Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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