The tri-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1866-1868, 1866-06-30

force Nero suffiace pom an State by means
of the penalty Of q loss Of part of its repre-
sentation viii not only, we think be impos
ing disp4raging pfoyisioH but isyirtually
to interfere with the eleaf mt CT esch State
to regulate suffrage for itself without the
control of the government of the United
States. Whether that control be exerted di-
rectly or indirectly, it viii be considered, as
we think it is, a fatal blow to the right
which every State in the past has held vital
the right to regulate her franchise. To pun
ish o State for not regulating it ina particu-
lar way, so as to give to all classes OF the peo-
pie the privilege of suffrage, is but. seeking
to accomplish incidentally what, II 1T should
be done at all, should be done directly. No
reason, in the view of the undersigned, can
be suggested for the course adopted than
belief that such q direct interference, would
not be sanctioned by the Northern States,
while as regards such States the actual re-
commentator, because of the small proper
ton of negroes within their limits, will not
in the least lessen their representative power
in Congress or their influence in the Presi-
DENTAL election; and they may, therefore,
sanction it. The very inequality ofits oper-
alton upon the State renders the measure, in
our opinion, most unjust, and, looking to the
peace and quiet of the country, most inpo-
little. The mode advised is also without
precedent When the constitution was adop-
ted it was thought to be defective in not
sufficiently protecting certain rights of the
States and the people. With view OF sup
plying remedy for this effect, on the 4th of
March, 1889, various amendments, by reso,
luton constitutionally passed, were submitted
for ratification to the States. These were
twelve in number. Several of them were
even less independent of each other than are
those recommended by the committee But
it did not occur to the men of that day
that it was right to force the States to
adopt or reject all. Each was there
fore presented as separate article. The
language of the resolution was "that the
following articles be proposed to the legisla-
lures of the several States as amendments of
the constitution of the United States, all, or
any of which articles, when ratified by three
fourths of the said legislatures, to be valid
to all intents and purposes as parts of the
constitution" That Congress was willing
to obtain either of the submitted amend
ments: to get part if not able to procure
the whole. They thought and in that we
submit, they but conformed to the letter and
the spirit of the amendatory clause of the
constitution-that the people have the right
to pass severally on any proposed amend
ments. This course of our fathers, however,
is now departed from, and the result will
probably be that no one of the suggested
amendments, though some may be approved
will be ratified This will certainly be the
result unless the States are willing practical
ly to relinquish the right they have always
enjoyed, never before questioned by any re-
their interest and security-the right to reg
ulate the franchise in all their elections.
There are, too, some general observations
that bear on the subject, to which we will
now refer First, one of the resolutions of
the Chicago Convention, by which MIR. Lin
coin was first nominated for the Presidency,
says that the maintenance, inviolate, of the
rights of the States is essential to the balance
of power on which the prosperity and endu-
rance of our political fabric depends" In
his inaugural address of the 4th March, 1861,
which received the almost universal appro-
val of the people, among other things, he
said, "no State, of its own motion, can law
fully get out of the Union,"'. and that in the
view of the constitution and the laws the
Union is unbroken, and to the extent of my
ability I shall take care, as the constitution
itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the
laws of the Union be faithfully executed in
all the States" Second, actual conflict en-
sued. The South, it was believed, misap-
pretended the purpose of the government in
carrying it on, and Congress deemed it i'm
portant to dispel that misrepresentation by
declaring what the purpose was. This was
done in July, 1861, by their passing the Crit
tenden resolution The vote in the House
was 119 for and against it, and in the Sen
ate 80 for and against it. The desi gn to
conquer or subjugate or to curtail or inter
fere in any way with the rights of the States
is in the strongest terms thus disclaimed, and
the only avowed object asserted to be to
defend and maintain the spirit of the consti-
tuition and to preserve the Union and the
dignity, equality and rights of the several
States unimpaired. Congress, too, by the
act of July Is, 1861, empowered the Presi-
dent to declare by the proclamation, g that
the inhabitants ofsuch State or States where
the instruction existed are in state of in
surrection against the United States" and
thereupon to declare 'all commercial inter-
course by and between the same by the citi
Zens thereof and the citizens of the United
States shall cease and be unlawful " & so long
as such condition of hostilities shall con-
tinue' Here, also, Congress evidently deals
with the States as in the Union, and to re-
main in the Union. 1t seeks to keep them
in by forbidding commercial intercourse be-
tween their citizens and the citizens of the
other States, so long, and SO long only, as in
surrectionary hostility shall continue. That
ended they are to be as at first, entitled to
the same intercourse with citizens of other
States that they enjoyed before the insurrec-
ton. In other words in this act, as in the
resolution of the same month, the dignity,
equality and rights OF such States (the lnsur-
rection ended) were not to be held in any re-
spect impaired. The several proclamations
of amnesty issued by Mr.. Lincoln and his
successor, under the authority of Congress,
are also inconsistent with the idea that the
parties included within them are not to be
held in the future restored to all rights be-
longing to them as citizens. A power to
pardon is power to restore the offender to
the condition in which he was before the
date of the offence pardoned. 1t is now set
tied that a pardon removes not only the
punishments but all the legal disability con-
sequent on the crime. (Bac. A. B. Tit. Par)
Bishop on Criminal Law (vol. 1, p. 713)
states the same doctrine. The amnesty so
declared would be but false pretence if it
be now held to leave the parties who have
availed themselves of it in almost every par
ticular in the condition they would have been
in if they had rejected it. Such result, it
is thought, would be a foul blot on the good
name Of the nation. In the present state of
the country the excitement which exists, and
which may mislead Legislatures already cleo
ted, we think that the matured sense of the
ro1r, 10 L..