Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1866-04-27
mr.. sheIInbnrgerss sbeec ch.

to represent the Capital DiSLrlcJ Oh OnlO III
Congress, on the 2lst of April contributed
a speech to the Radical political literature
of the day. His political friends and sym
patIiIEers represent this speech as speech
OF matchless ability, The object of this
speech isto Justify the Disfranchisement
Of the Rebeis.Y At the risk of being ac-
counted singular, we are free to pronounce
it not an able speech, That 1t may have
been well written and well delivered, is
probably true; but this does not establish
ability, when we take into consideration
what was sopghtt to be accomplished, What
the speaker aimed at, was to convince the
members of Congress, and all those who
should do him the honor Of reading his
speech, that the future welfare of this coun-
try depends upon the exclusion Of the
Southern people who undertook to go out
from under the authority Of the Federal
Government, and establish an independent
Government, from participation hereafter
in the Federal Government. His argument
is the dead-State argument presented in a.
different form and different dress. That's
Mr.. SHELLABARGER assumes that the
Southern people, by the attempt to erect
an Independent Government as completely
made themselves aliens as though they had
crossed the ocean and become citizens of
some foreign power, and what he claims to
be his argument is directed to show that
the,Southern men shave renounced their
citizenship from the exercise" Of the pow
ers OF the Government. Yet while he
claims this, he insists that no "citizen can,
by any act of disloyalty, or by discarding |
his allegiance, divest himself of the obli- |
gationso of the allegiance which he owes his
country; but, on the contrary" he holds
that ''he cannot" After having argued |
that the citizens of the Southern States |
perfected the work of alienation, but did |
not thereby absolve themselves from alle-
glance to the Federal Government, he cites
Mr.CALHoUN to show that ''alien and citi-
zenship are correlatiye terms, and stand in
contradistinction 10 each other" and that
''they, of course, cannot co-exist." Not
satisfied with resting the matter at this
point, Mr.. .SHELLABARGER proceeds to say
"The principle here alluded to by Mr..
Calhoun, that he can not be held TO be a
citizen who does not owe, or who does not
recognize or render, the obligation of a cit
zen, is more fully expressed by Vattel Is. p.
106) in these words: i . "n
'If The body Of Society, or he toho represents
IL (e G0uerRDssHt), absolutely fail 10 DISCHARGE
their dbgatiOns toSodrds the citizen, the latter
mag toihdrdU himself" . .'
And then he asks us to note what fol-
lows: ,r.l ..... l.... .... ....
"Fpr II one Of the contracting parties does
not observe his engagements, tie other Is no
longer bound 20, JaLfn his, rs the contract is
reciprocal betloeeR society and its members. IL
Ia on the same principle also that, society
may expel member who violates its laws"
To this he adds quotation from the |
opinion Of the Attorney General OF the
United States, given on the 10th of Novem-
Der, 1862, which declares ~. fl sI
"The dutyof allegiance and the right 10 pro- |
tectj0R are oorretGttUe obligations, the one the |
price Of the other, and they constitute the bond |
betIceeR the tRdiUtdudL and his country" .'I
With the view Of making the position |
more impregnable, that the price paid by |
the Govern ment for the allegiance OF its |
citizens is protection, he draws the follow
ing quotation from Justice BLACKSTONE:
allegiance is the tie or ligament which |
binds every subject to'be true and faithful
to his sovereign in return for protection |
which is afforded him." ..,7 -.....
If there is any one thing that Mr.. SHELL
LABARGER has established by these quota
tions, it is that il. the Government shall |
''fail to discharge its obligations toward the
citizen. the latter may withdraw himself" |
Now, ifan individual has this right, of what
avail is that right, If does not exempt the
individual from further allegiance to the
Government? Does not Mr.. SHELLABAR-
GER see that by establishing the fact that
anIindividual may withdraw from the Gov
erhment If the Government shall violate its
part of the implied contract subsisting be-
tweenithem, that for like reason States may
also withdraw from the Government? 1t
was to forever discountenance the idea of
such withdrawal that our people with pro-
fuse prodigality poured out their blood and |
treasure in the late war; but they did not |
intend thereby to establish the doctrine
that the Federal Government could exact
allegiance, and yet deny protection, which
is the central idea running through the
speech of Mr.. SHELLABARGER. t.oigf
Mr., ,SHELLABARGER, having proven, as he
appears to think, that the Southern people
have aliehated themselves; that, although
they have done this, they yet owe to the
Federal Government absolute allegiance
l. a-su.