Newspaper Page Text
THE DAILY SUN
Mondai Morning October 2.
Office in the Sun Building, West
tide of Broad street, Second Ik ir South qf
Alabama,
Hero Advertisements always /omul
cm First Page ; Local and Business Notices
on Fourth Page.
T* Lawyer*.
We publish in full, the decisions of the
Supreme Court; also the daily 4 ‘Pro
ceedings'’ of the Court, and keep the
“Order of Buwneto” standing in our
columns. ■ I
Afdt* tor The 8aa,
Thomas N. Horsim, ThotnAsrUle, (la.
Jaumm Allen Smith, KuoxviUe, Tenn.
Daym Pell. Afina. -p f r
Jon* f. Robots, AlaaU, Qa.
J. L. Wbioht, Woodatock, Oa.
J. Q. Caldwell* Thomson, Oa.
H. a Hamilton, Dalton, Oa.
vh*. D»vw. ir., t»l«rt..n.
Tjjtk. Matt k Co., Whit. Ftaliu. Grwn Co., 0*
i. L. Burnt, OuUUnoogt, Tom.
J, C. luul, IoQxmOfr, do,
K A. Vauedox, ThomMsiD., Oa.
X- 0. Williams, Union Point
Senator, by tbo next DeHoerati* Legis- live oflb*. And be promptly and right-
tature, wo aay, in conoljfc, we ?«Ujr ****** it. He -would doubtleas
have no favorite candidate. Thor* are
CtaB|< eg Obi tobB,l,lio« Frier
We ask attention to onr new terms of
aabsuiption in tbs fltsi colmmn on our
first page.
Slagle Ceglet or Ik* »«■ Sw Sale *• **■
Ceaater.
DAILY 5 C*” 1 *
nrsnur- A toil.
Foaliik and Misclsiewous Pro
gramme.
A correspondent of Tire AtT.anta
Daily Huh, signing himself “Titus,”
whom that paper Underwrites as “one of
tbs first men in Georgia," lays out a
programme for the approaching session
of the Legislature, some part of which
we do not except to, but we hope and
trust no man in the Legislatare wjjl l>e
controlled by the following suggestion
2. Aa a matter of principle, we will not take into
consideration the quartern of eligibility. We be
lieve the people of Georgia are pretty well nnited in
their ladoraamaat K Mr htephaue’ pw***®*"?;
which fa to Hialat upon all of onr conatlttittonal
righto. We havo elected Benetori, and they have
Ihmju wrongfully and unoouaUlutionally rejected.
To send those who have been made eligible—merely
becauee they are eligible—would be begging tlie
question, and an admission that Congress has the
ngbt to make eligible or ineligible our UoproeeuU
lives and heaaaers. It would be a ‘‘departure” j
would be ‘'acquiescing In and accepting the fraud
ulent sud illegal rulings of Congress. Let us lx
ooatfiUafto JlJhliifB.
Wo xhoutd think the fate of North Car
olina and Zobulon B. Vance would bo
sufficient illustration of the folly and im-
practicability of Urn course m-oinmeud
ed. Thf Poarocrata of Georgia owe it
to themselves and the country to select a
good aod safe mau for the Senate of the
* United Htafcw, jxMiwwsmg the qnAlifioa-
tiona for a seat in that body.
We clip the above paragraph from the
Mneaa mJgraph uni Messenger, of : the
28th instant la reply, we have only to
Bay, that we do not see anything, either
• foolish” or “mischievous,** iu the pro
gramme of our correspondent, “Titos,"
bo denounced by our cotemporary of
Mac>n.
“Titus” very distinctly states bis po
sition to be, as we understand him, that,
iu the choice of United States Senator,
the Democrats in the Legislature should
not be controlled by the “disability,** sc
called, of the 14th Amendment. This “dis
ability,” every man in Georgia, calling
himself a Democrat, we believe, jm/ssscs
to hold to be utterly unconstitutional—
fraudulent—and, as matter of course, ut
terly void; and that it should be so held
and pronounced by tho United States
Senate, in passing upon the qualifications
of members of that Body; that qualifica
tions uj fixed in tho Constitution; and,
os wo have said before, any attempt to
ohange them, by usurpation, is as. fla
gitiously wicked against the liberties of
this country, as to add or hike from the
saored text of the Scriptures, would be
impiously wioked against the nuodales
of the Most High !
Is this position true or not? Who will
undertake to gainsay or deny ft? Is it
“foolish'* to proclaim a great vital “trhfA,
6r “mttchievous" to maintain It, by free
men, in casting their rolrs under the Const,
tution*f How elae can liberty and right
be maintained, in a peaceful and Con
stitutional way ? Are free men
“foolish*’ as voluntarily to surten
der their admitted Constitutional
rights, and quietly indorse, by their ro‘t
a surreptitious deprivation of them, with
a view of thereby maintaining tlioiu?
Coaid anything be more “foolish'’
itself, or ruinously “mischievous" to all
that is held dear to them, than such a
course ns that?
many Democrats in the Htote, well fitted
for tho position, to whom tho Congrss.
sional “disability,” referred to, does not
apply, us well os many to whom it
does—and, nil that wo maintain
(and oil that “Titus” maintains,
as wo understand him) is, that, in
making tho selection, the Democrats
should not, in the slightest degree, bote the
knee to Boat, or do homage to the
fraudulent amendment,” so called, by
acknowledging, in tho slightest degree, the
\ghlfxdness of the usurpations on which
it rests. Let the selection be made en
tirely Without feferaice to'that iniquitous
outrage upon the (institution.
We may say more on this subject here
after. This is enough for the pwwont.
A. H. 8.
“ Mr. Stephens anil ‘Law and
Order/”
We continue the republication of this
correspondence, os it appeared in the Au
gusta (Ga.) Constitutionalist.
We now give the second letter of “Law
and Order,” addressed to Mr. Stephens,
and his reply to it, with the correction of
several important typographical errors
which occurred in it as published in the
Const ilutionaliei
[From Ui« AagHate (CM ComtiUition»lJ«t, Sept 22.J
To Horn. A. H. Stephens:
You said on a memorable occasion
“ The Union is not only the life but the soul
qf these Mates. It is this tltat gives them
animation, vigor, power, prosperity, great
ness, and renown. Ancl from, this alone
spring our hopes of immortality as a com
mon jwoplc" (Speech on tho Mexican
appropriation bill.) You spoke of the
C«ou ah it wa* than. The great disturb
ing element of that Union has now been
removed. What Bay you of it now ? Is
it still the life and soul of the States ? If
pot, wliy not ? Is it because tbo Consti
tution has been changed by amendments?
Certainly the difficulty does not lie in
this, per se, for it was changed by amend
ments several times before you made the
Were not the liberties of England res
cued from Tory administration, after
years qf contest over the Middlesex elec
tion? The House of Commons hod, by
usurpation, glaring and foul, fixed a
“disability,** so called, upon Wilkes, whom
the people of that distriot saw fit to
choose as their member.
On account of this 'disability,*' he wss
refneed his seat Another election was
ordered. Some thought, in this state of
things, that it would be better for the voters
to select some other Whig, who woo'd be
permitted to take his seat.
8o did not think Chatham, the greatest
Statesman England aver produced. He
urged upon the people of Middlesex never,
in this way, to /fold, the right, but to re
elect Wilke* -aud to continue to do so,
“lolis* guoties,"—t\mt is,just as often at he
should be refused a seat, because of the
unconstitutional **disability,** so called.
His adxioe was followed. Wilkes was
agiin, and agaiu elected, and again
and agaia, i^ooted by the House,
until, finally, LuUkreU, his Tory competi
tor, was dec\d&f,'\iy a' coftfupt House, to
be entitled to the season the grounds, that
the votes cast for au “ ineligibh "candi
dale,were void,and should not be counted.
This
part,
\ act of infamy, on their
the doom of the Tory admin
istration., Mfbp wext efo*4<m, :W4Ms
was a#sht fretamed, and t/sA him a ma
jority of Whigs jn the HwVs who paid no
regard to difs to-called “disability, ” crea
ted ty usurpation alone. H«<Aeatop|t
hia|seat, fand the rightful and consfc-
tuUomd persistence in the case of the
voters of Middlesex, <n maintaining
British liberty at the jmjIL, did more ♦ban
all other things combined to drive tho
Tories from power. Wss it “ foolish” or
«£it “ mischievous ?” Now, in rela
te the election of United States
have done ho even had tho law been still
of force, since his action would have
been in harmony with a constitutional
privilege conferred upon him.
Iu bis b iter to Judge Bonne, Wiring
date September Oth, 1819, Mr. Ji-fFersou
usr-s the following language: “My con
struction (f the Constitution is very differ
ent from that you quote. It is that each
department is truly independent of the
others, and has an equal right to decide
for itself what is the meaning of the
(institution in the cases submitted to its
action, and especially when it is to act
definitely and without appeal. I will ex
plain myself by dumpies, which, having
occurred while I was in office, are better
known to me, and the principles which
governed them. A legislature had pass
ed the Sedition law. The Federal courts
ha<l subjected certain individuals to its
penalties of fine and imprisonment. On
coming into office 1 released thsee indi
viduals by the power of pardon com
mitted to Executive discretion, which
conld never be more properly exercised
than where citizens were suffering with
out the authority of law, or, which was
equivalent, under a law unauthorized by
the Constitution, and therefore null.”—
After citing two or three other instances
where he had acted as President in har
mony with this theory of his, he says:
“These are examples of my position,
that each of these departments has equal
ly the right to decide for itse.'f what is its
duty under the Constitution, without any
regurd to wliut the others may have deci
ded for themselves under a similar ques
tion." Now, let me ask, where do you
find in all this, authority or support for
your singular revolutionary view, that
the President elected in opposition to the
principle and policy of a law still in force
and operation, however obnoxious, may,
by his simple magisterial or kingly edict
deolare it null; and the j>eople, by virtue
solely of this, his potential ipse di.cit, be
released from obligation to observe the
law and the judicial expositions of it ?
Yon seem to have a great dread of impe
rialism. Bui here is imperialism with a
vengeance. Ouotiug your own lan
guage, uttered in one of your great
est speeches, language which made my
heart swell with pride us I read jt:
I would not turn upon iny heel to
chooso between masters.” I want
no one-man power; I shall never recog
nize any master but the people, and I am
one of them. It is incumbent upon you
to show that Mr. Jefferson ever advo
cated such a solecism in government—
that he favored the doctrine of nullifica
tion of a living operative law', nay, more,
that ho would have claimed the right, by
his fiat, to annul a part of the organic law
itself. Tho very text I have quoted shows
he would have the action of each depart
ment to be independent of the other in
the constitutional construction of tlie
Iaw, ai d each for the time obeyed and
observed iu its legitimate sphere—look
ing to appropriate remedies from the only
appropriate source for tho rectification of
all errors in judgment, and perversions of
vital principles.
Nor docs he leave us in doplit as to the
proper sourco, for bo enuoliotieally as
sorts that “independence cgu Intrusted
nowhere but with the peopltHn mass.—
They are inherently independent of all
but moral law.” You have recently
turned your batteries away from the New
DeparturiHts.or more appropriately speak
ing, the anti-nullification and anti-revo
lution Democracy, who simply accept,
without approving or indorsing the
amendments; but you retain in your po
litical casket the one principle which you
seem to regard as a crown jewel, to-wit:
the principle of tho right of Presidential
annulment of the obuoxioua amendments,
by mere dictatorial proclamation to that
effect. The National Democracy every
where will rejoice to observe that there
remains now no ground of difference be
tween them and yourself but the simple
one of remedy. And os you have lately
favorod a reference to the Supreme Court,
which is an improvement on your first
proposition, they can but hope you will
yet adopt with them the quiet, broad,
constitutional and wise principle and
policy of leaving the whole matter of
these amendments to the common sense
and patriotism of the people, who, in
their own way, aod in their own good
time, will do in reference to them what
shall be right When that time comes,
the remedy will be at hand, and it will
neither be « new nor a revolutionary one,
b«t ote that has been resorted to in the
... . m ***- former history of the Republic, without
lour position u, ttiat a President mrut * difficulty and always successfully, and,
tv. «Uu.vl 14T70 . t... — I ...... .f' . . * . * ’ 1
speech in wliich this grand apostrophe to
the Union is fonno. And then, you
thought, os lute us the date o£ your Cor
ner Stone Speech, that the United Btates
Constitution was defective, and that,
while adhering to it in its main features,
in tho Montgomery C onstitutiou several
important amendment* bail been added
which would make s batter End wiser
government
Yon FXprrssed y4ur decided preference
for the Confederate Constitution over the
United States Constitution ! Then the
real difficulty is, tliut, in your judgment,
the changes mode by the 14tn and
15th Amendments were made, because
violative of the rights of the States and
at war with tho true Republican theory
of the Government. And hero you und
I, and all tho National Democracy, as I
understand them, agree fully. Rut, thou,
these are merely onr opinions and con
victions; while the opinions and couvic-
tious of tk« majority arc against us, and
that majority, unfortunately, makes our
laws and controls the Government for tho
nonce. We say it is bad policy to ask
now (if it is ever done) for a recantation
of a policy upon which the dominant
party prides itself, and claims os n part of
the brilliaut fruits of tho war. While
you, ou tho other hand, say No! now,
now is the timo that wc must ask them t<
reconsider their action, and recall their
objectionable policy, as embodied in the
two last amendments.
We say, if this demand of yours and
those who agree with you, must bo mode,
postpone it at least until the North has
.wiped the war sweat from her brow. It
is simply absurd, with all due deference
be it said, to expect any other result
from pressing the policy you insist upon
at this time thou a humiliating defeat of
the Democracy in 1872, and the confer
ring perhajw of an indefinite lease of
power upon the Radical party for years
to come. Your policy of ignoring* the
amendments as nullities, when you shall
get a President elected on your theory,
to do it, you soy, is iu strict accord with
tlie good old tt eor jr and practice of toe
Jeffersonian Detnorrac/.
be elected in 1872 upon the avowed
sumption that the 14th and 15th Amend
meuts are nullities «nd no longer to lie
recognised or obeyed—that after ho is
installed, having boon elected upon this
platform, it will ouJy be necesaaiy for
him to announce that ho w ill regard and
treat them os null and void, and the
work will bo thus peacefully, but effectu
ally accomplished. Never was non sequi-
tur more apparent. Yon say, and say
again, and oftentimes repeat, that Mr.
Jefferson so treated the Alien and Sedi
tiou laws, and that you are therefore ad
vocating a poliey sanctioned by the ut
torauces and action of that truly gTeat
statesmanl Pardon mo, sir, if I say just
here, that you usually discriminate more
clearly and accurately in tho sclec
tiou of your ground and the authorities
relied upou to support it In the first
place, the questions are not tho same
The Alico and Sodition laws were mere
laws—nets of the Legislature. And tho
queation raised by Air. Jefferson and his
party was as to tho constitutionality of
these lawn—iu other words, wore they
not in confiiot with the Constitution, anil
Republican principles and ideas as incul
cat'll and protected by that instrument?
Ho lteld that they were, and therefore,
in bis judgment, null and void
Rut he never dreamed that he had
any right to say I hat such laws should be
disregarded and ignored, by tho courts
and the people,while they remained uure-
pealcd aud unox pin'd! On thecoutntry,he
distinctly asserted the right of each co
ordinate department of the Government
to construe the Constitution for iUclf,
and to exercise its powers separately and
independently of the other two. He
he claimed for himself tho right, its Pre
sident, to release from prison persons
who hod been imprisoned for violations
of laws which had already expired by
their ow n limitation, aud which, though
dead, were destined to live iu execrated
memory so long os constitutional liU rty
should bo sacred to tho ]>ooplo of the
American Republic. Rut did he release
them by the mere fiat of an unauthorized
edict ? Did lie do it in tlie spirit of au
tocratic self-will aud revolutionary de
fiance? Far, far from it This was not
the style of that illustrious man, whom
you so frequently quote aud canonize, os
to justify tho inference that he is the sole
divinifo in the political temple where you
worship. Ho expressly declares that he
did it in pursuance of the pardoning
, lower. This power was unquestionably
eeted in him by the Constitution. The
laws had expired. The public voice of
the country had just spoken iu unmeasu
red eoademimtion of tnelr constitutionali
ty and their policy. Yet these unfortn-
nate men were in jail by virtue of their
authority, and there was no way left to
the President to give rolief and take them
out of the dttrance rile iu which thqy bad
thus been placed, but by the exercise of
tho perfectly legitimate function of par
don, which attached to the Chief Exocn-
it is 1 relieved, advantageously.
In regard to the ratification of amend
monte, it would scorn that os to whether
the manner or form had been complied
with would be a political question with
which the judiciary could have nothing
to do. Mr. Jefferson, in his letter to
Judge Roane, already quoted, and Mr.
Calhoun, iu his famous Fort Hill letter,
both repudiate the doctrine of judicial
interference with questions purely politi
cal iu their nature. I will quote a few
sentences from tho letter of the former,
ns he seems to ho an authority of the
greatest weight with you. Iu referring
to the fact that the judiciary was inde
pendent and could not be reached by a
direct vote of the people, he says: “That,
therefore, has continued tho reprobated
system; and although newr matter has
boon occasionally iucorporated into tho
old, yet tho leaven of the old mass seems
to assimilate to itself tho new; and after
twenty years confirmation of tho fedora
ted system by the voioe of tho nation, we
find tho Judiciary, ou every occasion,
still driving us into consolidation.” Iu
denying tho right they usurp of exclu
sively “explaining the Constitution,” I
go further than you do, if I understood
rightly your quotation from the F*ler<d-
isi, of on opinion that “ the Judiciary is
tho last resort in relation to the other de
partments of the Government, but not in
relation to tho rights of tho parties to
tho compact under which the Judiciary
is derived.”
If this opinion be sound, then indeed
is our Constitution a complete fete de se.
For intending to establish these depart-
utA co-ordinate and independent, that
they might check and balance one an
other, it has given, according to this
opinion, to one of them alone the right
to preecriln* rules for tho government of
the others, and to that one, too, which
is iiuelectei by, and independent of
the nation. In view of these declarations
of his, what would ho have said to a pro
position for submitting to the Supreme
Court of the United States whether
amendments, duly proclaimed aa having
been adopted, were in fact adopted and
made parts of tho National Constitution?
It is apparent that you are not sustained
by Mr. Jefferson in either of your ooei-
tious as constitutional and rightful reme
dies. But suppose you were, what cau
l>e said for the policy of your cause at
exclude the negro from the ballot? By
a property qualification which would
also exclude the poor white men? Be
not deceived; for though somewhat a
voting *• T.aa than yourself I *wn an older
democrat; .ind I fi ll you the Democracy
of this country will never sustain this
dogma of aristocratic mould. The loth
Amendment does not qive tho ballot to
tho negio. It only declares that lie ahull
not bo excluded from tho ballot by rea-
of his color or his race. Georgia iu
the exercise of her sovereign will, can
slill exclude him, but on what other
ground bennies the inhibited grounds,
will she place his exclusion? The ques
tion is full of difficulty. Let ns not now
venture upon u new solution of it.
In conclasiou let me say, you give un
due importance to tho necessity of mak
ing known in the Democratic platform
of 1872 our disapprobation of these am
endments and their iniquitous corollaries
known as tho reconstruction laws. The
X>rotesk of the Southern Democracy is
fully upon the record, aod their position
of hostility to the whole corrupt brood
cannot be misunderstood. What the
Democracy now wants to insure its tri
umphant success iu the approaching
Presidential Campaign, is not excited
angry discussion, or subtle disquisition
upon dead issues or abstract theories of
government, but a united, bold front of
all the conservative elements in the old
Republic in one gruud, harmonious as
sault upon the extravagances and corrup
tions, the recklessness and stupidity, the
selfishness and sectionalism of the domi
nant Radical faction now holdiug high
carnival iu her consecrated halls, sacred
iu days gone by as the temples of Repub
lican simplicity and purity, wherein wor
shipped the bravest, the truest and the
best. Tho ancient glory and renown of
the great old party will be fully achiev
ed if tho time-honored flag be unfurled
in that race, hearing upon its folds,
plainly inscribed. “Down with the
Radicals! down with the bayonet! down
with the sword ! Up with the Constitu
te u ! up with olive branch ! up. with
Law and Order."
From the Auguat* (Ga.) Conutitutioimlint, 28th
September.
Liberty Hall,
Crawfordville, Georgia,
20th September, 1871.
To the Editor of the Constitutionalist:
My Dear Sir: You will, I trust, con
tinue the extension of your courtesy, by
allowing mo to respond, through your
columns, to the second letter of “Law and
Order," addressed to me, which appeared
in ;he Constitutionalist of last Friday.
The general tone and spirit of this let
ter, as well as the first, commend it to my
most deliberate consideration. They
both bear upon them the stump of strong
convictions on the part of the writer, ana
evince a disposition to discuss public
questions upon their real merits, aud in
accordance with tho principles of true
patriotism. It is a pleasure to mo to
meet one who thus enters the arena in
argument upon the “New Departure,”or
any other subject on which my views may
be deemed to be erroneous. The con
trolling object with me in all discussions
is the ascertainment of truth, and its
unfaltering maintenance when ascertained.
Taking it for grunted that “Law and
Order" has tho same objects in view that
I have, he must allow me to say that, ac
cording to my understanding of the sub
ject, he is not only in error as to the na
ture and design of tho “New Departure”
movement, as I st ited iu my reply to his
first communication, but also quite at
fault as to the mode and manner in which
I propose to get rid of tho admitted
“fraudulent amendments.”
Ou this latter point he seems to be of
opiuiou that I propose simply to elect a
President who holds these amendments
to bo “fraudulent,” and that the Presi
dent thus elected shall so declare them to
be, “and annul them by his proclama
tion.” This course also seems to him to
be not only revolutionary but the embodi
ment of Imperialism} “Imperialism
with a vengeauce 1" says he.
Now I beg to say to him, that he lias
no clear conception of the principles ad
vocated by me for getting nd of these
amendments, so-called, if be supposes
they could jxtssibly lead to such conse
quences. He says, though a “younger
man” he is an “older Democrat” than I
am—this cannot lie if by Democrat lie
means one devoted to the principles of
the Jefferson school of politics; for these
I took in with my mother’s milk; and he
hardly imbibed them at an earlier period
iu life. They constitute tho highest
prized heritage I received, from both my
maternal aud paternal ancestry; in theml
was roared, and in strict accordance with
them is the programme of policy advo
cated by me at this time, as I shall now
proceed to show.
In the first place, then, I do not pro
pose to get rid of these “fraudulent
amendments” by a Presidential Procla
mation, “annulling them.” It is true, I
do maintain, that one mode rf relief from
their operation is the election of a Presi
dent who will hold them to be “fraudu
lent,” and, therefore, “null and void,"
in all cases arising under them, which may
come before him in his officialjujsition as
Chief Executive; just as Mr. Jefferson did
tho “Alien and Sedition Acts.”
This will not bo by “ Proclamation of
annulment,” hut by a simple discharge of
prisoners. This, moreover, is only one
of many very efficient modes of re-tiff
against their oppressive operation, advo
cated by me. This one is certainly very
efficient in affording relief to all who may
be put “in duiHinoe vile," under prosecu
tions for violations of “enforcement
acta,” “Ku-Klux bills” and the like,based
eutirely upon their assumed validity.
If a President who so holds can be
oleeted, that, I say, is certaiuly one very
efficient and oonsUtiitioual inode of get
ting rid of their vital power of tyrnnuy.
In relation to what I have said upon the
analogy between this one of the many
effective remedies that may bo applied by
the pteople at the jxdls—and tho position of
the Democracy in 1800, under the lead
of Mr. Jefferson, towards the “Alien and
Sedition Acts,” I will here only add, that
that analogy fo W/ judgmeut, i# oopi
plote, notwithstanding all
Order" has said to the contrary.
Mr. Jefferson was elected upon the
open declaration of the Democracy that
those acts of Congress “ tecre not taxes,"
but nullities." It was known that Air.
Jefferson so held them to be. When he
come into power he found many ]>er9ons
in jail, suffering the penalty of au alleged
violation of oue of them. These pris
oners he immediately discharged, upop
the ground* that the act of Qongrpas njp
der which they were indicted was “ null
iml voiil. '* He ao says in liis letter to
Judge Roane as quoted by “ Law and
this timo? Nothing, absolutely nothing
In tho proscut state of the public mind
at the North concerning these nmend-
monts, it is worse than folly— it is mad
ness to suppose that agitation of the
question of their constitutional propriety
and legal validity could have any other
effect than to unit# tfie whofo opposition
acted in the same way, If there had been
auy prosecutions and convictions under
the “Alien Act/’ which had not expired
in any of its provisions? which was still
upon the Statute Book unrepealed, and
which he had declared, in his judgment,
was ii no lair,'* “but a nullity?'* IIow can
"Law and Order" assume, upon rational
principles, that Mr. Jefferson never
would have “dreamed” of such a course?
If he, as President, refused to obey a
mandamus of the Supreme Court, (as we
shall see) because it was, in Lis opinicD,
null, would he not, upon the same prin
ciples, have bet-n bound not to allow tho
execution of a judgment of a suliordinato
court, founded upon an act of Congress,
held by him to be equally null aud void?
The duties of his office as President, re
quired him to execute laws, not nullities;
nor was ho bound by the ileeision <f the
courts os to what was, and what was not,
constitutional law, in any case. Ou this
point Mr. Jefferson held, aud rightly
held, that under our system of Govern
ment, each of the several Departments—
the Legislative, the Judiciary aud the
Executive—is independent, and that each
for itself has the right to decide all con
stitutional questions involved in all cases
coxning bffore it and that neither is bound
by the judgment of either, or both of the
others, upon the same, or like cases.
In this very letter of his to Judge
Roane, quoted by “Xaic and Order," in
speaking of the doctrine that “the Ju
diciary is the last resort in relation to tlie
other Departments of the Government,”
Ac., he expressly says: “If this opinion
be sound, then indeed is our Constitu
tion a complete felo de se. For in
tending to establish these Depart
ments, . co-ordinate and independ
ent, that they might check and
balance one auotlier, it has given, accord
ing to this opinion, to one of them alone
the right to prescribe rules for the gov
ernment of the others”. How, then, I
repeat, cau il Luw wui Ordei'" ussume that
Mr. Jefferson “never dreamed 1 ' that a
President had the right to turn out of jail
instantly every victim of oppression, suf
fering, under sentence of a Federal Court,
the penalty of violating an act of Con
gress, which he held to be no law, and
nothing but a usurpation, even though it
was still on the Statute Book unrepealed,
and even though the Supreme Court hod
held it to be constitutional ? We have
Mr. Jefferson's own words for it that the
Judiciary Department has no power to
prescribe rules for the government of eith
er the Legislative or Executive Depart
ments. On all such questions each De
partment must judge and act for itself.
Is this a “solecism in Government ?" If
so, I have clearly shown that Mr. Jeffer
son held it, and I think ho rightly held
it.
If the Democracy, therefore, should
elect a President in 1872, who holds the
14th and 15th amendments to be no right
ful parts of the Constitution, because
they were carried by “usurpation and
perfidu" (as they unquestionably were),
would not such a President, upon the
same grounds as Mr. Jefferson acted up
on, promptly release all who may be
in jail, under indictments for alleged vio
lations of the “Enforcement Acts,” pass--
ed to carry out these infamous usurpa
tions ? It is entirely immaterial with me
whether he should call his discharge, an
order for “general jail delivery” of the
victims of iniquitous oppression, a par
don, or by any other name. The practical
result ana the mode of reaching it are all
that I and the people at large have any
interest in looking to just now in the dis
cussion of this question. Would such a
re’ease, or pardon (if that phrase suits
better) be the “mere fiat of an unauthor
ized edict ?'* Would it be an act perform
td “in the spirit of autocratic self-will and
revolutionaru defiance ?**
Is this the “Imperialism uithaven-
gcnce" to wliich the doctrines advocated
by me are supposed to lead? If so, I say,
well will it be for tho Peoples of this
country if they are never cursed with an
imperialism of a very different character.
With the views of the distribution of
the powers of the Federal Government,
Mr. Jefferson, as President, refused to
obey a mandamus from the Supreme
Court, as we have said. This was in the
case of Marbury and Madison, as stated
by him in that very letter to Judge Roane,
from which “Laic and Order" quoted on
extract. In the same letter he says that
he did not submit a certain treaty to
the Senate, because he would not have
executed it if the constitutional majority
of the Senate had been in favor of it.
He also instanced tho cases of Duane and
Smith, both standing in exactly the same
circumstances. Duane was held not to
be a citizen by the Supreme Court, whilo
Smith was held to be a citizen by the
House of Representatives, and was ad
mitted to a seat in that body. These in
stances illustrate his views of the inde
pendence of each other of the three
Departments.
Mr. Jefferson also held, as stated in
his Roane letter, aud Mr. Calhoun too,
held, ns appears in his Fort Hill letter,
and so do I hold, that the Federal Courts
have no jurisdiction over what they term
ed purely “political questions." These,
as stated by them, were questions which
involve “the rights qf the parties to the com
pact under which the Judiciary is derived.*'
Such, for instance, as the right of a State
to secede.
Over this class of questions, involving
the reserved rights of the States, under
the compact of Union, which they termed
(ion of the wrongs intended by them,
without ever for once looking to their
repeal, much less to revolution as a remedy.
I have on several occasions shown how
this rectification may be effected through
To all who thus argue let it be made
known that no case cau reach that Court,
unless it the first decided against the
prisoner in a Court below, and the Court
below is composed of a jury as well as
he instrumentality of the courts. But, judge. The jury will have on equel right
a ; what I have said on this subject may , with the Judge or Judges, ns the case
rot have been seen by “Luc and Ordei'," j muy be, to pass upon tho hiw, as well as
(and I suppose not, from what he has the f ucit i s it uo t casting an unjust im
said) a brief rendition here is deemed putatioi 4 “‘ '
t that “Law and
Order." The act under whioh these vic
tims of oppression were suffering had not
expired so far as o noerned the jienalty
imposed on those who hod been oonvict-
ed for violations of it, and were then in
prison under it; nor had it expireii so far
aa related to future prosecutions of any
who might be charged with violations of
it» bffore he came into office. It is wholly
immaterial whether ho called the dis
charge a pardon, or designated it by uq-
Btrengtb, and bring defeat, sore defeat ( j other name, He justified hia action ex
preasly upon the ground that tho act of
ou the friends of true Democracy and
constitutional liberty.
But let us suppose once more, for the
sake of the argument, that you could
annul the 15th Amendment; on wbnt
principle is it that you would propose to
Congress under which those prisouera
were suffering was, in his judgment,
“ null and void."
Is not the analogy, therefore, com
plete? Would Mr. Jefferson not
questions “purely political,” Air. Jeffer
son and Calhoun both held, that the
Federal Courts had no jurisdiction
but neither of them ever denied
that these Courts had jurisdiction
over every question wising under an act
of Congress brought before them, in a case
made by any citizen affected by it, in any
State of the* Union! This was* one of the
obief objects for whioh these oourts were
provided in the Constitution.
This brings us to the consideration of
mother one of the numerous remedies
which I have proposed for getting rid of
the injurious and hurtful operation of
these “fraudulent amendments,” which
he seems not to understand, and to which
I nuk the special attention of “Laxr and
Older." He seems to think that there is
wo remedy for these misohievous wrongs
except irpteal or Kevoluiionl Here again
we differ widely. I believe in neither of
liis remedies. Unconstitutional sets of
legislative bodies, either Federal or State,
are not laws; they are simply acts, void in
themselves, and require no repeal to be got
rul of. Repeal is applicable only to law
constitutionally enacted—the law and
order remedy for an unconstitutional
act is not a re^xvW of tlie act, bnt an ap
mol to those Judicial tribunals, upon
which devolves the duty of interpreting
and udnpnistaring the laws, and in the
diacharge of whioh duty it is incumbent
on them to deoide all acts passed by the
Legislative Department, without doe au
thority, to be unconstitutional, aud there
fore nttH ami void from the beginning, and
totally inoperative, without any repeal.
It is with this view, therefore, 1 hold
that these claimed amendments, founded
upon nothing but notorious usurpations,
involve not only political questions, in the
usual acceptation of these terms—
(that is, jiopular ouestions for the people
to pomqdur qua decidt* qpon fhe
polls, in the election of mau to hold
office, upon whom they may conic
for action, either its President or mem
bers of Congress)—but judicial questions,
to be de ided by the courts; ami that
proper.
When, there fore, parties are arraigned
ou trial for violations of tlio “ Enforce
ment Acts” of Congress, the wl^ole ques
tion touching the validity of these amend
ments for the one upon which rests the
particular case before the court) will
necessarily come up, if the defeud&nt in
prosecution noes fit to raise it. The act
of Congress on which the indictment Is
founded will first lie produced. Then
the power of Congress to pass this act
must be shown. Thu authority relied
upon for this will, of oourse, be the so-
called amendment. When this is pro
duced, how it .became part of the Con
stitution must be shown, if its validity be
objected to. Inquiry into this question
will not be estopped, as some suppose by
the attachment of the great seal of Btute,
by the Secretary of State, to a certificate
that from the returns in his office of the
action of the several States upon it, it
appears that it was duly adopted by the
number of States required by the Con
stitution. This certificate, as all such in
similar coses, will be primafade evidence
only of the facts certified to, but not
conclusive as to the facts upon issue
joined on them.
The modes and manner in which anew
provision may be incorporated in. the Con
stitution, by way of amendment, are ex
pressly pointed out in the 5th article of
that instrument—whether the acts of
Congress, iu relation to these amend
ments, were iu accordance with the pro
visions af this article of the Constitution,
directing how it may be properly amend
ed, is as much a question for the courts
to inquire into, as any other act of Con
gress. On the question thus presented,
the records themselves will show the
plain, palpable, and undeniable “usurpa
tions, fraud aud perfidy" by which these
so-called amendments nave been, and are
claimed to be rightful ports of the Consti-
tion.
Who cau suppose that any Judge, less
infamous than Jeffries, would hesitate an
instant, in deciding that these measures,
carried by such infamous ucts, form no
pnrt of the Constitution; and that they,
with all other acts of Congress, and parts
of acts, intended to give them force and
effect, as such, are utterly null and void?
The idea that the Judiciary Depart
ment of the Govemme.it is precluded
from inquiring into the acts of the Leg
islature, or Executive Departments,
touching ament’Ments to the Constitu
tion, because these two Departments con
stitute the Political Power of the Govern
ment, in contradistinction to the Jivlicial
Power is one of the worst political here
sies of tho day. This is a European
idea, founded upon European systems of
government, and not at all applicable to
this country or our system of Govern
ment.
With us, in both the State aud Federal
systems, the exercise of Supreme Political
Powers, by delegation, over specified sub
jects, is divided into three oo-equal, co-or
dinate Departments, each being perfectly
independent of the others. These are,
as before stated, the Legislative, the Ex
ecutive and Judiciary Departments. The
Judiciary is no more bound in any case,
coming properly before it in its sphere,
by what Congress, or the President, or
both together, shall declare the Constitu
tion, or any of its amendments, to be,
than the President, or Congress, is bound
in their respective spheres by any decis
ion on such subjects by tbo Judiciary.
Suppose that the present incumbent of
the Executive Chair should, a hi mode
Louis Napoleon, issue a Plebisciium em
bodying another new amendment to the
Constitution, doing away with that clause,
which now guarantees the freedom of the
press, and should call upon the people in
ail the States to adopt or reject it at the
polls by popular vote, to be taken iu a
manner and mode prescribed by himself,
totally variant from the mode and man
nor prescribed by the Constitution, and
suppose, after getting an extorted ratifi
cation of it through the use of bayonets,
he should direct his Secretary of State to
make proclamation, with the great seal
of State attached, that this new amend
ment had been duly ratified, aud was,
therefore, a valid part of the fundamen
tal law of the land !
In such a cose as this, is there a sane
and honest man in the United States, who
would maintain that the courts could not
go behind the great seal, so attached by
what is called the Political Power, and
that they would be estopped by this pow
er from inquiring into the validity of such
an attempted outrage upon the Constitu
tion and tho liberties of the people?
Would suclv a case bo in any way
different either in character or enor
mity, from the ones now under
consideration ? The only difference
is, the cases we are considering
were carried by the open and palpable
usurpations of Congress, while the other
would be carried by like usurpations on
tho part of the Executive. But has the
President any less authority for forcing
any amendment he may desire, and so
revolutionizing the Government, than
Congress had for its most flagitious acts
haying tho same object and offect—the
object and effect of both being the over
throw of the freo institutions of these
States! Would not the certificate and
proclamation of the Secretary of State
have the same force and be entitled to
the sime respect in the one case os in the
other?
I am addressing myself to tho good
sense of “Law ami Order," and want au
answer. Judgo Stephens did say, in his
'•Swayze Speech, ";that “The proclamation
(not acceptance) of a lie docs not make it
the truth*
“Sir," said he, “I know of no power—
either on the earth, or above it, or under
it, that has jurisdiction to proclaim lies!
Nay, air, I know of no power whicii has
jurisdiction to proclaim amendments to
the Constitution. ” And ho was right to
the full exteut of bis meaning, as the
context shows; which was, that there is
no Deportment in this Government whioh
has jurisdiction to proclaim what is or
what is not, a valid amoadment to the
Constitution, so as to estop either of the
other Departments from inquiring into
tho truth of it, or to restrain them by
any such proclamation from inquiring
into the real facts of the oaae. “Law
and Oxder" sqys: “To deny the exist
ence of the he, as an accomplished fact,
if not in itself an untruth, is an untena
ble absurdity," '
But in the case under consideration,
he shonld remember, it is not the exist
ence of fhe He that is denied, it is the ex
istence of the accomplished fact attempted
to be established by the lie! The lie is
fully recognized in alt its hidconsness, in
form and proportion. It is this which is
assailed. What the Coart has got to do,
putatiou upou American character to
suppose, or admit it to be possible, tlitt
twelve intelligent, honest men, selected
from the masses of the people, could be
found in the United States who, under
oath as jurymen, would affirm the validity
of these stupendous frauds against the
liberties of the country? But suppose
that packed juries shall be found base
enough to decide as base Radical Judges
may direct them (as such were found in
the worst days of English history) shall
tho true friends of liberty therefore aban
don the cause of iks rescue and mainte
nance ? Did onr ancestors ever prove
thus recreant to theca ise in titetr days of
trial? Tho people still have toe impeach
ing and other efficient constitutional
Powers in their hands.
A majority of the true frit ids of tho
Constitution in the House of Representa
tives atone will be sufficient to bring about
a complete ratifieatingof oil these wrongs.
But “Law and Order" assumes that a
majority of the Peoples of tho United
State are not now prepared(with the“sweat
of the war” still upon the “brow of the
North”) to pronounce judgment of con
demnation upon these usurpations, by
electing either a President or majority to
tho House upon this direct issue. Upon
what grounds does lie rest the assump
tion? Did he not, in his first letter to
me, say that ‘ four-fifths” of the people
of the United States “are devotedly at
tached to Republican principles and in
stitutions?"
Is it possible that any people, so at
tached to the principles of free institu
tions, can be unprepared, now and at all
times, to pronounce judgment of con
demnation against each usurpations of
popular rights and rights of States as
these so called amendments are based
solely upon?
Upon this point of popular sentiment
in the United States, in regard to the
usurpations upon which these amend
ments rest, I am at direct issne with him.
Is it not notorious that a majority of
tho voters in 18G8 were ready to pro
nounce judgment of condemnation
against them, under the Blair pro
gramme, and wonld have (jone it, if over
three hundred thousand of them had not
been shamefully disfranchised, as they
were, by open and palpable usurpations;
and this, too, even when “the sweat of the
war”wos a good deal less “wiped from tho
brow of the North” than it now is?.
These three hundred and odd thou
sand, then so disfranchised, are now per
mitted to vote.
But even os it was, with this large
number of disfranchised, and with the
desertion of the New York World, which
now leads the “New Departure” move
ment, is it not well known that a
change of less than fifty thousand voters,
distributed in lour of the States
North, where there was no disfranchise
ment, would have changed the result
of that election ? Upon what, therefore,
is all this “ hue and cry” against the
Democratic Platform of 1868, based; ex
cept upon tho clamor of those who
abandoned it, in the hour of its trial ?
How^does “ Law and Order" reach his
hasty conclusion that the Peoples of the
United States are so lost to all sense of
right, justice, principle and truth; and
so utterly degenerate in their apprecia
tion of tho priceless heritage of liberty,
as to be tm-prepared now to pronounce
sentence of condemnation, not only
against these amendments, but their
authors ? Did not Connecticut, a State
which voted against the Democratic can
didates in 18G8, last year denounce these
amendments, and carry the elections upon
tho denunciation ? Did not California,
standing in the same position do the
same thing ? Is not the same true of
Indiana ? All Northern States ? If the
Democracy of Connecticut lost the elec
tion this year was it not becaut 6 they took
after the “New Departure?” Is not
this also true as to the late election in
California ?
What Congressional district in Ohio
was rescued last year from the Radicals
but the Dayton, where Lewis D. Camp
bell defeated Robert C. Schenck,opening
the campaign and continning it with un
sparing denunciation of the usurpations
of the Ruling Dvnasty at Washingtoin,
including the 15w Amendment, so-called,
and charging upoa them de** *ns for the
overthrow of our entire system of Re
publican institutions!
In a word, I ask “Law and Order '
where, in a single instance, since 1868,
have these questions been fairly and
squarely presented by the Democracy,
North or South, has the election been
lost by them ? And is there a single
instance of their cariying an election
where tficy attempted to evade jhem under
the “New Departure” policy, so-calledf
Wherein, then, is tlie “foUy” or “ab
surdity” of the policy I advocate? Where
in is it extreme? How can it possibly be
looked upon as revolutionary?
Long as this letter is, Mr. Editor, I
mu8to.sk your indulgence a little lurther,
while I call the attention of **Liw and
Ordei'" to another one of the “mistakes in
judgment" on my part, referred to jn liis
juu^uitun VSU AiLJ AVLCtKCU IU ju Ills
ttrel letter, aad which I omitted to allude
to iu my other response, but which is of
too much importance to permit to puss
unnoticed in this correspondence. In
this iustuuoe of “mistake in judgment,”
ho oouplcsme with ex-Goveruor Uerschel
V. Johnson.
He says in substance that after the war
wss over Gov. Johnson and myself, occu
pying the position we did, ought to have
accepted the situation, acquiesced ia tho
results of the war, and advised obedience
to the lows and Government of the United
States. If we had token “this course"
with “tho Union men and Douglas De
mocracy of the South," he says “it would
havo restored quiet at home, disarmed
Northern enmity and suspicion, and re
sulted iu a speedy reconstruction, which
wouid have been nnmarred by any op
pressive and unconstitutional legislation
aod policy, wliich now embarrass and iu-
suit the Southern people."
Certainly a very grave charge is hero
laid to a “mistake in judgmeut" on tho
part of myself agd Gov. Johnson ! But
is it sustained by tho facts of the caso ?
Did not I, and Gov. Johnson both, <ic-
cept the littuuion at the dote qf the tear,
with all <f iU remits legitimate nr otherwise?
Did we not accept the abolition of slave
ry i >i good faith and forerer as ono
of those results? Did wo not ad
vise obedience to the Federal Laws?
Were they not universally obeyed
in the State ?' Did not Gov. Johnson
preside over the convention by which tho
ordinauoe of secession was repealed, and
tho obligations of tho State to the Fed
eral Union returned f Was not the State
thereby restored jto her “practical rela
tions to the Union’’—the object for which
Ibe war wss waged by Mr. Lincoln, as ho
is to ingtdrt into the truth of the matter ... . uluvu . u „„„
proclaimed; that is, whether the amend-! asserted ? Were notGov. Johnson and
ment has been proposed and adopted i myself elected to reproaeut the State in
*<* manner and by the authorilg con- the Senate of tho United Stales ? Were
stUuhomUly iippoiated. ’ [ „- e no t both refused our seats ? Was not
. ut is sun! that the Supreme Court—a j the Stato of Georgia, cfler the icar was
majority of whose members are lWdi- j over und aU qf its results accrual and ac-
wl “ decide iupavof of the validity\guiescerl in, refusal sit voice in both
i , , , - , of these “fraudulent amendments," and i houses of Federal Couucil ? Was it not,
com- through Maw amtututamal iinUramenlaldut thofafpre ail appeals to the Court for .after all this, that those most infamous
have 1 there are ample remedies for the peefifor redress will be yarn and useless.
I sots of usurpation were concooted, and