The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1866-08-15
Dix.

rary Chairman of the philadelphia Convention,
does not sound like the sentiments of the states
man whose name is famous for his order, that
'I any man attempts to tear down tie Amerl-
can flag, shoot him upon the spot" We nave
always considered the General q man OF stern
patriotism and of rugged honesty, and the only
way we can retain that opinion, yet accept MS
own words, is by assuming that he did not
mean what he sad We believe that he Is a
man of conscientious convictions and one VINO
ever acts as his judgment dictates, Dut II ne
will grayely consider what he maintained,
we are at a loss to see how he can reconcile
1t with reason or policy. For instance,
let us quote his passage relative to representa-
tion:-
''Thirty.six States have for months been repre-
sented by twenty-five. Eleven States have been
wholly without representatives in the legislative
body That numerical proportion OF the repre-.
sented and unrepresented has been changed by
the admission OF the delegation from Tennessee
"a unit taken from the smaller and added to
the larger number. Ten States are still denied
the representation in Congress to which they
are entitled under the Constitution. 1t is this
wrong which we have come here now to protest
against, and, as tar as in US lies, to redress.
When the President of the United States de-
Clared that armed resistance to the authority of
the Union was over, all the States had right
to be represented in the legislative body. They
had the right under the Constitution: they had
the right under resolutions passed by bolh
Houses of Congress in 1861; moreover, they
were entitled to be so represented on otner
grounds, on those of fairness and good taith.'
OF course, if they were entitled to immediate
representation, it must be based on the law of
apportionment as it existed previous to the
effort to dissolve the Union. That law pre-
scrbed that representation should be appor-
toned according to the free inhabitants and
three ffths Of all other persons. The treason of
the South did away with all the distinction
between free and "other" persons, and made
the old law become obsolete and the basis of
representation be fixed on the whole number of
free persons. Before the war the three-titths'
clause gave the South nineteen members of
Congress, to whom they had no right except
under this provision.
Freeing the slaves made three ftths become
fve-ftths, and increased the number of persons
to be counted from 2, 400, 900 100000, making
an additional delegation of twelve members. In
other words, il General DIX means what he says,
he believes in rewardlng the South for its rebel
lion by giving it twelve more votes i'll Congress.
He means to force upon the Rebels a premium
for their treason, and make the faithful blacks
who had aided us during the war be the
stepping-stone to increase the power of traitors.
Years ago the negro was made by physical labor
to be tool to give more wealth to his master;
now his political rights are presented to the
masters as a compensation for the loss of SER
vice. Is this Justice? Is ii reason? Is il policy?
Again. General DIX is a Northern man. He
is, or pretends to be, the representative of
Northern views. By what law OF equity shall
Rebel vote nearly cancel the votes of Two
honest, hard-worklng, loyal mechanics of the
North? Yet such would be the effect ii General
D1x's proposition to Immediately admit the
Southern delegates should be at once adopted.
Would this be, as he says, only what they are
''entitled TO on the grounds OF fairness and good
taithm By.the.by, what "gOodfaah" compels
us to admit them at all? "Good faith" implies
contract Was there any made? Did we not
subdue them by force, and was there any effort
made by them TO come to terms, so that capi-
tulation should protect them? "Good faith'
or bad faith" are most inapplcable to a con.
queror dealing with the conquered, when sub
mission was absolute. We, therefore, think
that the General could hardly have meant to be
so unjust to the Southern blacks and Northern
votes, as the practice he recommends would
Imply.
Again, he says:-
''The President not in pursuance of any con
stitutional power, had called on the contede
rated States to accept the conditions OF theiI
admission to the exercise OF their legitimate
functions as members OF the Union-the ratf
cation OF the amendment 10 the Constitution
abolishing slavery and the repudiation of the
debts contracted to overthrow the Government
These conditions l1ere met ana accepted The
eJdcttOn of TlelD conditions as lL1y1S,-a violation
of the faith of the Government, subversive o
the principles Of our political system, and dan
gerous to the public prosperity and peace"
By what constitutional right could the Presi
dent demand the abolishment of slavery and tn
reputation of the Rebel debt, any more thar
he could demand the extension OF suffrage
Is there any power given him IN the Constitu
ton to ask one condition and not another? w
think that either he had no right to exact an
preliminaries or else he had the legal power o
right to demand whatever he thought necessar
for the national safety. The President is one ofth
coordinate and equal powers of Government
He did right in requiring the condition he die
But cannot Congress also demand its condition
The President refused to recognize, so far as b
was concerned, any State Government until
Constitutional amendment was ratified. Coz
gress, by similar privilege, can refuse to recol
nlze any, so far as 1t is concerned, until anothe
Constitutional amendment is ratified. The sam
privilege which is allowed to one of two equal
must also be allowed 10 the other. And admittin
that the President had as much right as Coz
gress eve think few will argue he had more
then still it would be justified in its course. W
did not intend to wander into metaphysics, br
have only done so in attempting TO show thl
INV In pnao Uho hor %.