Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

T HE ATLANTA WEEKLY S U N. THE DAILY SUN. Monday October 2 “Mr. Stephen^ and Law Order. 7 77 and Foolish and Mischievous Pro gramme. A correspondent of The Atlanta Daily Son, signing himself “Titus,” whom that paper underwrites as “one of the first men in Georgia,” lays out a programme for the approaching session of tiie Legislature, some port of which we do not except to, but we hope and trust no man in the Legislature will be controlled by the following suggestion: 2. At> a matter of principle, we will not take into consideration the question of eligibility. We be lieve the people of Georgia are pretty well united in their indorsement of Mr. Stephens’ programme, which is to insist upon all of our constitutional rights. We have elected Senators, and they have l>oen wrongfully and unconstitutionally rejected. To send those who have l.cca made eligible—merely because they aro eligible—would be begging the question, aud au admission that Congress has the right to make eligible or ineligible our Itepre«enta- tives and Senator-. It wcnld be a "departure.” It would l»e ’’acquiescing in and accepting” the fraud ulent end illegal rulings of Congress. Let ns be consistent In all thing.’. We should think the fate of North Car otin a and Zebnlon B. Vance would be sufficif nf illustration of the folly and im practicability of the course recoin mend ed. The Democrats of Georgia owe it to themselves and the country to select a good and safe man t"«»r the Senate of the United States, possessing the qualifica tions for a seat in that body. Wo clip the aboTe paragraph from the Macon Telegraph and Mcsscng-rr, of the 28th instant In reply, we have only to say, that wo do not see anything, either “foolish” or “mischievous," in the pro gramme of onr correspondent, “Titus,” so denounced by onr cotemporary of Macon. “ Titos” very distinctly states his po sition to be, as we understand him, that, in the choice of United States Senator, the Democrats in the Legislature should not be controlled by the “disability,” so called, of the 11th Amendment. This “dis ability,” every man in Georgia, calling himself a Democrat, we believe, professes 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 the United States Senate, in passing upon the qualifications of members of that Body; that qualifier tions are fixed in the Constitution; and, as we have said before, any attempt to chango them, by usurpation, is as fla gitiously wicked against the liberties of this country, as to add or take from the sacred text of the Scriptures, would be impiously wicked against the mandates of the Most High 1 Is this position true or not? Who will undertake to gainsay or deny it? Is it “foolish” to proclaim a great vital “Irulh, or “mischievous" to maintain it, by free men, in casting their rotes under the Consti tution” ? How else can liberty and right bo maintained, in a peaceful and Con stitutional way ? Are free men so “foolmh” as voluntarily to surren der their admitted Constitutional rights, and quietly indorse, by their votes a surreptitious deprivation of them, with a view of thereby maintaining them? Coaid anything be more “foolish” in itself, or ruinously “mischievous” to all that is held dear to them, than such a coarse as that? Were not tho liberties of England res cued from Tory administration, after years (f contest over the Middlesex elec tion? The House of Commons had, by usurpation, glaring and foul, fixed a “disability,” so called,upon "Wilkes, whom the people of that district saw fit to ohoose as their member. On account of this “disability,” he was refased his scat. Another election was ordered. Some thought., in this state of things, that it would be belter for the voters to select some other Whig, who would be permitted to take his seat. So did not think Chatham, the greatest Statesman England ever produced. He urged upon the people of Middlesex never, in this way, to yield the right, but to re elect Wilkes—and to continue to do so, “toiics quotics,”—that is, just as often as he should be refused a seat, because of the unconstitutional “disability,” so called. His advice was followed. Wilkes was again, and again elected, and again and again, rejected by the House, until, finally, Luliei-eU, his Tory competi tor, was decided, by a corrupt House, to be entitled to tho seat,on the grounds, that - the votes cast for an “ ineligible ” candi date,were void,arid should not be counted. This last act of infamy, on their part, sealed tho doom of the Tory admin istration. At the next election, "Wilkes was again returned, and with him a ma jority of 1 Yhigs in the House, who paid no regard to thisso-called “disability,” crea ted by usurpation alone. He then took his is eat, land the rightful and consli- tuiional persistence in the case of the voters of Middlesex, in maintaining British liberty at the polls, did more than all other things combined to drive the Tories from power. Was it “ foolish was it “ mischievous ?” Now, in rela tion to tho election of United States Senator, by the next Democratic Legis lature, we say, in conclusion, have no favorite candidate. There are many Democrats in the State, well fitted for tho position, to whom the C-ongres sional “disability,” referred to, does n apply, as well as many to whom does—and, all that wo maintain (and all that “Titus” maintains, as we understand him) is, that, in making the selection, tho Democrats should not, in the slightest degree, bow the knee to Baal, or do homage to the “fraudulent amendment,” so called, by aekiiuvvl-.-dguig, in the stigh(-‘st deg re-. the righf illness of the usurpations on which it rests. Let tbe selection be made en tirety without reference to that iniquitous outrage upon the Constitution. We may say more on this subject here after. 1 his is enough for the present. A. H. S. To Hon. A. H. Stephens : We continue the republication of this correspondence, as 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 Constitutionalist : [From tho Augusta <G».j Constitutionalist, Sept 22.] .€• Yon said on a memorable occasion : “ The Union is not only the life but the soul of these States. It is this that gives them animation, vigor, power, prosperity, great ness, and renown. And from this alone spring our hopes of immortality as a com mon people.” (Speech on the Mexican appropriation bill.) You spoke of the Union as it was then. The great disturb ing element of that Union hits now been removed. What say you of it now ? Is it still the Ife and soul of the States ? If not, why not ? Is it because the 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 speech in which this grand apostrophe to the Union is found. And then, you thought, as late as the date of your Cor ner Stone Speech, that the United States Constitution was defective, and that, while adhering to it in its main features, in the Montgomery C onstitutiou several important amendments had been added which would make a better and wiser government. |You expressed your decided preference for the Confederate Constitution over the United States Constitution 1 Then the real difficulty is, that, in your judgment, the changes made by the 14th and 15th Amendments were made, because violative of the rights of the States and at war with the true Republican theory of the Government. And here you and I, and all the National Democracy, as I understand them, agree fully. Bat, then, these are merely our opinions and con victions; while the opinions and convic tions of the majority are against us, and that majority, unfortunately, makes our laws and controls the Government for the 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 as a part of the brilliant fruits of the war. While you, on the other hand, say No! now, now is the time that we must ask them to reconsider their action, and recall their objectionable policy, as embodied in the two last amendments. ent from that you quote. It is that each We say, if this demand of yours and those wh.o agree with you, must be made, 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 than a humiliating defeat of the Democracy in 1872, and the confer ring perhaps of an indefinite lease of power upon tbe 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 say, is in strict accord with the good old theory and practice of the Jeffersonian Democracy. Let us see. Your position is, that a President must be elected in 1S72 upon the avowed as sumption that the 14th and 15th Amend ments are nullities and no longer to be recognised or obeyed—that after he is installed, having been elected npon this platform, it will • only be necessary for him to announce that he will regard and treat them as null and void, and the Avork will be thus peacefully, but effectu ally accomplished. Never avos non sequi- tur more apparent. You say, and say again, and oftentimes repeat, that Mr. Jefferson so treated the Alien and Sedi tion laws, and that yon are therefore ad vocating a policy sanctioned by the ut terances and action of that truly great statesman! Pardon me, sir, if I say just here, that you usually discriminate more clearly and accurately in the selec tion of your ground and the authorities relied upon to support it. In the first place, the questions are not the same. The Alien and Sedition laws were mere laws—acts of the Legislature. And the question raised by Mr. Jefferson and his party was as to the constitutionality of these laAvs—in other words, were they not in conflict with the Constitution, and Repnblican principles and ideas as incul cated and protected by that instrument? He held that they were, and therefore, in his judgment, null and void. But he never dreamed that he had any right to say that such laws should be disregarded aud ignored, by the courts and tlie people,while they remained unre pealed and nnexpired! On the contrary,he distinctly asserted the right of each co ordinate department of the "Government to construe the Constitution for itself, and to exercise its powers separately and independently of the other two. Hence, he claimed for himself the right, as Pre sident, to release from prison persons who had been imprisoned for violations of laws which had already expired by their own limitation, and which, though dead, were destined to live in execrated memory so long as constitutional liberty should be sacred to the people of the American Republic. Bat did he release them by the mere fiat of an unauthorized edict ? Did he do it in the spirit of au tocratic self-Avill and revolutionary de fiance? Far, far from it. This was not the style of that illustrious man, whom you so frequently quote and canonize, as to justify the inference that he is the sole divinity in the political temple where yon worship. He expressly declares that he did it in pursuance of the pardonin^ power. This power was unquestionably vested in him by the Constitution. The laws bad expired. The public voice of the country had just spoken in unmeasu red condemnation of their constitutionali ty and their polipy._ Yet these unfortu nate men were in jail by virtue of their authority, and there was no way left to the President to give relief and take them out of the durance vile in which they had department is truly independent of the olners, and has an equal right to decide for itself what is the meaning of the Constitution in the cases submitted to its action, and especially when it is to act definitely and without appeal. I will ex plain myself by examples, 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 had subjected certain individuals to its penalties of fine and imprisonment. On coming into office I released these indi viduals dy the roAVEB of FAKDOX com mitted to Executive discretion, which could never be more properly exercised than where citizens were suffering Avitli- out the authority of law, ot, 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 itself what is its duty under the Constitution, without any regard to what 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 yonr 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 declare it null; and the people, by virtue solely of this, his potential ipse dixit, 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. Quoting your own lan guage, uttered in one of your great est speeches, language Avhich made my heart swell with pride as I read it: “I would not turn upon my heel to choose between masters.” I want no one-man power; I shall never recog nize any master but the people, and I aui one of them. It is incumbent upon you to show that Mr. Jefferson ever advo cated such a solecism in government— that ho favored the doctrine of nullifica tion of a living operative Iuav, nay, more, that he would have claimed the right, by his fiat, to annul a part of the organic law itself. Thevery textl have quoted shows he would have the action of each depart ment to be independent of the other in the constitutional construction of the law, and each for the time obeyed and observed in its legitimate sphere—look ing to appropriate remedies from the only appropriate source for the rectification of all errors in judgment, aud perversions of vital principles. Nor does he leave us in doubt as to the proper source, for he emphatically as serts that “independence can be trusted nowhere but Avith the people in mass.— They are inherently independent of all but moral law.” You have recently turned your batteries away from the Ne\v Departurists.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-Avit: the principle of the right of Presidential annulment of the obnoxious 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 as you have lately favored 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, and in their own good time, will do in reference to them Avhat shall be right. "When that time comes, the remedy will be at hand, and it will neither be a new nor a revolutionary one, bat one that has been resorted to in the former history of the Republic, Avithout difficulty, and always successfully, and, it is believed, advantageously. In regard to the ratification of amend ments, it would seem that as to whether the manner or form had been complied \rith 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, in his famous Fort Hill letter, both repudiate the doctrine of judicial interference with questions purely politi cal in their nature. I will quote a few sentences from the letter of the former, as he seems to be an authority of the greatest weight with you. In 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 the reprobated system; and although new matter has been occasionally incorporated into the old, yet the leaven of the old mass seems to assimilate to itself the new; and after twenty years confirmation of the federa ted system by the voice of the nation, we find the Judiciary, on every occasion, still driving ns into consolidation.” In denying the right they usurp of exclu sively “explaining the Constitution,” I go further than you do, if I understood rightly yonr quotation from the Federal ist, of an opinion that “ the Judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other de partments of the Government, but not in relation to the rights of the parties to the compact under which the Judiciary is derived.” If this opinion be sound, then indeed is our Constitution a complete/ek) de se. For intending to establish these depart ments co-ordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one an other, it has given, according to this opinion, to one ot them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one, too, which is unelected by, and independent of the nation. In view of these declarations of his, what would he have said to a pro position for submitting to the Supreme Court of the United States whether amendments, duly proclaimed as having been adopted, Avere in fact adopted and made parts of the National Constitution? strength, and bring defeat, sore defeat, on the friends of true Democracy and constitutional liberty. Bat let ns suppose once more, for the sake of the argument, that you could annul the 15th Amendment; on what principle is it that yon would propose to exclude the negro from the ballot? By property qualification which would also exclude the poor white men? Be not deceived; for though somewhat a younger man than yourself lam an older Democrat; and I tell you the Democracy of this country will never sustain this dogma of aristocratic mould. The 15th Amendment does not give the ballot to the negro. It only declares that he shall not be excluded from the ballot by rea son of his color or his race. Georgia in the exercise of her sovereign will, can still exclude him, but on what other ground besides the inhibited grounds, will sho place his exclusion? The. ques tion is full of difficulty. Let ns not now’ venture upon a new solution of it. In conclusion let me say, you give un due importance to the necessity of mak ing known in the Democratic platform of 1872 our disapprobation of these am endments and their iniquitous corollaries known as the reconstruction laws. The protest of the Southern Democracy is fully upon the record, and 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 grand, harmonious as sault upon the extravagances and corrup tions, the recklessness and stupidity, the selfishness aud sectionalism of the domi nant Radicalfaction now holding high carnival in her consecrated halls, sacred in days gone by as the temples of Repub lican simplicity aud purity, wherein wor shipped the bravest, the truest and the best. The ancient glory and renown of the great old party will be folly achiev ed if the time-honored flag be unfurled in that race, bearing npon its folds, plainly inscribed. “Down with the Radicals! down w r itli the bayonet 1 down Avith the sword 1 Up with the Constitu- ton I up with, olive branch 1 up with Law and Order.” oners he immediately discharged, upo n the grounds that the act of Congress nn' der which they were indicted was “ null He so says in his letter to the nerfectiv Wit *' he ,. exen : ise of j It is apparent that you are not sustained ; gwpcrfe^ly togitiinate fenefaon of par- by Mr. Jefferson in either of yourncsi-l tions as constitutional and rightful rerue- don, which attached to the Chief Execu tive office. And he promptly and right fully exercised it. He would doubtless have done so even had the law been still of force, since his action would have been in harmony with a constitutional privilege conferred upon him. In his letter to Judge Roane, bearing date September 6th, 1819, Mr. Jefferson uses the following language: “My con struction of the Constitution is very cliffer- dies. But suppose you were, what can be said for the policy of your cause at this time? Nothing, absolutely nothing! In the present state of the public mind at tho North concerning these amend ments, it is worse than folly—it is mad ness to suppose that agitation of the question of thek constitutional propriety and legal validity could have any other effect than to unite the whole opposition io Augusta (Ga.) Constitutionalist, 28th - ■ ! - September. Liberty Haul, ) CjraavfordvtlIiE, Georgia, > 26th September, 1871.) To the Editor of the Constitutionalist: My Dear Sib: You will, I trust, con tinue the extension of your courtesy, by allowing me to respond, through your columns, to the second letter of “Law and Order'' addressed to me, which appeared in the 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 stamp of strong convictions on the part of the writer, and evince a disposition to discuss public questions upon their real merits, and in accordance with the principles of true patriotism. It is a pleasure to me to meet one who thus enters the arena in argument upon tbe “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 granted that “Law and Order” has the 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 nn ture and design of the “New Departure’ movement, as I stated in my reply to his first communication, but also quite at fault as to the mode and manner in Avhich propose to get rid of the admitted fraudulent amendments.” On this latter point he seems to bo of opinion that I propose simply to elect a President who holds these amendments to be “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 vengeance 1” says he. Now I beg to say. to him, that he has no clear conception of the principles ad vocated by me for getting rid of these amendments, so-called, if he supposes they could possibly lead to such consc quences. He says, thougli a “younger man” he is an “older Democrat” than I am—this cannot be if by Democrat he means one devoted to the principles of the Jefferson school of politics; for these I took in Avith my mother’s milk; and he hardly imbibed them at an earlier period in life. They constitute the highest prized heritage I received, from both my maternal and paternal ancestry; in them I Avas reared, 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, do maintain, that one mode of relief from their operation is the election of a Presi dent who Avill hold them to be “fraudu lent,” and, therefore, “null and void, in all cases arisimg under them, which may come before him in his official position as Chief Executive ; just as Mr. Jefferson did the “Alien and Sedition Acts.” This will not be by “ Proclamation of annulment,” hut by a simple discharge of prisoners. This, moreover, is only one of many very efficient modes of 'relief against their oppressive operation, advo cated by me. This one is certainly very efficient in affording relief to all who may be put “in durance vile,” under prosecu tions for violations of “enforcement acts,” “Ku-Klux bills” aud the like,based entirely npon their assumed validity. If a President who so holds can be elected, that, I say, is certainly one very efficient aud constitutional mode of get ting rid of their vital power of tyranny. Iu relation to Avhat I have said upon the analogy between this one of the many effective remedies that maybe applied by the people at the p>olls—and the position of the Democracy in 1S00, under the lead of Mr. Jefferson, towards the “Alien and Sedition Acts,” I will here only add, that that analogy, in my judgment, is com plete, notwithstanding all that “Law and Order” has said to the contrary. Mr. Jefferson was elected upon the open declaration of the Democracy that these acts of Congress “ were not'laws,” “but nullities.” It was known that Mr. Jefferson so held them to be. When he came into power ho found many persons in jail, suffering the penalty of an alleged violation of one of them. These pris- and void.” Jtle so says Judge Roane as quoted by “ Law and Order.” The act under which these vic tims of oppression were suffering had not expired so far 03 concerned the penalty imposed on those who had been convict ed for violations of it, and were then in prison under it; nor had it expired so far as related to future prosecutions of any who might be charged AA’ith violations of it, before he came into office. It is Avliolly immaterial whether he called the dis charge a pardon, or designated it by an other name. He justified his action ex pressly upon the ground that the act of Congress under Avhich these prisoners were suffering was, in his judgment, “null and void.” Is not the analogy, therefore, com plete? Would Mr. Jefferson not have acted in tbe same way, if there had been any prosecutions and convictions under the “Alien Act,” which had not expired in any of its provisions? which Avas still upon the Statute Book unrepealed, and Avhich he had declared, in his judgment, was “no law,” “but a nullity?” How 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 Avas, in his opiuion, null, would he not, upon the same prin ciples, have been bound not to allow the execution of a judgment of a subordinate 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 he bound by the decision of the courts as to what was, and what Avas not, constitutional law, in any case. On this poiut Mr. Jefferson held, and rightly held, that under our system of Govern! ment, each of the seA’eral Departments— the Legislative, the Ji .diciary and the Executive—is independent, and that each for itself has the right to decide all con stitutional questions involved in all cases coming before 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 “Law and Ordei',” in speaking of the doctrine that “the Ju diciary is the last resort in relation to the other Departments of the Government, “ &c., 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 another, 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, can “Law and Order” assume tliat Mr. Jefferson “never dreamed1” that 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 in was still on the Statute Book unrepealed, and even though the Supreme Court had held it to be constitutional ? We have Mr. Jefferson’s OAvn words for it that the Judiciary Department has no power to presalbe rules for the government of eith er tho Legislative or Executive Depai-t- 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 he rightly held it. If tho Democracy, therefore, should elect a President iu 1872, who holds the 14th and 15th amendments to be no right ful parts of the Constitution, because they Averie earned by “usurpation and perfidy” (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 and 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 release, or pardon (if that phrase suits better) be the “mere fiat of an unauthor ized edict ?” Would it be an act perform ed “in the spirit of autocratic self-will and revolutionary defiance ?” Is this the “Imperialism withaven- gence” to which the doctrines advocated by me are supposed to lead? If so, I say, well will it be for the 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 iu the case of Marbury and MadisoD, as stated by him in that very letter to Judge Roane, from which “Law and Order” quoted an extract. In the same letter he says that he did not submit a certain treaty to the Senate, because he would not have which I have proposed for geUiZ^, the injurious and hurtful mo lujuiiuuo minim ouerahV^ : these “fraudulent amendments ” he seems not to understand, and I ask the special attention of “L/w, , Order." . no remedy IT He seems to thank that ft/ lor these QjuJ is except repeal or Revolution! TrL^ ron B 3 we differ widely. I believe in neitlJ- 11 ) his remedies. Unconstitutional ac L , legislative bodies, either Federal or Stat are not laws; they are simply ads, toidt\ themselves, and require no repeal to beV rid of. Repeal is applicable only to Off constitutionally enacted—the law order remedy for — ■ ' executed it if the constitutional majority of the Senate had been iu favor of it He also instanced the cases of Duane and Smith, both standing in exactly the same circumstances. Duane was held not to be a citizen by the Supreme Court, Avbile 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, and Mr. Calhoun too, held, as 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 of the parlies to the com pact tinder which the Judiciary is derived. Slicll. for Uaa rirrlif. of n. fttai an unconstitutional act is not a repeal of the act, bnt an, peal to those Judicial tribunals which devolves the duty of interpreting and administering the laws, and in the discharge of which duty it is incumbent on them to decide all ads passed by the Legislative Department, without due au thority, to be unconstitutional, and there* fore null and void from the beginning, and totally inoperative, Avithout any repeal * It is with this view, therefore, I hold that these claimed amendments, founded upon nothing but notorious usurpation involve not only political questions, in tho usual acceptation of these terms— (that is, popular questions for the people to consider and decide upon at the p>oUs, in the election of men to hold office, upon Avlioru they may come for action, either as President or mem bers of Congress)—but judicial questions to be derided.by the courts; aud that through these constitutional instrumentalities there are ample remedies for the rectifica tion of the wrongs intended by them Avithout 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 the instrumentality of the courts. But, as what I have said on this subject may not have been seen by “Law and Order," (and I suppose not, from what he has said) a brief repetition here is deemed proper. " • When, therefore, parties are arraigned on trial for violations of the “Enforce ment Acts” of Congress, the whole ques tion touching the validity of these amend ments (or the one up.on Avhich rests the particular case before the court) will necessarily come up, if tho defendant in prosecution sees fit to raise it. The act of Congress on Avhich the indictment is founded wilt first be produced. Then the power of Congress to pass this act must be shown. The authority relied upon for this will, of course, 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 State, by the Secretary of State, to a certificate that from the returns in his office of tho 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 cases, will be primafacie evidence only of the facts certified tiv but not conclusive as to the facts upon issue joined on them. The modes and manuer in which a new provision may be incorporated in the Con stitution, by Avay of amendment, are ex pressly pointed out in the 5th article of that "instrument—Avhether the acts of Congress, in relation to these amend ments, Avere in accordance Avith the pro visions af this article of the Constitution, directing how it may be properly amend ed, is as much a question for tlie courts to (inquire into, as any other act of Con gress. On the question thus jiresented, the records themselves Avill show the plaiu, palpable, and undeniable “usurpa tions, fraud arid perfidy” by which these so-called amendments have been, and are claimed to be rightful parts of the Consti- tion. Who can suppose that any Judge, less infamous than Jeffries, Avould hesitate an instant, in deciding that these measures, carried by such infamous acts, form no part 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 arid void? The idea that the Judiciary Depart ment of the Government is preduded from inquiring into the acts of the Leg islature, or Executive Departments, touching amendments to the Constitu tion, because these two Departments con stitute the Political Power of the Govern ment, in contradistinction to the Judicial Power is one of the worst political here sies of the 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 and Federal systems, the exercise of Supreme Political Powers, by delegation, over specified sub jects, is divided into three co-equal, co-or dinate Departments, each being perfectly independent of the others. These are, as before stated, the Legislatke, 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, shrill 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 the Judiciary. touch, 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 questions “purely political,” Mr. Jeffer son and Calhoun both held, that the Federal Courts had no jurisdiction but neither of them ever denied that these Courts had jurisdiction! Would over every' question arising under an act of Congress brought before them, in a case made by any citizen affected by it, iu any State of the Union! This was one of the chief objects for which these courts were provided iu the Constitution. This brings us to the'cousideratioa of another one of the numerous remedies Suppose that the present incumbent of the Executive Chair should, a la mode Louis Napoleon, issue a Plebiscilum em bodying another new amendment to the Constitution, doing away with that clause, which noAV guarantees the freedom of tbe press, and should call upon the people in all the States to adopt or reject it at the polls by popular vote, to be taken in a manner and mode prescribed by himself, totally variant from the mode and man ner 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, AA’ith the great seal of State attached, that this new amend ment had been duly ratified, and Avas, therefore, a valid part of the fundamen tal law of the Land ! In such a case as this, is there a sane and honest mau in the United States, who would maintain that the courts could not go behind the great seal, so attached by Avhat 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 the liberties of the people? such a case bo in any way different either in character or enor mity, from tlie ones boav under consideration ? The only difference is, the cases we are considering Avere carried by the open and palpable usurpations of Congress, while the other would be carried by like usurpations on the part of the Executive. But has the