The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1867-04-15
DAILY PRESS.
POR1LAND.
Monday Morning, April is, 1867.
Tho Argus in n Corner.

---------------
Tho Argus in n Corner.
Recently, in the usual grandiloquent er
cathedra style of Democratic expounders of
the Constitution, the Argus stated that Con-
gress had denied to the late iusurgent States
representation in Congress IN plain oiotdtion
of the express provisions of the Constitu-
ton"
We respectfully called upon that paper to
point out the precise language-eive chapter
and verse-of the Constitution which was
thus violated in the refusal of Congress to
allow unreconstI ucted rebel States to resume
their power in the national legislature. We
felt that such information would be interest
ing, not to us alone but to the readers of that
paper. After waiting several days the follow
ing paragraph appeared in the Press:
The Argas has not yet informed its readers
of the precise language of the Constitution
which the radical Congress has violated by ex-
Guiding the representatives of the late rebel
States. Come, neighbor, toe the mark, and
give us chapter and verse.
Copying portion of this paragraph our
contemporary added:
1t will be time enough to re-state the argu-
ment, when some respectable, responsible au-
thorlty ventures to assert that the exclusion
of the Southern States from representation in
Congress is not in violation OF the constitu-
| ton.
This language needs no Interpretation. 1t
shows that even our neighbor is satisfied he
has "put his foot in il" "and made statement
that has not ghost of a basis to stand upon
T. A Ca sin xl,a
provision of the Constitution was Eek
press" and the violation "plain y now SIT is
enough to state the argument" &c. This is
a tacit admission that there is no express pro-
vision of the Constitution upon the subject,
and that the only thing plainly violated is
Democratic argument, conjured up for the
purpose of enabling rebels to gain by legisla-
ton what they failed to gain by the sword,
and thus to strengthen and perpetuate the
party whose fortunes have been shattered by
rebellion.
This is no new thing with Democratic pol
iticans. Who has forgotten the industry and
indefatgable efforts with which it was at
tempted to impose upon the country the sim
pie argument or Obiter dictum of Chief JUS
tice Taney In the Dred Scott case, as the sol
emn judicial decision of the Supreme Court
of the United States!
1t was exactly on this point that the Demo-
cratic party fell in twain, the Breckenridge
wing insisting and resolving that Congress
was obliged to defend and protect slavery in !
the common territories, and appealing to the
Dred Scott argument, while the Douglas wing
insisted that the Court had made no such de-
cision, that what was said in the Dred Scott
case on this point was the mere obiter dictun.
of the Court, while the judicial decision COW
cred but single point, TO wit: the question OF
citizenship OF the African once slave or the
descendant of slave. There were not want
ing Democratic journals of high standing and
commanding influence that insisted upon
amending the celebrated Cincinnati Platform
"a popular sovereignty enunciation-by in
cooperating into it not the decision Of Judge
Taney, but the infamous land barbarous
argument, which was in perfect keeping with
the remark made in that argument, so often
referred to, about the negro having no rights
which the white man is bound to respect.
As the Democrats argue that Congress vio-
lates the Constitution in excluding the late
rebel States from representation In its body,
it may not be out OF place to quote the Ian
guage upon which they pretend to base their
argument. Here it is. Art. /. Sec 2, says j:
"The House Of Representatives shall be com
posed OF members chosen every second year,
by the people of the several States" &c.
Section 3D. says: "The Senate of the United
States shall be composed oftaoo Senator's from
each State" &c. @
That any sensible, logical person should ar
que nom these provisions, that states cannot
be refused readmission to representation after
voluntarily vacating such representation in
order to JOIN in gigantic rebellion, is per-
fectly astonishing. When Congress assembled
in December, 1850, no one denied or doubt
ed the right OF any State to send her repre-
sentatives and senators, or their right to occu-
py seats in the national legislature.
But before the session which then COM
menced had closed, the Senators and Repre-
sentatives of one State after another resigned
their seats, giving as reason that their states
had Withdrawn from the Union, that they
owed superior allegiance to their states whose
fortunes they must follow. In this way the
seats OF eleven states became vacated, and the
states whose delegates thus Withdrew having
formally and solemnly passed ordinances OF
secession, united in Confederation in open
and direct hostility 10 the Government OF the
United States, and for four long bloody years
int 70
reasonable course. State constitutions were
all changed to conform to the new Confeder-
ate Institution, the laws were also made to
harmonic with the same, and when the pow
| er OF the rebellion was finally crushed out
there was not a civil officer of the United
States in the South, and neither constitution,
laws, Legislatures, executives nor any other Of
fcers, nor any ofthe machinery OF government,
in harmony with and acknowledging allie.
| glance to the supreme authority oil the United
States. In a political sense the states of the
South had ceased to be. The territory was
there, the people were there, but in political
chaos, the people all tainted with treason,
their laws and governments all crumbled to
dust.
/ And now we are told that the people of
those states, who voluntarily vacated their
rights In Congress and by acts of treason for
feited them, have right to come back and
resume the power and functions hitherto
spurned by them, and that Congress, in deny
ing such a preposterous claim violates the
constitution! As well say the thief has a
right to restored confidence in the community
because, failing to secure his booty, he con-
cludes to stop stealing. As well claim that
the murderer in the dock has right to all
the privileges of liberty because, failing in the
purpose which prompted his crime, he has
concluded to shed 70 more blood. Such no.
tions are too preposterous to demand serious
notice. They are worthy only of "lost
cause"
A Prediction mud its Falhlment.
The Washington correspondent of the Phil