Wilmington journal. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1844-1895, 1867-05-10

chlSed with all the rest; deprived OF all le
gal and constitutional rights; reduced tc
territorial pupilage and military bondage;
deprived of the right of suffrage, OF trial by
jury, and of all the guarantees OF the Con
stitution We're there no people left when
the opposing, illegal, reasonable power
was removed, who, without any aid from
! CONGRESS- or the President, could exercise
the Sovereignty of the State? Governments
are not sovereign; lawmakers are not SOY
ereion; the sovereignty is vested in the peo-
pie. Sovereignty is the power that makes
Governments Did not the people consti-
| tuting the sovereignty of the State of Lou
isiana, except where it should come in con-
fiict with the Federal Constitution, revert
by the mere operation of the doctrine OF
post Hni,e to their original rights, which
had barely been suspended and not abroga-
ted: and were they not authorized, without
the intervention of Congress or the Presl-
dent. or any other tribunal, to come to-
pethcr and put their government IN opera
ton
mississippi and each Of these ten States
had State constitution recognized as re-
publican and valid when the rebellion broke
| out and each had State laws whose valid
ity was recognized by all the departments
| of this government. Was that State Con-
stitution abrogated by an unsuccessful re-
/ bellion What destroyed it? The rebellion
| did not, because it was unsuccessful. The
secession ordinance did not destroy 1t. be-
cause that was mere nullity. 1t seemed
per fectly clear, then, that the State consti-
tuition and laws which pre-eXisted to the
rebellion, and were in conformity to the
Federal constitution, were in full force,
and lust as binding after as before the re-
bellion The people might have acted I'M
der them or, as they had right to do,
they could come together and organize a
convention which would either acknowledge
the old constitution-as Mississippi did i'll
nearly every particular-and the old State
laws, or might modify them, as the people
of every State have light to modify their
constitutions and laws in subordination to
the Constitution of the United States. If
the constitution of Mississippi was abroga-
ted and ceased to operate, at what moment
of time was it? Was it when the ordinance
of secession was framed Did that act of
conventicle of insurgents, who had no legal
or constitutional power, abrogate the law
full constitution of Mississippi Was it alb
rogated by the insurgent movements Did
an unsuccessful War-a war to destroy the
State constitution, a war to destroy the
Federal constitution, a reasonable war to
subvert the Union and destroy the govern
ment, and indeed, obliterate the principle
of self-government throughout the world
destroy the State constitution and laws of
Mississippi =? If neither the secession ordi-
nance nor the unsuccessful rebellion de-
strOyed that constitution, is it not still in
force, except SO far as it was modified in
1865 ? It was clear that the people, in the
exercise of their sovereign power, had a
right to come together in 1865 to modify
their constitution but if there was any
thing irregular in that the old constitution
remained in force, which was recognized as
valid and republican. Congress had no
power to destroy it. Congress had no
power to treat as utilities State constitu-
lions which had been accepted and acted
upon for years. If Congress can dictate
certain provisions to be incorporated into
State constitution, they can frame an en-
tire constitution for State and demand its
adoption, on penalty of being taxed forever
without representation and if they may
suspend the rights of State for year,
they may suspend them forever. The ques-
ton of constitutional power does not de-
pend upon the number of months or years
within which the act is to operate. If Con-
gross had power to declare that these are
not States, and that there are no lawful
State governments there, they may keep
them in territorial pupilage until centuries
shall have rolled away and eternity grown
gray with age.
But the learned Attorney General has
said that the danger is merely imaginary,
for these events may never occur that the
sword of Damocles is suspended over rs,
but the hair by which it is held may never
break; that although absolute power is
given to the military commanders to de-
StrOy the State governments, and put out
of office the Governor and Judges, and
no a1c &C toto /
lature, and to try men, not by juries under
the constitution, but under military law,
yet that these things never will be done
The courts exercise by the great remedial
writ of injunction the power to prevent the
execution of such acts. 1t is Q1liu tinaet,
because the complainant fears that an I'M
lawful act will be carried into effect. In
the language Of the books, it is because the
complainant is threatened with the per-
Torrance of an Illegal act. 1t is for that |
very reason that a court interferes in adj |
vance of the execution of the law, because
1t would be too late when the acts were ac-
complished and these officers oil disbanded. |
The bill of complaint in this case sets forth |
that we are not only in danger of the exc
cutiOn Of those laws, but that we are threat |
ened with it directly by the President, YER
bally and in official acts that the
Secretary of War and the General
IN command have issued orders to carry it
into effect, and that it certainly will be car
ried into effect unless this court intervenes.
That is the very case in which court of
equity interferes in advance to prevent the
of evil. These generals are not
only regulating the right of suffrage, but
they are interfering with the liberty of the
press they are declaring that if governors
or individuals expressed certain opinions
they will be turned out of office and pun
ished. They have issued orders disband-
ing some of the courts, and threatening to
disband them all in certain contingency.
They have changed the entire penal code
OF several of the States of this Union
They have made that crime which was
not crime before, by mere military edicts;
and not only that, but they have changed
the mode of punishment ordained by State
laws and they have substituted by military
orders an entirely different punishment
from that ordained by the State laws. And
yet we are told that these are imaginary
dangers, and that the evils we apprehend
may never occur. If, but one short year
ago, any man had even imagined that such
an act AS this cOul1 ho opootoJ NV