Litchfield enquirer., 1867-03-21
Military Law.

The only man of ability the Democracy of Connecticut have nominated for any i'm portant office, is Mfr Richard D. Hubbard of Hartford, a lawyer of very high standing, Q man who during the war stood up for the Union, bolsed Thos. H. Seymour, and oth- srwise took course exactly opposite to the ORe pursued by the organization which now nominates him. In a speech deliver cd at Hartford he takes the following posi- 6ons:
 ]. We have passed through war brought about by "a causeless, wicked, rebsllion," which rested upon ''the dogma of secession"
 2 We have destroyed tho aecursed system of African slavery. Thank God for that.
 8. The Union of the states is sometimes compar- si Ao copartnership. don't like the compari- soa .sDomon IN nor enueu the reconstruo- tion law is just, for the constitution authorizes Congress tO deal with rebels with high hand; it authorizes . suspension of the writ of habeas cor fus, and puts the rsbel communities under militia Ty discipline. There is no doubt of this.
 On the last proposition he takes issue with the Union party and maintains that the establishment of Military law over the South is unconstitutional. Let us briefly review the facts:
 Upon the downfall of the rebellion no legitimate civil authority was in existence and none could be established except by by Congress, the national legislative au- thority. President Johnson, without any legal authority took it upon himself to ar range the terms of reconstruction. He disfranchissd the only large class of loyal people in the South-the blacks. He res tored to political power the very men who had led the insurreetion. This plan of re- construction was not deemed satisfactory by Congress; nor, on reference to the pso- pie, was it approved by them. In this conflict between the President and Con- gress year was wasted, and il the mean time the Johnson State organizations at the South proved even worse failures than had been expected. So far from rendering justice to Southern loyalists, they did not even protect their lives. Congress, there fore, upon assembling last December, at once commenced the business of recon. struetion; and although all were agreed upon the necessity of the measure, such was the diversity of opinion upon its de. tails that only lately they arrived at any conclusion. They begin reconstruction al che foundation Finding no legitimate ci VI anthorty, they establish military rule temporarily, allowing the present State or ssnizations to act in subordination to mil itary authority. They then provide fo, che formation of legitimate State govern msnts founded upon the consent of the sshoss Southern people.
 Now upon this plain statement of facts what ground is there for the absurd Dem ocratic outcry against the continuance oi Military law. We say contin"anoe, because no sensible man will maintain that upon the downfall of the rebellion the South was, or should have been, left without any law till civil governments, authorized by Congress, could be established. No such governments have been formed and the question is not between military and civil law. but between military law and anarchy. Military law has always been supreme ex- cept so far as the Southern people have by the perverseness of the President been left without any law. and Congress has only provided for the more regular exercise of that authority.
 But say the Democracy, the delay in es. tsblshing civil government is so great as to amount to denial of it. True, the de. lay has been great, but whose fault is it: Lsit an objection that the President, who obstxucts al legislation to the extent of his ability. is entitled to make? or the South. vhich hAs refused all reasonable terms oi