The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1866-11-13
What Constit utes a State ,


WE publish in another column communi-
cation, more logical than courteous, in regard
to an editorial which appeared in The EVEN
ING TELEGRAPH of Saturday. 1t is proba-
bly, as able an exposition of the "conserva-
tive" theory OF what constitutes State as
any paper OF equal length. Because il COM
bines nearly all the arguments of chat party,
we give it space, and hope our readers will
peruse it carefully. On it we have few
comments to make.
"Once State always State. Nor does
the fact that the citizens OF that State were
in rebellion alter the principle, simply because
the citizens while in rebellion can do no
valid act or thing" Granted that no action
Of the Rebel citizens is legal does that make
them any the less responsible for their
attempted crimeP They were guilty so far
as they could be. Would Orsni set up the
plea to save himself that Louis Napoleon was
not killed by his attempt on his life2 Was
he any the less guilty2 Was Guy Fawkes
less responsible to the law for his attempt to
proved futile? Are the Southern people any
less liable to punishment because the fate of
war has made all their acts invalid? Clearly
not The fact that all they did was OF no
legal avail does not diminish their criminality.
This one point is weak one; but had the
writer given as the cause OF ''once State
always remaining State" that the treason
OF the citizens could not make treason of the
State, he would have made much
stronger argument. Later in his COM
munication he takes that ground, and
i'll answer to it, the question arises,
What constitutes tna State? We accept OF
our correspondents definition. 1t is an ex-
cellent and comprehensive one. "If we say
that the State las Il right to send Senators
and Representatives, we mean that the or
ganized political existence has the right, and
the people in the aggregate" "The organized
political existence" is the State. How, then
does the present organized poll existence
of Georgia compare with that of 1892 Then
the State was represented in the persons OF
officers elected in certain way, and who.
previous TO their entrance into office, were
obliged to swear to support the Constitution
of the United States When these and other
conditions were complied with, the persons
chosen formed the ''organized political exist
ence," but not until they had compiled with
the law.
Unless the State is composed of either its
officers or its citizens, it is but an essence,
nullIty. which is ridiculous. The officers who
held power when the Rebellion was subdued
were not officers at all. They had not taken
the oath to support The Constitution of the
United States. The State of Georgia had no
organized political existence. 1t was
chaotic mass-no more State than the eX-
istence OF territory could make it one. 1t
had no organ ;zed political existence. 1t was
reorganized by a power which had no right to
reorganize it. Consequently, all its acts
were invalid. 1t is really the same now in
the eyes OF the law as it was in 1865 1t Is a
different affair iiom the State of Georgia in
1889. 1t has none of its rights and privileges,
and even when recognized by Congress will
still be a State whose existence dates back
from the day on which its Representatives and
Senators were readmitted to seats in the Legis-
lature of the nation. We hope we have been
sufficiently clear. The State of Georgia
to-day does not exist, and Congress alone can
revive the dead Commonwealth. slain by its
own sons.