New-York tribune., 1867-08-30

THE ISSUE BETUEEN THE PRESIDENT
AND THE PEOPLE.
The worst decds-acts of the most fatal con
scqucncc-are often committed in the holcst
name. James Buchanan acted on the prin-
ciple that if one portion OF the Union seccdcs,
the other portion has no right Of coercion
and he appealed, in proof, to the object of the
peoples vencratiOn-thc Federal Constitution.
Had the people followed his lead, the South
would have had her own wTy. She would
have enforced her claim to take her property,
including her slave property, into any part OF
the United States, and to use it there The
American Union would have become a Slave
Empire. The great experiment Of selfgoy
ernment in North America would have proved
failure. But the People, whose com
mon sense is too strong for fine
drawn sOphishy, said 1--WE have a right
/" to preserve our Union; pcaccably if we
"can, forcibly if we must" They went to
war, in spite Of Buchanaul's constitutional
argument. Senator Andrew johnson sustained
and justified the war. He was very wrong
then, or else he is very wrong now. If war is
justifabe, as not in violation of the Constitu-
tion, 50 also are its necessary incidents But
the present state Of things in the South and
the provisions enacted by Congress for its
regulation are in the strictest sense, accidents
to the late civil war. Mr.. johnson declared if
to be his duty, under his oath of office, to veto
these provisions; anG ever since his veto was
ovcnuled he has done what one man may to
defeat their operation. The reason he gives is
that they violate the Constitution. That rea-
son would be sound if the people of the South
em States had never levied war against the
Government, and never, by that act, become
public enemies.
But war gives new rights. War imposes new
duties. War annuls all previous treaties, con-
ventiOns, agreements, how solemn sOever. The
rights which these secured during peace are
lost, when war is waged, to those who levy it.
The ordinary rights of war alone remain and
these, during civil war like ours do not in
clude protection under a Constitution which it
was the object of those who commenced that
war to destroy. BY our Constitution the home
and effects of the citizen are inviOlate, except
after warrant issued upon probable cause and
under oath, specially describing the premises.
Does this apply to the house of Rebel in an
insurrectionary State9 The Constitution de-
clares that the citizen shall not be- deprived
Of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law But what process of law
did we serve on the C0nfedcrates at An
tietam or Gettysburg before we opened
battery ON their rankss What process of
law preceded the confinement of our prisoners
of war, or our appropriation of the enemy's
ammunition or commissary stores The Con-
stitution is admirable in its place, but it does
not embrace all subjects. 1t has no article
treating Of the rights of war. It's trainers well
knew that the nation might engage in war,
foreign or civil, but they knew, also, that for
such a contingency there were rules provided
outside of the Constitution They knew that
we were not only nation whose organic law
was embodied in written Constitution, but
also one Of the society Of civilized nations. the