The New era. [volume] (Martinsburg, W. Va.) 1865-1871, 1867-03-14
in England for more than five hundred

speak the English language have borne
such servitude. 1t reduces the whole
population of the ten States-all persons
of every color, sex and condition and
every stranger within their limits-to
the most abjeet and degrading slavery.
NO master ever had control so abso-
lutte over his slaves as this bill gives to
military officers over both white and
colored persons.
1t may be answered to this that the
officers OF the army are to magnanimous
just and humane to Cypress and tranple
upon subjugateG people. / do not
doubt that army officers are as we'll en-
titled to this kind OF confidence as any
other class of men. But the history Of
the world has been written in vain if it
does not teach us that unrestrained au-
thority can never be safely trusted in
human hands. It is almost sure to be
more or less abused under any circum-
stances, and it has always resulted in
gross tyranny where the rulers who eX-
ercise it are strangers to their subjects,
and come among them as the represen-
tatives of a distaf power, and more es-
pecially when the power that sends them
is unfriendly. Government closely re-
sembling that here proposed have been
| fairly tried in hungary and Poland, and
the suffering endured by those people
reused the sympathies of the entire
| world. 1t was tried in ireland, and.
though tempered at first by principles
of English law, it gave birth to cruelties
so atrocous that they are never recoun-
ted without just Indignation. The
French Convention armed its deputies
with this power and sent them to the
Southern departments Of the republic.
The massacres, murders and other afro
| cities which they committed show what
the passions Of the ablest men in the
most civilized society will tempt them
| to do when wholly unrestrained by law.
| The men Of our race in every age have
struggled to tie up the hands Of their
Governments and keep them within
| the law; because their OWL experience
of all mankind taught them that rulers
could not be.relied on to concede those
rights which they were not legally bound
| to respect. The head of a great empire
has sometimes governed it with mild
and parental sway; but the kindness OF
an irresponsible deputy never yields
| what the law does not extort from him.
| Between such master and the people
! subjected to such domination there
can be nothing but enmity; he Furnishes
! them If they resist his authority, and,
| if they submit to it, he hates them for
their servility.
come now to question which is, If
possible, still more important. Have
we the power to establish and carry in
to execution a measure like this? l am
swer, certainly not, if we derive our au-
thority from the Constitution, and if
we are bound by the limitations which
it imposes.
This proposition is perfectly clear
that no branch OF the Federal Govern
ment, executive, Legislative or judicial,
can have any just powers, except those
which it derives through and exercises
Outside of the Constitution we have no
legal authority more than private citi-
zens, and within it we have only so
much as that instrument gives us. This
broad principle limits all our functions.
and applies to all subjects. 1t protects
not only the citizens Of States which
are within the Union, but it shields ev
cry human being who comes or is
brought under its Jurisdiction. We
have no right to do in one place more
than another, that which the Constitu-
ton says we shall not do at all. If,
therefore, the Southern States were in
truth out of the Union, we could not
treat their people in a way which the
fundamental law forbids.
Some persons assume that the success
of our arms in crushing the opposition
which was made in some of the States
to the execution of the Federal laws, re-
duced those States and all their people
the innocent as we'll as the guilty--to
the condition of vassalage, and gave Us
a power over them which the Constitu-
ton does not bestow, or define, Or limit.
! No fallacy can be more transparent than
this. Our Victories subjected the insur-
gents to legal obedience, not to the yoke
of an arbitrary despotism. When an alb
solute sovereign reduces his rebelIious
subjects, he may deal with them accord
ing to his pleasure, because he had that
power before. But when limited
monarch puts down an insurrection, he
must still govern according to law. II
an insurrectioN should take place in one
of our States against the authority Of
the State government, and end in the
overthrow of those who planned it,would
| that take away the rights OF all the peo-
pie of the counties where it was favor
ed by part or a majority of the popu-
lation. Could they, for such Il reason,
| , i,