Evansville daily journal. (Evansville, Ind.) 1863-1866, 1865-12-04

afirms the standing OF the state, ano
vet assumes that it is not liable and
shall not be responsible for contracts
entered into in accordance with their
powers as States. The President is re-
ported to have said that ''they we're out
in fact though not in law.f That is ex-
actIy our understanding of the case.
They were out not within, through or BY
law. They were out without law If
that expression has any other meaning
than that secession placed them beyond
the bounds and as no longer recognize
able as States of this Union, then l
should like to have the true interpreta-
ton. They are in and not in, out yet
not out Plain English is very hard TO
be understood when lawyers use it. IT
ours is not the true rendering, we con-
fess ourselves unable to see it. Perhaps
some one versed in the mysteries OF
English can enlighten us. We are open
to conviction. Estates cannot go out.
They never WERE" We don't see it.
We need more light on the subject, and
not us only, it is believed, but the gen.
eral public also.
Secession may be compared to an es-
cape of condemned criminals. They
were out, but had no right to be so. In
one sense they were "out in law" though
not lawfully. They had no tight of citi-
zenship. Any one contracting with
them did SO at the risk of loss by their
re-capture. The States were not sover-
eign. At the formation of the Constitu-
ton, the "people of these United States"
expressly limited the powers of the Con-
veention to forming more securely than
heretofore the bonds Of permanent ma
tionality. Those bonds have never been
legally. annulled. Therefore, the sece-
ded States could not be regarded as a
conquered nation on the reduction of
the rebellion, and we cannot be made
responsible for their debts as if we had
conquered foreign territory. We should
suit our language to the exigencies of the
situation and the nature of our institu-
tions, and not attempt to adapt that
which was applicable to other forms of
rebellious, or rather rebellions to other
forms OF government 'tSovereign States
cannot rebel" But ours were not sove-
reign and could rebel. The people are
the only sovereigns in our system. The
States derive their authority from them,
and that authority was limited by gen.
cral order from the people. The States
never were individually independent.
During Colonial times, during the War
of the Revolution, and ever since, they
have always been under higher power.
A State is understood to consist of a
certain territory, with its inhabitants
and their government organization. II
these inhabitants and State authorities
have forfeited citizenship, as every one
admits, by swearing no longer to obey
the general government, but hereafter
to revolve around another center, it il
quite out Of our power to regard them
as 'still belonging to the old con
stellation. If the organization without
which it was of old considered there
could be no State, and the inhabitants
have forfeited every title to citizenship
of the United States, how can they form
one of its number7 If they have gone
out, what abstract, intangible nonentity
is it which is said cannot cease to be the
State that is still in. Very still; not api
to cause much trouble, give much assist
ance or pay heavy taxes, doubtless
But it is something. What is it3
| We have never seen fair, or indeed
any statement or satisfactory explana.
ton of the case by those whose views
we are animadverting. We do not pre-
tend to deny, we think, much more
reasonable explanation may be present
ed than would seem to be indicated By
our remarks, but we have yet to see it.
Who will tell us what constitutes tht
State sOhich cannot cease to erist2 .ss-