebted to us
for letting the people of Georgia
know through our columns that there
is such a paper as the Sun; but for
this we will not charge a cent.
The idea of the Sun presuming to
advise the Recorder and criticising
its appearance! tl Parturiunt monies et
nascilur rtdicvlus mus.” We will not
say that the Sun is “palid” for there
is no such word in the Dictionary,
neither will we advise it to be more
“temporate” hereafter. Mr. Web
ster also might be inclined to criti
cise us, but with a better show of
reason than the Sun.
While the Recorder has been es
tablished for fifty years, and has
been a leading paper, the Sun sprung
from a hot-bed of political corruption
would have become extinct ere this,
had it not crept under the overshad
owing wing of Bullock, and with dis
tended mouth gulped down official
proclamations as about its only
means of subsistence.
halt ye between two opinions ?”—
Choose now whom you will serve :
your country or the almighty dollar.
Toombs Lecturing.
The Rome Courier says, that (len.
Toombs delivered a leetnre in that city
recently,upon “Magna Charla”—a fit sub
ject for his grasping intellect. The Cou •
ricr man goes into ecstacies over the lec
ture and gets right eloquent hiruself over
the eloquence of Toombs. Ilurrah for
glorious old Bob Toombs !
It is said that Hon.A.H.Stephens weighs
only seventy four pounds. True, he has
only a little body, but lie-lias enough
brains left to show Joe Brown, 13en Hill
&Co., why honest men quit the company
of thieves.
The Atlanta Constitution seem very
loth to express an opinion upon the
State Road lease business. The Colonel
says, he is waiting for more light on the
subject. Waiving the legal view of. the
subject,what does the Constitution think
of it viewed from amoral standpoint ?
Col. Tift’s Cerlilieatc cf Election.
Gov. Bullock has so far withheld Col.
Tift’s credentials. He is waiting doubt-
less’to find out whether Congress intends
to admit Whitley to a seat in the Sen
ate. If Whitley fails to get bis contest
ed seat in the Senate, bis hope is to con
test Tift’s seat iu the House, aud if pos
sible to secure it for himself. It has been
stated that Gov. Bullock Las submitted
the legal question involved, to settles
ment by bis Attorney, Gen. Farrow.
Pen—Sword.—The one', the in
vincible weapon in the hands of'
statesmen »nd diplomatists ; theoth-
SPEECH
OF
HON, LINTON STSPHEN’S,
Bitll ntl) INSRlS OWB DEFtSOB BEFORE UNIT*
fcO STATES COMMISSIONER 8WAYZE,
At Mxcob, Georgia. Jan- 23, '71
May it please the Court : I know full well
that if your honoris not superior to the aver
age of poor human nature, you will find it
difficult, if not impossible, to give my defense
in this case an impartial consideration, and an
honest decision. The prosecution against
me is founded oa the course which-1 took in
the recent political election, which resulted in
a victory for my party, aud a defeat for yours.
It is also directly in the line of an assault,
which was lately made against me in the news
papers, by the official head of your party in
the State. I therefore recognize in this case a
political prosecution, just as distinctly as I rec
ognize in my Judge a most zealous and deter
mined political opponent. Yet, sir, there are
other considerations which encourage me to
hope that i may obtain, even from you, that
decision which is demanded by justice and by
the laws. From the personal knowledge of
you, which I have acquired since the begin
ning of this trial, I have discovered that you
are a man of decided intelligence ; and I am
told that you are a man of courage. I am also
told that yon, yourself, have been in some in
stance, a victim to political persecution, and an
object of political obloquy. Surely such a man,
with such an experience, ought to givo a fair
hearing to one whose only fault is not any wrong
which he has committed against the laws but
the damage which he has indicted upon apolit-
cal party. My greatest encouragement, howev
er,is derived from my confidence in the lawful
ness of my conduct, and the power of truth.
To truth, bravely upheld, belongs a triumph
which cannot be defeated, nor long delayed,
not even by the injensest prejudices of parti
san strife. I am strengthened, too, in the ad
vocacy of truth on this occasion, by the con
sciousness tiiat, in defending myself, I shall
but be defending principles which are dear to
every American, because they lie at the foun
dation of the whole fabric of American con
stitutional liberty. Nor, sir, unless I am much
mistaken in the estimate which I have formed
of your character, will you listen to my de
fease any the less favorably, because ot the
frankness aud boldness with which I shall pre
sent it.
I am accuseu under the Enforcement Act of
Congress.
My first position is, that this whole act it not
a law, but a mere legal nullity.
It was passed with the professed object of
carrying into effect what are called the 14th
and 1.1th Amendments to the Constitution of
TIIE CAPITAL.
It seems to be a topic of pretty
general discussrion as to ihe proba
bility of the removal of the seat of
government from Atlanta back to
Milledgeville, in the event that the
power passes in the hands of the
Democratic ptrly. The principal
reason for such a supposition seems
to be, not that Milledgeville is per sc,
llip more desirable situation tor the
location of the capital; but that, in
order to reduce the expenses of the
Administration, and relieve the
State from onerous taxation, it will
be necessaiy to nullify all the con
tracts, purchases, See., made by the
Bullock clique, to reluso to ratify
the purchase of the Opera House,
James’ residence, and in fine to make
illegal all acts of the scalawag leg
islature. The public groaning under
an immense debt, and being ground
down by heavy taxes, demands
these measures of economy. Conse
quently, that ttie State may not be
at any uimessary expense, it is just
ly expected i >f a reform party, that
they will not sanction the outlay for
the purchase of public buildings in At
lanta, when die Slate already has
edifices creeled at Milledgeville.
The capital ought to be brought back,
and there will just cause for com
plaint if it is not done.
As Atlanta is a growing city, and
bids fair soon to become the metro
polis of the State, the probability is
that in the course of time, the seat of
Government will be fixed there; but
this must never be thought of until
our financial condition warrants the
outlay necessary lo the change.
Query.
Why does not Ben. Hill come out
and state plainly, bold ly and une
quivocally, what he is, what he
has done, and what he expects
lo do? Why is it that, when he
is accused of having deserted ihe
land ot his nativity—of having unit
ed with the nefarious cabal of Bui
lock & Co., he does not vindicate
himself by writing a letter, power
ful and convincing, such as he has
written in the past ?
Speak, that it may be known
whether or not you are a traitor in
disguise.
Various excuses for his conduct
have been presented, purporting
lo have come from him: these
have been denied authenticity;
and the people know not what to
think.
He says that he is neither a Radi
cal nor a Democrat, he is a Whig.
He merely joined himself with the
Democrats, pro tempore, because in
the contest between tyranny and
right, the Whig and Democratic
parties become identified.
They are still identical: Right—
which is Democracy—opposed to
Wrong, which is Radicalism. In
the language of one of old. “Why
er, the only argument with kings and the United States, and depends on their valid-
despots. Ihe one, the eulightrict °f|" ^T’hese so-called amendments are, as I shall
the people; ihe Other, l lie debascr ; proceed to show, not true Amendments to the
the one, the defender of right; the : Constitution, and do not form any part of that
, : . , ° , , sacred instrument liiey are nothing but usur-
Otlier, the enslaver; the one, the I j )a *i 0Ils an,] nullities, having HO validity them-
voice of reason ; the other, of silent * selves, and therefore incapable of imparting
submission ; the ore argues, the oih- Act or to any other act
er, commands; the one pleads, the 1 take occasion to say, that I regard ths 13th
other, defies; llieone, is the friend of Amendment, abolishing slavery, aa dearly dia-
. , , , , • t;ngui.“liable from the 14th aud 15th so-called
knowledge, the Ollier, Of lgno once ; Amendments, in the manner, both of its pro-
the one, the protector Of civil liberty,! posal and its ratification. The contrast bo
the other the relentless foe to human ‘"' e . eu it , a " d will contribute to make
. ... r their invalidity all tha more apparent. It is
rights; the one, is a government ot true, that when the 13th A
law, the other, of force ; the one, re
cognizes the people the embodiment
of all power, the other, “that the
king can do no wrong ;” the one, is
the mother of just and equal laws,
rights and privileges, the oilier, the
father of mere will, force and
power. As the pen gives ubiquity
and immortality lo thought ; yea,
verily, the “Pen is mightier than
th® Sword.”
THE COMPLETED CENoTJS,
The census returns are now complete, and
show the aggregate population of the United
States at 36.535,153, an im-rcase of 7,f91,93i
npon ths population of Ir.o-'U The following
statement shows the population of each Slate
in the respective divisions in 1870 aud iu I860;
Easbks StatkS.
1860.
1-70
Maine
.. 628,279
650,423
Now Hampshire ,
, 376,07:*
318,300.
Vermont
. 315,098
33 , ',5-5
Massachusetts
1,231,066
1,457,351
Rhode Island
174,620
217.366
Connecticut
. 460,147
5*7,8.56
Total
Middle States.
. 3,135,2-3
3,491 851
Pennsylvania ...
. 2.906.370
3,515,316
New York
.. 3,•‘"■0,735
4,370,846
Now Jersey....
. 672.025
907,459
Delaware —
.. 112,216
125,015
Total
Westerb Statb.
..7,501,346
8,918,656
Ohio
.. 2.339,511
2,652,302
Illinois ...
.. 1 711.951
2,527.675
Indiana ....... ...—
.. 1.550.-523
1.676,046
. 1,1-2,012
1,705.01.6
Iowa
.. 674.013
1,190,845
Michigan
.. w 4:1,113
1,184,296
Wisconsin
775,^-i]
i.055.296
California
379,994
556,208
Kansas
. 107.200
ot*2
Minnesota
.. 172,023
456.-73
Nebraska..
25, M1
125,0) 0
Oregon.. ...
52.405
95,922
Nevada
. (>,'-.>7
42,191
Total
. 9,531,195
15,701*270
Sot’TBCRR States".
Kentucky....
. 1.155,084
1.523.027
Tennessee....
.. 1.109,501
1,2. >->,520
Virginia
1,596,315
1.202,607
Georgia
1.05T .e*0
1.184,296
North Carolina...... .
992 622
1. S«5,5O0
Alabama
905.201
997,500
Mississippi...........
Texes
791,505
604,215
851,196
t; >7,500
Maryland
687,049
781,056
Louisiana
705,00*2
7 !ti,:>9 (
South Carolina
703,708
725,0( 0
Arkansas
435,4*0
4o6,105
Florida
140.4*4
189.995
West Virginia
480,000
Total
10.941 083
12,©91,493
Territories and Disiric t Co-
lumbia
295,275
412,500
Total United States...
.31,413,322
38,533,153 ■
endment was pro
posed, ten States of the Union were absent
from Congress ; but their absence was volun
tary, and therefore did not affect the validity
of ihe proposal. It is true, also, that the legis
latures which ratified it for these ten States,
had their initiation in a palpable usurpation of
power on the part of the President of the Unit
ed States ; yet it is also unquestionably true,
that they were elected and sustained by over
whelming majorities of the true constitutional
constituencies of the States for which they act
ed ; they rested on the consent of the people,
or constitutional constituencies of the States,
and were, therefore, truly ‘‘Legislatures of the
States.” This amendment was ratified by
these Legislatures of the States in good faith,
and in conformity with the almost unanimous
wish of the constitutional “peoples.”
How different is the ease of the 14th and
l'>:h so called Amendments ! If these are parts
of the Constitution. I ask, how did they be
come so? Were they proposed by Congress
in a Constitutional manner 7
In framing aud pioposing them, every State
of the Union was entitled,by the express terms
of the Constitution,to be represented in speech
and vote by ‘ two Senators” and “at least one
Representative." But ten States of the Union
were absent. This time their absence was not
voluntary, but compelled. When they were
claiming a hearing through their constitutional
representatives, they were driven away, and
denied all participation in training aud pro
posing these so-called Amendments! Was
this a constitutional mode of proposal 7 I gay,
that it was an unconstitutional mode, and that
the proposal was, ail initio, null and void.
But how stands the ratification of these so-
called Amendments 7 To say nothing about
the duress of bayonets aud congressional dic
tation. under which theratificat on was forced
through the ratifying bodies in the ten Sonth-
eru States, the great question is, who were
these ratifying bodies 7 Were they legisla
tures of the States 7 They were not. They
were the creatures of notorious and avowed
congressional usurpation. They were elected,
not by the constitutional constituencies of the
States, but by constituencies created by Con
gress. uot only “outside" ef the Constitution,
but. in palpable violation of one of its express
provisions. The suffrage or political power of
the States is not delegated to the Genera 1 Gov
ernment by the Constitution ; but on the con
trary, its reservation to the States is rendered
exceedingly emphatic by that provision of the
Constitution which, instead of creating a con
atituency to elect its own officers—President,
Vice President and members of Congress—
alopts the constituencies of the States, as reg
ulated by the States thsmselves, for the elec
tion of tiie most numerous branch of their own
Legislatures.
Ten of the ratifications which were falsely
counted in favor of these mis called Amend
ments as ratifications by Legislatures of States,
were only ratifications by bodies which had
tlu-ir origin in Congressional usurpation, were
elected by illegal constituencies unknown to
the Constitution of the United States, or the
12 p()| ,pjo and manipulated under the control of military
’ ’ ! commando is who claimed aud exercised the
'jurisdiction of pas’siag upon the election and
qualification of their members. Can these
>.i 50- ]-g | joint products of usurpation, fraud aud force
J * j be palmed <ri; <to Legislatures of States 7 Can
The Philadelphia Bank Rob-
bert.—The robbery of the Kens
ington Bank at Philadelphia ou Fri
day night, was one of the Lohlest
and most successful affairs of the
kind ever known in this country.
At 7 o’clock that night, three men,
disguised as policemen, presented
themselves lo the watchmen in the
bank, and told them that a robbery
was to be committed that night, and
that they had been sent by the eash-
ierof the bank to assist in their cap
ture. As the cashier had actually
given such an order on ihe strength
of represetations made to him that
day, they were admitted. One of
the watchmen was then sent out to
get something for the party lo drink,
and while he was gone the robbers
overpowered and gagge 1 the one that
remained, and when the orher te-
turned.he was served ihe sntnc way.
The robbers then went lo work and
did not leave the premises until ihrre
o’clock in the morning. About S05,-
000 iu unregistered Government
bonds were stolen.
Travelers who left Paris Wednes
day arrived at Bruise’s to day. They
report the cily quiet, some slight dis
order occurred upon the receipt of
the news of the armistice, but the ri
oters were easily appeased. There
was great difficulty in procuring food,
and twenty-three thousand persons
have already asked permission to
leave the city.
ratification by them be accepted as ratification
1 by Legislatures of States 7 Can falsehood
I thus bo converted into truth by the thimble-
rigging of Presidential proclamations 7 These
j luniks were, indeed, set up by their usurping
creators as Legislatures for and overstates ;
but, until tho known truth of recent history
can be blotted out by the mere power of shame
less assertion, they cannot be recognized as
Legislatures of States. The Parliament of
Oroat Britain is a Legislature for and over
poor, down-trodden Ireland ; but what Irish-
1111111 will ever recognize it as the Legislature
of Ireland 7
The false, Spurious and revolutionary char
acter ot these ratifying bodies is rendered siiii
mire glaring by the fact that, supported
by the bayonet, they subverted or rather re
pressed the true, legitirnatcLegislatures of all
the States where reconstruction was applied.
That such Legislatures existed in theso States,
and are indeed still existing, in demonstrable
from the facts viewed in the light of either of
tli e two theories of secession—that of its valid
ity or that of its invalidity. On either theory
the seceding States remained States. On tbei
one theory .they were States out of the Union ;
on the other, they have remained all the while
States in the Union. The Supreme Court of
the United States in the recent case of White
vs. Texas, speaking through Mr. Chief Justice
Chase, held that secession was invalid.and that
tiie States which had attempted it, remained
aud still are States in the Union.
A State is not a disorganized mass of peo
ple. It is an organized political body. It
must have a Constitution of some sort, writ
ten or traditional. Being an organized body,,
it must have a law ot organization or compo
sition or constitution, defining the depositary
of its political power. Where there ia no such
constitutional or constituting or organizing
or fundamental law, there can he no organiza
tion—no State. These ten States then, which
seceded or attempted to secede (as the one
theory or the other may be held,) have all the
while had constitutions. In point of fact each
of these has ever been a written constitution,
giving the ballot to defined classes of citizens
who arc known as the constitutional constit
uency of the State. This constitutional con
stituency is entrusted by each of these consti
tutions, with power over the constitution itself
in modifying or changing the organization or
compositions of the constitutional constit
uency. This constitutional constituency is
the depositary of the highest political power
of the State. Any change made in the consti
tution or organization of the State or in the
composition of the constitution at constituency,
as it may exist at any time, without the con
current action of the constitutional constitu
ency itself, is revolution. It is disorganiza
tion. It is the subversion or suppression (as
it may prove permanent or temporary; of one
organization, and the substitution of another.
It is the abolition (permanent or temporary)
of the old State, and the introduction of a new
one.
Each of these ten States, in 1865, at the
close of the war, being then a State, had a
constitution, and a constitutional constituency
linked back by unbroken succession to the
constitution and constitutional constituency
as they existed before secession; Secession
madeuo break in the chaiu. The provision
which was put into the constitution at the
time of secession, connecting the State with
the Confederate States instead of with the
United States as its Federal head, is wholly
immaterial to the present purpose. In the
one theory, it was simply void, and left the
organization of the State, the constitution and
constitutional constituency intact. On the oth
er theory, being valid, it modified but did.not
impair the integrity of the State organization.
All this follows from, or rather is comprehend
ed in, the one proposition, that these ten
States have never lost their character as States.
Each of these ten States being a State
at the close of the war in 1865, stands now de
jarsjust as it stood tiieu ; unless it has since
that time been changed by the action of its
constitutional constituency. I think each of
them was so changed in the latter part of that
same year. In each of them a convention was
elected by a large and unquestionable majority
of the constitutional constituency (although a
portion of them were excluded from voting)
tor the purpose of modifying the constitution.
These conventions repealed the ordinances of
secession, abolished slavery, and made some
other changes in the several constitutions, but
(inmost of the States) left the constitutional
constituency just as they stood before. In
conformity with the constitutions, as last
modified by these conventions, each of the
States was speedily provided with a complete
government, consisting of a Legislative, Ex
ecutive and Judicial department. It was by
the Legislatures thus formed that the 13th
Amendment to the Constitution of the Unite 1
States, abolishing slavery, was ratified.
Since that time no change has beeu made in
the organization of any of these States, with
the co-operation or concurrence of the consti
tutional constituencies. Only very small mi
norities of the constitutional coustituencies
have co-operated in the work of reconstruc
tion. It is a notorious and unquestionable
fact, that an overwhelming majority of them
in each of the States liavo been steadily and
unswervingly opposed to it, and have voted
against it, whenever they voted at all.
The clear result in my judgment is, that
each of these States now stands dc jure just as
she was left by the action of her convention in
1865, with a complete government, formed un
der the constitution of that year, including a
Legislature which still constitutionally exists,
and is capable of assembling any day, if it
were only allowed to do so by the withdrawal
of the bayonet. But she stands tic facto, sup
pressed, by a government originated and im
posed on her by an external power, and sup
ported alone by the bayonet. Such a govern
ment is the embodiment of anti-republicanism
and despotism. Under just such a govern
ment, Ireland is writhing,and Poland is crush
ed.
Is it not now demonstrated, that the bodies
which ratified the so-call<eJ 14th aud 15th
Amendments in the name of these ten States,
were the revolutionary products of external
force and fraud, displacing the true Legisla
tures which alone could have given a consti
tutional ratification?
These so-called Amendments, then, have
beeu neither constitutionally proposed.nor con
stitutionally ratified. How can they form
parts of the constiiution !
A successful answer to this question would
long ago have brought that peace and harmo
ny, which can never come from might over
bearing right. Instead of giving such an an
swer, tiie authors of these measures have
sought to drown reason and argument in
clamorous charges of violence and revolution
against the victims—not tho perpetrators of
those crimes. »
But an answer has at last beeu attempted
from an ' unexpected quarter. Strangely
enough, it couies from one who has greatly
distinguished himself by the vigor and ability
with which he has denounced the whole
scheme of Reconstruction ?.s a revolutionary-
usurpation and nullity. And.still more strange
ly, he adheres to that denunciation, while
now arguing that these so called Amendments,
the creatures and culminating points of that
Reconstruction scheme, are valid points of the
Constitution. Such a conclusion from such a
beginning ! And yet he is hailed by his new
allies, as a very Daniel come into judgment.
They were in a sore straight for an argument.
lie says these so-called Amendments have
become parts of the Constitution, because they
have been proclaimed as such, by the power
which, under the Constitution, has the “juris
diction” to proclaim Amendments,
There has been much said, sir, about issues
that are “dead surely here is oue that is not
only live but very lively. Let Americans hear
and mark it! The Constitution of the United
States can be changed, can be subverted by
Presidential proclamation !!! I once knew a
man whose motto was that a lie was better
than the truth, becanse, he said, truth was a
stubborn, unmanageable thing, but a lie iu
the hands of a genius could be fitted exactly
to the exigencies of the case. But eveii he ad
mitted that the lie must be well told or it
would not serve. Jfit should appear to be a
lie.it would be turned from a thing of power,
into a thing of contempt. There has been pro
gress,sir, since that man taught. It is U' \v dis
covered that a known, pi oven lie is as good as
the truth, provided, it can only be “proclaim
ed” by a power having “jurisdiction” to pro
claim it. I, sir. know of no power—either on
earth, or above it. or under it—lhat has “juris
diction” t> “proclaim” lies Nay, sir, I know
of no power which has jurisdiction to proclaim
amendments to the Constitution. According
to my reading of that instrument, amendments
constitutionally proposed "shall be valid to all
intents aud purposes, ns part of the Constitu
tion,when ratified by the Legislatures of three-
fourths of the several States, or by Conven
tions in three-fourths thereof, as the one or the
other mode of ratification may be proposed by
the Congress." The ratification by three-
fourths of the States acting through their Leg
islatures or their Conventions, sets the seal of
validity upon the amendment, and makes it a
part of the Constitution. Nothing else can do
it. It must be a true, ratification, by a true
Legislature or a true Convention of the State.
A false ratification by a true Legislature of the
State, will not do. A true ratification by a
spurious Legislature, will uotdo. Tiie vaiid-
ty of ths amendment, and its authority as a
part of the Constitution, are made to depend
upon the historic truth of its ratification by the
Constitution. Proclamations of falsehoods,
from Presidents or anybody else, have noth
ing to do with the subject. This is plain doc
trine draw* from the Constitution itself. The
validity of the Constitution in all its parts de
pends upon the facts of their history.
But. according to this new discovery the
President of the United States can subvert the
whole Constitution, and make himself a legal
and valid autocrat, by simply “proclaiming,”
that an amendment of the Constitution to that
effect has been proposed by two- hires of each
House of Congress, and ratified by tiie Legis
latures of three-fourths of the States ; although
it may be known of all men, iliat there is nst
one word of truth in the proclamation !! The
President of the Uuitrd States can legally con
vert himself into an autocrat by his own proc
lamation. Theories are quickly put into prac
tice iu these days. Let the country beware!
We are also told by this new Daniel, not on
ly that the usurpation has -become obligatory
by it« success, but that there is no hope of get
ting rid of it; for he says itcannot be changed
without another amendment, ratified by three-
fourths of the States, and that there is no pros
pect of getting these three-fourths. Wonder
ful! Why, he himself has taught us. that the
whole thing may be accomplished by a Presi
dential proclamation. We have only to elect
a Democratic President,and let him “proclaim”
that a new amendment, abolishing the J4th
and I5th, has been duly proposed and duly-
ratified ; and the thing is done. That, sir,
would be the way taught by this new light;
but it would nover be my way. Ido not pro
pose to walk in the ways of falsehood. I pre
fer trnth ; because it is nobler, grander. I be
lieve also that, when it is supported by true |
and bold men, it is always more powerful My
way would be to elect a Democratic President; j
and let him treat the usurpation as a usurps-
ral and legitimate work of true restoration,
real peace, sincere and cordial fraternity. The
whole problem is solved by the simple withdrawal
of the bayonet.
J I have now shown, that the 14th and 15th
Amendments do not form any part of the consti
tution, and thus have made good my first po
sition, that the whole Enforcement Act, which
depends solely upon them for its validity, is
not a law, but a mere legal nullity.
My second position is, that, even if the so-
called 14th and 15th Amendments were valid,
yet all those parts of the Enforcement Act
elaimed as applicable to my case are utterly
“outside” of them, and (being confessedly out
side of the constitution apart from them) are
unconstitutional and not binding as law.
The 14th Amendment and the small part of
ths Enforcement Act relating to it have no
relevancy to this prosecution, and I shall say
nothing further about them.
Those parts of the act claimed as applicable
to my case rest solely upon the 15th tor their
validity; and, in order to see whether they are
outside of it or not, it becomes necessary to
know what are the terms and extent of that
Amendment.
The effect of its terms is strangely misap
prehended. It seems to be regarded as a thing
which, by its terms, secures the right of suf
frage to the negro, and empowers Congress to
enforce that right. This is a total and most
dangerous mistake. Here is the Amendment.
It is not longer than the first joint of my little
finger;
“Section 1. The right of sitizens of the
United States to vote shall not be denied or
abridged by the United States, or by any
State, on account of race, color or previous
condition of servitude.
“Sec. 2. The Congress shall have power to
enforce this article by appropriate legisla
tion.”
This is the whole of it. Now, sir, I dafy
reiatation, when I affirm that, by these terms,
the right of suffrage is not conferred upon nor
secured to any person or class of persons whom
soever. The whole is simply a prohibition on
the United States and the several States. The
United States in legislating for the District of
Columbia or a Territory, and the several States
iu regulating their suffrage, each for herself,
are prohibited from denying it to anybody or
abridging its exercise on either one of three
grounds—race, color, or previous condition of
servitude—but are left perfectly free to abridge
it or deny it ou any other grouud whatsoever,
say female or male, ignorance or intelligence
poverty or wealth, crime or virtue, or any
other of an innumerable multitude of other
grounds. In point of fact the right is denied,
both by the United States and by each one of
the several States, on many of these other
grounds; and the denial is enforced under
heavy penalties, not only by the laws of the
States, but by this very Enforcement Aet it
self. To say that the rights is conferred on or
secured to anyt ody, because it cannot be de
nied lor any one or all of three reasons out Jof
au indefinite number of possible and usual
reasons, is simply absurd. As well say that a
plat of grouud is fenced or secured from intru
sion by putting a well on one of its many sides
leaving ail the other sides perfectly open. A
right is not conferred or secured by law, when
it can be denied without a violation of law.
This brings me to the crucial test of my
second position- Whether I have violated
any prevision of the Enforcement A«t or not
it is at least certain that I have not violated
the 15th Amendment. It is affirmatively pro
ven, by the testimony of the two prosecutors
in this case—the two negro managers of elec
tion—that I did not object to or in any man
ner interfere with any vote on the ground of
either race, color or previous condition of ser
vitude. It is mauif-st, then, tLat if I have vio
lated any part or parts cf the Enforcement
A«t, such part or parts are “outside” of the
Amendment aud unauthorized by it; since I
have not violated the Amendment, itself. I
have not violated the Amendment, even if its
prohibition reached private citizens, instead
of being confined,as it plainly is, to the Uni
ted States and the States severally.
The truth is, thar far the greater part of the
Enforcement Act is “outside” of the Amend
ments which it professes to enforce. This act
presents another liTe and very lively issue to
the people of this country; and already are
the thunders of opposition heard from Repub
lican as well as from Democrat quarters. Un
der pretense of restraining the Uuittd States
aud the several States from denying or abrid
ging the right of suffrage cn account of race,
color, or previous condition of servitude, this
act takes control of the general and local elec
tions in all the States—seizing the whole po
litical power of the country, and wielding it
by the bayonet, and fills up pages of the statute
book with new offenses and heavy penalties
leveiled, not against the United States or the
several States, or their officers by whom alone
the I5th Amendment can possibly be violated,
but against private cit zens. The Alien and
Sedition Acts, which, by the pow«r of their re
coil exterminated their authors, were not
equal to this act either in the nakedness or the
danger of their usurpation. It this act shall
prevail and abide as law, then our heritage of
local self-government, lost to us, will pass into
history, and there stand out forever a glory to
the noble sires who wrung it from one tyr-
ranny, aud a shame to the degenerate sons
who surrendered it to another.
My third and last position is, that, even if
the Enforcement Act were valid in all its parts,
yet 1 have not violated any one of them. I
aai accused under its 5th aud 19th sections.
The 5th provides a penalty against “pre
venting, hindering, controlling or intimidating
or attempting to prevent, hinder, control or
intimidate” any person from voting "to whom
the right of suffrage is secured or guaranteed
by the 15th Amendment.” I have already de
monstrated that the 15th Amendment secures
or guarantees the right of suffrage to nobody
whomsoever. It is impossible, therefore, that
I am, or that anybody ever can be,* guilty un
der that section.
But again; the testimony utterly fails to
show that I interfered in any way with the vo
ting of any person legally entitled to vote, or
indeed, with the voting of any person whom
soever. It was incumbent on the prosccutioa
to show w hat persons, if any; and that they
were persons entitled to vote. The Enforce
ment Act itself inflicts a penalty on all per
sons who vote illegally; and, of eonrse, can
not intend to punish the prevention or hin-
drancs of illegal voting The attempted
proof, as to iny interference with voters, relates
to four persons only. It fails to show that
either one of the four was a person entitled to
vote. It fails to show that three of them did
not actually vote. It fails to show that any
one of them offered to vote, or even desired
to do so. It fails to show that any one of them
heard me make a single remaik, saw me do a
single act, or was even in my presence from
the beginning to the end of the three days elec
tion.
As to the remark w hich I made to a small
crowd, aboutprosecuting all who shoald vote
without having paid their taxes, I have this to
say. In the first place, it is not shown who
composed that crowd, nor that cne single one
of them was a person entitled to vote. In the
next ease, the ren,ark was a lawful one; forit
was simply the declaration of an intention, not
to interfere with legal voters, but to prosecute
criminals; and therefore cannot be tortured into
a threat, in any legal or criminal sense of that
word. A threat, to be criminal, must be the
declaration of an intention to do some unlaw
ful act; and it never can be unlawful to appeal
to the laws.
I pass to the charge, under the 16th section,
that I interfered with the managers of elec!
tion in the discharge of tlu-ir duties, by caus
ing their arrest under judicial warrant. That
part of the 19th sectiou which is invoked
against me is in these words: “Or interfere
in any manner with any officer of aaid elec
tions in the discharge of his duties.”
My first answer to this charge is, that the
managers were arrested, rot in the discharge
of their duties, but in tiie violation of one of
inconsistent with theirs,,;—
ligation of their oath. The o^n° n of l >‘e ol?
by them, and now construed K T COtl5: nie<l
ecuting attorney, is i n pj ain ziii
v uaa not dn-
The first ground of the manage*.? htIr ‘**es
therefore fails. gers iQ«ineatj 0u
Their other ground was that *1
tax of those whom they had a iw a 0D P*id
without payment of taxes. was oT ‘Vote
and that the poll tax had been 7 P°U tax
act of the Legislatnre to be il| e *1 an
warranted by the Constution, and it a ? d Un ‘
collection suspended. 118 ‘farther
The fact that it was only D0 11 ,
appear from the evidence before vonru Bot
but I admit it to be true. I dij n ?, r Kon or,
to quibble. I am here to justify j erf!
under the law, on the truth as it exiH* a C0I1 L d,lct
er proven here or not. My answer 8 ’
this declaratory act of the Legislator.. , Ht
unconstitutional, nuil and void Th " ^
bat the opinion of the Legislature corn-erf- *
the constitutionality of a previous’act 0 f
imposing the poll tax for that year T1 ■ t '
per head "(er education.; putpo,.,"
very words which are used bv the .
tion itself in defining the purpose for “hw!
poll taxes may be imposed. Now s i r ,,
question which I ask is, what it ia that mU
this act “illegal or unwarranted by the C
stitutio*? Surely.it is not made so by ti
subsequent declaration of the Leei s r atn “ e
put forth just before the election, to serve »
palpable,jfrandulent, party purpose. 8
The Legislature is not a Court; but on the
contrary it is expressly prohibited by the Con
stitution from exercising judicial functions’
aud tts declarations, concerning the coosfitu’
tionality ot Legislative acts, have no more
authority than those of private citizens. The
single question then is whether the declaration
in this case is true. The Legislature assigned
its rsaso* for the opinion it gave. What is
that reason? It is, that the Constitution ii m
its the imposition of poll taxes to edscational
purposes; and that when the poll tax in qu es .
tion was imposed, there was ho system of
common schools or educational purptse to
which it could be applied. Therefore, they
said its imposition was “illegal and unwar.
ramted by the Constitution. ’ They salu it
was unwarranted by the Constitution te pro-
vide the moaev before organizing the schooia
to which the money was to be applied, that is
to say, tho only constitutional way to organ
ize the schools, w as to go in debt for the*! I
lack words, sir, to properly characterize the
silliness of this reason.
But, curiously enough, th# Constitution it
self took the very course, which these sapient
legislators declared to be “illegal and unwar
ranted by the Constitution.” It provided
money and devoted it to these very Common
Schools, which were still in the womb of th-
future at the time of its adoption. It dedica
ted to that purpose the whole educational
fund which was then on hand. Therefore,I
say, this declaratory Act is not only false, bat
is in the very teeth ot the Constitution itself.
Mark you, sir, it did not repeal «or attempt to
repeal the poll-tax; it only suspended its eoj.
lection. Bot, I say, if it had been a repeal ia
terms, instead of a mere suspension, it coaid
not chaage the case, as to the right of a par
son to vote without having paid the tax. The
Constitutional requirement is, that “he shall
have paid all taxes, which may have been re
quired of him, and whieh he may have had
an opportunity of paying agreeably to law
for the year next proceeding the election."
The poll-tax was “required” in April, JSC9,
and continued to be required, up> to tie pas
sage of the aforesaid talse decir.ratorr Act.
in October, 1870— a year and a ha.f. During
all that period taxpayers had “opportunity" to
pay it. They had 547 opportunities, counting
each day as one opportunity. On the day ot
the election, then, any man who had not paid
his poll-tax for 1669, stood in the position of
not having paid a tax, which had been requir
ed of him, and which he had very many
opportunities of paying agreeably to law. E#
stood clearly within the letter of the Constitu
tional disqualification for voting. He stood,
also, within its reason and spirit, tor its true
intention was to discriminate against ths citi
zen who should net have discharged a public
duty for the year next preceding the election.
Nothing but payment couid remove from him
the character of a public delinquent. Legis
lative remission of the tax cannot serve ths
purpose, for he still stands after that as a man
who has failed in a public duty. The most
that can be said for him is, that after the repeal
the tax ceased to be required of him; but the
only material facts—that it have been requir
ed, and could have beeu paid, but had not
been paid—remain unaltered.
The managers, then, in rtceiving the voUs
of persons who had not paid their po!I-tai.
were not in “the discharge of their duties.
Whether they thought so, is not the qnesli' i,
If they were really wrong, then I was righi;
and surely I am not to be punished tor being
right. There was no interference with them
in the discharge of their duties.
But again; even if I were wrong in the opin
ion which I entertained of their duty, Jtt I
did not interfere with them unlawfully. The
whole context of that clause, in the 19th sec
tiou under which I am accused, shows that
the interference contemplated is an amawfui
interference; especially the words which come
immediately after it—“or by any ol snch
means or other unlawful means, etc. This
word “other” shows, conclusively, that all the
means contemplated weie only such as were
of an unlawful character. Ib;s would ta
implied in construing any penal statuie, even
if it were not expressed; for the universal rule
of construction for penal statutes is, to con
strue strictly against the prosecution and lib
erally in favor of the accused. Is it possible
that any Judge can have the hardihood to bow
that it was the intention of this Enforcement
Act to impart to managers of election the sa
cred character of Eastern Brahmins, inuA-cg
them too holy to be touched even ter their
crimes? Surely it was not intended to give
them greater sanctity than belongs to peers of
the British Parliament, or to legislators of our
own country while engaged in legislation.
Notwithstanding all the high privileges accor
ded to them; ail ofjthcse are suljsct to arrest,
in any place, at any moment, under a war
rant charging breach of the peace of tetoiy.
Was it iatended to protect these managers
from immediate accountability for all feloines
which they might eommit during three who.e
days? Until this shall be held as the inten
tion of the Enforcement Act, it is impossible
to maintain that I have violated it in any P a ‘*
ticuler whatever. . ,
The constitution declares, that “the right 0
the citizen to appeal to the courts shall never
be impaired.” My w hole offense, sir, i» 1 iis '
that I appealed to a court of competent jnrt J *
diction. I devoutly believed 1 WS5 r) S bt ‘f
my opinion of the law, I beliey* .-0 now.
But, whether I was right or wrong in mj opin
ion. who will dare to say that I was wrong 1^
testing that opinion, not by the > on n
band, but by appealing to a court ap
pointed by the constitution, for the very P
pose of deciding the question! That court de
cided that I was right; and tha “interference
which followed, sir, was the interference,
of my sell, but of the law, as expoum-en «.
administered by a judicial tribunal. ~ ore .
sir; the decision of that tribunal stands as
law of the case, until it shall be reversc 'V
cording to law. These managers were cnar-
red with felony under the laws of tins •
Wa« it a crime for me to seek a judai •
cuiry into the truth or probability o s
charge? I suspect, sir, that my
in the estimation of my prosecutors, is m
judicial interposition, invoked by A f
effect of preveEtiȣ numerous repetitions
a ertme, which would have done s.gnai 5
vice to their political party. .
If angry power demands » szoj 1 1 . D0 -
those who have thwarted its fraudmen y -T
ses, I feel honored, Sir. iu bring/elected
the victim. If my suffering coui i ,
countrymen to a just and lofty iC ‘fj -e ,
the most important of them—one prescribed cvu “ ,r -?“ e “ lu *7 . attacking ■ e :
not only by the Constitution ot the State, but i'ff 111 ** the despotism w ic , t j tllt j 0 c*i
by this very Enforcement Act itself: for tar : :s but sssaihcg law order “ d ““ |h e.*ri-
act madoin their duty to reject all illegal votes j ff 0 '»‘f nln eiit. 1 w ® ul . b , eqU ired >“‘
and provided a penalty for receivinr them, face, though my blood shou.d he ieq
provided a penalty for receiving them.
These managers had received and were still re
ceiving the votes of persons who had not paid
their taxes of the year next preceding the elec
tion, as required by the Constitution of the
State. The testimony shows^ that this fact
was fully proven, and not denied by them, on
the commitment trial before the magistrate.
The reply to it then was, and now is, not a
denial, bat a justification, on two grounds.
One of these grounds was that the oath which
they had taken, under the Akermau Election
Act, required them to let every person vote,
who was of apparent full age, was a resident
of the county, and had not previously voted
in that election. They said then, and it is
now said again here, that they could not in-
qnireinto the non-payment of taxes or any
other constitutional disqnalificatioa for voting
stead of my liberty.
tion and a nullity ; and let him withdraw the ; except only nen-age, non-residence and pro-
huvnnpl • nn/1 “nrrwluim*’ that thft revolution- i..] a. _ .
bayonet; and “proclaim”that the revolution
ary governments iu these ten States would not
be supported by him ; but that the constitu
tional Republican governments,which now ex
ist here, would be left free to rise from their
tate of forcible represeioa, and do their natu-
vious voting in that election. And yet, a man
who was of lull age, and a resident of the
county, and who had not previously voted, was
excluded by these same managers, on the • " 1. ~ were
grouud that he was a convicted felon. Their ln § Stock ON rail a -
wa action in excluding the felon is utterly I piopriateu by ihe Germans.
The preliminary electoral m ee
ing held in Paris decided in w' l,r ’’
the following candidates for ^ 110U ‘
Assembly: Victor Hugo, Gariba >
Quinet, Gambetta, Syissat ami
rian. ^,
It is reported here that anal el J
to assassinate Trochu resulted 10
death of Trochu’s orderly* r<x ‘
w as unhurt. . iiO
It is now known that about - »
000 prisoners were taken w
with, 15,000 cannon and lour 1
dred field pieces and miirati t
The gun-boats in the fceice an
: were also 3 !