The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1866-06-21

that appears, the civil local courts of the
State Of South Carolina were in the full
exercise of their judicial functions at the
time of this trial, as restored by the sup
preston of the rebellion some seven months
previously, and by the revival of the laws
and the reorganization of the State in
obedience to and in conformity with its
constitutional duties to the Union. Indeed,
long previous to this, the provisional
government had been appointed by the
President, who is commander in chief of
the army and navy of the United States,
(and whose will under martial law conStitu-
ted the only rule of action,) for the special
purpose Of changing the existing state of
things, and restoring the civil government
over the people. In operation of this ap-
pointmcnt, a new constitution had been
formed, governor and legislature elected
under it, and the State placed in the tM en-
jouRent of all her constitutional rights and
privileges. The constitutional laws of the
Union were thereby enjoyed and obcycd,
and were as authoritative and binding over
the people of the State as in any other
portion of the country. Indeed, the mo-
ment the rebellion was suppressed, and the
Government growing out of 1t subverted,
the ancient lQtrS resumed their accustomed
S,ray, subject ouiy to the ne,o reorganization
By the appointment Of the proper officers to
qire them oprati0m and cfect.' This or
ganization and appointment of the public
functionarieS, which was under the super
intendcnce and direction of the President,
lt.y commandcr-in-c n-chief Of the army and
navy of the country, and who, as such, had
previously governed thc St"'"' from I'm,
pcrativc necessity, by the force OF ma. lai
law, had already taken place, and the ne
ccSSity no longer existed.
This opinion is the more authoritative
than it might possibly be esteemed other
wise, from its being the first elaborate
statement of the reasons which governed
the majority of the Supreme Court, at the
last term, in their Judgment i'll the case Of
Mlligan and others, that military commits
SionS for the trial of civilians are not con-
stitutional. Mr.. Justice Nelson was one OF
that majority, and of course was advised
of the grounds of their decision. We sub
nit that nothing could bc more conclusive
in favor OF the doctrine for which they are
cited than these judgments. In the one,
lllt IIbIO>ill'll vi AOlI'IH'HA VI " '@'N'' - ~
right under the war to suppress the inSur-
rection is not only rcpudiated by Judge
Spracuc, but because of the nature OF our
Government is considered TO be legally i'm
possible. "Thc right OF sovereignty over
any portion OF 4 State Will" he tells us,
"ouly be the same after the war aS 1t was
before" In the other, we are told THAT
the suppression of the rebellion restores
the courts of the State, and that when her
government is rcorganiZcd she AT once IS
in the futl enjoyment, or entitled to the
full enjoyment, Of all her constitutional
rights and privileges
THE RECIPROCAL OBLIGATIONS or THE CO.
vERNNENT AND THE CITIZEN.
Again contrary doctrine is inconsistent
with the obligations which the Government
is under To each citizen of a State. Pro-
lection TO each is a part OF that obligation,
protection not only as against foreign
hut domestic foe. To hold that II is in
the power Of any part OF the people OF
State, whether they constitute a majority
or minority, by engaging in inSurrcction
and adopting any measure IN Its prosecu-
tion to make citizens who are not engaged
in it, but opposed to ii, enemies OF the
United States, having no right TO the pro
lection which the Constitution affords 10
citizens who are true L. their allegiance, is
a> Illegal as it would be tlagrantly unjust.
During the conflict the cXigency of the
strife may Justify denial OF such protcc-
ton, and subject the unoticnding citizen
10 Inconvenience and loss but the conflict
over, the eNigcncy ceases, and the obliga-
tion 10 afford him all the immunitieS and
advantages Of the ConStitution-onc of
which is the right TO he represented in
CungrcSS-bccomcS absolute and impcra-
tive. \ different rule would enable the
Government to escape clear duty, and TO
commit gross violation Of the ConStitu-
ton. 1t has been said that the Supreme
Court have entertained u different doctrine
in the prize eases. This, in the Judgment
of the undersigned, is a clear miSapprc-
hcnSion. One of the questions III those
cases was, whether, in such contest as
was being wagcd for the cXtlnguiShmcnt of
the insurreCtion, bclligercnt rights, as be
treen the United States aid Other nations,
belonged 10 the former. The court pro-
perly held that they did, but the parties
engaged in the rebellion were designated
dS TRAITORS, anu ldtlt ~ bC u lIAl bAaiN'l .
when the rebellion should terminate. II the
Confederate States, by force of inSurrcc-
ton, became foreign States, and lost their
character as States of the Union, then the
contest was an international one, and trca-
son was no more committed by citizens OF
the former against the latter than those OF
the latter against the former. Treason
necessarily assumes allegiance TO the Co.
vcrnment, and allegiance necessarily as
sumcS continuing obligation to the Go
vernment. Neither predicament was true
except upon the hypothesis that the old
state of things continued in other words,
that the States, notwithstanding the inSur-
rection, were continuously and are now
States of the United States, and their Citi-
Zens responsible TO the Constitution and
the laws. Second. What isthere, then, in
the present political condition Of such
States that juStities their exclusion from
representation in Congress! 1t is because
they are without organized governments,
or without governments republican in point
OF form. In fact, we know that they have
governments completely organized, with
legislative, executive, and judicial tunc-
tiOns. We know that they are now in sue
cessful operation. No one within their
limits questions their loyalty, or is denied
their protection. How they were formed,
under what auspices they were formed, are
inquiries with which Congress has no con-
cern. The right of the people OF State to
form a government for themselves has
never been questioned. In the absence OF
any restriction that right would be abso-
Lutte, any form might be adopted that they
might determine upon.