The weekly loyal Georgian., 1867-08-10

In 1860, says the Elberton Gre,
the Confedcrates surrendered the
Union armies, and the authority 5le
Union was thereby extended ovsne
Southern States.
The Government of the United les
held that no lawful State Governuts
existed in the South, and there
undertook 10 govern, according Its
own notions, the people who lived le.
This was done at first throueIhe
federal military alone, and then thrth
them conIointly, with such Of th4d
civil officers as they permitted tokt.
After a time, President Johnsonp.
pointed Provisional G overnor in k.y
Southern Stale to exercise some ohe
most Indispensable executive functis,
Of a civil nature.
Through these Governors, the Psi.
dent ordered elections for Convenhs
to frame new Constitutions for e
States. lie prescribed the qualih
tlons OF voters in those elections. denyp
suffrage to all OF the ancient yoSg
class who did not take a certain te!
oath, and to all who were excepte
from his general amnesty and had nj
received his special pardon. The laI
ground of diSfranchisement was afte
ward modified in favor of those who's
pardon had been recommended by til
Provisional Governor.
The elections were held, the ConvelI
tions sat, Constitutions were formed, a,I
officers were elected under them. L
Georgia Mr.. Jenkins was chosen Coz
crnor but when the time for his inau,.
uration arrived, the President mfr
posed and prohibited it and thus he
organization Of the new State Cover
ment was delayed for several weks,
until the President withdrew his prai-
bition, and permitted the Governor eict
to take his office on the l4th day OF T.
cember, 1865.
Hence 1t appears that the Presidelt
held that the old State Governments
were destroyed by secession and hc
war; that he claimed the right 10
govern us by arbitrary military powO,
until new civil governments should Be
formed; and also the right to dirco,,
when he chose, the framing of new
State Constitutions to allow to whom
he chose, and to withhold from whom
he chose, the privilege Of voting in the
inltiatory election, and to allow or pro-
hllnL at i.is ll4.a he
The new governments. 1t also appears
that his acts were conformed to these
pretcnslons.
On the other hand, Congress, while
agreeing with the President that the
old State Governments were DESTROYED
and that the power of reconstruction
belongs to the United States Govern.
ment and that, until reconstruction,
VIC must be ruled by that Government
at its pleasure that it belongs to that
Government to determine what part OF
our population shall vote in elections
for the Conventions that are to form
the new Constitution, and when the
new governments may go into opera.
ton yet differs from him in this, that
it claims all these powers over the
Southern States for the federal lcgisla
ture, whereas he claims them for the
federal executive. Both agree that the
general Government possesses all these
powers the disagreement is as to the
department in which they are lodged.
In support of the Presidents claim,
it is argued that he commands the
military, and as the military power
destroyed the old governments, it
should erect new ones in their stead.
In support of the claim of Congress,
it is argued that the case Of State
rebclling against the United States is
not distinctly provided for in the Con.
stitution, and therefore we must reason
from analogy; that the authorization
Of Il new State government is in its
nature n law, and therefore should
emanate from the Legislature that
Congress has undoubted power to
admit new States and to organize
governments for the Territories-acts
very much like what is required in the
present case; and that the President
has no more right to make law in his
military than in his civil capacity.
1t is difficult to answer this reason
ing, if we admit what both parties
assume that the Southern States were
without lawful governments after the
surrender. The supposed disposition
of the President and the supposed
indisposition of Congress to respect
our feelings in the rules which they
prescribe cannot be considered in an
inquiry into their respective power
The usurpation, if there be any, con
sists in the assumption of the power,
and not in the way the power is
exercised. If the President has a
right to determine who shall vote, there
is nothing in law or Constitution to
prevent him from enfranchising and
disenfranchising at pleasure.
To some minds the present govern
ment of Georgia has a better title in the
consent of the people on whom it ope-
rates than in its origin. Most of us
would prefer that this government should
stand, with such notifications as would
be necessary TO ensure justice to all
classes of people. But Congress chooses
to set it aside, and the right Of that body