Des Arc weekly citizen., 1867-08-24

in this matter, from the purest and most patriotic motives. His course was advised and commended by men distinguished for ability. He is sur rounded by circumstances peculiarly responsible aud embarrassing, and ev- cry desire of my hearth is to help him and not to say anything that may weaken any mans faith iE him. But the country is passing through most fearful ordeal. Everything we all have or can hope for is involved. Err TOTS may ruin though motives be an- gelic. On questions of policy or expe- diency love the yielding, consolidating spirit. Idespise, from my heart, the bigot or fanatic. But principles vital rinciple-should never be aban- doned for temporary relief, nor yield
 cd to conciiate the enemy. The Con stitution ought to be administered in spirit of concession, but no man en- trusted to administer it should allow it's destruction upon any pretence. l do believe the idea that the President is bound to execute whatever a two- thirds majority of Congress may de- clare, is the most fatal and dangerous error of this generation, not excepting secession, or coercion, or even fanati- cism itscli--the hideous mother of both secession and coercion. It is the error which, being committed, will be the greatest lever of strength to fanati- cism, and which, not having been committed, would have been the death blow to fanaticism and to all it's hellish brood of horrors. am not writing to please any man. see--have no doubt, l see--nnprecedented evils ahead of us. firmly believe there is no way to es- cape these evils but by cleaving to the Constitution. l love all who love the Constitution in this crisis, as love my property, my life, my liberty, and the peace and happiness of my children, for by that Constitution alone can these blessings be enjoyed. I hate all who violate the Constitution as I hate the thief who steals my property, the tyrant who letters my liberty. the mur- derer who seeks my life, or the mon- ster who would destroy all the hope for my children because, in the de- struction of the Constitution by force and fraud, all these curses will come.-- If the Constitution needs amendment let us all-all the States--amend it if free government has failed letus admit it. and form another like men of req son and honesty. But whatever gov ernment or laws we have, let us obey them while we have them, and not seek to evade them by fraud, or over turn them by force, for then we have anarchy, which means the utter absence of all safety and hope, and the actual presence ofevcry danger, for person, property, liberty and life. Of all enc mics to individuals. to society, or to government, he who deceives and takes advantage of trusts reposed, or power conferred, to injure, islander or betray, is the meanest, most cowardly. and the most dangerous. Therefore, 1 denounce the Radicals and all their dis ciples. know the President is pat riot, but his error threatens to place him and his country in the unrestrain- ed and evngeful power of forcsworn enemies, and he who believes it is an error owes it to his couufry to say so and give his reasons for his belief.
 In the construction of all human in- strunents there must arise questions on which men will honestly differ. lpsc uQubtlui UutStlbhS BdNS IISeIl under the Constitution. Ii was antic- ipatcd they would arise, and arise, too, between the Executive and Congress, and the method of settling such differ enccs was provided. When the Prcsi- dent thinks bill presented 10 him is unconstitutional, lie must return it with his objections. Congress must reconsider it, and if two-thirds differ with the President the bill becomes q law, notwithstanding the Presidents
 objections. Now, that this refers to cases of mere honest differences as to what is the meaning of the Constitu- tion--to cases of doubt--is very clear from deliberation which is required of all parties. The President is required to send his objections to Congress. The objections must be in writing. The House to which the objections are sent must center them on their journal.' and then proceed to reconsider. If two-t thirds differ with the President the bill and objection must be sent to the other house. The other house must also reconsider and if, after all sides are fully heard, and the matter has been considered and reconsidered two-thiYds of both houses differ with the President, the bill shall become a law. That is, in these doubtful ques- tions if two-thirds of both Houses after full consideration of all sides shall be of one opinion and the President and one-third shall be of another opinion all presumed to be honest and unsel- fish and desiring only to govern the country according to the Constitution the opinion of the two-thirds shall pre- vail Such were the Bank and Tariff and Internal improvement questions and many others. In all such cases, it is very manifest the President must ex- ecute the law until the Judiciary shall pronounce against it.. The President cannot, himself, become the Court, or absorb to himself the functions of the Court. ..
 This is the whole extent of the doc- Urine of the Presidents obligation to execute the laws. No more, no less.
 Does this give two-thirds ofthe Con- gress power to subycrt the Govern ment, and is the President bound to help them subvert it! The Constitu- tion, in separate clauses, defines what Congress may do, and then, by other clauses, declares what Congress shall not do. Doubts naturally arise in as- certaining the extent of the meaning in those clauses which seek to define what Congress may do. But suppose Congress undertake to do that which
 the Constitution says Congress shall not do? How then? If two-thirds
 say they will do it any how is the Pre- sident bound to execute it?
 The Constitution says: ..No bill of attainder or expost facto law shall be passed" Suppose two-thirds pass a bill of attainder, is it a law? If So, two-thirds of the Congress can annul the Constitution. Ifso, the will of two- thirds of Congress, and not the Con- ] siifntinn is ihn sunrpmn lnw Rni thn