New Orleans daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1851-1866, 1866-04-30

WASHINGTON, April %, 1866.


record for the mast week was the pungent passage
at words between these two distinguished Sena-
tors, The Conness-McDougal difficulty had
scarcely been healed, and the most fraternal cor
diality been established between the Californian
gentlemen before the arena was occupied by new
controversial gladators.
The Senate is rapidly establishing 4 reputation
for eminence in the cultivation of parliamentary
dialogue. This honorable body cannot be consid-
cred very culpable for changing its deliberations
from the uninteresting and soporifc style of mono
logue to the more vivacous character of ndip dual
comment and personal charges or nsinuations.
The present controversy arose during discussion
on the bill relieving United States officers from
responsibility for acts performed in discharge of
their duty but in violation of the civil law of the
various States. Since the decision of the Supreme
Court on the unconstitutionality of military COM
missions in the "loyal' States, this enactment
becomes peculiarly Objectionable, not to say of
doubtful legality. 1t originated, however, in the
numerous prosecutions instituted against military
officers in the State of Kentucky, and without the
most repulsive class legislation, no exceptions
could be made in reference to the territory over
which the operation of the law should extend.
| The debate was unusually spirited, and afforded
quite relief after the technical discussions of the
previous week.. Additional interest was occa-
stoned by the delivery of a maiden speech from
the successor of Mr.. Foot, Senator Edmunds, of
| Vermont. The new Senator made very success
full debut which compared favorably with the
efforts of more experienced Senators, and at the
same time eyinced his unwillingness to follow SER
vlely the leadership of Messrs. Trumbull and Fes-
sender.
In the course of q speech on his own amend
ment, Mr. Salisbury declared the proposed law
unconstitutional and stated his opinion that no
Judge was bound to obey it. During the debates
on the civil rights bill, Mr.. Salisbury had also an
nounced the impossbility of executing such law
in his own State of Delaware. Armed with this
double charge Mr.. Clark attacked his brother
Senator with harboring the old ''rebel spirit,
and encouraging resistance to the authority of the
government. Mr.. Clark belongs to a certain school
ofpolitcians who imagine that Congress is notin the
slightest manner restrained by any legal proven
tive against the scope of its authority-that it is
general mandatory for the production of laws
that its power in this respect is unlimited by the
Constitution, and is only restrained by some non
existent boundary which they are pleased to de-
nominate 'the higher law" Mr.. Salisbury had sim
ply stated a very well-known and generally recog.
nized principle that when Judge considers any
law unconstitutional, he is not bound to respect it,
until the Supreme Court determines its validity.
The Senator from New Hampshires replies, "No,
| you must obey the authority of the United States
government" What is the government" In
Mr.. Clark's opinion it means Congress-the Senate
and the House-the be-all and the end-all In the
opinion of few sensible people, it comprises three
co-ordinary authorities-the executive the legis.
lative and the judiciary. This is the very primer
of our political knowledge A young Englishman
who he'd been travelling in this country during the
war, returned to his home few months ago, and
| in the course of public Speech descanted in a
somewhat elaborate style on the practical working
of United States institutions At the conclusion of
the address he was taken to task for emitting any
mention of the Supreme Court. With hearty frank
ness the speaker replied that he was aware of the
existence of such an institution, but supposed that
it would be scarcely legitimate to include it in his
remarks. He had heard so little about the court
that he considered it quite obsolete; he would how
ever submit to correction listener to the speeches
of Mr.. Clark and men of that kind would not be in
| cned to accuse foreigner of ineXcusable ign0-
rance for suchan omission. Let us return to the &C.
count Of this delectable squabble. Mr.. Clark put
| the Delaware Senator on par with the mean est
s'rebel" soldier. Mr., Salisbury declared that
there was nothing in Mr.. Clark, mentally, morally
or physically, which entitled him to use any inso-
lent language in this place. The fight now became
quite parliamentary, the Senate was Immediately
onthe qNi riUe and the sleepy occupants of the
galleries welcomed the voice which aroused them
| from lazy slunbers The reference to physical
capacity fell with martial effect the ears of lis
teners. The pallid face of Mr.. Clark grew paler
than usual, while Saulsbury's ford complexion
flushed into pippin redness. Both tall men,
Clark lighter frame than Salisbury, the former q
personifcation of New England intellect in some of
its least elevated FORMS the latter brilliant but
unregulated genius, with all the manly bear
! ing of true gentleman-they stood the
representative men of the East and South. Mr..
| Clark, the same Senator who made himself con-
spicuous by unequalled persstenGy in the Stock
ton case, would not take warning from the rebuke
administered by Mr.. Grimes to Judge Trumbull on
the previous day. He would be censor-he
would regulate the senatorial conduct of Mr..
| Salisbury. He claimed nothing physically; he
only claimed to love his country, and the natural
presumption remains that those who differ from
him do not entertain similar patriotic feelings.
After the explanation had been given by Sauls-
bury, Clark still maintained that he meant no dis
respect, but wanted to rebuke " spirit manifested
here" Perfectly right The Senator knows his
State Vermont, wants to rebuke the constitutional
spirit A voice from the Green Mountains is to
direct the political conscience Of the land II
must be understood that Congress is now legislat-
ing for the spirit" The Committee of Fifteen
is taking evidence to show the spirit" that ami
mates the South. Our country must nov be re-
nodded on transcendental basis The spirit OF
Washington, Hancock and efterson was totally
wrong. The only way by which the South is to
become reconstructed lies in adopting "the spirit
which burnt old women for Witches and made the
crime of swearing on Sunday apenitentiary ofense
| En pcssant, we must renounce any ideas of a
jurisdiction to determine the constitutonality of
law of Congress.
1t is very kind in Mr.. Clark to indicate the
readiest plan of reconstruction. We fear that i
the Southern States, and even some other States
of the Union are not considered worthy of repub
lean privileges until they accept this ascetc puri
tanism the transcendenta, higher.law prophets
will soon have Senate to themselves and little
rump House. Spirit" forsoothl Does the
Constitution say anything about spirit? No, bui
the status Of misunderstanding original patterr
from which other laws should be copied, is very
| explicit on such points of mental government,