Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1867-01-10

opinion Of the Chief Justice is not sound,
the Government is at the mercy of any such
rebellious conspiracy as that which has just
been put down.
We 10 further, however, than the Chief
Justice, although no further than he might
have gone, in combating the opinion Of
Mr.. Justice Davis. We hold that the latter
in bis argument stultifies himself. He con.
tends, for example. that the war for the
suppression Of the rebellion was conducted
within the landmarks Of the constitution,
while ut the Same time these military ar.
rests and trials Of civilians in the loyal States
were unconstitutional. They were . great
feature of the war, and they have been sus-
tained everywhere BY public opinion, from
conviction of their public necessity, harsh
as they wcrc 10 some cases. In the next
stand out in bold relief against the obiter
dictun, Of Judge Davis that there can be no
exigency in the government justifying sus-
pension Of the provisions OF the conetitu-
ton. The late rebellion, in the lombard
ment Of Fort Sumter. was commenced in
the absence Of CenRrees, and TO Congress
alone belonged the power to raise and sup
port armies" Had President Lincoln, how
ever, waited for the assembling OF Congress
before acting in defense Of the government
in assuming the war powers, 10 all proba-
bility he would have been turned out of the
White House by jeff Davis and by the
rebel army at his back, together with the
expulsion Of Congress from Washington,
before force sufficient to hold the capital
could have been mustered according to the
constitution. This was what the rebels ex-
pected. They could not believe that Presi-
dent Lincoln would dare to assume the con-
stitutional power of Congress in order to
save the government; but he did and in
the face of the opinion Of bis immediate
predecessor that Congress itself had no
power to coerce a seeding State.
This two-faced opinion of Mr.. Justice
Davis Of the Supreme Court is, then. ut
terly inconsistent with the leading facts of
the war, and therefore utterly preposterous.
This stulti6cation of the Supreme Court We
dare say results from the great blunder OF
attempting to regulate the war by the old
exploded Tsney and Buchanan notions OF
seem to forget that the war was an appeal
from the constitution to the sword, and that
the sword is the ultima ratio regun,-the
last appeal of kings and peoples. Thus the
constitution has received q new interpreta-
ton from the war but what if the Su-
preme Court still adheres to the old inter-
probation? Then it becomes the plain duty
Of Congress to reconstruct this Court; for
even to this extent, sooner or later, the
issue decided in that final appeal to the
sword will be enforced by the loyal States.
This constitutional twaddle of Mr.. Justice
Davis will no more stand the fire of public
opinion than the Dred Scott decision.
| rur ruon, N ,,xourr rry. NJ rtyr crrrpru
From the Washington Chron;cle.l
The Supreme Court has no right TO "a
back of the rebellion and sdjudicste ques
tions determined by the arbirament OF arms
according to laws and precedents anterior to
rebellion. This question of the Federal re-
lations of the conquered States is q political
ing power, and that power will not permit
an agent of its own, created for the purpest
of administering Justice between loyal citi
zens, to ignore the great act of rebellion
and treat patriot and traitor, true State and
insurrsctionarv State, as equals.
Alexander II. Stephens maintained tha!
secession was constitutional right. Had
the Supreme Court agreed with him, il
would not have altered the determination ol
the American people to crush ont secession
The right ofcentinuons re prese ntatiOn ha'
been claimed under the Constitution. as ths
right to present representation is claimed
now; and one right is about as good as thu
other, and neither can exist without thu
other, yet the people Of the United States
have settled the question, and he will be ,
bold man who forces them to reassert thei
determination. 8-.. a-.
The constitutional amendment will not
Of course. receive three.fourths Of all th'
States, including the insurrectionsry States
and We presume that the President mean
that any declaration by Congress of its adop
ton by three fourths Of the loyal States
only will be overruled by the Supreme Cour
as unconstitutional.
Ifhe supposes that will settle the ques
tion, he does not understand the America,
people. They are neither fools nor slaves
They have not gone through q terrible wa
Of Eve years, sacrificed thousands of lives
and incurred millions of indebtedness, I,
throw away the fruits of victory upon Ia,
opinion. The thing ia too preposterous t
he credited for a moment. The men VIII
did the fighting wrote the law Of this aues
ton upon the battlefield with their blood
and have reasserted il at the balot-box.