The Portland daily press., 1867-04-16
The Las. Resert Of Reheldem.

The injunction filed in the Supreme Court
in behalf of the State of Mississippi affords the
strongest evidence of the .leniency-the rare
forbearance and magnanimity-withw which the
States recently in rebellion have been treated
by the National Government 1t were impos-
sible, we believe, to find an instance in history
in which the promoters OF an organized rebel,
lion, having appealed to the sword and suffer-
ed decisive defeat have subsequently heen per-
mitted to arraign the authority of the conquer
or, and plead with all the forms of law for the
very issues which they had striven to uphold
on the battlefield. Yet this is the spectacle
now being enacted before the highest judicial
tribunal of the United States. Having failed
to overcome the power put forth by the Feder-
al Government in support OF the Union-hav-
ing tried Intellectually by the force ofarms to
assert the sovereignty of the Southern States,
in the Secessionist sense of the term-havine
denied the title of the Federal Government to
coerce rebel States into submission, only yield
ing when further denial had become impossi-
ble-they propose now to transfer the struggle
to the Courts, and to attain their ends by
bringing the artillery of the Federal judiciary
to bear upon Congress. The effrontery of the
spectacle is as notable as its novelty. In any
other country the parties to these proceedings
would have figured before the law in totally
different character. They would, long ere
now, have been required to answer for their
lives as rebels awaiting punishment The chief
executive ofthe rebellion has Indeed been held
in confinement, but there is no more likelihood
of his being punished than of his being canon
lied as saint and martyr; while the associate
managers of the great conspiracy have heen
permitted to return in quiet to their homes
to resume, in common cases, possession OF their
property, and to participate in political Discus
sion as unreservedly as though nothing unus-
ual had happened. And now, by way of cl-
max, some OF these meI actually enter the SUI
preme Court as contestants of the law-making
power, and compliments in a case made up to
defeat by legal quirks and quibbles the right of
the people who put down the rebellion 10 in
4. .I,@.~ S.cl 4
However the case shall end, the facts we have
recited form a conclusive answer to the gene
raj charge of cruelty and oppression which un-
repentant rebels never tire of repeating.
The general allegations urged in support of
the Injunction are not calculated to change the
impression thus created. They are essentially
| the old secessionist allegations, and the pub
lshed argument in their support is precisely
such an argument as legal disciple of Cal
| houn would have presented in a parallel case
/ before the war. From beginning to end, it ex-
| hibits nothing new. Its form is in some re-
| spects modified; the points as stated are neces-
| sarily different; but the essence is unchanged.
| Had the patriotic impulses of the North ad-
mitted Of restraint in 1861, pending a discus
| sion of the issue between the sections in the
| Supreme Court, the drift of the case for the
seeding States would have been in its nature
| identical with that which Messrs. Sharkey and
| Walker have concocted in the name of Missis-
| sippi. Certain inherent rights would have
| been claimed for the State as against the Un-
| ion, the right to secede being of the NUMBER
| The constitutionality of coercion as a means OF
| frustrating secession would have been disputed
The call for troops and nearly every other step
| taken by the Federal authorities in the pres
ence of actual necessity would have been de-
| nOunced as at variance with the Constitution,
with the reserved rights Of States,' with tho
"original compact" of the Union, and we know
| not what beside. All the resources of the Cal
houn logic would have been brought into
play, and it is not improbable that the au-
- r. CxN4k I.x1, -,
4 ruled that the law and the Constitution were
ON the side of the rebels. Were the Taneys
q majority on the bench to-day,
| we may be sure what their judgment
| would anout to. 1t would be an elaborate af-
fimation of the rights to destroy the Union
Itwould be a jesu.tical ,nial OF the right ofthe
Union to repress rebellion or punish rebels, or
| to do any one of the many things which Con-
gress has deemed requisite to perpetuate the
unity of the Republic. But ofwhat avail would
have been the hair-splitting, the musty reason
ing the disingenous Interpretation Of half a
dozen Taneys? The broad and common sense
rendering of the conditions of national life
would have prevailed. The people would have
held, as in truth they did hold, that the Consti-
tuition is a means of preserving the harmony
and vigor of the Union-not cunningly de-
vised instrument tor effecting national disinte-
So will it be with the bill filed By Messrs.
Sharkey and Walker. 1t is dishonest bill. It's
pleas are mere attempts to bewilder and divert
attention from the real issue. 1t ayers that
"Conqress cannot constitutionally expel Miss.
issippi from the Union," whereas Congress
has simply said that Mis- sissippi shall not 6reab
up the Union. 1t declares that tho rebels o
the State lost none of their political rights by
1 rebellion:" that the Governments of theiI
choice are constitutionally as valid as Congress;
itself; that any attempt to exact conditions
impose disabilities and enforce oaths is at varl'
ance with rights which the Supreme Court Is
bound to omaintain.@ TIE little incident OF the
rebellion is carefully ignored. It Is discarded
from the argument as completely as though II
were a holiday freak, with which the National
Government has nothing properly 70 90 Strip-
ned of Iega!verbiage and sophistry, The Sharkey
and Walker argument may issi!Psnp Ge Phpf'fes Sas
nhts Srnarior to those of the Union
- neonle rebeiled against the Union
hut fhonsh conquered, their privileges as citi-
zens of ,ths Iui2p continue Rreelsely as Though
y. nnot constitutionally dictate terms of read.
mission, or in any manner exact guarantee
for the future" In word, as these lawyers
state the case, the Southern people, having
come back to fight the battle Ger again will
I ballots instead of bayonets The proposition
covers yet wider ground. For if the political
rights of the South were constitutionally tnt
same at the enc of the rebellion as before il re-
4 be5ied, and If on this ground Congress may moi
set aside its local Governments as provisiona
| or impose any terms upon its people, it follows
that the inference of President johnson imme
diately after the cessation of hostilities was
equally unconse etutional. The point raised De-
fore the Supreme Cour involves all that mas
been done since the surrender of Lees army
Messrs. SharBey and Walker affirm m SUI
stance that the whole of it is hI
since both the Executive and Cohs,sSs o
their respective proceedings, have IMPOSED :eS
( tests and exacted conditions at variance WIN
Ne Southern theory of State Rights. a..
9. "a hardly necessary TO say tnat tns ques-
~ is ;s nolticaI. not legal; Il is question OF
nsSiona, ,,,estion which the country took into
" - qhends when it commenced the war to
| It's own naH adsnnion, and which it will refuse to
put noSIr though Sharkey and Walker argue
Surrs Srnr 20 acutely. Having vanquished the reb-
., ~ armies, and crushed the physical elements
ef rebellion, the people are not prepared to
law ~, the advantages Of their triumph con-
t;nge ut upon the chances of forensic contest
We have no apprehension that the supreme
Court will give aid or countenan"e 70 .ne al.
fair. But whether in this case an inJuncnon
be granted or refused, the fina, % 6etermana, a.
t;on of the STATUS of the South viii continue tc
rest With COngress.-N, 7. Tfnes'