The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1867-01-21
The Yexed Question.
TO the Editors OF the EUening Telegrdph:-
BURLINGTON, January 10,

fhe Supreme Court OF the United states. ii TINS DC
So pray interpret the meaning OF the following eX-
tract from the opinion OF Judge Nelson, in the case
of the Circassian to be found in 2 Wallace, 1885,
oThe capture of he port and torn Of NeI0 Orleans
was but the restoration OF the ancient possession,
authority and laws OF the country the continuance
and permanencY of which, 80 far as the right IS in
Volyed, depend not conquest, nor on the success
and vCisstudes of armies, but upon the Constitution
Of fbe United States, which eCtendS OUeT eOery P0r-
fion of tie Union, and is the supreme taW Of the
land. The moment the capture took place. and me
authority OF the United States Uas esta6HShed, me
municipal tdI1s Of that Government tooE me 2tuce OF
the inTerHqttORaL tdlDS upon Ubtch the 6toc610e
rested"
What also, was the meaning of President Lincoln,
ifyour theory be correct in his proclamation of
September %, 1862, when he declared:-
"That hereafter, as heretofore, The ,0ar oiH Se
prosecuted for tie object Of practically restoring he
Constitutional relation betiDeeB the United StGteS
and each of tie States and the people thereon m
aohch states that relation IS or may DC S"SPe""s"
or disturbed"
The question between conquest and the ConSutu-
ton has been settled during the war by all the de-
partments of the Government in favor OF the Con-
stitution. The ordinances of secession were not
valid in the Judgment of the Federal authorities;
the constitutional bond OF union between the states
was not repealed; its effect was suspended merely
by civil war. When, therefore, the civil war was
ended its practical force was again united with It's
right of supremacy. The object Of the war had
their national relations. Any other determine
ton will only introduce confusion worse
COMPOUNDED" and the Republican party,
in attempting to maintain any other, will
be ground to powder under the pressure OF the
upper and neither mlllstones of remorseless loglc
The Supreme Court, by the Constitution, can alone
hear "suits between citizens OF the different States
but not between citizens of the Territories. 1t has
heard at the present term and decided suits between
the citizens of States lately in rebellion. If this is
not judicial recognition OF their status as States by
that tribunal then would like 10 be informed in
what stronger mode such recognition can be given,
unless it be absolute decision of the whole ques.
t1on coming up upon case stated
The question of the status of the late Rebel
States presents itself to our mind IN the fol-
lowing form:- the State Governments,
now in existence within the limits of those
States, constitutional governments? And
this is question which we very much doubt
the capacity of the Supreme Court to pass
upon. When State, by rebellion and
attempted revolution, has interrupted" "sus-
penned," or destroyed" its constitutional rela-
tions to the nation, as participant in the
government thereof, we do not think 1t can
resume these relations except by the consent
of the nation, legally expressed through its
Representatives in Congress assembled. We
do not think it can be restored of its own
motion, or by decision OF the Supreme
Court, or by the fiat of the Executive. There
are no precedents to guide us. The question
is a new one, and must be settled by the best
lights we can obtain. The doctrine that a
State may discard all its constitutional obli-
cations, confederate with other Rebel States,
wage war against the nation for years, and
then, by the mere fact of its being overcome,
thoroughly whipped, and subiugated, be enti-
tied, of right and without conditions, to
resume its old political power in the Govern
ment it has attempted to destroy, is to us
such q doctrine OF misrule most abhoTrent
and absurd-the very essence of anarchy
that we certainly shall not believe the Su-
until compelled to do so by an "absolute
decision' upon cease stated"
The present Stale Governments of the late
Rebel States are the creation of the EXecu-
tive, gotten up by him 10 supply the place OF
the old State Governments, which he forcibly
overthrew. So far as Justice Nelson's argu-
ment goes, it bears very strongly against the
.egality of these Executive State Govern
ments, and in favor Of the legality of their
overthrown predecessors. Conservative logic
in regard to the effect of the Rebellion upon
State status leads to the same conclusion.
Indeed, neither upon the conservative theory
nor upon the radical theory can the legality
of Mr.. JohnsOn's State Governments be de-
Tended
So far as Mr.. Lincoln's declarations quoted
by our correspondent are concerned, we
accept them in their fullest significance
The war 1CGs waged to establish constitu-
tional relations between the revOlted States
and the United States. That is what the
Republican party is trying to accomplish
and would have accomplished long ere this
had not the unconstitutional interference o.
the President, in attempting to create State
Governments and give them standing in the
Union, blocked up the way and prevented the
consummatiOn of the work.
TheylOtally misapprehend the spirit of the
great Union organization who suppose that il
would permanently exclude the late Rebel
States from participation in the Government.
Such Is not Its purpose. But it does intend
restoring these States to power in the
Union, that the work shall be done in such a
way and upon such basis as will secure the
rights OF all classes Of citizens at the South
and will ehectually guard the country against