The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1866-07-23
The Daily N ewS.
MONDAY MORNING, JULY 23, 1866.
ANSWER 1T, IF YOU CAN.


ipr upapswerable argument, which it puts forth,
cannot therefore bo attributed to any sympathy
with accession. It examines the subject OF Con-
Yoderste "treason" from Union standpoint
After some remarks upon tho continued deten-
ton, without trial. Of Mr.. DAVIS, tho Democrat
proceeds az follows.
trial or release the prisoner is entitled to
now, and entitled t. it long since. How can
both be denied him? 1t will be easy to decide
that there is such right as that OF secession,
but that is not the difficulty. There is the right
Of which has been crt aeknow9dE9a o IN
We began by declaring the right in advance.
We assorted, i'll tho face OF all Governments,
t'Whonever q Government becomes destructive OF
abolish it," The people affected are to be thei-
own judges, it is asaun"d
Why had not Il o five or eight millions OF eleven
States as much zig II judge for themselves as
the three millions of the thirteen colonies had?
Where can find the difference, unless he as
Bumes to Judge OF their reasons for them, which
the doctrine We SO formally announced does not
allow2
titled to Judge for Themselves, too, and war may
ensue, as war often does, between independent
nations; but when tho war is over, how shall wo
proceed to punish the millions, who attempted to
act on this right we acknowledge. as crlmlnalsf
We can easily say that tho doctrine here an
nounced does not apply to mere lnsnrrecsons' =. OF
can take its place amongst nations; but when we
say it does apply to eleven States, with seven
the doctrine altogether, aud say it is inapplicablc
to any case that could occur; that it is onlJ an
empty theory, without any tangible substances or
Then there is o part of our history that men
overlook Our present Government was formo l
by an act OF secession from reguaily const-
tuted Government ratified by all the States Its
Constitution, called ARTICLES OF Confederation,
generally, it befo,c u.s. II is entitled ON its face
"Artices of Confederation and Perpetual Union
between the Stat, Of" &c.
Article 81 says:
stEach state retains it's sovereignty, freedom
and independence, and every. power, Jurisdiction
and right which is not by this Confedera alton ex-
pressly delegated to the United States in Con-
gress assembled"
the States could not exercise; the rest reserve d,
as in our present Constitution.
"Every State shall abide by the determination
of the United States in Congress assembled on all
questions which, by this Confederation, are sub
Intted to them; and the Articles of Confederation
shall be invioIably observed by every State, and
the Union shall be pcrpetual; nor shall any altera-
tion at any time hereafter be made in any OF them,
unless such alteration be agreed to in Cougress
of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed
by tho Legislature Of every State"
Here a regular Government, by which
every State Of the thirteen was bound to oil the
rest.
But ten or eleven years nfterward the States, all
but one, sent delegates to convention to amend
the articles of perpetual union." They altered
the whole structure Of the Government which
was all in order, and it was sent to Congress and
submitted to all the States. That, too, was in
But here is the point of secession without war
rant, and in vi aton of the provisions OF the Gov
ernment by which all were buund
This new document provided that if nine States
ratified it, the new Government should go into
operation; that il. the nine would secede from the
four regardless 0t their constitutional obligations
to these four for there were thirteen States.
There powerful minority opposed to this
veloped much until lately. Two States held out
against it until it went into operation. Had not
the minority right to denounce all this as trea.
son, and the two States that held out right 10
hold up the others traitors, nant bre
In short were not the majority secessionists, and
was not the formation OF our present Government
the work OF secession?
If mai ,riry can thus secnde from minority,
in utter disregard Of constitutional obligations,
and still be regarded as patriots, why not a mi
nority secede from majority May the strong
trample on the rights or the weak, whilst it is
criminal in the weak to disregard the rights ofthe
strong?
In addition to this, since the formation of the
present Government, there have been unsettled
questions, with able advocates Oh both sides. May
not law OF Congress, Palpabiy unconstitutional,
be nullitied by State authority Jefferson Was in
favor Of trying it in Virginia, if the alien aud Sc.
dition laws were enforcei there The State Courts
would have granted writ OF hdbeds corpus to
any one imprisoned under these laws, and dis.
charge him. Whether the Statesmen OF Virginia
believed this remedy constitutional or not 1t il
highly probable they would have tried it.
This remedy tried in Ohio, with the jealous
appreciation Of Mr.. Chase i'll the case OF men ar
rested, tried, fined and lmprlaoned under the fu
gitive slave law. The wisd I'm and discretion OF
majority nt the judges prevented the progress 8
the experiment.
South Carolina tried notification by State au.
thority Tue attempt was nut down by the prompt
action of the Executive and compromises; but
there was left unsettled the question about the
power of the ate.
Besides, the right of State to secede from the
compact has had its a.ivocates-men of note anc
historical character. 1t is true that NO ma ority
ever admitted the right; but in the minds of uu
people the question WAS left af.'at, with miilion
to believe iu the right, if they felt disposition tt
exercise it.
These considerations do not affect the lega
question tire {. clinical guilt uf one accused o
treason; but they do affect the moral character o
the act.
There was plenty Of room in the history Of tn
country for men to be pisled, or to take the sid
Of secession and believe tney were right.
= Before We take the lives, liberty or property o
men justly, it is necessary to settle some ques
tions by consent ur otherwise. Until that il done
we may leave legal p nnts to courts; but whethc
tho moral tnrpitude is sufficient to justify punish
ment, is another question.
Lord DE, by and his Cabinet.
HIs ovERTUREH TO THE Observation-Disclosures