The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1867-08-31

sheathed. just war is waged, not for the I
purpose of destruction, but of security. The |
war over, important duties press upon the |
victor. Every publioist of repute has set forth |
(what common sense suggests) that vic |
toriOus nation ought TO project ITSELF not only |
against immediate, but against prospective
danger. Vattel says
"When a conqueror has subdued q hostile |
nation, he may, II prudence so require, render
her incapable OF doing mischief with the same
State lies at stake our precaution and foresight
cannot be extended too far. Must we delay To
avert our ruin I'LL IT has become inevitable?
An injury gives a right TO provide for our
future safety by depriving the unjust aggressor
of the means of injuring u.s."
II these words stood in the Constitution
would Mr.. Johnson assert that Congress had
Overstepped its dutyY that it had no right to
provide for the future safety Of TIE nation "by
depriving the unjust aggressor of the means
of injuring us P But is the right less clear
or the duty less imperative because these are
set forth in the Law of Nations and not in our
organic law Does patriotism, according to
Mr.. johnson, consist in ignoring International
law ? "The Constitution, the whole COnstitu-
tion, that is well; but nothing but the Con-
stitution, " is that the Presidential doctrine
1t is related, as our readers may remember, of
a certain Moslem Vandal, conqueror of Alex
aDdria, that when the fate of its celebrated
library was referred to him, he consigned it to
the flames, declaring: eff these Greek
writings agree with the Koran they are useless,
and need not be preserved if they disagree,
they are pernicious, and ought to be de-
stroyed." Are the pages of GrOtius and Vattel
good for nothing better than to be
used as fuel to heat the baths of the White
HouseY Is President johnson, in the nine
teenth century, but as far advanced in liber-
ality of sentiment as Caliph Omar was in the
seventh? At all events, we consider his posi-
tion to-day less tenable than that of Buchanan
in 1860. Buchanan appealed to the Constitu-
tiOn against what he foresaw would be a ter
rible war, marked with inoalculable bloodshed,
to be followed by sectional heart-burnings
after its close. The war is fought through;
there are half million of dead; three thou
sand millions are expended. Johnson, approx
ing the sacrifices which the nation has made,
sets himself to render her past sacrifices futile
and unavailing to defeat the efforts of her
prudence and foresight, to circumvent her en-
deavors to provide for her future safety. He
thinks we have a right to destroy, but not to
save a right to fight the battle, but no right
to secure the best fruits of victory.
1t may be, however-let us put upon the
Presidents warfare against Congress the most
charitable Interpretation we can't may be
that he approves the object of the RecOnstruo-
ton acts, desires to see the South deprived of
power to injure us in the future, but that he
dlsapprOves the manner i'll which this is done.
Under this, the most favorable suppOstion,
how stands the case2 The people, through
their Representatives, have decided that, to
secure the public safety, reconstruction shall
be effected in one way; the President is de-
termined it shall be brought about in another.
Who has right to decide, Andrew Johnson
or the people they who fought the battle
and have to pay the score, or man never
voted for as President, whom the people
neither love nor trust
The issue, be it remembered, is not whether
the plan of reconstruction as devised by the
people through their representatives, and
passed by overwhelming majorities, is the
best and wisest that could have been con-
trived. The real issue is much simpler than
this 1t turns on the question, Who had a
right to devise and to pass it Who had a
right to judge how carefully guarded it should
be how stringent should be its several enact
ments ? There is but one answer possible to
these questions and, for that reason, there
can be but one solution of the present difficult
ties. We do not want a king here, nor any
one arrogating more than kingly authority.
We intend that our laws, when passed by the
legislative authority, shall be executed by our
Chief Magistrate, not feebly, carelessly, pro-
testingly, but faithfully and earnestly, accord
ing to their spirit and intent. If one man
will not do this, another can be found who
will Everything is possible, except that the
popular will should be defed and defeated.
That has never happened in all our past his
tory; it will not happen now.
Whatever we do will be done, we hope and
believe, quietly, deliberately-with no undue
excitement but also with no weak hesitation.
The trainers of the Constitution would not
have provided remedies for extreme cases il
they had not intended that if such cases oc-
Cured, the remedies should be applied. We
shall look forward to the developments of the
next three months with much interest, with
some hope that extremities will yet be avoided:
but whether this be so or not, with no appre-
hensiOn.