The weekly pioneer and Democrat. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1855-1865, 1863-10-23

allow that cit is a patent and undis-
puted fact that this gigantic treason was
inaugurated with all the forms of law"
and THAT the States pretended to With
draw bodily in their corporate capacities"
| which is the ground work of the second
proposition Of the programme, viz: sThat
the States by their fragrant treason have
forfeited their rights as States SO as to be
civilly dead" But the federal government
is very far from admitting that "the form
of law" employed by the rebels, or the
fact that "the States pretended to with
draw bodily" affected in the least the le-
gal status of the States in question.
"Treason was committed not by any State,
but by the individuals who made use of
the forms of the State governments" and
attempted to dismember the national gov
eminent.
The suggestion that the States, guaran-
ted by the constitution as under the shield
of the Union, can In any way be held re-
sponsble for this treason and subjected to
forfeiture of their rights as a conse-
quence, shows the affinity of the abolition
lists and the nulli6ers. Calhoun's whole
scheme was based upon the proposition
they now adopt, that the States "could
withdraw bodily in their corporate capac-
ity." The true doctrine, as laid down by
the father of the constitution, is that the
employment of the forms of the State
government and the pretence of with
drawing them in their corporate capacity
out OF the pale Of the national authority,
does not shift the responsibility from the
traitors to the people. Hamilton, in the
FederaliSt, marks the change on this
point effected by the adoption of the con-
stitution.
He says: "The great and radical vice
in the construction of the existing Confed-
Grafton is the principle of legislation for
States or governments in their corporate or
collective capacities, and as contradistn-
guished from the individuals of whom they
consist" He emphasizes this proposition
in the strongest manner by the use of CAPT.
tails in o der to condemn the policy of act
ing on States instead of criminal individu-
ais. The aim of the abolitionists is now to
accomplish this very thing in defiance of
the constitution. They demand that Con-
gress shall attach the treason in the South,
plotted in secret and sprung upon the ma
ton by a body of oathbound conspirators,
to the people of the whole region, and in
sist that they have forfeited their rights in
their corporate and collective capacities for
the treason of these individuals.
1t asserts the power Of legislation over
tile States or governments, instead of ap-
plying the law of treason to the guilty in
dividuals to whom alone, in the very ma
ture of things, it is applicable. No learning
is necessary to enable one to see that q
State cannot be guilty Of treason or any
other crime; only common sense is want
ing to comprehend that guilt cannot be i'm
puted to any but a sentient being; and
only common honesty is required to per-
ceive the injustice of DISTINGUISHING loyal
citizens on account of the offences COM
mitted by the disloyal.
But the manifesto | am considering
comes at last to the conclusion that these
modes of refining the States out of the
Union are unsatisfactory. "I discard
(says the writer) all theory, whether it be.
of State suicide, or State forfeiture, or
State abdication on the one side; or State
rights, immortal and unimpeachable, on
the other side; such discussions are only
endless mazes in which a whole Senate
may be lost" Verify, such contemptuOus
finging away of States and State rights as
of no better stuff than may be overlaid
with cObwebs and dust-such flimsy argu-
ments of State suicide, State forfeiture,
State abdication, might, if INDUCED in,
reduce the Senate to a lost condition. And
the process of this scheme shows how
readily it might be merged into CONSOLE
dated head.
Mr.. Blair proceeded to deal with the
next proposition of the "ukase" under
notice, which is as follows: "And in dis
carding all theory, l discard also the ques-
| ton OF de jure. Whether, for example,
the rebel States, while the rebellion is
fragrant, are de .jure States of the Union
with all the rights of States. 1t is enough
for the time being, and in the absence of
loyal government, they can take no part
and perform no function in the Union, so
that they cannot be recognized by the ma
tional government. The reason is plain.
There are in these States no local func-
tionaries bound by constitutional oaths, so
that there are in fact no constitutional
functionaries and since the State govern
ment is necessarily composed of such
functionaries there can be no State gov
ernments."
In replying to this, Mr.. Blair said: The
States involved in insurrection have null
titudes of magistrates, State and United
States judges, and other sworn functiona-
ries, ready to resume their functions the
moment the rebel military duress is re-
moved, and the whole machinery of the
State government will be put in motion,
by the election of representatives and all
civil officers, as soon as the military power
of the Union has accomplished its duties.
In the meantime, are not the State gov
ernments in the hands of their appropriate
funtionaries, bound by constitutional oaths,
when the army of the nation is in their
midst? Then, our army and it's officers
are at this instant executing, in all the
States proposed to be disfranchised, their
most appropriate functions in breaking the
rebel power and lifting up and invigorat-
ing the State authority everywhere. In
this way the most potent recognition the
Union can afford is given to the State
governments as members of the Union.
Mr.. B. quoted from Madison and Ham,