The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1867-04-10
CHI "A ES TON.
WEDNESDAY MORNING, APRIL 10, 1867.
THE INJUNCTION BEFORE THE sU-
-L PRENIE CURT. ------

THE 1NJuNcT1o~ BEFORE THE sU-
PRENIEE CURT.
We are informed by the telegram that
Georgia has joined Mississippi in the motion
for the injunction. and has retained Judge
BLACK and Mr. O'CoNNoR, both very able law
yers, very pure men, and very distinguished
Democrats. We regret this We can under
stand that these gentlemen are earnest and
conscientious advocates OF the legal theory Of
the injunction. We also understand how
Judge SHARKEY, who was among the steadiest
and most unainching opponents of secession
and ROBERT J. WALKER, who, at q public din
ner in London where he was Special Com
missioner from the United States, de-
clared .that all the blood shed by the North
in this war, is as holy as the blood shed on
Calvary'-can consistently support the princi-
pies upon which the injunction rests. But
how can we?
The petition for leaveto file the motion is
now before US, and we cannot be mistaken as
to the ground upon which it has bcen put.
It's leading postulate is explicitly stated
ssThe said State further shows, &C., that it
| was impossible for her people OF for the State
in its cooperative capacity, to dissolve that con-
! nection with the other States. and any attempt
to do so by secession or otherwise, was nulli-
ty which she has admitted by grating in an
amended constitution, solemn declaration
that the pretended ordinance Of secession
| adopted by portion Of her people was abso-
lutely null and void, and she now most solemn
ly asserts that her connection with the Federal
n
paired and destroyed. And she moreover AYERS
and charges that the Congress of the United
States cannot constitutionally expel her from
the Union, and any attempt which practically
does so is q nullity.''
Now, whatever Georgia and Mississippi may
have done, South Carolina did not declare her
Ordinance Of Secession null and void. She did
a wiser and truer thing. She repealed it, and
thus declared that while it was the justification
of such of her citizens as had obeyed her laws
as sovereign State, and while she claimed it
as q right TO make such an Ordinance under
the Constitution, yet she had submitted that
question Of right to the arbitrament Of war, it
had been decided against it, and that for the
future it was her duty to consider it as elimi
mated from the Constitution, as much repealed
by war as it would have been in peace by an
amendment to the Constitution,
These two theories are utterly inconsistent,
and the one which we have placed on the record
Of our Convention will not sustain the argu-
ment Of the petition. This is so clear that if
this were the only ground Of the injunction we
would scarcely deem it necessary to argue.
But there are two other propositions connected
with it that have confused many honest minded
people which we think it important to notice.
The first is that because Congress passed 3
resolution in 1861 that the war was not then
wagcd t'for any purpose of conquest or for in
terfering with the rights or the established in
stitutions Of these States, but eto preserve the
Union, with all the dignity and rights Of the
several States unimpaired,'' therefore, when
we surrendered in 1866 we surrendered under
the protection Of this resolution, which hsd
not been altered by the events and changes of
as mighty and varying war as the world had
ever SEEN Nov, there is not an example in
history in which two parties at war have kept
open standing set Of terms upon which the
war is to be ended. Every negotiation, every
war changes its terms Of settlement as the for
tunes of war vary, and it was just SO with this
war. When it began the North thought it could
be settled by an amicable restoration, and an 4
arrangement as to the rights claimed by the
South. AS the war progressed the North found
that slavery was an element of strength on the
part Of the, South, very difficult to overcome
and in repeal Of its resolution it emancipated
the slave. Then, as the fortune Of war turned
against us, came the negotiations at Fortress
Monroe, where the terms offered and rejected
were infinitely better than the present And
when we surrendered our armies and closed
the contest the final terms were dictated by
GRANT and SHERMAN, ard every sensible man
knows that these terms are.the only conditions
Of surrender to which we have the right to ap-
peal What is the use Of trying to delude our
selves into the belief that the course OF a great
war ssshattering that it may reach and shat
tering what it reaches" can be governed and
limited by the law Of special contract?
Al In the next place, it is commended that the
Presidents action and the assent Of the South
ern people, through. their conventions, was
legitimate and final settlement Of our position
aa restored States. Now, Of the Presidents
bold and persevering defence of what he con
siders the true Interpretation of the Constitu-
tion, we have nothing but admiration to ,ex-
press. Whatever may have been the fate of
his vetoes, their language and their spirit were
as manly and as patriotic as the fsmous decla-
ration Of C1cEREo, when he assumed the Con-
sulate: 6 Conscript Fathers, I will so admins
ter my great Office that if The Tribunes of the
people. attack me, can despise them; if they
attack the Constitution, / can chastise them"
But what has been the result .-:: 81 ss%. ]s@
When the armies of LEE aud JoHysox sur
rendered, Congress- was not in session. The
President, with his sound practical sense, saw
that a restoration and maintenance Of some
ciyal government in the Southern States was
absolutely necessary, let it be as temporary as
it might. We felt painfully the same thing,
for without, the country would have fallen into
anarchy and lawlessness. He therefore, con
structed such provisional State governments as
he thought best, and we sensibly and cheerful
ly accepted these governments for our proteo-
tion. The President has never claimed that he
could restore the :States-his position, as we
understand it is, that the, Constitution restored
them, and that ell he did was to furnish the
means through which the vigor Of the Consti-