Newspaper Page Text
4
flf C^<2 C)
IMMSBi
EEV. A. J. KYAN, Editor
AUGUSTA, Ga., MARCH 27, 1869.
W~ ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS AND
BUSINESS LETTERS FOR THE “BAN
NER OF THE SOUTH” SHOULD BE
ADDRESSED TO THE PUBLISHERS -
L. T. BLOME & CO.
REPRESENTATION-
The theory of representation is that as
all the people cannot meet together to
take counsel in affairs of state, they se
lect certain individuals to act for them,
whence the word representative, or he
re-presents another. As will be seen, this
is the same idea as pervades the legal
relation of agency ; and accordingly, we
find the same restrictions imposed on a
representative as on an agent. It is an
old law maxim ll Qui facit per alium
fact* per se” he who acts by another acts
by himself; and, as the principal is bound
by the act of his agent, so the people are
bound by the act of their representative,
the limitation existing in either case, of
course, that the agent or representative
must do nothing that he has not been
duly authorized to do. Where he ex
ceeds the limit of his delegated author!*
ty there his acts cease to be offi
cial, and become merely those of an in
dividual, and bind no one but himself.
Further than this, it is a maxim “delega
tus non delegari potest, 1 ' he to whom a
power is delegated cannot delegate that
power. When you appoint a man your
agent to sell a house he cannot appoint
another man his agent to sell it, and
when you elect a representative to make
laws he cannot elect a third man to be
his representative to exercise that power;
the reason in either case being that it is
your business, and your business cannot
be transacted by another man without
your consent.
With these general principles we ar
rive at a correct apprehension of what re.
presentation is. Some man is to stand
for you, and to stand for you with your
consent. Where your right of choice of
a representative is limited then to the ex
tent of that limitation your consent is
infringed, and the representative ceases to
represent you and represents the power
which prescribes the limitation. Accord
ingly, when the South is not allowed to
choose any one to represent her in
Washington except those who can take the
test oath, or those to whom the Radical
Congress is sufficiently friendly to white
wash them, by an enabling act, into
“loilty,” the right of representation be.
comes a sham, for it is no longer that you
may elect the man you want but the man
we, Congress, want. The distinction may
not have struck the reader but a mo
ment’s reflection will convince him of
its existence, and he will see that, though
the so-called reconstructed States are
said to have representation in Congress,
it is the animating spirit of the Test
Oath that has representation at all.
Thus, in the Senate are twelve persons
calling themselves and spokcu of as
Southern Senators, ten of them alien
vagabonds and two flesh-pot Southerners;
and not one single one of them, on a
fair expression of Southern sentiment,
would have the remotest chance of an elec
tion. In the House are thirteen so-called
Southern members, but one of them that
could possibly be elected on a fair vote
and he, poor creature, is as a sheep be
fore shearers, dumb, and opens not his
mouth.
This Southern representation, then, is
a sham, and fraud, and farce. We have
had men elected who call themselves
Democrats. What bargain they made
to procure admission, whether they
promised to be good boys if you only let
us in, or whether they made any bargain
at all, we know not. But one thing we
do know and that is that though there
was enough in the condition of the
South to tip with fire the tongue of any
man who claimed to represent her, not a
whimper has been heard. Where is the
indiguant eloquence of a brave people
cruelly injured and oppressed ? Where
the weighty logic that would have borne
con vie iion to the North ? Where the
calm and able statement of a country’s
wrongs ? Where the argument, the ex
hortation, the entreaty, the appeal, that it
is a true representative s duty to make in
behalf of a wronged and suffering con
stituency ? Point us to the slander re
buked, the misrepresentation exposed,
the villainy, at least, assailed by those
who stand upon the roll as members
from the South. It cannot be done.
And, therefore, we repeat, is this so
called Southern representation a sham,
and fraud, and farce.
When this reconstruction began it was
said that all it promised, on the fulfill
ment of all its humiliating conditions,
was “the right to vote, side by side with
a Negro, for a test-oath man,” and with the
addition, or for a whitewashed “rebel,”
of as little value as a test-oath man him
self, we re-iterate the language as exactly
applicable to day.
REBELLION
If there is one thing that we really detest
it is misrepresentation. We can stand
abuse and reproach with a good grace, if
only they be founded on facts, or upon
principles and positions which we profess
and hold. Rut to be misrepresented as
a ground work for abuse, is a little more
than human patience ought to be required
to endure. But a few years ago, the
South was engaged in a gigantic war for
independence. It was a war for self
government. It was a war founded
upon a great Catholic principle; just as it
was said that the war for American Inde
pendence was fought upon a preamble
The preamble succeeded, but the principle
failed. The first was a Revolution; the
second was a Rebellion. That is a mis
representation to begin with. The peo
ple of the South had nothing to rebel
against. The States of the Union were,
at that time, free and independent sever,
eignties, so recognized by England at the
Treaty of Peace which followed the war
of ’76, and as such had an undoubted
right to resume the powers and privileges
given conditionally to the General Gov
ernment when the compact of Union was
enteied into. If, therefore, there was
a Rebellion, it was in the act of the
General Government in its attempt to
coerce the seceding States back into the
Union. And misrepresentation began,
then has been continued ever since.
The people of the South have been mis
represented as “disloyal”—hateful word
in a Republic!—and disorganized, law
less, riotous are the adjectives employed
to express our condition. Well, as
misrepresentation has been carried on
upon such an extensive scale with regard
to our down-trodden section, it is not sin
gular that we, one of its humble defend
ers, should be misrepresented also.
We find in a late San Francisco (Cal.)
paper—the Chronicle —a half column of
abuse of the editor of this journal, and
misrepresentation of the principles of the
paper. The sapient editor of the “loyal”
sheet (he is welcome to that cognomen
—it belongs to “subjects” of despotism,
and to victims of tyranny ?) charges us
with advocating “another Rebellion!”
We regret that we have caused him any
alarm. We never dreamed of inaugurat
ing another war. One was quite suffi
cient. It developed too many weak-kneed
politicians and traitorous office-seekers, to
leave any hope of a more successful at
tempt. We haven’t got the resources
nor energy now that we had then; and to
attempt such a thing would be insanity
itself —to advise it, more than criminal.
We did say to the men of the North to
beware —that the day of retribution
would come for them; and we repeat the
Mill! ©I TEffiS !©IfI,
warning to them now; but it is not com
ing in the shape of a “Southern Rebel
lion it is coming iu the shape of an
uprising of the whole people, North and
South, who revere the principles of 76
cemented in the blood of ’6l; unless, un
happily for them, tyranny has become too
powerful to be resisted, treason and cor
ruption too strong to be rooted out ol the
high places. That is “the rebellion” that
is coming; and we repeat now as we said
before, “wo unto you, men of the North
and traitors of the South, when it does
come!”
If our California cotemporary and his
“loyal” brethren want “peace,” it is
within their grasp. Let them “let us
alone.” That is all we ask. We care
not for their love or their kindness.
We only ask to be let alone—and to be
allowed to work out, ourselves, the prob
lem of Southern industry and Southern
prosperity. If the stranger wishes to
come with his capital, or his labor, to aid
us in this work we shall gladly and cor.
dially welcome him here; but deliver us
from Radical politicians and Yankee
carpet-baggers! This is a very easy and
sensible policy, and the only policy which
will unite the sections in peace and har
mony, and save the Government to the
Constitution and Liberty. We don’t want
War. Our mission is Peace. We don’t
want rebellion. We despised the Gener
al Government for rebelling against the
great principles of its illustrious founders
and defenders. We don’t want ruin and
starvation. Our wish is to see prosperi
ty, peace avid happiness. Why, then, gar
ble extracts from the editorials of the
Banner, and make us say what we never
meant to say ? It is done for effect. It is
a part of the Radical programme. Misre
presentation, abuse, and falsehood, are
the weapons which are ever used by the
enemies of Religion, of Liberty, and of
Truth. They are potent with the igno
rant and the bigotted; but in the end
their potency becomes weakened and their
efficacy effectually destroyed. So let us
hope that these misrepresentations will
cease to have any effect on the public
mind of the North, and that we shall
have a real and lasting peace and pros
perity. In the meantime, we sincerely
hope that our Pacific brother will calm
his agitation and become more pacific in
his temper and tone; while wc shall con
tinue to defend tiie principles of “the
great Rebellion” of 1861, and to cherish
the memories of those who fell in defence
of the “Lost Cause.”
AN ANDEPENDENT STATE,
Gov. Bullock, of Georgia, signs him
self, “Governor of Georgia and Conr
mander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy
together with the Militiathereof.” Really,
this is a high-sounding title, and we could
almost believe that it belonged to the
mighty potentate of some sovereign, in
dependent, State. But where is its sov
ereignty ?—where its independence ? echo
well might answer, where? Alasl its
“army” is scattered to the winds of heav
en: some lie bleeehing on the hills and
in the valleys of Virginia, Tennessee,
Mississippi, and the hundred battle fields
of the South; others about the loathsome
dungeons of the North. Alas! its Navy
is gone. The vessels which once so gal
lantly faced the enemy have sunk beneath
the waves of the sea, while many of its
heroes, like those of the army, have
“walked beyond the stars.” Numbers
of the noble spirits of that Army and
Navy still live to cherish the glories of
these two services; but the Governor of
Georgia is not their Commander-in-
Chief. That title is now a high-sounding
but an empty one. That Army and Navy
which lie commands is a myth, unless it
be the army of office-seekers and discon*
tented politicians who are seeking to
throw the State back under the rule of
the bayonet and the law of the sword. If
Gov. Bullock be the Commander of
these, we say to him, in all kindness,
command them “to stand at ease; ’ to
forbear their wicked efforts to destroy
the liberties of the people ; to stay their
incendiary hands from further violence ;
and then he will have an Anny of friends
and a Navy of prosperous commerce that
will make him feel proud of his title as
the Governor of an independent and
sovereign State.
THE WORSHIP OF IMAGES.
The following are the teachings of
the Catholic Church in regard to Reli
gious Memorials and the Worship of
Images—misrepresentation to the con
trary notwithstanding:
“The images of Christ, of the Virgin
Mother of God, and of the other Saints
are to be kept and retained, particularly
in the Churches, and due honor and ven
eration is to be paid them ,not that we be
lieve there is any power or divinity in
them, for which we respect them, or that
anything is to be asked of them, or that
trust is to be placed in them, as the
heathens of old trusted in their idols.”
Sess. xxv.
“Question —May we pray to relies of
images?
“Answer—No; by no means; for they
j have no life or sense to hear or help us.”
Catholic Catechism.
“Cursed is he that commits idolatry ;
that prays to images or relief or wor
ships them for God.”— Gather aud Chal
loner, in “Papist Misrepresented and
Represented. ’ ’
•‘From the body of St. Paul were breught
unto the sick handkerchiefs and aprons,
and the diseases departed from them.”—
Acts xix, 12.
“When the dead man was let down and
touched the bones of Elisha he revived
and stood upon his feet.”—2 King, xiii,
21.
“We must lay it down as a principle
that images are to be reckoned among
the adiophora which do not belong to the
substance of religion, and which the
Church may retain or take away, as she
best judges.”— Petaorus, L.xv., de Incar.
“It, in any place, there is danger of
real idolatry or superstition from pictures
they ought to be removed by the Pastor.”
Dr. Howarden, of Images, p. 353; also
Delphinus.
“I invoke the Apostles, Prophets, and
Martyrs to pray tor me that God may be
merciful to me, and forgive me my sins.
I honor and reverence their images, since
these things have been ordained by tradi
tion from the Apostles and are practiced
in all our Churches." — St. Basil (called
the Bight of the Fourth Century.)
Epist. 205, T. iii. edit, Paris.
For use of pictures, and images in the
Churches, sign of the Cross, etc., see,
also, Tertullian, Eusebius, Zozomeu,
St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Augustin, St.
Chrysostom, and other Fathers and his
torians of the Church.
“In a word, the end for which pious
pictures and images are made and retain
ed by Catholics is the same for which
pictures and images are made and re
tained by mankind in general, to put us
in mind of the persons and things they
represent.”— Dr. Milner , in his “End of
Controversy
[Note. —Martin Luther, the Reformer,
defended the use of crosses and images
against Carlestatius and his agents. In
the title pages of Melancthon’s volumes
Luther is represented as on his knees be
fore a Crucifix. Queen Elizabeth per
sisted for a long time in having one on
the altar of the Chapel, and James I. re
buked the Scotch Bishops severely when
they objected to his placing statues and
p’etures in his Chapel at Edinburgh.]
A CONVENTION OF The STATES
In the N. Y. World , of the sth inst.,
appears, with an editorial endorsement
of its substance, a communication urging
as the only means of settling the vexed
political questions of the day, the Con
stitutional agency of a Federal Conven
tion. The grim satire with which the
writer makes it evident that, after all
the loud talk of Radicalism, it is left for
a Democrat to propose the expungement
from the Constitution of the now obso
lete provisions about the slave trade and
fugitives slaves, will be noted, and the
entire communication is worth a perusal.
It is as follows :
To the Editor oj the World :
Sir: It has been frequently objected
to the Democratic party that while it
opposes everything it proposes nothing,
and that in particular it insists that the
Constitution of the United States shall
remain as unaltered as though there had
been no great public occurrences of late
years to demand or justify a change It
does not occur to me that this is a correct
statement of the case. It is true that
the Democratic party holds, in the J an
guage of the Declaration of Indepen'
dence, that it is the dictate of prudent
“that governments long established
should not be changed for light and tran
sient causesbut while so holding
is by no means a servile laudator
pori< acti, and, on fit occasion, has al
ways been ready in the name and on be.
half of the people, “to provide new
guards for their future security.”
In this spirit it is then, I think, now
incumbent on the Democratic party to
stand forth and, in view of the necessi
ties superinduced iu our political system
by late events, propose certain amend
ments to the Constitution of the United
States. Looking at that instrument it
is undeniable that there are matters'll
it which require attention. In the pro
cess of time certain portions oncefiei\e’y
debated have become inofficious and
fraught with memories of fraternal c;>
mity, should be removed; other portions
there are that in the course of operation
hive developed grave defects which
should be remedied; and still others are
of such doubtful construction as to re
quire a final and authoritative declaration
as to their true intent and meaning. f a .
king these in order, we find
I. Footprints of slavery to be remov
ed.
11. Excessive powers to be restrained
111. Doubtful powers to be defined.
FOOTPRINTS OF SLAVERY.
Singularly enough, among the many
proposed amendments to the Constitution
emanating from the party in power there
has never been one suggested to extirpate
the footprints of slavery from that in
strument. To this day, thongh that par
ty has been eight years in control of
Congress; and in all those eight years its
ranks have rung with the bitterest de
nunciations of human bondage, there
has never been even one voice raised in
favor of removing from the Constitution
that provision which in its day and <>enc
ration permitted the most aggravated
form of servitude—the African slave
trade ! When, on the 11th day of
March, 1861, a certain convocation of
deputies from divers of the Southern
States met in Montgomery, Alabama,
and then and there adopted an instru
ment known as the Constitution of the
Confederate States of America, there
was inserted in that instrument, bv
unanimous vote of the deputies present, a
provision declaring that “The importa
tion of negroes of the African race, from
any foreign country other than the
slaveholdicg States or Territories of the
United States of America, is hereby for
bidden, and Congress is required to pass
such laws as shall effectually prevent the
same;” and yet that trade, thus forbid
den in this republic, based on slavery as
its corner-stone, in the very hour of its
birth, has been allowed, unchallenged,
to maintain its permissive footprints in
the Constitution of the United States up
to this very present hour.
More than this, there yet remains in
the Federal Constitution that provision
which enacts the rendition of fugitive
■laves, and no To:C3 has ever been raised
from the party in power for its excision
Still further, there lingers the constitu
tional guarantee of the slave trade, and
not an amendment has ever been put
forth to strike it out. These things,
then, are the footprints of slavery. They
tell us of bloodshed, of hate, and of an
guish, of 3 r ears of embittered debate that
culminated at the last in battle, aril
should now be blotted out of remem
brance in our fundamental law.
EXCESSIVE POWERS.
In considering the powers ol Congress,
it is not a little surprising to see how
widely they differ in theory and practice,
The theory is that as all the people can
not meet in one place to make laws,
they delegate that power to certain per
sons, thence called representatives; and
therefore, what the representatives M
the people do. Practically, the twe
Houses make wild work with this theory.
It would be deemed a very grievou
hardship if one-fourth of the p ec T'
could at any given election vote
everybody else’s money, and yet tlup 1!1
effect, is what is done every day in
gress under that evil of excessive p '
ers in the Constitution of which I
speak. Save for certain specified p
poses, it is provided that a majorn.-
each House “shall constitute au * ■
to do business,” but as a inajcif}
quorum can exercise any of
excepted powers it will be at once
that so far a majority of a majonO
real House. Now the power m ,l fj .
priating money being one of
can be exercised in a quorum et
how small a proportion of either o
may draw ad lib. on the pm ik
In the Senate are sixty-six
majority, or thirty-four, is ij 4 uU
do business;” a majority °f Tlc '1 ,
or eighteen, vote to appropi roe
bill passes. Now let us loot -
