Bradford reporter. [volume] (Towanda, Pa.) 1844-1884, 1866-03-08

csced in--by the majority of those partci-
pating in them. The democrats al Penn
SyIvania bad no opportunity to vote on the
question whether South Carolina should se
cedc or not In all probability, they would
have voted just as did the democrats OF
that State but their voting would have
changed the result, and we question very
much whether it would have made it right,
though the democrats say it would
Then it is argued, that because the Con
Stitution contemplates perpetual Union,
therefore, States cannot go out" Yet every
day are perpetual contracts broken, and
what Is 10 hinder them from being broken
as well as other contracts An Insurance
company may issue policies Of perpetual
INSURANCE one day and fail the next and
If she fails, are her policies still good The
Confederate States OF America contracted
with tire Southern people to erect perlna
nent slave government, but they Jailed /;
and is this government stlli i'll existence,
BECAUSE Of the agreement to create 1t ! Is
this not gross lllacy?
Stlll weaker than this is the assumption
that as the Constitution makes no pro. Is
ION iUr the withdrawal Ui States, therefore,
States can not go out" Why there Is no
provision made Tor mems committing crime,
yet men do II and is it true, sane, 10
say that men cannot Commit crime, BECAUSE
there is no provision made for 1t ! Queer
logic.
Another wonderful consideration, or ar
gumcnl that Is urged, Is That as The rebels
did not carry out with them ON their backs
their (houses and Iands) territory therefore,
they did not go out of the Union." How
profound 4 man owning a piece of land
IN Illinois may sell it to another iii Penn
sylvania give the deed in fee, and take the
money for it, yet it is not transferred, Ac-
cord ny to this doctrine, because the land
in illinois is not removed to Pennsylvania
Or, when Napoleon l. extended the bound
aries of France to the banks of the Rhine,
the SOY, reignty OF the soil was not chang
ed, because the territory lying between the
the old boundaries of France and the Rhine,
was not literally carried over to France.
How lucid and logical modern democrats
are becoming
Next they have it, that the rebels did
not go out of the Union because they did
not get their independence" For fonr
years the rebels successfully resisted our
arms, and were as independent Of us as the
people Of England So that if securing in
dependence took them out of the Union, it
follows as necessary sequence, that they
were out so long as they were independent
and if they had been thus independent for
forty years instead of four, would they have
been in the Union during all this time? Is
the idea not absurd and if absurd for forty,
why not for four years
1t is also held, that inasmuch as the
general government has established post
roads, post Offices, courts and custom honses,
in the rebel States, it must follow that they
are in the Union We hold that no Such
thing follows. For the government almost
every year does these same things in the
territories, still, it does not make States of
them Nor is it any evidence in favor OF
that condition.
1t wav our purpose in the beginning to
follow up and expose the weakness of every
position assumed to favor Of the idea that the
rebel States did not 20 ont OF the Union by
secession but this article is already toe
long, and the points remaining, are il
stronger than those we have noticed. and
therefore hardly deserving 50 much atten
ton