Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1867-04-09

the lawful Government is not liable for the |
debts incurred by the insurgents; but it is |
a. well settled principle of international
law that in case of "a war upon States as
lStates,i and their CONQUEST, the, conquering |
power taking; possession of such States is |
liable for all their debts. In this case the
President of the United States, exercis-
ing the power conferred upon him by |
the Constitution and the laws, has long |
since and long before the passage of
these acts recognized peace as fully ex-
listing iiinS every part of thel Union, and /
for nearly two years not q soldieTor citizen
has been arrayed against the Government.
There has been not only actual peace for
nearly two years, but it has long since been
fully recognized by the President acting
under the authority of the Constitution and !
the laws. Congress does notrecognize any,
war or rebellion as now pending; on the |
contrary, in its most recent enactment, il |
speaks of ''the States lately in rebellion.i
This is conclusive admission by Congress
and fully confirms the Presidents procla-
imations 1t cannot be pretended, then, that |
there Is any war now going on, or any re-
bellion now pending. We are, so far as the
rights of the States or citizens are con-
lcerned, inIa condition of profound peace.
As there is no war or rebellion, martial
law cannot be proclaimed, or the hdbeds
corpus suspended, or the right of trial by
jury refused. or warrants Issued without
idIIlUaVlC, OF lie, llD6rCy anu properly taken
without due process of law, or States re-
iduced to territorial lpupilage. The power
to coerce a State, or to declare war against
a State, elhave seen, was distincly refused
by the framersD0f the Constitution; nor
has Congress sexBr asserted or exercised
such power. If it exists, each State holds
its place in the Union, its power of local
self-government, its right to acertain num-
Der of represen tatives in Congress, its per-
ipetual right (of which it cannot be de-
prived even by an amendment to the Con-
stitutiou) to equal representation in the
Senate of the United States. But according
to the present doctrine, each State holds all
these rights not under the guarantee of the
Constitution, but by the feeble and pre-
carious tenure of the will of Con-
gress, ~ and acts of Congress are
AtheG supreme law, p and not the
Constitution Had it been supposed that
Congress at its pleasure could exclude a
State from the Union, the Constitution
would never have been ratified by any of
the States. Who believes that New York,
or Pennsylvania, or Virginia, or Massachu-
.setts supposed that Congress might at its
pleasure exclude them from the Union, and
subject them as territories to military rule !?
And if this power to exclude States from
the Union existed when the Constitution
was framed, how are they to be readmitted? !?
If the States which framed the Constitution
could be excluded from the Union. how
were they ever 70 get back? - ,t
The only provision on this subject is to
be found in the first clause of the third sec
ition, fourth article of the Constitution,
"New States may be admitted by Congress
into this Union" &c. There is no pro-
vision for the readmission of any State
that had once been State of the Union
The words are ''new States;" but were
New York, Virginia, Massachusetts, new
States or would the term Is ~admitted'
DIx1f fO totn "a hoo -,
the Union These terms, "new States
and +" admitted" clearly apply to the intro
duction of States that never had been in
the Union. 4'wo or more States might by
their consent and that of Congress be adj
mitted into the Union as one State, but this
is by express provision on the subject. On
looking into the Articles OF Confederation
of IT'S, providing for the admission OF
Canada and other British colonies
as new States of the Union, and
on examining the ordinance OF, 1877
providing for the admission of five new
States out of the Northwest Territory, we
see what was the meaning of the words
;'new States" This is further illustrated
in the Madison Papers, recording the pro-
ceedings of the Convention which framed
the Federal Constitution. 1t is there shown
that when this clause for the admission o
| new States was pending, it was moved tc
| icontine it to our then existing territory
| and that this Limitation was refused, thu;
| leaving Congress free to admit new States
| out of territory that had never before be-
| longed to the Union. This is further shown
| to be the true meaning of this provision ir
the great letter of Alexander Hamilton, o
| 1897, looking to the acquisition of Florida
| Louisiana, Mexico, aud ultimately al
| Spanish America. Here the terms ''admiS-
| sion" and ''new States" have their whole
| operation, and can have no possible appli-
! cation to the old States that framed the
| Constitution, nor to any State once mem
| Der of the Union. The ordinance for the
! Government OF the Northwest Territory
| by which five new States were to be ad
| mitted out of it into the Union, was adopt.
| ed by the old Congress, on the 18th of July
! 17S7, which Congress was in session at the
! same time and place with the Convention
| which framed the Constitution, and was
composed in part of the same members
| Here, then, also. we see what was mean
| by the terms ''new States.' The States tt
| be admitted out of the Northwest Territory
| would be ''new States" such as Ohio, &c.
! as also would be States admitted out o
! newly acquired territory, such as Louis
i lana, Florida, Texas, California, g..
and such has been the legislative, judi
1 cial and constitutional, as well as tn
| popular meaning of the terms thew States
ever since they were in the Con
| stitution. When the States alread.
| in the Union,.which framed the Con -titu
j sion of new States, these terms certainl,
| did not apply to such old States. There
| no provision for the admission of old States
/ or the readmission of any State into tn
/ Union. And why was this? Because tn
4 Union was regarded as pepetual and indis
| soluble. No power W. given to any Stat
/ to withdraw from the Union, nor to Con
! gress to exclude any State from the Unior
i aud therefore no authority was given fo
the readmission of any State into the Unior
i Congress now attempts to exclude te
4 States from the Union, yet, as shown in tn
fifth article. providing for the amendmer
i of the Constitution, this power is expressl
Il withheld from even twO-thirdS of Congress
| sustained by three-fourths of the States
| by the emphatic declaration, in that art
Gle, ''that no State, without its consen
shall be deprived of its equal suffrage
the Senate" Our constitutional histor
shows that, in the absence of this emphati
clause securing forever the right of equa
constant representation of each State i
Il the Senate, the Constitution never woul
have been adopted. Yet this power, s
clearly withheld from Congress, and eve
from the power to amend the Constitution
Il can, by the new doctrine, be exercised by
Il bare majority of Congress at its pleasure
! If Congress may declare war against
State and thus indefinitely exclude it froI
the Union, it is, OF course, the sole judge
the necessity of the war, and may thus dis
i franchise or territorialize State or dctat
the terms of readmiSSion. So if Congress
i under the authority to suppress an insul
rectiOn in State, may, as a punishment {
the State for the void act of some of it
citizens, exclude it forever from the Unior
the object forbidden by the Con
stitution is accomplished. A new an
) most alarming doctrine has lately been al
| nounced: that Congress is the suprem
power; that the President and judiciar