The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1867-07-11

/ might have been saved from this error.
mistake it was, for though we appreciate
| fully all the arguments in its fav0r-the order
of October for the execution of captured Libe-
| rails as brigands, the stern lesson taught
| foreign usurpers--yet the young hepuDnc
| is signally unfortunate in opposing itself to
the spirit of all Christian nations. Mexico has
! gone back to the days Of Carthage and Rome,
and crowned her victory with barbaric laurels.
When we say that our action might have
spared her this, we remember Mr.. Campbell
idlinq in New Orleans without orders the
United States absolutely unrepresented at the
Liberal headquarters, and the subsequent ap-
pointment of an unknown foreigner to a posi-
tion which none but an American statesman
should fill. This is the pitiful policy which
resulted in the deliberate refusal of the onlv
boon we asked Mexico to grant--the lives of
the yanquished. We gave her sympathies
which were stronger in the end than armies
and yet Mr.. Seward can obtain for us nothing
in return but trampled flag. ~.
Congress and Reconst truetIon-Progrsss
= Neg. OF the Work.
From he Times. uI ~.
The prompt and withal moderate action of
Congress is the best answer to those who inn
pute to it desire to disturb the settlement
to be effected under the existing acts. It began
by expressly limiting the work of the session
to the removal of difficulties arising out of an
erroneous Interpretation of the law. 1t has
steadily resisted attempts to disturb the limita-
tion and to reopen the question of reconstruc-
ton. And the two bills now before it-one
pushed through the House on Tuesday by Mr.
Stevens under the pressure of the previous
question, and the other still before the Senate
under the pilotage of Mr.. Trumbull-are evil
dence of the good faith with which both bodies
are prepared to adhere to the terms of settle
ment now before the South.
By neither of the measures is any new issue
raised, or any new condition imposed. They
differ mainly in regard to the seat of abolute
military authority-not as to the sufficiency
or supremacy of the authority itself Mr.
Stevens bill vests it in the military COM
manders, each of whom is left to decide for
himself what is necessary, and to act on the
dictates of his own mind; while Mr.. Trum-
bulls bill makes the General of the Armies of
the United States the final Judge and, as it
were, the supervisory officer in respect of
suspensions, removals, and other details of
the district commanders operations. Prac-
tically, perhaps, the distinction would not
materially alter the result; but the method
proposed by Mr.. Trumbull has the merit of
securing uniformity of proceeding, and more
over, harmonizes better with established mill
tary discipline. Aside from this difference
which will, no doubt, be readily adjusted by
ground in a manner substantially the same.
And though they play havoc with Mr.. STAN
bery's superfne logic, and counteract certain
instructions of the Executive, we are per-
suaded that they in no degree conflict with
the popular estimate of the purposes contem-
plated by Congress in the enactment of the
present law. They make the military the
supreme power throughout the South pending
the completion of the reconstruction process
and they give to the Registration Boards, aot-
ing on instructions from the district COM
manders, wide latitude in determining the
range of disfranehisement. In both respects,
we think that Mr.. Bingham is correct in
claiming that they reflect the will of the re-
presented States.
1t is to be regretted that Mr.. Stevens deemed
it expedient to stifie debate. Despatch is de-
sirable, but completeness of detail is yet more
so, and the latter is possible only when an
ample opportunity is afforded for analysis and
suggestion. The rhetoric of Messrs. Brooks
and Wood is valueless in this connection. AS
a contribution to their party record it may be
well enough, and the force OF some of their
structures is indisputable; but practically what
does it amount to? 1t neither shakes the in
tentions OF Congress nor perfects the measure
as a means of reconstruction. 1t might, under
certain circumstances, aggravate the difficult
ties to be encountered by the South, but by
no possibility could it afford relief.
For the same reason, we trust that Mr..
Brooks appeal to the President to do what
can be done to Obstfuct the passage of an
amendatory act will pass unheeded. The
South has already Suffered much too severely
at the hands Of those who profess to be its
peculiar friends, and they will best show their
friendship now by leaving the law to work out
the will of Congress unobstructed. The main
tenance of his consistency is not considers
tion that can justify Mr.. Johnson in renewing
a contest in which his defeat would be inevi-
table. His conscience may demand some
reservations, perhaps protest, but for veto,
with its irritation and the chance of temporary
delay there would be no excuse. Congress
has surely right to interpret its own enact
ments and this is all which either Mr.. Stevens
or Mr.. Trulnbull just now proposes.
The President and the New Reconstruct
From 1ie World.
The action of President Johnson on the ad-
ditional Reconstruction bill, which will be be-
fore him within day ortwo, is of no practical
consequence since two-thirds of both Houses
stand ready to repass it if it encounters his
veto. He of course, cannot sign it; the ques
ton is merely whether he will return 1t with
his objections or passively allow it to become
a law by keeping 1t the ten days allo wed him
by the Constitution for its consideration. If
he wishes a troublesome Congress to disperse
Immediately to their homes, he will expedite
their adjournment by prompt veto. But If
he thinks they have consummated all the mis-
chief of which thew are capable, and that he Is