The Louisiana Democrat. [volume] (Alexandria, La.) 1845-1918, 1867-02-27
nm-- Mr.. shellabarger, says the Nation

nsA. Mr.. Shellabarger, says the National
Intelligencer, has the reputation of being
one of the ablest lawyers in the House.
1t is melancholy to see him attempting to
delude himself and the country with the
miserable sophism that the clause in the
Constitution which guarantees republica-
can form of government to each State JUS
titles the Congress of the United States in
undertaking to upset the existing govern
ment of Louisiana. Suppose it is conce-
ded that the seeding States lost their
governments : does that necessarily imply
that they lost their right to make another
government that should be in unison with
the Constitution and the Federal Govern
ment? From what clause of the Constitu-
ton is that doctrine derived? But grant
| ing that they did not forfeit that right,
does If enure to the benefit of Congress?
From what part of the Constitution is such
a dogma as Chat also deduced? Both po-
sitions are equally untenable, and no one
knows this better than Mr.. Shellabarger.
K citizen Of the United States cannot
forfeit his right to selfgovernment save in
methods prescribed by law for criminal Of
fences to which the penalty Of such forfeit
ure is affixed. No such forfeiture is at
tached to the crime of which the Southern
people have been guilty, and if there was,
they must first be convicted. But the
offence has been condoned by the pardon
ing power of the Government, and whatever
rights of self-goyernment those people had
prior to the war, they have to-day.
. In guaranteeing republican form of
government, the simple and only question
for Congress is whether the existing insti-
tutions ola State are republican or not
1t has no authority to make institutions
for one State more than another. 1t has
no right to prescribe what constitutes a
republican form of government for one
State more than another. IF OH earthquake
were to swallow up the entire State gov
eminent of Pennsylvania, the people of
that State would reconstruct their govern
ment, and could amend their constitution
to suit them, and Congress would have
nothing to do with that amended constitu-
ton, unless it should be aDti-republican in
form. 1t cannot pretended, certainly no
lawyer of Mr.. Shellabarger's repute will
pretend, that solitary one Of the State
governments Of the Southern States is not
republican in any sense in which that word
was ased by the trainers of the Constitu-
ton. Nor is there anything in the pre-
tence that the people of Louisiana are dis
satisfied with it. Its not the first time
that people have been dissatisfied with
their government, and in New the old con-
stlsation was suspended and new one
created, not in way authorized by the
old instrument, and government started
under it, Yet, did Congress undertake to
interfere or to prescribe for new and d.
ferent method Of doing this work?
The doctrine of MIR. Shellabarger is de-
struetive of the Government. The domi-
nant party in Congress might foment dis
turbances in any one State in which they
were in minority, and, according to the
theory Of MIR. Shellabarger, thus justify
Congress in denying the State representa-
ton, and in prescribing its own terms of
reconstruction. The only people compe-
tent to recreate State government, if by
any chance it is destroyed, are the citizens
Of the State, and the only test of loyalty
which Congress can prescribe is the simple
one of obedience to the laws of the United
States. When it goes outside of that, and
undertakes TO decitizenize citizens, unless
in pursuance Of laws already made, proscri-
bing those guilty Of certain offences prior
to their commission, it is guilty Of rank
usurpation and Of gross disregard to the
fundamental law.