Daily State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis, Ind.) 1861-1865, 1864-02-06
The Jsurnai,. Assaults On Judge FER.
kfns.

ktns.
Our very learned nsighbof the central organ /
Of the Republican party OF Indiana. and most Of
our readers have probably witnessed exhibitions
Of learned pigs. has been devotng the columns
Of that print in What We presume IL regards re-
views Of the opinion recently delivered by Judge
PExksss upon martial Law. military law. or the
var powers Of the President Of the United States
In tie issue Of yesterday II says the opinion 'con-
clodes With lsbored attenps TO prove that The
rebellion and the revolution were alike right.
alike in origin. purposes and in defenders against
inscriptions tyranny in the governments they
we're resisting The opinion makes no attempt
of that kind. 1t only asserts. so far the re-
beIon is concerned. and which every honest man
must De willing concede 70 be true that the rebel
lion did not originate IN an attempt 10 overthrow
the government Of the United States Quoting the
language used by the Court. THE rebellion con
ss,z IN an attempt If We have read Alright, to
Withdraw a certain portion Of people and territory
from under the jurisdiction Of the Government OF
the United States-fo bride the Union. leaving
the North under the existing government, and
placing the South under newly created govern
case. for no intelligent person can deny that the
Confederates before the commencement Of hos
tiIities sent commissioners TO Washington to ne
gotate peaceable separation an equitable dvi-
sion Of the Union. the Journal charges that the
opinion attempts to prove that the rebellion and
the Revolution were alike right Itexpresses no
sentiment of that kind All the rebel. have ever
asked is a division of the Uuion. placing the
South under a newly created government
But il we concede all that the Journal charges.
that the opinion is a Iabored attempt to prove
that the rebellion and Revolution were Identical
in origin and purposes, the central organ of the
Republican party OF Indiana should
have modesty enough aud should be the
last to calm question and condemn the express
sion Of that sentiment from any source After
the election Of Mr.. LINCOLN. and when secession
appeared inevitable. the Journal for months
| argued with both zeal and ability that the dssat
sfed States had right. were justified upon
the principles on which government was
based. 10 sever their connection with the Union
In proof Of what We state. we quote the following
extract from an editorial 10 the Journal of No
vember %. 1860: We, having established our
government by revolution. on the right of "a
people at any time to change government which
Is oppressive to them. cannot deny that right to
those who declare our government oppressive.
What claimed as our right we cannot deny
| to those who claim il of Us and
| helped assert our claim az the
outset They may be mistaken. In our Judge
ment they are fatally mistaken; but we cannot
judge for them whether the Federal Gov
eminent Is too oppressive for endurance any
more than England could Judge for US We
know how eloquently may be urged the glory OF
tins great country and the Union cemented by
the blood Of fathers but IL is all wasted be
side the one plain. simple fact that il any State
in this Union feels the Union to be injurious and
oppressive civil won't change her opinion
in fact il is not calculated to change it, and II
she riH not stay in the Union it will be cheaper
and kinder to let her GO The argument that
secession is unconstitutional. and involves ever
| SO many violations of Law and party pledges is
little better than trifing with so serious a sub
ject. Men do not treat a. revolution they
would trespsss. and urging the enforcement of
the Constitution a remedy for secession is just
a. wise as urging n man whose house is on fire 10
keep II in good repair
La the sane article the Journal declares that
secession is revolution. ard that the people of
any dissatisfied State had the right to Withdraw
from the Union il in their opinion that govern
ment had become oppressive to them. There can
be no more complete justification OF the rebel
lion than the argument of that print.
The Journal i'm its reviews or criticisms only
takes exception to the argument of the Court
Ii does not attempt to controvert as it cannot
successfully. the legal positions announced in
the opinion. Hence must conclude that
the Journal considers that the usuroatons of
power BY the President under the plea of
military necessity gross violations of the
Consultations and the rights OF the citizen which
that instrument was created secure and pro-
tect We copy another extract from the same
editorial of The Journal from which we have
quoted, To show that it is NOW arguing for sus-
tanning despotism in opposition to popular
rights. IL says: I'VE deem il superhuous tie
argue that popular government can never be
preserved by force. The act of compulsion
changes il to despoIism so TAR as the parties
affected by it concerned Ii n0
government Of theirs any longer. and desDotisu
is simply government that the governed doa'
create. Consequently if"coercion preserves th'
body. IL surely destroys the life Of this great pop
ussr government IL union with
cat unity. an aggregation of States without sym
pathy, And IL does no more
Alter expressing such sentiments and Justify
ing coercion" which may preserve the body
while it surely destroys the life Of this heretofor
great popular government. the Journal a,temp,
to condemn the cour, aud bring it into disreput
by attrbutng to it opinion which it never e1
pressed. but which. strange to say. is identica
with the sentiments it advocated whel
secession threatened not only. but after tn
overt act was committed. Certainly the Journa
should not object TO the Court reitera,ing il
deliberately expressed opinions Ii occupies
however. IN so doing. a most remarkable posi-
iiOn. After stating that il was superAuous {,
argue that popular government, can be main
tanned by force. ia has become a most vioien