The Portland daily press., 1866-03-12

VIII remember that Vattel-for l 90 no furth
CT SO lar as this argument is concerned-speak
oI ttmult as one thing that may take place
tnat Is, when there is a tumultuous assem-
page and the laws are violated; and wher
Inat tumuIt assumes form and becomes re
ISSUANCE TO the law and to the governing au
thorlty, 1t Is an Instruction; and when it as
sumes greater form, and the laws are sue
cessfuliy resisted, and the sovereign power i;
dehed, by armed force, then it becomes a civil
war. Is that condition of things what was
meant, and all that was meant, by the clause
OF the constitution giving power to call forth
Ine milltla to suppress Instruction?
:, Ii the Senator is right in his construction
tnere Is no such thing as civil war under this
government, and can be no such thing; the
constitution does not provide for it; it speaks
SIMPLY OF " 1nsurrection;" and there can be
none OF the consequences of civil war, because
the Constitution has not provided for it. Sir,
This clause is of the narrowest possible limita-
uon, and refers only to ordinary tumults car
ried TO such an extent as to make instructions
tnat are perfectly familiar to us all, and the
very provision of the Constitution which the
senator has quoted shows that was the under
Standing The truth is, it has reference SIM
ply to the militia. 1t is power
To provide for calm forth the militia to execute
repel invasions."
Not that Congress shall have authority to
suppress instructions, as the Senator would
nave to read it, and repel invasions; but it NAV
use the militia force for the purpose of sup
pressing instructions and repelling invasions,
meaning simply that on a sudden emergency,
When there is an instruction or invasion.
congress may call upon the militia Temporal
rny TOR the purpose of effecting the object.
mat Is all. Now, then, sir, understanding
mat war has existed, and that its consequent
ces are such as have stated, and that civil
war is attended by all the consequences of 9TH
er wars, even among us under the Constitu-
uon, say that, in my judgment, State NAV
be utterly extinguished and swept out of ex.
lstence by civil war. 1t is necessary conse-
quence if the law of nations exists among us
and we are bound by its provisions. A State
may forfeit its status. The Government NAV
say that it has forfeited its status, if it pleases
10 say SO. 1t may impose upon such State
punishment; it may protect itself against the
luture and 1t, in order to protect itself against
the future, the Government finds it absolutely
necessary to prevent it from resuming its orig
NAL position, it has the perfect power to do SO.
IL Is necessary consequence of the principle.
1t has been said, men have been fond of say
ing, " Once State, always State" That is
not true of States in general. It is not true as
matter OF fact. States may live and States
may die. do not hold that these States are
dead, but l hold that States may die and have
dled heretofore. But not being true of States in
general, IL IS not true of these States. Once a
otate, IL does not follow that they are always
necessarily States, in the sense that we use
the term. They may continue to be States,
they may continue to be organizations, but it
Is a very olHerent question whether, as such
organizations, they are States of the Union
and in the Union. That depends upon other
considerations. ask the Senator if something
Is not necessary besides geographical extent
and political organization as a State in order
to be State of the Union? Must there not
be constitution of the State? Must there not
be government so constituted that it has re-
lations, and lifting relations, to the Govern
ment Of the United States? Must it be in a
position to perform its duties? Has tnot OBJ
l9atlons to be performed toward the United
States, as well as to insist on the performance
OF duties to be received from the Government
OF the United States? Can there be a State
OF this Union without a constitution which
makes and shows its form of government and
places it in relations with the Government OF
the United States? Can it be State of this
Union without any provision through which
and by which it can perform the Obligations
which it is under to the United States, to the
government Of the whole? Certainly not.
Therefore it is not true that although State
may exist in some particulars, it exists in all
relations to the Government of the United
States, and is State in the Union, because il
has an organization. The result does not ne
cessarily follow.
there should be republican government; that
mn ho nh lad l>x,C
gress, and that government must have the re-
quisite provisions to connect it with the I'm.
ion. When that government is DESTROYED
when the ligature is broken, when there are
no provisions whatever that connect it with
the United States, it ceases to be State of the
Union from necessity. do not say that its
people pass out from under the jurisdiction oil
the Government; it belongs to the Union and
its people are under the authority of the I'm
ion; but as State having rights in the I'm
ion-rights, for instance, in this Congress-
when it has ceased to connect itself with the
Government by its own act or in any way, it is
at an end for the time being, because some
thing more is necessary than bare organized
existence. That is the position that assume
and have not been able to see but that it is
correct. , -..'I.--
Now, will the Senator deny, will any one
deny, that there has been period and lona
period during which there was no connection
between these confederate States and the Gov.
eminent of the United States? Have moi
years elapsed during which no such connection
existed? Was not the form of government
which bound them to the Union entirely de.
strOyed? Was not the connection obliterat-
ed? Were not all their people in rebellion
Was there anything by which any of those
States could connect itself with the Govern
ment with which it had been formerly con.
nected, and if not, what is necessary in order
to bring it back? Is it not necessary that il
should be recognized by this Governmental Is
it not necessary that it should have consti-
tuition which does connect it with this Gov.
eminent? Is it not necessary that it should
place itself in position to discharge its duties
toward this Government? And when it has
done that, must it not apply to the Govern.
ment for admission, for reinstatement in the
Union? .ss- 7N W Hf"
This question has been argued, and argued
by authority, as If we had nothing to say about
it; as if these people were back again simply
because they had made State constitutions
How do we know it? What proof have we
want an answer. -.s- -rr9 r-li fs.... Ht
Mr.. CowAN. That question arises when the
representatives of those people come here.
Mr.. FEssENDEN. But they do not bring
their constitutions with them.
Mr.. CowAN. We have right to inquire
if it becomes necessary to determine whether
they were properly elected ,..r.f-t
Mr.. FEssENDEN. Undoubtedly; but the ar
gument is that we have no right to inquire in
to anything except that they have been elect
ed. CO. ,f,I. .f-si,s .eis,. cdr f1f 90
Mr.. CowAN. Oh, no; it raises the whole
question about the legitimacy of the body
which elected them. : Hge .7-N1 te 90
Mr.. FEssENDENd What body? Ia
= Mr.. CowAN. The Legislature that elects
Senators. ~
Mr.. FEssENDEN. But have we not a right
to see the constitution? Should not that con.
stitution be presented to us? 1t has been once
overthrown, obliterated, gone. s.oct s.sG
Mr.. CowAN. You inquire into their con.
dition when you inquire into the election, and
see whether the person claiming to be elected
was chosen by the proper body. %. 17
Mr.. FEssENDEN. What, then, becomes O.
the argument that they can be admitted or
their credentials ? Are we not to inquire into
the condition Of the States? a-.l4 n, - t--r
9 Mr.. DooLITrLE. Will the Senator allow
mo "a ctata that no one has ever pretanded