The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1867-07-24
1.-THE CHARLESTON DAILY NEWS AND
THE HON. b. HILL"

1.-THE CHARLESTON DAILY NEWS AND
THE HON. b. HILL"
In our isoue of Monday we made q few re-
marks on q series of papers, by tho Hon. Is.
II. HILL, "Notes on tho situation" hnd stated
that tho premise, upon which his enliro argu-
ment is based, is not admitted, and that in rs
suming that the Southern States had never left
the Union, and were, therefore, now rs much
as ever in the possession of their rights unGsr,
and entitled to the protection Of, the Constitu-
tion, Mr.. HILL was begging the whole qucs-
tion. The Charleston Mercury takes issue with
us on this point and by wny of proving the
contrary Of our assertion, quotes tho language
Of the President, in his veto message, which,
however, it will havo found in our issue Of
| yesterday morning, we consider rs no bettcr
authority than the ipse d;rt Of Mr.. d. II. HILL.
We did not discuss tho abstract right Of the
ono opinion or the other; nor did nc enter into
the merits of the question, regarding our pros
ent tsatus,-whether wo are in tho Union or
out Of the Unicn. We only conlended that in
tho opinion of the people Of the North we are
not now States of the Union, nor entitled to
the rights, privileges and immunities guaran-
teed by the Constitution to citizens of bona yfde
States in the Union. President JOHNSON, we
scarcely need say, is not accepted by the
North as tho accredited exponent of its opin-
ions and views Of the public policy, and lenst
Of oil in tho matter of tho reconstruction Of tho
Southern States. In his veto messages he mr.
gucs ns wide Of the mark, and as obstinately
refuses 10 recognize the inc1 orable logic Of
facts, as does Mr.. Is. II. HILL in his "Notes on
the Situation" and in the very long and angry
speech ho mnde last week in Atlanta.
To quote Mr.. JoHSsoN's veto message in sup
port of the correctness Of Mr.. HILLS positions
is neither more nor less than arguing in cir
Gle. Tho samo objection holds good against
the one and against tho other. They hare
both sworn fealty to the ghost Of the past. and
so entirely are they possessed Of this spirit
[not they only, but all those who think with
them, that thoy nre blind to the signs of the
times. They persistently refuse to recognize
the fact that The world moves, and That the
Constitution Of to.duy, the living soul ofthe gov
ernment, has altered in somo essential particu-
lars lin spirit much more than in the letter)
| from tho document us known to our posl-revo-
lutionary sires.
| That the Mercury is mistaken in thinking
tnat VIC did sir. HILL injustice, anu that MIR.
JonssoNs view is to be accepted as the opin-
ion of the North, will appear upon reference
to the debate which took place in Congress on
Friday last upon tho question Of tho passage Of
the second Supplementary Reconstruction Bill
over tho Presidents veto, published in THE
| News of yesterday We have no deaire 10 bc
| identified with tho views advanced then and
there by Messrs. BurLxn, BourmKLL, STEVENS,
WILLIAMS nnd others. Bot as question Of
fact we would remind the Mercury that Mr..
sTErENs and Mr., BuTLER this day stand higher
in Northern favor, and appear with greater and
more recent authority to represent the opin-
| ions Of the people than does President JonN-
| SON. Mr.. STEVENS has been uniformly con.
sistent in his course and opinions. He has been
an uncompromising Radical from the worry be-
ginning, and probably the only man in tho
House who, in ferce and unmitigated hostility
to us and our cause, has from first to last pur-
sued consistent course. The majority in
Congress arc now adopting his views in order
to cover up, we presume, the inconsistency of
their nets Of Legislation.
Mr.. BUTLER answers The Presidents charge
Of inconsistency, quoLed in the Mercury of yes
terday, and confutes his positions seriaiim. He
says:
| I desire to call attention to one or two
| OF the assertions In tho message. T do it
here In this plaoe, 30 far as noV, have they beon
made. Tho hrst assertion Is that we. as members
sHSe hqSS s
! VIC hAye sustained them; and no instances ynri-
GUS occasionn where we have called them statos
70, ssts5s o. egisatiop and argues that We hsyO
snendmens T. to 'S Be ssaod By tsum
pray Judgment Of this House. Show mo any
Congress has sent any ono Of tho constitutional
ba1a e be DE ~ S By one Of these states
construction, has sent the constitutional provision
In reference to Tho abolition OF slavery 70 the 60
called States erected BY Executive order and by no
,ags he says ths. We have provided for and
tornoys Of the United states IN certain diatriots
1d State
cJnited States soldiers and rot for State officers
Again, we are told in the same message that the
nized these States as States By Assigning thefr
I9irouts and qsing their boundaries la convenient
Destinations: dony again the faet; Tho Supreme
on the subject, and that doctrine cannot be found
in It's action IN any decree. Again. it is said that
tho Supreme Court has recognized those states
ftom the fact that courts have been held there,
instanoing the fact that the Chief Justice has held
4 Court In tho State Of North Carolina. To thaL
nnsweT: Ha hold Court In the judicial district
OF the United States, territorial district OF the
United States BsEigned TO him under law without
any roference TO the question whether tho State OF
North Carolina was In existence or not: and it
/ would have boon equally his duty TO hayo hold
that Court within the State, II North Carolina had
eristenoo or not. he held tho Court In despito On
and not In subjoclion TO, any BuppoGed State law:
and among the first opinions hs promulgated Uas
one which showed he by no moans recognized The
State Of North Carolina except az State that had
boon IN rebellion ar d was not yet BROUGHT baok
Into the Union. Nor has there been sny recooni.
ton OF them by the Bnpreno Court, becatse ;of
that Court having allowed to be placed on its
docket cases brought from the various District
4 and Circuit Coufts. These Courts had undor tho
lava OF tho United Btates, rendered certain jujQ-
mcnb which Horo TO be reviewed on DTpeal IN tie
Supreme Court Of tho United 3Lates and no where
bad there arisen any place 10 hdudicato whether
these Btate1 were In exiatence or not, until the
Htato OF Missiesippl undertook 10 bring in Ili n,
equity against the high United States officer:
! And thereupon the Supreme Court Of tho United
States made formal adjudication that the State
| Of mississippi, rs State Of the Union had no
standing In the Supreme Court Of tho United
Btates. 30 far from sustaining the doctrines OF
this message, IL Was directly and entirely opposed
As we said above, we do not express Mr..