The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1867-04-10
CHARLEST ON.
WEDNESDAY MORNING, APRIL 10, 1867.


urnNEsDAY MORNING, APRIL 10, 1867.
THE 1NJUNCTIOx BEFORE THE so-
PREME CURT.
We are informed by the telegram that
Georgia has joined Mississippi in the motion
far the Injunction, and has retained Judge
RACK and Mr.. O'CoNNoR, both very able law
yers, very pure men, and very distinguished
Democrats. We regret this. We can uhoer-
stand that these gentlemen are earnest anu
conscientious advocates of the legal theory OF
the Injunction. We also understand now
Judge sHARKEY, who was among the steaoles'
md most un8inching opponents Of secession
and ROBERT J. WALKER, who, at pubic ain-
ner in London, where he was Special COM
missioner from the United States, de-
clared ssthat all the blood she'd by the Nortn
in this war, is as holy as the blood shed on
Calyary'-can consistently support the prlnci-
| n,es upon which the injunction rests But
how can we?
The petition for leave to file the motion IS
now before us, and we cannot be mistaken as
To the ground upon which it has been put.
| It's leading postulate is explicitly stated:
s.The said State further shows, &C., that II
was impossible for her people or for the State
in its cooperative capacity to dissolve that con-
nection with the other States, and any attempt
to do 80 by secession or otherwise, was NULL
tv which she has admitted by grafting in an
amended constitution, solemn declaration
that the pretended ordinance OF secession secession
adopted by portion Of her people was aoso-
lutely null and void, and she now most solemn mn
" asserts that her connection with the Federal
| Government was not in any wise thereby I'M
paired and destroyed. And she moreover AYERS
and charges that the Congress Of the United
States cannot constitutionally expel her from
the Union, and any attempt which practically
does SO is a nullity.''
Now, whatever Georgia and Mississippi may
have done, South Carolina did not declare her
Ordinance ofSecession null and void. She did
wiser and truer thing. She repealed it, and
thus declared that while it was the justification
of such of her citizens as had obeyed her laws
:as a sovereign State, and while she claimed 1t
as q right to make such an Ordinance under
the Constitution, yet she had submitted that
| question of right to the arbitrament OF war; 1t
had been decided against it, and that tor the
future it was her duty to consider it as eliml-
mated from the Constitution, as much repealed
by war as it would bave been in peace by an
amendment to the Constitution,
These two theories are utterly inconsistent,
and the one which we have placed ds on the record
Eof our Convention will not sustain the argu-
.ment Of the petition. This is SO clear that II
this were the only ground of the injunction we
would scarcely deem it necessary to argue.
But there are two other propositions connected
with it that have confused many honest minded
people which we think it important to notice.
The first is that because Congress passed
resolution,in 1851 that the war was not then
waged s.for any purpose Of conquest or for III
terfering with the rights or the established IN
stitutions of these States" but "to preserve the
Union with all the dignity and rights Of the
several States uuimpaired," therefore, when
we surrendered in 1866 we surrendered under
the protection Of this resolution, which had
not been altered by the events and changes OF Of
as mighty and varying war as the world mao
ever seen. Now, there is net IN example IN
History in which two parties at war have Kept
open a standing set of terms upon which the
war is to be ended. Every negotiation, every
war changes it's terms of settlement. as the for
tunes of war vary, and it was just so with this
war. When it began the North thought it could
be settled by an amicable restoration, and an
arrangement as to the rights claimed by the
South. As the war progressed the North found
that slavery was an element Of strength on the
/ part of the South, very difficult to overcome
and in repeal of it's res >lution it emanclpated
the slave. Then, Us the fortune of war turned
against us, came the negotiations at Fortress
Monroe, where the terms offered and rejected
| were infinitely better than the present. ana
| when we surrendered our armies and closed
| the contest the final terms were dictated by
GRANT and SHERMAN, and every sensible man
knows that these terms are the only conditions
of surrender to which we have the right to ap-
neal, What is the use eof trying to delude our
selves into the belief that the course OF great
war "shattering that it may reach and shat-
terine what it reaches can be governed anu
limited by the law of special contract?
In the next place, it is contended that tne
Presidents action and the assent of the South
ern people, through their conventions was
legitimate and final settlement of our position
as restored States. Now, of the Presidents
bold and persevering defence OF what ne con-
silers the true Interpretation of the Constltu-
tion,. we have nothing but admiration to ex-
press. Whatever may have been the fate OF
his vetoes their language and their spirit were
as manly and rs patriotic as the famous decla-
ratio of C1cEREo, when he assumed the Con-
sulate: "Conscript Fathers, will so admins
ter nv great office that if the Tribunes OF the
people attack me, can despise them II they
attack the Constitution I can chastise them. =
But what has been the result?
When the armies of LEE and JOHNSON sur
rendered, Congress was not in session. The
| President, with his sound practical sense saw
that q restoration and maintenance OF some
ciyal government in the Southern States was
absolutely necessary, let it be as temporary as
it might. We felt painfully the same thlng'
for without, the country would have fallen into
anarchy and lawlessness. He, therefore, con-
structed such provisional State governments rs
he thought best, and we sensbly and cheerful
ly accepted these governments for our protec-
tion. The President has never claimed that lie
could restore the States-his position, as we
understand It is. that the Constitution restored