The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1867-10-02

sion. III the secession ordinances were valid
and the S ates pretending to seoede did
thereby become Independent foreign Govern
ments, then the contest was not a civil buta
foreign war, and the success of our arms rave
Us all those rights of conquest which appertain
10 victorious nation by the body of usages
known as international law. If the secession
doctrine was sound and the independence ac-
quired in pursuance of it was real, it logically
enough follows that Congress can prescribe
rules for the government Of the foreign terri
tory which became ours by the right of CON
quest, and that the time aud manner of the
Ieadmission of the seeded States to the Union
are subject to Congressional discretion. The
Hon. Iverson l.. Harris, one of the Judges of
the Supreme Court of Georgia, has written a
letter favoriDg submission to the prescribed
conditions, and making the validity Of the or
dinances of secession the cornerstone of his
argument. We copy enough to exhibit the
line of reasonipg;-
Now l take it 10 be an undeniable fact, that
Georgia, by the ordinance of her Convention in
1861, did dissolve her connection with the Fede-
raj Union, and reDounce the Federal Constitu-
This act put Georgia out of the Federal Union.
take IL TO be also an undeniable fact, that
Georgia, as q State, has not been restored to her
former position in the Federal Union,
This being So she is s,ill out of the Federal
Union. What interest or property as state, if
my premises are right, she has in a ConstiJu-
I on which she solemnly renounced, and which
has not been re extended over her as "A State in
he Federal Union, and as it existed before her
secession am at q loss to discover Having
one as a State how can she, in reference TO
political rights and privileges, rightfully claim
its benefits and protection2
Upon this view you will perceive that ]
utterly deny that there was n civil war in It's
legitimate sense--that we were rebels, traitors
A necessary consequence from this position is
that, upon the termination of hostilities, there
can be no confiscation or amenability to the
municipal laws of the conqueror
The claim that the Constitution is ours, and
that we have never parted with it, contains
within 1t the fatal admission of our guilt as
"The status of Georgia, then, at this time"
is that of q conquered State out of the Federal
II this is so 1t is In the light only of the
laws of nations that our situation can be pro-
perly considered
1t must, think, be conceded by every jurst
whose reading has extended beyond Blackstone
| ana the Constitution of the United States, that
it is settled and unquestionable doctrine of
the laws of nations that the conqueror, accord
ing to the customs of Christian civilized nations
may rule the State conquered at his will, as by
moulding its political institutions to that will
with no other restrictions on his power than
the customary usages of such nations.
The Congress of the United States from this
sour g, and this alone, detived their po yer 10
pass the r. L construction acts they do not spring
from the exercise of enumerated and delegated
powers to Congress, but trOm the power outside
\ Of the Constitution Inherent in Inc victor
Viewing those acts, then, in the light of
4 terms imposed by the eonqueror on the con-
I quered-and am driven by a stern logic to look
at the m in that lgh and in other-sO regard
ing them, l am called on to determine Wnat
! line of conduct it is most expedient to pursue.
time that there is no earthly tribunal to which
| the conquered can appeal for remedy or redress.
compelled to choose between acquiescng In
| be downright madness? The other alternative
| is the only thing left us.
If we could but concede the premises, we
| should be obliged to admit that this is soundly
| and ably reasoned. But it would be the most
stupendous example of self-stultifcation in the
history of the world for the Northern people
| to admit the premises. True it is that the
| Reconstruction acts can be justified on no
other principle; but the North has expended
too much blood and treasure in contesting
| the doctrine of secession to concede its vail
dity now. If the South had right to
secede, and by secession became a foreign
nation, we waged against it most cruel
and unustifable war, and conducted the
war on false pretenses from beginning to
end. In entering upon the war, and dur
ing the whole course of its prosecution, we
maintained that the ordinances of secession
were nullities, Of no more force than if they
had never been passed. Our Government
was never weary of declaring, both to our
own people and to foreign nations, that we
We're dealing merely with revoted citizens:
and we carried this doctrine to such length
as to make it a ground of vehement accusa-
tion against Great Britain that she conceded to
the South enough of belligerent character to
| assume the position of a neutral The whole
tenor of the dispatches sent from our State
Department, and the whole tone of our public
press, was in angry inculpation of the foreign
powers for regarding the COnfederates in any
other light than that of citizens in insured
tlon against their lawful Government. We
refused, for a long while, to allow that the
South had even the rights which appertain to
the insurgent party in civil war; refused for
a long while even to exchange prisoners; and
now, in brazen contradiction to our VIII lie
record, we insist ON method of restoration
which involves a full Endorsement of the right
of secession, and is utterly indefensble on any
other principle.