The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1865-11-25

N't'sl'7 SA7AJ LAA4b tue luSuEEsCLAOu uHQ so
far abated as to render that step SAFE.
and therefore expedient. President
Johnson himself, we believe, declared
recently that all he was doing in the
South in the way of reorganization was
done under martial law. Chief Justice
Chase adds his testimony in having
recently declared to the President that
he could not organize his Court at
Richmond TIL martial law should be
suspended in Virginia. To say that
martial law can exist except in time of
instruction or war, is simply sole
cism.
Mr.. Van Wrinkle says whenever the
necessity for the Congressional test oath
shall have ceased, he will hasten to adj
vOcate its repeal. The necessity"
there, itseems TO US, with all due defer
ence, is about the same, as the cocoa
sion" here. If the one ..has ceased, /"
why has not the otherP If rebels may
clothe themselves with all the preroga-
tives of loyal citizens in West Virginia,
why not in Congress2 The inference
is easily drawn; but we trust our Sena-
tor did not intend what we are author-
lied to infer. We trust he does not
think the necessity for the Congress
sionnl test oath has already ceased; for
he assures us that when he reaches this
conclusion he will hasten to vote for its
repeal; and we are sure such a vote
would do grievous wrong to the loyal
people of West Virginia who have COM
missioned him their spokesman in the
United States Senate. The overwhelm-
ing expression at the recent election
shows this cmphaticalIy. We regret TO
have to add that Mr.. Van Wrinkle does
not seem to have apprehended the full
meaning of that expression with his
accustomed penetration, or to appreciate
with his usual delicate sense of pro-
priety, his own relation to our loyal
people, else he could hardly have re-
bnked them by saying in such em-
to be regretted" that the voters,
test oath at the recent election twas ex-
acted in any case" We confess, with
out reserve, that we do not regret that
the rebels just from the army, were not
allowed on the 18th day of October last
to vote down our loyal citizens.
Mr.. Van Wrinkle objects to the pro-
posed amendment to the Constitution,
as being unconstitutional, because it is
retrospective in its operation, whereas
that instrument provides that no amend
ment Of it ''shan by any SHIFT or device
be made to have a retrospective effect. y
Now we submit to our distinguished
friend one or two simple propositions
concerning this "shift or device" provis-
ion, (which was incorporated in the
Constitution at his own suggestion If
we are not mistakenly Thestream can
not rise higher than its source; the
creator is greater that the created; the
people of the State, who made the Com
Stitution, can unmnke it in part
or in whole, at their pleasure,
in the manner by them agreed upon;
they can blot out anything or every
thing in it; they can repeal the "shifl
or device" provision itself and author
ize as many retrospective laws AS they
choose or deem permitted by the Con-
stitution of the United States; and
whenever they add provision. that
conflicts with the "shirt or device" pro-
vision, so far us that case is, concerned
the latter is repealed by the. former.
This is the universal principle of all
amendment. The last will and testa-
ment must stand. Tho amendment
overrides the original, of course. It
would be no amendment if it did not.
Take up the Constitution of the United
States, with the amendments added.
and almost every one, comparud with
the original Instrument, viii be found
to conflict with something in the orig
inal. But which is in force? The
amendment, without question; the later
enactment. To say, then, that the pro
posed amendment to the Constitution
is unconstitutional because it conflicts
with the very provisions of that instru-
ment which 1t is designed to supercede,
is an absuriity into which we are sur
prised agentlemnn of Mr.. Van Wrinkles
usual persPicacity should be betrayed.