Dallas herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1849-1873, 1866-05-12

gy"The Civil Rights Bill passed the Sem
ate on the 7th April, over the Presidents
veto, by vote of 33.to Is, and the House
of Representatives on the 9th, by vote of
100 to Al. The Shreveport South Western
has the following on the subject:
at will be seen by reference to another
column, that both houses Of congress have
passed the civil rights bill over the Presi-
dents veto, and that, 80 far as they are con-
cerned, it is the law of the land. Our only
hope, then, is that the law is unconsitu-
tional, and that it will be sodeclared by the
supreme court. Let us see upon what
ground this hope is based. 1t will be re-
collected that the president, anterior to the
passage of the bill over his veto, issued ! is
proclamation declaring the rebellion at an
end and virtually restoring the Southern
States 10 the Union, aud consequently, uu-
der the constitution, to representation in
congress. The logical deduction would be,
that any law passed by congress in the alb
sence of the legally elected members, when
their votes would have changed the result,
was unconstitutional Such is the condi-
ton of the civil rights bill, and we trust
that the supreme court will so decide. The
New Orleans Times, in an article on this
subject, takes the same grounds, and argues
as follows:
"The southern States, then, on the I'd day
of this current month, having been, by ex-
tcutive proclamation, declared to be re-
stored to the federat Union, with all the
rights belonging 70 Them as States, among
the chief of whidhsis the right Of repre-
sentation in congress, and those States hav
ing epresentativesie legally elected to both
branches, now at Washington claiming
their seats, no acts, we mainthip, Of either
branch of the federal legislature, are legal
or Of any effect, which were passed in the
absence Of those representatives. The
twenty-five votes Of the senators Of. eleven
States now claiming and entitled to their
seats under the proclamation, would have
reversed the vote recently given by sena-
tors in favor Of the civil rights bill, and
the veto of thai unconstitutional bill by
the President would have been sustained.
"The so-called Senate of the United
States, in the absence Of the twenty-five
legally elected Senators of the Southern
States, refused admittance to their seats by
the coniumacy Of the radical party, is not,
therefore, the Senate recognised and de-
manded by the express terms Of the fede-
raj constitution, and any acts passed by so
unconstitutional body are null, void and
wholly imperative. Besides the rejection
Of Southern Senator's, duly elected, the re-
cent unconstitutional expulsion Of the Hon.
Mr.. Stockton, Of New Jersey, from his seat
in the Senate, which be was entitled TO oc-
cupy for six years, must vitiate all the acts
Of the Senatorial body passed in the absence
Of that Senator.
I'VE are under tbeclear impression there
fore, that the passage Of the civil rights
bill, under existing circumstances, is Tile
gal, and that that bill cannot and will not
be regarded by the Supreme Court Of the
United statcs-to whom the question should
be referred, lin case of'tbe passage Of the
bill BY the house Of representatives) as the
Law Of the land. We say, the efore, that
the elapping Of hands By the radical party
is somewhat ill-timed, and that they may
yet be compelled 20 laugh, as the saying is,
on the other side Of the mouth"