The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1866-06-07


able to the party. The only remaining hitch
Il their programme is the difficulty OF mask
ing their hostility 10 the President. The
plsu consists OF two parts; certain proposed
am rndments TO the Constitution, and Ger.
tam accompanying acts OF legislation. The
IMeS insioiOueiy proposes that the first part
shall be adopted, and the second omitted,
as means oi crcumventing the President and
sitting any open declaration OF bis dissent. II is
beld that the proposed Constitutional amend.
ments may be submitted to the States without
asking hrs approval; and If that part OF the plan
which 1t is proposed TO embody into laws snail
tie deferred, he will be reduced 10 official silence
by want of an opportunity to interpose his
veto. Ids crafty suggestion for dwardng the
President TO noDentity doubtless had It's origin
in the scheming brain OF MIR. Johnsons Secre-
tary OF State. The Times astutely shows tive
repeat the substance OF it's argument not it's
1ornl) that the surest guarantee for keeping the
Southern States out, is the election of another
Congress like the present--which will be most
securely done by putting the President in q
vacuum, like bell which loses its sound in the
exh austed receiver of an air-pun!p.
The caucus scheme is cunninely devised for
mtsIepresentlng the position, and counteracting
the influence, OF the President Certain express
slons SAID to have been, at some time, used by
Mr. Johnson are industriously paraded to con-
vey the impression that he mas virtually ap-
proved Of the leading features of this scheme in
advance, 1t is alleged that he, at one time, ex-
pressed himself not unfavorable to an amend.
ment of the Constitution apporiioning represen-
tatiyes 10 the States in the ratio of their quail.
fed voters; and that he has more than once sip-
n1hed his opposition TO Rebels holding office. No
body knows better than the authors OF this trick
that they peryert the language OF the President
II he iavors the apportionmg of representatives
to voters, it does not thence follow that he
thinks this is proper prerequisite Of reconstTuc-
ton. We believe he also favors an amendment
dispensing with Presidential electors, and giving
the election directly TO the people; but it would
be absurd to infer that he therefore disapproves
OF holding any more Presidential elections until
such an amendment is adopted. He deprecates
the election OF Reoels, as he would deprecate the
reelection OF Thad. stevens and Charles Sum.
ner; but 1t does not follow that he wishes to rem
der either class ineligible by an amendment to
the Constitution.
The position of PRECEDENT johnson is as clear
as 1t is lmpregnable, and no political chicanery
can obscure 1T. Whatever Constitutional amend
mente he may desire or deprecate, he is unmis-
takably committed 10 the right of the Southern
States to immediate representation. 1t is irrele-
want to say that he wishes this, or opposes that,
unless tbe retailers OF his say ings are prepared
to prove that he does not desire the restoration,
OF the Union until all his personal opinions are
made part OF the Constitution. His position
Is, that all the States are entitled to be repre-
sented now, and consequently that Congress has
no light to exact any conditions TO the exercise
OF that right. He has committed himself to TINS
position IN every possible way in which the Chief
Magistrate OF the country can commit himself
to anYthing-in his Annual Message, in his veto
messages, in repeated public speeches to citl-
zens, in lnnumerable private conversations. 1t
IS, therefore, the sheerest dishonesty TO pretend
that he is in any way committed. directly or i'm
directly, to the scheme of the Senate caucus, as
Il condition OF reconstruction. He maintains
that the South has been, Tor more than six
months, entitled to representation, without COLI
dltions of any kInd-derivng the right directly
from the Constitution.
OF the many arguments in favor of this right
we VIII present one TO which we wish some Re-
publican journal (the Tribune, if it pleases)
would attempt reply. This argument Is
founded on the irrepealable nature of certain
acts of Congress. That some acts OF Congress
are not repealable at the pleasure OF that body is
manifest as, for example, the law which fixes
the compensation Of a President actually IN
office. The Constitution declares that the Pre-
dent shall received compensation which shall
not be Increased nor diminished durng his term
Another law irrepealable in its nature is that
passed after each decennial census, apportion.
ing the representatives among the States for the
ensuing ten years. The apportionment, when
once passed, is as much fIed tor the period as is
the salary OF the President for his term.
Now, our argument is. that what Congress is
prohibited by the Constitution from doing
directly, it cannot riehtiully do by subter-
fuge: Congress cannot alter the salary OF q
President IN office; but may it deprive him of ii
by negecting to pass an appropriation bill? It's
power over appropriations is supposed 10 be
complete; but who does not see that 1t would be
abused If used 10 defeat plain provision OF the
Constitution? So 1T cannot repeal the law,
passed in 1862 (while the Rebellion was III full
blast), apportloning certain number of repre-
oher) States; but may 1t accomplish its virtual
repeal by an abuse OF the power of each House
to Judge of the qualifications of its members
The idea Is preposterous; it is difficult to see
how any honest mind can entertain it.
Suppose that this were the year for taking a
new census; the Southern States would be In
cluded in it, of course. Suppose the census
already taken, and this the year for making the
apportionment OF Representatives founded on
il; would Congress declare that the House should
consist of a certain number of members, and
proceed to distribute them all among the States
now represented? Who does not perceive that
this would be in open defiance of one of the
most imperative provisions OF the Constitution
But if the Constitution would be defed and
trampled on by neelecting to assign eleven
States their share in the apportlonment, il is not
less violated i'll refusing them the seats TO which
an unrepealed irrepealable apportionment act
declares them entitled. 1t is as if a court of
justice should refuse suitor an execution after
recording judgment in bis favor.