The tri-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1866-1868, 1867-07-13
Supplementary Reconstruction Act.

Dull hdue Inc ioiio"i my REMARKS IN explana-
ton of the Senate supplementary bill:
Mr.. Trumbull said, before proceeding fur
ther, he deemed it proper to state some of the
considerations actuating the committee in
this bill. The necessity for the bill grew
out of wrong construction of the former re-
construction acts of Congress. Properly
construed and executed, it is believed that
there would be no necessity for any addition
al legislation. The theory upon which Con-
gress acted was that there was no legal civil
government in the rebel States, and the in
tention was to furnish the machinery by
which legal civil governments could be put
into operation in the rebel States, and they
could be restored to their proper place in the
Union. 1t this theory was wrong, then the
whole action OF Congress was wrong. What
are the facts More than six years ago the le-
gal governments in those States were over
thrown, and parties succeeded in getting
possession who were as hostile to the United
States as Great Britain was IN 1912. The
United States after long and bloody strug-
gle, succeeded in overpowering this enemy,
and took possession of these States, whose
legal governments, had been abrogated
years before. 1t was conquest-a military
conquest-and the military. power of the
United States was the supreme law. Our
power to control the government of the
Carolinas as they had to govern California
when we conquered it from the Mexirans-
The question then was how long was this
military supervision to continue? Just as
long as was deemed necessary by the sover-
eign power of the United States, not the Ex-
ecutive or the judiciary. They had nothing
to do with it. How long was this rule to
continue? Until the feeling of loyalty and
devotion to the Union again prevailed
throughout those States. The President of
the United States, after the war was over,
continued, and rightfully continued the mil
itary power until new civil governments
were formed. But the enemies of the Uni
ted States, the same men who had control-
ed the States during the war, again obtained
possession, and the President then prema-
turely withdrew the military power. Con-
gress then came forward and restored the
military authority, and initiated measures to
place these States under loyal control
Who can doubt their power to do this q
Who can question their power to pass these
bill?
Mr. T. then quoted from decisions of the
Supreme Court, and argued at length as to
the power OF Congress in the premises. The
civil government instituted in California I'M
der military auspices was also cited as pre-
cedent, and parallel drawn with the cases
of the Southern States, and the point main
tanned that the military authority did not
necessarily cease on account of the restora-
ton of peace. In support of this Mr.. T.
read from decision of the late Judge
Wayne, of the Supreme Court.
The only difference was that California
was captured from foreign enemies, and the |
Southern States from domestic enemies, but |
that did not invalidate the argument Those |
States were just as much in Il condition of
anarchy, and just as destitute of civil gov
eminent as California. 1t is said that there
were loyal men in the Southern States, and
their rights should not be invaded. But
were they to go through that bloody farce
or tragedy to overthrow hostile govern
ments, and then turn around and reinstate |
them?
The opinion of Attorney General Stanbery
was then reviewed and pronounced as utter
" adverse to the intentions of Congress in
passing the bills.
The opinions of The Attorney General, if |
carried out, would again place these govern
ments in the hands of the enemies of the
Could it be pretended that this
was the meaning of Congress when these
halls had resounded for two years with com
plants of the disloyal character of these gov
and with insisting that this dis
loyal element should be expelled.
Attorney General Stanbery decides that the
committed to the military COM
handlers is a mere police power, whereas
President johnson, in his veto of the bill,
states his objection to be that it
renders the civil entirely subordinate to the
military authority of the United States
The construction of the Attorney General is
the most preposterous that could possibly |
have been put upon it. If he had taken the |
same ground as the President, and declared |
The acts to be unconstitutional, it would have |
been better, but to accept them and pretend |
20 give the meaning of Congress in the mat
Ter was a total and wilful ignoring of all the
acts. He forgets that Congress has declared |
hat these pretended State governments are
Illegal, disoyal. and not to he countenanced.
The committee had, in the first section of
The bill now before them, given the proper |
to the act of March 2. In his |
opinion. this was unnecessary, as the act al |
ready meant that; but they wished to make |
It so plain that even the Attorney General |
could not misconstrue it. The committee, in |
The second section. had provided that, in case
IF the removal of any civil officer, the vacan-
" should be filled by the appointment of
OeTSOn Ill Tie military SeTNlce. 1uey ndu
thought it better that, while these States
we're under military control, persons should
De appointed who were subject to military
Jules. Section five, which related to regis
ration, was rendered necessary in conse-
1uence of the very peculiar construction
maintained by the Attorney General as to the
powers of the boards of registers. Nothing
IAN be clearer than that the act of Congress
loes not warrant any such construction as
hat put upon it by the Attorney General;
put, to place this beyond peradventure, the
committee report this section.
The sixth section relative to the oath is
.lso intended to correct misrepresentation
If the Attorney General. The construction
If the Attorney General that an executive
,r judicial officer of any State who had gone
nto rebellion must have taken an oath to
upport the constitution of the United States
o he DISTINGUISHED rendered this section ne
,essary. 1t was the plain intention of the
ormer act to meet such cases, as it had been
suggested that in some of the rebel States
he practice of administering an oath TO
support the Constitution of the United States
lad been discontinued several years before
he war, Virginia for instance.
Mr.. Henderson said the suggestion, so far
Is concerned Virginia, had been subsequent
Y ascertained to be untrue.