Newspaper Page Text
2 ,
THE GEORGIA WEEKLY TELEGRAPH
RECONSTRUCTION.
Minority Report of the Committee ol Fif
teen.
' The Relations of the States to the Unlon-Tlie
Nature ol the Federal Government—All the
States, Old and New, Equal—No 8tate can Com
mit or be Indicted lor a Crime—The Decisions
of Jndge Sprague and Judge Nelson—Congress
has Nothing to do with the States alter they arc
once Admitted—The Importance of the South
ern Staple—The Question of Danger to the Un
ion from Southern Representation Discussed—
Official Declarations of Congress Cited.
. INTRODUCTION.
The undersigned, a minority of tlic joint
committee of the Senate and House of Rep
resentatives, constituted under the concur
rent resolution of the 18th of December,
1865, making it their duty to “inquire into
the condition of the States which formed the
so-called Confederate States of America, and
to report whether they or any of them are
entitled to be represented in cither House of
Congress, with leave to report by bill or oth
erwise," not being able to concur in the mea
sures recommended by the majority, or in the
{ (rounds upon which they base them, beg
cave to report: .
THE EFFECT OF THE LATE INSURRECTION IT-
. ON THE RELATIONS OF THE STATES.
In order to obtain a correct apprehension
of the subject, and ns having a direct bear
ing upon it, the undersigned think it all-im
portant clearly to ascertain what was the ef-
lect of the lato insurrection upon the rela
tions of the States where it prevailed to the
General Government, and of the people col
lectively and individually of such States.—
To this inquiry they therefore first address
themselves.
First as to the States. Did the insurrection
at its •commencement, or at any subsequent
timaSegally dissolve the connection between
those States and the general Government'
In • our judgment, so far from this being a
r fitlcss abstraction,"fit is a vital inquiry.
if that connection was not disturbed,
such States during the entire rebellion were
as completely component States of the United
States as they were before the rebellion, and
Were bound by ait the obligations which the
Constitution imposed, -and entitled to all its
privileges. Was not this their condition ?
The opposite view alone can justify the
denial of such rights and privileges. That
a State of the Union can exist without pos-
•sessing them is inconsistent witli the very
nature of the Government and tefnn- of the
Constitution. In its nature the Government
is formed of and by States possessing equal
lights and powers. States unequal are un
known to the Constitution. In its original
formation perfect equality was secured. They
were granted the same representation in the
Senate, and the same right to be represented
in the House of Representatives—the differ
ence in the lntter being regulated only by a
difference in population. But every State,
however small Its population, was secured one
representative an that branch. Each State
was given the -right, and the same right, to
participate in the election of President and
Vice President, anti to all alike was secured
the benefit of the judicial department The
Constitution, too, was submitted to the peo
ple of each State separately, anti adopted by
them in that capacity. The convention
which framed -it, considered, as they were
bound to do, each as a separate sovereignty
that could not 1>e subjected to t lie Constitu
tion, except by its consent.
That consent was consequently asked and
given. The equality, therefore, of rights
was the condition of the original thirteen
States before the Government was formed,
and such equality was not only net inter-
ferred with, but guaranteed to :iiem as well
in regard to the powers conferred upon tbe
General Government ns to those reserved to
the States or to the people of tb-i States.
The same equality is secured to the States
which hare been admitted into the Union
since the Constitution was adopted. In each
instance the State admitted h is been “de
clared to be -one of the United States on an
equal footing with the original States in ail
respects whatever.”
The Constitution, too, so far as most of the
powers it contains arc concerned, operates
directly upon the people in their individual
and aggregate capacity, and on all alike.—
Each citizen, -therefore, of every State owes
the same allegiance to the Gene ral Govern
ment, and is entitled to tbe same protection.
The obligation, of this allegiance it is not
within the legal power of his State or of lain
self to annul or evade. It is made para
mount and perpetual, and for that vety ren
son it is equally the paramount duty of the
General Government to allow to the citizens
of each State and‘to the State the rights se
cured to both, and the protection necessary to
their full enjoyment A citizen may, no
doubt, forfeit such rights by committing
crime against the United States, upon con
vicrion of the some, where such forfeiture by
law, antecedently passed, is made a part of
the punishment. But a State cannot, in its
corporate capacity, lie made liable to such a
forfeiture; fora State, as such, under the
Constitution, cannot commit or be indicted
for a crime. No legal proceeding, criminal
or civil, can lie instituted to deprive a State
of the benefits of the Constitution by forfeit
ing as against her any of the rights it secures.
Her citizens, be they few or many, may be
proceeded against under the law* and con
victed but the State remains a State of the
Union. To concede that by the illegal con
duct of her own citizens she can bo with
drawn from the Union is virtually to con
cede the right of secession; for what differ
ence does it make as regards the result,
whether a State can rightfully secede, (a
doctrine by-thc-ky heretofore maintained by
statesmen North ns well as South,) or wbeth
cr, by the illegal conduct of her citizens, she
ceases to be a State of the Union ?
In either case the end is the some; the on
ly difference is, that by tbe one theory she
ceases by law to besueh a State,and by the oth
er by crime,without and against law. But the
doctrine is wholly erroneous. A State onoe
in the Union must abide in it forever. She
can never withdraw from or be expelled from
it A different principle would subject the
Union to dissolution.at any moment. It is
therefore alike perilous and unsound.
Nor do we ice that it has any support in the
measures recommended by the majority of
the committee. The insurrectionary States
are by these measures conceded to lie States
of the Union. The proposed constitutional
amendment is to be submitted to them os
well os to other States. In this respect each
is placed on the same ground. To consult a
State not in the Union on the propriety of
adopting a constitutional amendment to tlic
Government of the Union and which is neces
sarily to affect those States only composing
the Union,would be an absurdity; and to al
low an amendment which States in the Union
might desire to be defeated, by the votes of
States not in the Union, would be alike non
sensical and unjust The very measure, there
fore, of submitting to all the States forming
tlic Union before tbe insurrection a consti
tutional amendment, makes the inquiry
whether all at this time are in or out of the
Union a vital one. If they are not, nil should
not be consulted. If they are, they should
be only because they are. The vent fact,
therefore, for such a submission concedes that
the Southern States are, and never ceased to
be, States of the Union.
THE CONCLUSION UPON THIS POINT.
Tested, tlierefore, either by the nature of
our Government or by the laws of the Con
stitution, the insurrection, now happily and
utterly suppressed, has in no respect changed
the relations ot the States when: it prevailed
to th« General Government On the contra
ry, they arc to all intents and purposes as
completely States of the Union as they ever
were. In further support of this proposition,
if it needed any, we may confidently appeal
to the fact just stated, that the very measure
recommended, a constitutional amendment to
be submitted to such States, furnishes such
support. For looking to and regarding the
rights of the other States, such a submission
lias no warrant or foundation except upon
the hypothesis that they are as absolutely
States.of the Union as are tlic oti.cr.States. It
can never be under any circumstances a
“profitless ^fraction," whether under the
Constitution a State is or is not a Statu of the
Jnion. It car never be such an attraction
• -ther th-- < a J-'v b.- o.:c. -n the
Union can voluntarily or by compulsion accept
or be forced from the obligations it enjoins,
or be deprived of the rights it confers or the
protection it affords.
A different doctrine necessarily leads to
dissolution of the Union. The Constitution
supposes that insurrections may exist in
State, and provides for their suppression by
giving Congress tbe power to call “forth the.
militia" for the purpose. The power is not
to subjugate the State within whoselimitstbe
insurrection may prevail, and to extinguish
it as a State, but to preserve it as such by
subduing the rebellion, by acting on the indi
vidual persons engaged in it, and not on the
State at nil. The power is altogether conser
vative. It is to protect a State, not to de
stroy it; to prevent her being taken out of
the Union by individual crime; not in any
contingency to put her out or keep her out.
The continuance of the Union of the States
is necessary to tlic intended existence of the
Government The Government is formed by
a constitutional association of States, and its
integrity depends on the continuance of the
entire association. If one State is withdrawn
from it by any cause, to that extent is the
union dissolved. Those that remain may ex
ist us a government, but it is not the very go
vernment the Constitution designs. That
consists of all, and its character is changed
and its power is diminished by the absenoe
of any one.
AVXIAT THE OTTOS ITE DOCTRINE LEADS TO.
A different principle leads to a disin tegra
tion that mutt sooner or later result in the
separation of all, and the consequent destruc
tion ot the Government. To suppose that
{lower to preserve may at the option of the
body to which it is given Ijc used to destroy,is
a proposition repugnant to common sense,
cud yet as the late insurrection was put down
by means of that power, that being the only
one conferred upon Congress to that-end, that
proposition is the one on which alone it can
be,pretended that the Southern States are not
in the Union now as well as at the first. The
idea that the war power, as ^uch, has been
used, or could have been used, to extiuguisli
the rebellion is, in the judgment of the uu
dersigned, utterly without foundation. That
power was given*for a different contingency
of aconflict with other governments—an in
ternational conflict. If it had been thought
that the power was to be resorted to to sup
press a domestic strife, the words appropriate
to that object would have been used. But
so far from this having been done, in the
Mine section that confers it, an express pro vi
sion is inserted to meet the exigency of a do
mestic strife or insurrection.
To subdue that, authority is given to call
out the militia. Whether in the progress of
the effort to suppress on insurrection the
rights incident to war as between tlic United
States and foreign nations may not arise, is a
question which in no way changes the char
acter of the contest as between the Govern
ment and the insurrectionists. The exercise
of such rights may be found convenient or
become neoessary for the suppression of the
rebellion, but the character of the conflict is
in no way changed by a resort to-tbem. That
remains us at first, and must, from-its very na
ture, during its continuance, remain a mere
contest, in which the Government seeks, and
can only seek, to put on cud to the rebellion.
That achieved the original condition of things
is at once restored.
TWO JUDICIAL DECISIONS REFERRED TO.
Two judicial decisions have been made by
judges of eminent and unquestioned ability,
iwkicli fully sustain our views. In one—that
of Amy Warbick, before the United States
District Court of Massachusetts — Judge
Sprague, referring to the supposed effect of
the belligerent rights which, it was conceded,
belonged to die Government daring the re
bellion, by giving, when suppressed, the
rights of conquest, declared:
‘It has been supposed that if the Govern
ment have the right ot a belligerent, then,
after the rebellion is suppressed,^ will have
the right of conquest. That a State and its
inhabitants may be permanently-divested of
all political advantages,and treated as foreign
territory conquered by nrms. This is an error
—a grave and dangerous error. (Belligerent
rights cannot be exercised where there arc no
belligerents. Conquest of a foreign country
gives absolute, unlimited sovereign rights,
but no nation ever makes such a conquest ot
its own territory. If a hostile power, cither
from without or*within, takes and holds poss
ession and dominion over any portion of its
territory, and the nation, by force of arms,
expels or overthrows the enemy* and suppres
ses hostilities, it acquires no new title, and
merely regains the possession of that of which
it has been temporarily deprived. The na
tion acquires no new sovereignty, (but merely
maintains its previous rights.
“When the United States take possession
of a rebel district, they merely vindicate their
pre-existing title. Under despotic govern
ments confiscation may be unlimited, but un
der our Government the right of -sovereignty
over any portion of a State is given and limit
ed by the Constitution, and will be the same
after the war os it was before.”
In the other an application for Jtabea* cor
pus to Air. Justice Nelson, one of the Judges
of the Supreme Court of the United States,
by James Egan, to be discharged from an im-
irisonmcnt to which he had been sentenced
y a military commission in South Carolina,
for the offence of murder alleged to have been
committed in that State, and the discharge
was ordered, in an opinion evidently
carefully prepared, among other tilings, said
“For all that appears, the civil local courts of
the State of South Carolina were in the full
exercise of their judicial functions at the time
of this trial, os restored by tbe suppression of
tbe rebellion some seven months previously,
and by the revival of the laws and the rcor
ganization of the State iu obedience to and in
conformity with its constitutional duties to
the Union. Indeed, long previous to this, the
provisional government had been appointed
by tbe President, who is commander-in-chief
of the army and navy of the United States,
(and whose will under martial law constituted
the only rule ol action,) for the special pur
pose of changing the existing state of thin;
and restoring the civil government over t
people. In operation of this appointment, a
new constitution bad been formed, agoveraor
and legislature elected under it, and tne
State placed in the full enjoyment of all her
constitutional rights and privileges. The
constitutional laws of the Union were thereby
enjoyed and obeyed, and were as authorita
tive and funding over the people ot tbe State
as in any other portion of the country. In
deed, the moment the rebellion was sup
pressed, and the Government growing out of
it subverted, the ancient laws resumed their
accustomed sway, subject only to tlic neiv re
organization by the appointment of the prop
er officers to give them operation and.effect”
This organization and appointment of the
public functionaries, which was under the
superintendence and direction of the Presi
dent, the commander-in-chicf of the army and
navy of the countiy, and who, os such, had
previously governed the State, from impera
tive necessity, by the force of martial law,
had already taken place, and the necessity no
longer existed.
This opinion is the more authoritative
than it might possibly be esteemed otherwise,
from its being the first elaborate statement of
tho reasons which governed the majority of
the Supreme Court, at the lost term, in their
judgment in the case of Milligan and others,
that military commissions lor tho trial of
civilians are not constitutional. 3Ir. Justice
Nelson was one of that majority, and, of
course, was advised of the grounds of their
decision. We submit that nothing could be
more conclusive in favor of the doctrine for
which slicy arc cited than these judgments.
In the one, the proposition of conquest of a
State as a right under the war to suppress
the insurrection is not only repudiated by
Judge Sprague, but because of the nature of
our Government is considered to be legally
impossible. “The right of sovereignty oTer
any portion of a State will,” he tells us, “only
be the same after the War as it was before.”
In tbe other, we are told “that the suppres
sion of the rebellion restores the courts of the
State, and that when her government is re
organized she at once is in the full enjoy
ment, or entitled to the full enjoyment, of all
her consti: .:tlnna’ rights and privileges.”
THE RECIPROCAL OBLIGATIONS OF THE GOV
ERNMENT AND THE CITIZEN.
Again, a contrary doctrine is consistent
with tbe obligations which the Government
is under to each citizen of a State. Protec
tion not only us against a foreign but domes
tic foe. To hold that it is the power of any
part of the people of a State, whether they
constitute a majority or minority, by engag
ing in insurrection and adopting any measure
in its prosecution to make citizens who are
engaged it, but opposed to it, enemies of the
United States, having no. right to the protec
tion which the Constitution affords to citi
zens who are true to their allegiance, is as il
legal as it would be flagrantly unjust Du
ring the conflict the exigency ot the strife
may justify a denial of such protection, and
subject the unoffending citizen to inconven
ience and loss; but the conflict over, the ex
igency ceases, and the- obligation to afford
him ail the immunities and advantages of the
Constitution—one of which is the right to lie
represented in Congress—becomes absolute
and imperative. A different rule would ena
ble the Government to escape a clear duty,
and to commit a gross violation of the Con
stitution. It has been said that the Supreme
Court have entertained a different doctrine
in the prize cases. This, in the judgment of
the undersigned, is a clear misapprehen
sion. One of the questions in those
cases was, whether, in such a contest as was
being waged for the extinguishment ot tbe
insurrection, lielligerent rights, as between tlic
United States and other nations, belonged to
the former. The court properly held that
they did, but the parties engaged in the re
bellion were designated us traitors, and liable
to be tried as traitors when the rebellion
should terminate. If the Confederate States,
by force of insurrection, became foreign
States, and lost their character as States of the
Union, then the contest was an international
one, and treason was no more committed by
citizens of the former against the latter thug,
those of the latter against the former. Treas
on necessarily assumes allegiance to the Gov
ernment, and allegiance necessarily assumes a
continuing obligation to the Government—
Neither predicament was true except
upon the hypothesis that the old state
of things continued; in other words,
that the States,! notwithstanding the insur
rection, were continuously and are now States
of the United States, and their citizens res
ponsible to the Constitution and the laws.—
Second, lyhat is there, then, in the present
political condition of such States that justi
fies their exclusion from representation in
Congress ? It is because they are without or
ganized governments, or without governments
republican in point of form. In fact, wc
know that they have governments complete
ly organized, with legislative, executive and
judicial functions. We know that they arc
uow in successful operation. No one within
their limits questions their loyalty, or is de
nied their protection. How they were formed
under what auspices they were formed, are
inquiries with which Congress has no con
cern. The right of the people of a State to
form a government for themselves has never
been questioned. In tlic absence of any res
triction that right would be absolute, any
form might be adopted that they might de
termine upon.
BUT ONE CONDITION OF ADMISSION.
The Constitution imposes but a single re
striction, tbat the government adopted shall
shall be “of a republican form.” and this is
done in the obligation to guarantee every
State such a form. It gives no power to frame
acoastitution for a State. It operates alone
upon one already formed by the State. In
the words of the Federalist, [No. 34,] “it sup
poses a pre-existing government of the form
hick is to be guaranteed.”
It is not pretended that the existing gov
ernments of the State in question arc not of
the required form. The objection is that
they were not legally established. But it is
confidently submitted that that is a matter
with which Congress has nothing to do. The
power to establish or modify a State govern
ment belongs exclusively to the people of the
State. Wlien they shall exercise it, what pro
visions it shall contain, it is their exclusive
right to decide, and when decided their deci
sion is obligatory upon everybody, and inde
pendent of all Congressional control, if such
government lie republican. To convert au
obligation of guarantee into an authority to
interfere in any way in tlic formation of the
government to be guaranteed is to do vio
lence to language. If it is to be said that the
President did illegally interfere in tbe reor
ganization of such governments, the answers
are obvious. First. If it was true, if the peo
ple of such States not only have not, but do
not complain of it, but, on the contrary, have
pursued his advice, ami arc satisfied with and
are living under the governments they have
adopted, and those governments are republi
can in form, what right has Congress to inter
fere or deny their legal existence i Second.
Conceding, for argument’s sake, that the Pre
sident's alleged interference was unauthor
ized, docs it not, for the sanqw reason, follow
that any like interference by'Congress wonkl
be equally unauthorized ? A different view
is not to be maintained, because of the differ
ence in tlic nature of the powers conferred
upon Congress and the President—the one
being legislative and the other executive; for
it is equally and upon the same ground be
yond the scope of either to form a govern
ment for the people of a State once in the
Union, or to expel such a State from the
Union, or to deny, temporarily or perma
nently, the rights which belong to a State
and her people under the Constitution.
HOW CONGRESS LOSES CONTROL OVER THE
STATES.
Congress may admit new States, but a State
once admitted ceases to be under its control,
and can never again bo brought within it.—
What changes her people may at any time
think proper to make in her constitution is
a matter in which neither Congress nor any
department of the Government can interfere
unless suob changes make the State Govern
ment anti-republican, and then it can only be
done under the obligation to guarantee tbat
it be republican. Whatever may be the ex
tant of the power conferred upon Congress in
the third section, article 4, of the Constitu
tion, to admit new States, iu what manner
and to what extent they can under that pow
er interfere in the formation and character of
the constitution of such States preliminary to
admission into the Union, no one has ever
retended that when that is had the
tate can again be brought witliin its
influence. The power is exhausted when
once extended, the subject forthwith
raising out of its reach. The States ad
mitted, like the original thirteen States,
become at once and forever independent of
congressional control. A different view
would change tbe entire character of the
Government,*as its framers and their cotem
poraries designed and understood it to be.—
They never intended to make tbe State gov
ernments subordinate to tbe General Govern
ment Each was to move supreme within its
own orbit, but os each would not alone have
met tlic exigencies of a government adequate
to all the wants of the people, the two, in the
language of Mr. Jefferson, constituted “co
ordinate departments of one single and in
tegral whole,” the one having the power of
legislation and the administration “in affairs
which conbcrned their own citizens only;” the
other, “whatever concerned foreigners or citi
zens of other States.” Within their respective
limits each is paramount. The States os to
all {lowers not delegated to the General Gov
ernment are as independent of that Govern
ment as the latter in regard to all {lowers that
are delegated to it is independent of the gov
ernments of tho States. The proposition,
then, that Congress can, by force or otherwise,
under the war, or insnrrcctionaiy, or any
other power, expel a State from the Union or
reduce it to a territorial condition, and govern
it as such, is utterly without foundation.—
The undersigned deem it unnecessary to ex
amine the question further. Tiny 'leave it
upon the observations submitted, considering
it perfectly clear that States, notwithstanding
occurring insurrections, continue to be States
of the Uni> :.
Thirdly. !t tin; ;s so, it necessarily fol
lows that' tuc lights of States under theCon-
executive and judicial departments of the
Government. By each of these departments
they are recognized as States. By the one,
all officers of the Government r< quifed by law
to be appointed in such States have been ap
pointed, and are discharging without ques
tion their respective functions. By the other
they are, as States, enjoying the benefit, and
subjected to the powers of that detriment,
a fact conclusive to sliouuAliit..'*(*®i estima
tion of tbe judicial' 1 ’" He died onffihey were
ofl first, States of *lnU our tel- rajid by the
iiRvs of, the Union, a., I Aled to all,
the rights incident to tlir lu -tion. And
yet, so far, they are denied tliu. -*ight which
ilie Constitution properly esteems as the
security cf all the others—that"right, without
which government is anything but a repnb
lie—is, indeed, but a tyranny—the fight of
having a voice in the legislative department
whose law» bind them in person and in prop
erty. This, it is submitted, is a state of things
without example in representative republican
government; and Congress, as long as it deems
this right, is a mere despotism. Citizens may
be made to submit to it by force or dread of
force; but a fraternal spirit of good feeling
towards those who impose it, so important
to the peice and prosperity of the country,
are not tc be Itoped for, but rather unhappi
ness, disaitisfaction, and enmity.
THE QUESTION OF DANGER TO THE UNION
There is but one ground on which such
conduct can find any excuse—the supposed
public necessity, the peril of destruction to
which the Government would be subjected if
the right was allowed. But for such a sup
position there is not, in the opinion of tne
undersigned, even a shadow of foundation.
The representatives of the States in which
there was no insurrection, if the others were
represented, would, in the House, under the
present appointment, exceed the latter by a
majority ot seventy-two’ votes, and have a
decided preponderance in tlic Senate. What
danger to the Government then can possibly
arise from Southern representation. Arc the
present senators and representatives fearful of
themselves? Are they, apprehensive that
they might be led to the desti uct ion of our
institutions by the persuasion or any other
influence of Southern members ? How dis
paraging to themselves is such an apprehen
sion ! Are they apprehensive that those who
may succeed tliem from their respective States
may be so fatally led astray ? How disparag
ing is that supposition to the patriotism and
wisdom of their constituents! Whatever ef
fect on mere party success in the future such
a representation may have we shall ‘not stop
to inquire. The idea that the country is to
be kept in turmoil, States to be reduced to
bondage, and their rights under the Consti
tution denied, and their citizens degraded,
with a view to the continuance in power
of a mere political party, cannot for a
moment be entertained without im
puting grave dishonesty of purpose and gross
dereliction of duty to those who may enter
tain it. Nor do we deem it necessary to re
fer particularly to the evidence Liken by the
committee, to show that there is nothing in
the present condition of the people of the
Southern States that even excuses, on that
ground, a denial of representation to them.
We content ourselves with saying that, in our
opinion, the evidence most to be relied upon,
whether regarding the character of the wit-
nessess or their means of information, shows
that representatives from the Southern States
would prove perfectly loyal. We especially
refer for this only to the testimony of Lieut.
General Grant—his loyalty and investigations
no one cast doubt. In his letter to the Presi
dent, of t!;e 18th of Dee. 1805, after he had
recently visited South Carolina, North Caro
lina, and Georgia, he says:
“Both in travelling and whilst stopping, I
saw much aud conversed freely with the citi
zens of those States, as well as with officers of
the army who have been among them. The
following arc the conclusions come to by’ me:
“I am satisfied that “the mass of the think
ing men of tlic South accept the present sit
uation of affairs in good faith.” The ques
tions which have heretofore divided the sen
timents of the people of the two sections—
slavery and State rights—or the right of a
State to secede from the Union—they regard
as having been settled forever by the highest
tribunal—arms—tbat man can resort to. “I
was pleased to learn from tbe lending men
whom I met that they not only accepted tlic
decision arrived at as final, but that now the
smoke of battle had cleared away and time
had been gixen tor reflection, that this deci
sion has been a fortunate one for tlic whole
country, they receiving the like benefits from
it with those who opposed them in the field
and in the cause.
“My observations lead me to the conclu
sion that the citizens ot the Southern States
“are anxious to return to self-government
within the Uuion” as soon as possible; that
whilst reconstructing they “want and require
protection from the Government; that they
are in earnest in wishing to do what they
think is required by the Government—not
humiliating to them as citizens”—and that if
such a course was pointed out, they would
pursue it in good faith. “It is to be regretted
that there cannot be a greater commingling
at this time between the citizens of the two
sections, and particularly of those entrusted
with tho law-making power.””
Secession, as a practical doctrine ever here
after to be resorted to, is almost utterly aban
doned. It was submitted to and failed before
the ordeal of battle. Nor can the undersign
ed imagine why, if its revival anticipated as
possible,the committeebavc not recommended
an amendment to the Constitution guarding
against it in terms. Such an amendment, it
cannot be doubted, the Southern as well as
the Northern States would cheerfully adopt.
The omission of such a recommendation is
pregnant evidence that secession, as a consti
tutional right, is thought by the majority of
the committee to be practically a mere thing
of the past, as all the proof taken by them
show it to be in the opinion of all the leading
Southern men who hitherto entertained it.—
Tho desolation around them, the hecatombs
of their own slain, the stem patriotism of the
men of the other States, exhibited by unlimit
ed expenditure of treasure and of blood, and
their love of the Union, so sincere and deep-
seated that it is sure they will hazard all to
maintain it, have convinced the South that as
a particular doctrine secession is extinguished
forever. State secession then abandoned, and
slavery abolished by the Sonthem States
themselves, or with their consent, upon wlmt
statesmanlike ground can such States be de
nied all the rights which the Constitution se
cures to tho States of the Uuion. All admit
that to do so at the earliest period is demand
ed by every consideration of duty and policy,
and none deny that the actual interest of the
country is, to a great extent, involved in such
admission. The staple productions of the
Southern States are as important to the other
States as themselves. Those staples slargely
enter into the wants of all alike, and they are
also most important to the financial credit of
of the Government Those staples will never
be produced as in tbe past, until real peace,
resting as it can alone rest, on the equal and
uniform operation of the Constitution and
laws on all, is attained.
WHAT MAY REASONABLY BE EXPECTED FROM
ot their representatives. Nothing is more “that the inhabitants of such State or States i or President, however, wbeth< t!
probable, in the opinion of the undersigned, ] where the insurrection existed, are in a. state are legal or not, are liable
than that many of the Southern States would
adopt them all; but those measures the com
mittee connect with others, which, we think,
the people of the South will never adopt. They
are asked to disfranchise, a numerous
class of their citizens, and also to agree
to diminish their representation in Con
gress nnd, of course, in the electoral col
lege, or to admit to the right of suffrage their
colored males of twenty-one years of age and
upwards, (a class now in a condition of almost
utter ignorance), thus placing them’bnr tKe
same political footing witli white citizens of
that age. For reasons so obvious tbat the
dullest may discover them, the right is not
directly asserted of granting suffrage to the
negro. That would be obnoxious to most of
the Northern and Western States—so much
so that their consent was not to be anticipa
ted. But as the plan adopted, because of the
limited number of negroes in such States,
will have no effect on their representation, it
is thought it may be adopted, whilst in the
Southern States it will materially lessen their
number. That these latter States will ussent
to the measure can hardly be expected. The
effect, then, if not the purpose, of the meas
ure is forever to deny representatives to such
States, or, if they consent to the condition, to
weaken their representative power, and thus
probably secure a continuance of sucb a
party in power as now control the legislation
of tho Government. The measure, in its
terms and its effect, whether designed or not,
is to degrade the Southern States. To con
sent to it, is to consent to their own dis
honor.
of insurrrection against the United States,
and thereupon to declare that “all commer
cial intercourse, by and between the same, by
the'citizens thereof and the citizens of the
United States, shall cease and be unlawful so
long as such condition of hostility shall con
tinue.” Here, also, Congress evidently deals
with the States as being in the Union, and to
remain in the Union. It seeks to keeji them
in by forbidding commercial intercourse be
tween their citizens nnd the citizens of the
other States', so long, and so long only, as in
surrectionary hostility shall continue. That
ended, they are to be, as at first, entitled to
the same intercourse with citizens of other
States that they enjoyed before the insurrec
tion. In other words, in this act, as in the
resolution of the same month, the dignity,
equality, and rights of such States (tho insur
rection ended) were not to be held, in any
respect, impaired.
THE PARDONS GRANTED AND TIIE1R EFFECT,
The several proclamations of amnesty is
sued by Mr. Lincoln and his successor under
the authority of Congress are also inconsis
tent witli the idea that the parties included
within them are not to be held in the future
restored to all rights belonging to them as
citizens of their respective Stater. A power
to pardon is a power to restore the offender
to the condition in which he was before the
date of the offence pardoned.
It is now settled that a pardon removes
not only the punishment, but all legal disa
bilities consequent on the crime.—(7 Bac. A.
B. Tit. Par.) Bishop on Crimnal Law (vol.
718) states tbe same doctrine. The atn-
P
the new amendment not properly pro- \ nesties so declared would be but false pre-
i tences if they were, as now held, to leave the
posed. j parties who have availed themselves of them
The manner, too, of presentin'* the propos- j i* 1 almost every particular in tbe condition
lx****-* m^^^mrtSSSTSS
issxstssissSi p s
f which may mislead legislatures
if the others were rejected, and each there- „ Ir JX f & nir tIl ° niQfl , r „
fore, should be submitted as a separate article
without subjecting it to the contingency of
rejection if the States should refuse to ratify
the rest. Each by itself, if an advisable
measure, should be submitted to the people,
and not in such a connection with those which
they may think unnecessary or dangerous as
to force them to reject all. The- repudiation
of the rebel debt and all obligation to com
pensate for the loss of slave property, and
the inviolability of the debt of the Govern
ment, no matter how contracted, provided
for by some of the sections of the amendment
already elected, we think that the mature
sense of the people is not likely to be ascer
tained on the subject of the proposed amend
ment by its submission to existing State leg
islatures. If it should be done at all, the
submission should cither be to legislatures
hereafter to be elected or to convention of
the people chosen for the purpose. Congress
may select either mode, but they have select
ed neither. It may be submitted to legisla
tures already in existence whose members
were heretofore elected' witli no - view to
the consideration of such a measure. And it
-lire. The sole object of Cac |.
effect a complete and earlv u n ; n '■
the States; to make the General Gov
as it did at first, embrace all, and
its authority, and secure its nrivii
blessings to all alike. The purity
of President Johnson in this partic H
was to have been expected, is adnrit’ I
majority of the committee to he beyon '
For whatever was their opinion ‘ 0 f ,v i
constitutionality of his course, an ,i V.' : 1
deucy to enlarge the Executife
tell us that they “do not for a moment^ I
to him any such design, but cheerful?
cede to him the most patriotic motives-
we cannot forbear to say, in conclusion
that point, that he sins against ]j 0 ]
closes liis eyes to the course of the p
during the rebellion, from its inccptir", j
close, who ventures to impeach his
istn. Surrounded by insurrectionists, j ,1
firm. His life was almost constantly;«j
and he clung to the Union, and duct”
all the obligations it imposed upon If v
the closer because of the peril. And H, i
he has escaped unharmed, and by the J
donee e(the people has had devolved I
him the Executive functions of the rJ"
ment, to charge him with disloyalty i s L
a folly’ ora slander— folly in the* fool ,.;1
lieves it, slander in the man of sen 5 „ ■J
sucli th.'re be, who utters it.
Reverdy JojcJ
A. J. ItOCEUs
Henry GridW
we repeat, would meet the approval of manv ! ™ a £ consequently be adopted though a ma-
ot the Southern States. Bu.f these no State » °Tnif
can sanction without sanctioning others which «£:5l4| ^
we think, will not be done by them or some 4 4 “i j k \ , 4 ,^ ect J on *
„ 4 *>.„ £54-4— m.. i e ' able. \Vnetber regard be had to the nature
or the terms of the Constitution, or to the
ot the Northern States. To force negro suf
frage upon any State by means of the penalty
of a loss of part of its representation will not
only be to impose a disparaging condition,
but virtually to interfere with the clear right
legislation of Congress during the insurrec
tion, or to the course of the judicial depart
ment, or to the conduct of the Executive, the
nf,Mrh qEL«£££*» undersigned confidently submit that the
United States. Whether that control be ex-1 * l T J ^ J; S f
s&srs r tfssh&i? £ ussras
right which every State in the past has
held vital—the right to regulate her fran
chise. To punish a State for not regulating
it in a particular way, so as to give to ail
take any oath of office that has been or may
be constitutionally prescribed, is a question
irrespective of the .right of the States to be
represented. Against tbe danger, whatever
i .i ’ -i r if 1 that mav be, of the admission of disloval or
classes of the people the privilege of suffrage, j disqualified members into the Senate or House,
‘ S L‘| U V^ lng . °, a f orap ! ,Sh n inC , lde ?*fe i it is 1 in the power of each branch to provide
In, ’.I ° Ul i 6 d0DC a - fc r 1 ’ 8 - houl< L be j against by refusing such admission. Each bv
j“- v - N .° re«on m the view of the , t jj> e ConAitution % madc tUe judge of th ’.
«“ be f « r ‘he course ; election returns, and qualifications of its own
! than a belief that such a di-, membeI £ No 0 ’ tUer department can inter-
iLn v' rl!" w . n0t c. sanctioned by } fen with it Its decisio: t includcs all others .
the Northern and Western States, whilst as | The onI y correction when error is committed
consists in the responsibility of the members
THE SOUTH.
To suppose that a brave and sensitive peo
ple will give an undivided attention to the
increase ot mere material wealth, whilst re
tained in a state of political inferiority and
degradation, is mere folly. They desire to be
again in the Union, to enjoy the benefits of
the Constitution, and they invoke you to re
ceive them. They have adopted constitu
tions free from any intrinsic objection, and
have agreed to every stipulation thought by
the President to be necessary for tbe protec
tion and benefit of all. and. in the opinion of
the undersigned, they are amply sufficient.—
Why exact, as a preliminary condition to re
presentation, more ? What more are suppos
ed to be necessary ? First, the repudiation of
the rebel debt; second, the denial of all obli
gations to pay for manumitted slaves; third,
the inviolability of our own debt. If these
provisions are deemed necessary they cannot
regards such States the actual recommenda
tion because of the small proportion of ne
groes within their limits will not in the least
lessen their representative power in Congress,
or their influence in the Presidential election,
and they therefore sanction it. This very in
equality in its operation upon the States
renders the measure, in onr opinion, most un
just, and, looking to the peace and quiet of
the country, most impolitic. But the mode
advised is also not only without, but against
all precedent. When the Constitution was
adopted, it was thought to be defective in
not sufficiently protecting certain rights of
the States and the people. With the view of
supplying a remedy for this defect, on the
4th of March, 1780, various amendments, by
a resolution constitutionally passed by Con
gress, were submitted for ratification to the
States. They were twelve in number. Sev
eral of them were even less independent of
each other than are those recommended by
the committee; but it did not occur to the
men of that day that it was right to force the
States to adopt or reject all. Each was
therefore presented as a separate article.
The language of the resolution was, “that the
following articles be proposed to the Legisla
tures of the several States as amendments of
the Constitution of the United States, all or
any of which articles, when ratified by three-
fourths of the said Legislatures, are valid to
all intents and purposes as part of the Con
stitution. The Congress of that day was will
ing to obtain either of tbe submitted amend
ments—to get a part, if not able to procure
the whole. They thought—and in that, we
submit, they but conformed to the letter and
spirit of the amendatory clause of the Con
stitution—that the people have the right to
pass severally on any proposed amendments.
This course of our fathers is now departed
from, and the result will probably be that no
one of the suggested amendments, though
some may be approved, will be ratified. This
will certainly be the result unless the States
arc willing practically to relinquish the right
they have always enjoyed, never before ques
tioned by any recognized statesman, and all-
important to their interests and security—the
right to regulate the franchise in all tlieir
elections.
to the people. But it is believed by the un
dersigned to be tbe clear duty of each House
to admit any Senator or Representative who
has been elected according to the constitu
tional laws of the State, and who is able and
willing to subscribe to the oath required by
constitutional law.
Information Watted.—Marcella ft a
nest, a member of Company I, ht (•
State Troops, Stevenson’s Division. ] e j|
lanta a short time prior to its inves;u f - J
the Federal troops, for a hospital at V j
since which nothing has been hear,} 1
him. His anxious mother requests tt s: ]
information of him be sent to her.
should lie addressed to Mary Earnest,;
Clay, Whitfield county, Georgia.
Sad dews conies to us from Kent®
the suicide of a highly respected atd x
known lady, formerly of this city, ufoi
been so unfortunate as to be imposed
and married to a man already poss*
another wife. Our sincere condoles,-
fered to the afllicteel family.
It is announced that Gov. n ,.
Indiana, will not call an extra session cf
Legislature to ratify the constitutional^
ment, whatever the Governors of tli»,
States may do.
fTw/sim s & coTT
Factors ana General Cornu
3VC A-ISTTS,
B.l Y ST.,...... SA VAXKUf, GA &
EgTCoiisignments Solicited.
june27-wly]
SAM. F. MOSELEY. JNO. T. MOSEli
SAM F. MOSELEY M
ATTORNEYS AT LAW,
General Land, Immigration and Collect:
AGENTS,
JEFFERSON, TEXAS,
(The Centre of the. Cotton aid Gn
Crowine- Portions of ~
stitution, os originally posse-sed and enjoyed
by them, are still tlicira—and those they are l ^ - ,. - . .
--- -YU’- -- far as they deuend uuon tin-! defeated, if the South were disposed to
lar as nicy m pena upon the I fefcat by tbe a dmL :•rf: Congress
GENERAL considerations.
There are, too, some general considerations
that bear on the subject, to which we will
refer
First, One of the resolutions of the Chicago
Convention, by which Air. Lincoln was first
nominated for*the Presidency, says “that the
maintenance inviolate of the rights of the
States” is essential to tho balance of power
on which the prosperity and endurance of
our political fabric depends. In his inaugu
ral address of March 4,1861, which received
the almost universal approval of the
amongst other things he said: “No State of
its owft mere motion can lawfully get out of
the Union; and that in view of the-Constitu
tion and the laws the Union is unbroken, and
to the extent of my ability I shall take care,
as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins
upon me, that tbe laws of the Union be faith-
fullyjexecutcd in all the States.”
Second. Actual conflict soon afterwards en
sued. The South, it was believed, inisapprc
bended the purpose of the Government in
carrying it on, and Congress deemed it im
portant to dispel that misapprehension by
declaring what the purpose was. This was
done in July, 1861, by their passing the
following resolution of Air. Crittenden:
That in this national emergency, Congress,
banishing all feeling of mere passion or re
sentment, will recollect only its duty to the
whole countiy; that this war is not waged
upon our part in any spirit of oppression, nor
for any purpose of conquest or subjugation,
nor purpose of overthrowing or interfering
with the rights or established institutions of
those States, but to defend and maintain the
supremacy of the Constitution, and to pre
serve the Union, with all the dignity, equali
ty, and rights of the States unimpaired; that
as soon as these objects are accomplished the
war ought to cease.”
The vote iu the House was one hundred
and nineteen for and two against it, and in
the Senate thirty lor and five against it. The
design to conquer, or subjugate, or to curtail
TIIB QUESTION OF EXPEDIENCY DISCUSSED.
It is conceded by the majority that “it
would undoubtedly be competent for Con
gress to waive all formalities and to admit
those Confederate States at once, trusting
that time and experience would set all things
right.” It is not, therefore, owin" to a want
of constitutional power that it is not done.—
It is not because such States are not States
with republican forms of government. The
exclusion must, therefore, rest on considera
tions of safety or expediency alone. The
first, that of safety, wc have already consid
ered, and, as we think, proved it to be with
out foundation. Is there ai.y ground for the
latter, expediency ? We think not. On the
contrary, in our judgment, their admission is
called for by the clearest expediency. Those
States include a territorial area ot 850,000
square miles, an area larger than that of five
of the leading nations of Europe. They have
a coast line of three thousand miles, with an
internal water line, including the Mississippi,
of about 30,000 miles. Their agricultural
products in 1850 were about $360,000,000 in
value, and their population 9,664,656. Their
staple productions are of immense and grow
ing importance, and are almost peculiar to
that region. That the North is deeply in
terested in having such a country and peo
ple restored to all the rights and privileges
that the Constitution affords, no sane man,
not blinded by mere party considerations,
or, not a victim of disordering prejudioe,
can for a moment doubt. Such a restora
tion is also necessary to the peace of the
country. It is not only important but vital
to tlic potential wealth of which that section
of the country is capable of, that cannot oth
erwise be fully developed. Every hour of il
legal political restraint; every hour the posses
sion of the rights the Constitution gives is dc-
nied, is not only in a political, but a material
sense, of great injury to the North as well as
to the South. The Southern planter
works for his Northern brethren
well as for himself. His labors
heretofore inured as much, if not more,
to their advantage than to his. Whilst har
mony in the past between the sections gave to
the whole a prosperity, a power, and a re
nown of which every citizen had reason to be
proud, the restoration of such harmony will
immeasurably increase them all. Can it, will
it, be restored as long as the South is kept in
political and dishonoring bondage ? And
can it not, will it not, be restored by an oppo
site policy—by admitting her to all the rights
of the Constitution, and by dealing with her
citizens as equals and as brothers, not as in
feriors and enemies ? Such a course as this
will, we are certain, soon be seen to bind them
heart and soul to the Union, and inspire them
with confidence in its government, by making
them feel that all enmity is forgotten, and
that justice is being done to them. The re
sult of such a policy, we believe, will at once
make us in very truth one people, as happy,
as prosperous, and as powerful as ever ex
isted in the tide of time; whilst its opposite
cannot fail to keep us divided, injuriously
affect the particular and general welfare of
citizens and government, and, if long per
sisted in, result in danger to the nation. Iu
the words of an eminent British Whig states
man, now no more: “A free Constitution and
largo exclusions from its benefits cannot sub
sist together; the constitution will destroy
them, or they will destroy the Constitution."
It is hoped that, heeding the warning, wc
will guard against the peril by removing the
cause.
executive measures passed over—YINDI-
Growing Portions of Texas.!
Offer tlieir services in Purchasing,
and Leasing and Renting Lauds, ii_
cting and Perfecting Titles, Paviw
Taxes, Establishing the Rights ot
Non-resident Owners and Heirs, in
Protecting Lands from adverse
Occupancy aud Possession,Col
lecting and Securing Debts,
nnd in furnishing valuable
information to Land
Owners, Capitalists,
Immigrants and
Creditors.
General Land Registration |
ALL LANDS FOR SALE, LEASE OR RENT I
ANY PORTION OF TUE STATE, REOIv |
TRUED IN’ OUR OFFICE, FREE OF
CHARGE.
A successful business experience of more 1
twenty years in Texas, and a personal knoi'
ot lands, both as to quality and titles, will <
us to make safe and profitable investmu’M
Capitalists, Immigrants, Emmigratiouand hj
factoring Companies. I
FEES in ail cases proportioned to the ril
importance of the service rendered,
ju 12-difcw3tn)
The Queen, The Quee)
THE <IUEEX OF
EL air Restorers!
AXRS. WINSLOW’S Queen Hair
ill QUEEN, not only in name, but in'“-'I
It is the best HAIR RESTORER everoW
the public.
An infallible Restorer and Preserverof
it faithfully applied.
Et in no IZttir Dye!
It acts directly upon the roots of the hair, d
ing grey iiair to its original life color; us
premature decay and falling out of the hair;
eating scurf and dandruff, aud curing aiita
of the scalp.
It will change dry and wiry hair tc 60f;ui
uriant tresses.
It imparts a delightful fragrance to the bi
In short, if vou wish to restore your hiir>
youth, and retain it through life, use MRS. r
LOWS QUEEN HAIR RESTORER.
Price $1 per bottle. .
For sale bv
‘ MASSENBURG & 80S,!
aud J. II. ZEILIN & CO., ,
Macon,
Jas. Goxegal, Gen. Ag’t, New Orient
may'
SPECIAL NOTICE-
Important to Ladie- : l
\ f RS. WINSLOW’S MYSTIC PILLS
ixL pared only for a legitimate purpose
the only safe and effective medicine
painful and dangerous disorders to whi“ -
male constitution is subject. .
They are the only Genuine Female Piluff
No article of medicine intended for the ext‘
use of Females, that has ever made it* V
ance, has met with such universal fiver e l
Winslow’s Mystic Pills. .
No disease is so little understood,
qucntlv so badly treated, as female esc*]
These Pills are the result of much study
fol experience in all cases of irreg*d»l“’:i
g ression, hfreorrhcea or whites, a epecd?<>']
c relied on. 1
By their invigorating properties, tbe *pr. £ -J
digestion is improved, the hue of healthi-:l
ed to the cheeks, weakness of the spine
relieved, and all the indica.ions of
ity removed. No maiden, wife or motrr- -
be without the MYSTIC PILLS. „ ±
Try them, and be convinced that tho I
Lady’s Friend. rJ
Price *3 per box, or three boxes lor fa-. , 4
by ail druggists. n>* v ' - I
Bun
IE:
Pcf
i ■
[si
B
[•is
Sfi
fish
a
poc
lest
1 ur
ArimiiiinfratorV Salt'
/'"'I GORGIA BIBB COUNTY, , .«
VX Will be sold on Tncsday, 7th 'daif!.-,.
aal hours of
le ‘
■ lUc
Clio
next, between the usual 1
Court House door in the town of TerU’. ,
confer, the following lots to wit:
No. 18, being all of said lot, except one > jj
East side, now enclosed and known as r “ ,^1
lot, No. 10, containing six acres, more o.-^ |
lot No. IT, containing three acres, Bab ,
sad tight acres more or less ol lot J
all of Mid lot, except one acre on the
the King and Eastwood
known as
CATION OF MR. JOHNSON—CONCLUSION.
The undersigned have not thought it ne .
ccssaiy to examine into the legality of the sere on the Southcud, known asthe®*!*
measures adopted either by the late or tlu-: of said lots enclosed, making
present President for the restoration oi‘tlic
Southern States. It is sufficient for their pur
pose to say, that if those of President John
son were not justified by the Constitution, the
or interfere in any way with the rights of same may at least he said of those of his pre-
the States is in the strongest terms thus dis- decessor.*
claimed, and the only avowed object asserted We deem such
to be “to defend and maintain the spirit of
the Constitution, and to preserve the Union
and the dignity, equality, uid rights of the
several States unimpaired. Congress, too,
by the act ot 13th July. “31, empowered
the President to declair .* 'reclamation,
examination to be un-
- uu.: «• »] • ;.- : ..
il.r.i- . Hit.!. , d -
Sa:.! lo:> sic- 'lown ■ ■: 1-**rt
H. T. HANS*
june20—lOd] AdnJjyy.
Mill'-
necessary, because, however it might result, j
the people of the several States who possessed,
as wo have before said.-the exclusive right to |
decide for themselves what constitutions they
shouldadopt, haw adopted those under whi • 11
they respectively iiv<-. The motives of nei ’. !
Administrator *
/ > EORGIA, BIBB COUNTY.—WTj
VT fori the Court llou-e door ia
Telfair county, on the 1st Tne?uaw -
between the i.Mial hours >-i s..h'
District, No. , containing
less, belonging to the
d,c,ysc '- c.j.o’ha?J;
Ad