The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1866-12-20
Political ThimhieIippinp.
Mr.. CowAN made a long speech in the
Senate on Tuesday, in regard to the condi-
ton of the Rebel States:-

JlOn OF the Rebel StateS:-
HE denied the doctrine that the State Gov
ernmcnts we're DESTROY ed by the act Of secession
and asserted that IT was subverslve of the prin-
ciples uuon which the Constitution was formed
a State was a corporation, limited by tne char
TER which led IT. He would ask the Senator
from Ohio whether State could commit trea-
son? Mr.. Cowan asked whether the State could
commit any other crime, or do any other thing
which its charter forbade? Could n State
rebel? That was the great question now agi-
ta'ing the country. The Officials OF a State had
no authority az such officers to do that which
was forbidden by their Constitution and laws.
Coz pOrauOns could not commit crime, whatever
individuals might do"
1he above is a pretty fair specimen of what
passes for craftsmanship" and knowledge
OF constitutional law in conservative quarters.
The assumption that lies at the bottom of
all these fallacies is that a State cannot really
do what it cannot legally do. A State cannot
legally secede, rebel, make war upon the
Union, or commit any other crime there
fore, it cannot do it at all. A an'cannot
legally commit murder; therefore, he cannot
actually do it, A railroad corporation is
restricted by its charter to running its trains
at the rate of ten miles an hour therefore. it
cannot as a fact, run them at twenty. A
steamboat company is bound by law to keep
a good life-preserver for each passenger it
may carry; therefore, it does keep them.
bank is bound by its charter not to issue
more than three dollars in currency for every
dollar in specie in its vaults; therefore, it
never does, as fact, issue more than three to
one. Humbug! There is not day passes
that corporations do not, as a matter of fact,
transgress the requirements of their charters.
There is not day pas es that they do not
steal, rob, lie, perpetrate injustice, and COM
NIT other crimes. When a steamship COM
pany sends All unseaworthy vessel to sea,
with a short-handed and incompetent crew
and, in consequence, she goes to the bottom
Of the ocean with all on board, has the COM
pany - the corporation" - committed no
crime?" When a railroad company keeps
in its employ notoriously drunken engineer,
and the result is I" smash up" involving the
loss Of life and limb, is the crime" simply
that Of the agent and not Of the principal?
When one State makes unjust war upon an
other, overluns It's territory and kills it's
citizens, is the crime merely that of the blind
instruments by which it is done? There
was never doctrine more corrupting in
morals, or more false in law, than this one
put forth by our repudtated Pennsylvania
Senator.
The late Rebel States could not legally
"secede," but they did as matter of fact
They could not legally wage war against the
Union, yet their armies were not, on that ac-
count, mere myth. They could not legally
confederate together, yet they did do il.
They could not legally coin money, emit
bills of credit, grant letters OF marque and
reprisal, lay imposts, etc, yet, as matters Of
fact, they did do all these things. The Re-
bellion was a great fact; the war to put it
down was great fact; and Mr.. COwan's
metaphysical platitudes will not make them
anything else than facts.
Mr.. Cowan brings forward his theory for
a certain object. That object is to preserve
the Rebel State Governments. Hence, he
asserts that the Rebel States could not rebel,
commit treason, or perpetrate any other crime.
All that was done was mere individWal action.
But ere long, forgetting the Rebel States in
his solictude for the Rebels themselves, he
unconsciously cuts the throat of his theory.
He says:-
"Citizens of the Southern States could not be
punished tor treason, because they yieded
obedience to their STATE GOUerhDlent when the
general Government afforded them no protec-
tiOn or means OF resistance"
In answer to a question from Democratic
Senator
whether citizen OF South Carolina, which
State had seeded and had long protected ntm
Il, let,NY Nft hn Nnu
ment, could even, though he had been wiling
to rebel, be punished tor treason, MIR. CoWan
said, Certainly not.'"
Here we have the condition of things
exactly reversed. The State is now the
authoritative party, and not the citizen. The
citizen, even though he wages war against
the Union, cannot be guilty of treason,
because he commits it in obedience to the
State When the state Government is to be
shielded, then it is the citizen that does every
thing; when the citizen is to be shielded,
then it is the State that does everything.
We cannot hold the State responsible, be-
cause the Rebellion is the work of indi-
UiduGlS; we cannot punish the citizen for
treason, because he simply obeys his State.
Convenient theory We know that there
has been a tremendous reb ,llion, and that
long and bloody war has been waged against
the republic; but nobody is responsible. Our
conservative thimblerigger is so dexterous that
Justice cannot detect the criminal. She
beholds him doGging, now under the citizen
and now under the State; but can never lay
her mailed hand upon him, and drag him
forth to Judgment. AnG it is upon just such