The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1866-12-18
The Question simplified.

Inc QueSuOu Slnplneus
BUT where does Mr.. Stevens find the power of
Congress to enact such law as he proposes ?
North Carolina was a sovereign State in the Union
before MIR. Stevens was born. She is one of tho
par ies 10 the original compact by which the Union
OF the states was formed Ii her people rebelled,
moro than does the child destroy the life OF his
parent by refusing longer 20 o eV has commands
There can le no such thing a; state sulc ido etner
can u ere be state murder by the people VINO lh'
habit II.
otis confidently asserted by Southern men that
tho errItorlal bill now before Congress will never
be enforced by the President If IL shoud De passed
Not one of them believes in the right oil Congress, or
any Othor body power TO destroy sovereignty.
Ibis is the ground assumed by the President.
Hence the confidence OF The people interested"
The above paragraphs, which we find in
different journals, contain a form of state
ment quite common in conservative quarters
1t is strange that those who urge such argu
ments as these do not perceive that they are
entirely immaterial to The question at issue.
They would have been of some relevancy had
they been brought forward to save the State
organizations overthrown by President John
son at the close of the war. II they are sound,
then the State organization which North
Carolina had during the war was a valid and
constitutional one, and President johnson
had no right to overthrow it. But that is no
longer practical question. President John
son assumed the authority and exercised the
power of destroying the old Sta e Govern
ments of the Rebel States, so that whether
those States committed "suicide" or not, is
now question of no Importance. The only
question, now that those old S ate Govern
ments have been destroyed, is, Who is au-
Morized to create new ones in their stead?
The President assumes that he has the right
TO do so, and that the work he has done in
organizing new State Governments in the
late Rebel States is authoritative and final.
1t his assumption be correct, then these
new Governments may have some ground of
validity; If not, then they have none.
These Executive State organizations inhe-
rit no validity from the old organizations
which they succeeded. They did not grow
out of them by legal and constitutional sue
cession. They are the product of revolution,
not of legal succession. Their origin was the
fat Of the Executive. not the will of the
people. Their history goes back to the pro-
clamation OF tire President asserting that the
Rebellion had deprived their people OF all
civil government" The chasm which sepa-
rates them from the old loyal State Govern
ments, under which their States were admit
ted into the Union, is totally unbridged, and
measures the entire duration OF the Rebellion
During that period by the solemn official
declaration ofthe present Executive, as we'll
as by the repeated declarations of his
lamented predecessor, there was no lawful
civil government within their bounds. Hence
the only validity these present organizations
have is what they derive from the Executive.
If he had right to make State Govern
ments at all, and if those he has assumed to
make are republican in FORM" then they
may lay some claim to legality, But if the
whole work of creating State organizations
is in its nature Legislative, and not Execu-
tive, then these organizations are invalid,
and exist at all only by the federation, not
the sanction, of the law making power of the
United States, and are liable, at any moment,
to be superseded by lawful and valid organi-
cations. .-..
1t contributes greatly to the simplfcaton
of this question to thus reduce it down to its
essential elements, and to cast away from it's
consideration all those metaphysical subtleties
of a something called 8" a State" which is
neither land, people, organization, nor any
other tangible thing, but which has an imagt-
nary vitality unknown to any other created
thing in the universe. President johnson
Gnnihilated the Rebel State Governments.
On what theory he did it is of no account;
whether or not he had the right to do it is
immaterial what his motives were for doing
1t are OF no consequence. He did it, and
and from that fact this whole question takes
its departure. He has made neU State
orgaDizat'o 'ons to supply the places OF the old
ones that he overthrew. And this gives rise
to just two possible questions First, Had he
the constitutional right to do the work at
allp and secondly, If so, has he done the
work in proper manner? Had he the right
to make State Governments at all? And ii
so, has he made such as are republican in
fOrm?"
These were the real questions submitted to
the people in the late election, and their YER
dict has been in the negative. And it is this
verdict of the people which Congress is about
to enact into law.