The Evansville journal. [volume] (Evansville, Ind.) 1866-1870, 1866-06-25

and the insurrection. The exercise
of such rights may be found conve-
nient, or become necessary to the sup
preston of the rebellion, but the
character of the conflict is in no way
changed by resort to them. That
remains as it was at first, and must
from its very nature, during its con-
tinuance, remain a mere contest in
which the Government seeks, and can
only seek, to put an end to the rebel
lion. That achieved, the original con-
dition of things is at once restored.
In support of this view two deci-
sions arequoted. First, that of Judge
Sprague, of the United States District
Court for Massachusetts,, in the case
of Amy Warlick, who held that it was
erroneous to suppose that because the
Government had the right of bel
ligerent while rebellion existed, it
possessed the same power after it was
suppressed, and that State and its
inhabitants might be permanently di-
vested of all political advantages, and
LredgeQ as conquered TUTDIgH UCTTfUUTy.
On the contrary, the belligerent right
ceased as soon as the instruction was
overcome. Conquest of a foreign
country gives unlimited sovereign
rights, but no nation ever makes such
a conquest over its own territory. The
Government acquires no new sove-
reignty, but simply maintains its pre-
vious rights.
In the second case, Justice Nelson,
of the u. s. Supreme Court, ordered
the release under an application for a
writ OF habeas corpus of James Egan,
sentenced to Imprisonment, for muir
der, by military commission in South
Carolina. The Justice held that the
action of the commission was void, as
the civil courts were in operation in
the State at the time, and no necessity
excisted for martial law.
The signers also hold that the con-
trary doctrine is inconsistent with the
obligation of the Government to pro-
tect the citizen. It is wrong to sup
pose that rebel majority or minority
can make their peaceable fellow citi-
zens enemies of the Government, hav-
ing no right to its protection.
EXCLUSION OF SOUTHERN STATES UN-
UNSUITABLE.
The report then argues against the
exclusion of the Southern States from
representation in Congress, assigning
the following reasons why they should
be represented: First, because they
have organized governments, and the
States have the power to form govern
ments for themselves, or modify it
after it is formed. The Presidents
even if conceded to be
illegal, has since had the approval of
the people of the States, and a SINH
lar interference by Congress would
be equally unipst;Ga} e
can admit new States, but, when they
have once become members OF the
Union, its powers cease. Each State
Southern States. being
within the Union, and in the exercise
OF all their other functions, there can
be only the plea of supposed neces-
sity for keeping their Representatives
out of Congress. The necessity does
not exist, for, were all the Southern
members admitted, the Representa-
lives OF the loyal States, under the
present apportionment, would ont
number them in the House by a ma.
OrIty OF seventy-two votes.
The signers then quote the testimo-
~ OF Gen. Grant, and offer yarions
easons to show that no evil could re-
ult from the admission of the South
I'm Congressman.
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS
The imposition of new conditions
n the South in the form of constitn-
ional amendments is objected to as
egrrading to its people. They cannot
lstly be asked to disfranchise a nu-
ferrous class of their citizens or to
q al their representation, and it
folly to ask their assent to such
The mode is also without
recedent. When the Constitution !
as adopted 1t was thought to be de-
'ctlye In not sufficiently protecting
9rtaln rights of the States and the 1
eople. With view of supplying a a
.medy for this defect, on the 4th of a
arch, 1879, various amendments. bv /
resolution constitutionally passed
ere submitted for ratification to the t
ates; These We're twelve in num-
n. Several of them were even less a
dependent of each other than are V
ose recommended by the committee. q
ut 1t did not occur to the men of that =
~ that it was right to force the States +
re- nf the "a language Of the resolution 5;
is that the following articles be
opposed to the Legislatures of the al
Veral States as amendments Of the az AZ
institution Of the United States. ali &C
any of which articles, when ratifi- a.
by three-fourths of said Legisla- &c
res, to be valid to all intents and sy
rp!oses, as parts of the Constitu- Of
n. That Congress was willing to on
tain either of the submitted amend t Te1
nts,; to get a part if not able to Sc OBJ
e the whole. They thought-and
that, we submit, they but Conform TT
to the letter and spirit of the es-
endatory clause of the Constitnt;on Ar