Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1865-09-08
.oDblp. Statesman. I'M ii.
7 |'s - DIT 5000 .tiHu9g fNll 10 .L,4A 5sif ..Hi
ao. III Il MA R * . 10 ,.a
j.l' 20 .ge ,'a ior itota noi'n'1.ga
uu. % -ia1 iiaa ~ III .sJIalS !3Gr.
HON. ALFRED YAPLE,
r.na AT GREENFIELD, OHIO, >a7.l
Accepting the Nomination Of the Democracy Of
s' Ross and Highland Counties for ,aislr
,"tA'liHi State Senator. '1Joo TH'JI"H


btate benator '''' tHi'.i'i
'.t ~ Ti'.r.ri .lrTfJTTa ..lrs. .Hc 40 af.fll
.lr- I'll, 40 a1 lCONTINUED1 II, 5o.r..,,.t...,
The same principle has been fully adopted
and recognized in the United States. In the
war of 1872 with Great Britain, as a war
measure, weadopted the embargo and nom
intercourse acts No one could deal with
the BritishOr furnish them with goods; that
Was to, give aid. and comfort to the enemy,
The British took theport and town OF Cas-
tine in New England, and held them till
they relinquished them at the peace. Dur
ing their occupancy, certain persons violat-
ed the acts of Congress by importing goods
and furnishing them to the British, After
the withdrawal of the enemy an attempt
was made to enforce the penalties of these
statutes. The SUPP eme Court of the U. S.,
Story pronouhcing the opinion, held that,
by the conquest and military occupation
of Castine, the enemy acquired that firm
possession which enabled him to exercise
the fullest rights of sovereignty over that
place. The sovereignty of the United States
was suspended, and the laws of the United
States could no longer be rtglltfally enforced
there, or be obligatory upon the inhabit-
ants who, remained and submitted to the
cOnqnerOrs. BY the surrender the inhabit-
ants passed under a temporary allegiance to
such laws, and such only,i ias it chose to rec
ognize and impose. From the nature of the
case no other laws could be obligatory upon
them; for where there is no protection, or
allegiance, or sovereignty there can be no
claim to obedience" "And this" he says,
"whie the port could not, strictly speaking,
be deemed port within the dominions of
Great Britain, tor it had not permanently
passed under her. sovereignty. " Ihe right
aoliich eristed tods the mere right Of superior
force" GUS. v. Rice, Wheat. 246-same
". Hayward, Dallas 1850 t..I ..,..,,tt
hr The same doctrine is maintained in regard
to our occupancy of Mexican ports during
the Mexican war, and the collection OF du-
ties there; (Fleming Y. Page, 8 How. GA !;
Gross v. Harrison, l6 How. 164.) l.., .'rfI
All our treatises on international law lay
down the same doctrine. 1t is the doctrine
of the New Testament That is a creed
which prescribes no form of government.
1t decides between no systems of govern
ment. 1t does not relate to great societies
reused to and working in revolutions. 1t
relates simply to man as an individual.T
His individual duty to his Creator, to his
Government to his fellow man, to himself,
is all that the Christian system relates to-
AS to the individual, 'the powers that be are
. ordained of God not the powers that
. to be-, but !'sthe powers, that be-" Now,
1.-THE Savior lived and was put to Death un-
der Tiberius Caesar, an usurper, one of the
wickedest, most cruel tyrants that ever-liv-
ed, and under whom all manner of wick
edness prevailed, within whose dOminions
there were 20,000,000 of slaves. Yet, when
the question of tribute was put to him, by
showing him the coin upon which was
LCasar's image, he replied, "Render unto
Caesar the things that are Cfesar's." AS he
had nothing to do with political reforms
or governments, or society in the mass,
he simply declared the duty of allegiance
from the individual to the government de
facto. ~, W. ,,'a', ,.,.' '.i'Iu'l'In
of a right to punish the Southern people
erty for aiding the de fdcto goyernrhentp
What becomes of the assumed right to
forfeit lands for taxes during such period
AS to the other. proposed measures to
prevent and provide against the union of
these States IN order toperpetrate the DOM
inant party in power: If they were to as
sumo that these Southern States had the
, Constitutional right to secede as they did
secede; that they, as a consequence, had! .
right to establish for themselves common
government, as, in fact, they did, do; that
the United States, having the power to
. make, treaties, can acquire land by treaty,
having the power to make war can acquire
territory by war; that these two nations
went to war, and they having, in fact, con-
quered, then, they might claim. perhaps,
that, according to the law of nations
however dangerous it might be to free in
stitutions and however impolitic-they
have the right to give whatever laws they
| please to the conquered country-that what
they should do is reduced to mere matter
of policy. But this would be to condemn
all that they have done. Itwould place us
under the ban Of that same law Of nations
which pronounces wars of conquest unjust
wars. However much they would like
now to carry out their ends, to make this
the state of the case, they can not do so; for
that would be Acknowledging themselves
to have been In the wrong. tNi 'AI
When they assume, as they did and must,
that secession was contrary to the Federal
Constitution; that though the Federal Cow
eminent was forcibly ousted temporarily
Of its Sovereignty, by a hostile de .Jacto gov
ernment, it had the constitutional right, by
force, to regain that authority, as it has done
/. in fact, then, the ordinances Of secession
were void; the States were never legally
. out OF the Union, and must now be within
it under the Federal Constitution, with
none of their rights, as such, impaired.
For them there is no middle ground.
!, Where, then, will the attempt TO carry out
these contemplated MEASURES place them?
They, themselves, must become revolution
lists againstthe Ss9 system Of government tad
Anything but the einm,sdiats participation
bytRe meiHbers Of the Union, ID the gov
ernhient of the Union, is not only disuhion
h,,tdo trf fbf, form yh.ly,-