The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1867-04-09

The general allegations urged in support of
the injunction are not calculated to change
the impression thus created. They are essen
TALLY the old Secessionist allegations. and the
published argument in their support is pre-
cisely such an argument as legal disciple of
Calhoun would have presented in a paralleI
case before the war. From beginning 10 and n
exhibits nothing new. It's form is i'm some re-
spects modified; the points as stated are neoes-
sarily different, but the essence Is nncbanc,od
Had the patriotic impulses of the North adT9it
ted of restraint in 1861, pending discussion of
the issues between the sections in the Supreme
Court, the drift of the case for the seeedino
States would have been in its nature identica1
with that which Messrs. Sharkey and Walker
have concocted in the name of Mississipni
Certain inherent rights would have been
claimed for the State as against the Union
the right to secede being of the number. The |
constitutionality of coercion as means of |
frustrating secession would have been dis
puted. The call for troops and nearly every
other step taken by the Federal authorities in |
the presence of actual necessity would bava !
been denounced as at variance with the Con |
stitution, with the preserved rights of stats -
with the ''original compact of the Union. and |
we know not what besides. All the resources
of the Calhoun logic would have been brought
into play, and it is not improbable that The
author OF the bred Scott decision would have
ruled that the law and the Constitution were
on the side of the Rebels. Were the Tanevs a
majority on the bench to-day, we may be sure
what their judgment would amount to- II
would be an elaborate affirmation of the RIGHT
of individual States to destroy the Union. f.
would be iesuitical denial of the right of the
Union to repress rebellion or punish Rebels
or to do any one of the many things which
Congress has deemed requisite to perpetuate
the unity of the Republic. But Of what avail
would have been the hair-splitting, the
4hn lfgf,,
tation of half-a-dozen Taneys The broad
and common sense rendering of the conditions
of national life would have prevailed The
people would have held, as in truth they did
hold, that the Constitution is a means of pre-
serving the harmony and vigor of the Union
not a cunningly devised instrument for
effecting national disintegraton.
So will it be with the bill filed by Messrs.
Sharkey and Walker. 1t is dishonest bill.
It's pleas are mere attempts to bewilder and
divert attention from the real issue. 1t AYERS
that Congress cannot cOnstitutionally expel
Mississippi from the Union" whereas Con-
gress has simply said that Mississippi shall
not break up the Union 1t declares that the
Rebels of the State 'lost none of their politi-
cal rights by rebellion;" that the Governments
of their choice are constitutionally as valid as
Congress itself; that any attempt to effect con-
ditions, impose disabilities, and enforce oaths is
at variance with rights which the Supreme
Court is bound to maintain. The little incident
of the Rebellion is carefully ignored. 1t is dis
carded from the argument as completely as
though it were holiday freak, with which the
national Government has nothing properly to
do. Stripped of legal verbiage and sophistry,
toe Sharley and Walker argument may be
paraphrased thus:-"The State of Mississippi
has rights superior to those of the Union; its
people rebelled against the Union, but, though
conquered, their privileges as citizens of the
Union continue precisely as though no rebel
lion had occurred; therefore, Congress cannot
constitutionally dictate terms of readmission,
or in any manner exact guarantees for the
future. In word, as these lawyers state the
case, the Southern people, having tried to
destroy the Union and failed may now come
back to fight the battle DER again with
ballots instead of bayOnets. The pro-
position covers yet wider ground.
For if the political rights of the South
were constitutionally the same at the end of
the Rebellion as before it rebeled, and if on
this ground Congress may not set aside its
local Governments as provisional or impose
any terms uponits people, it follows that the
interference of President Johnson Immediately
after the cessation of hostilities was equally
unconstitutional. The point raised before the
Supreme Court, involves all that has been done
since the surrender of Lees army. Messrs.
| Sharkey and Walker affirm in substance that
! the whole of it is unconstitutional since both
the Executive and Congress- by their respec-
tive proceedings have imposed tests and ex-
acted conditions at variance with the Southern
theory of State rights.
1t is hardly necessary to say that the ques-
! ton is political, not legal. 1t is question of
national policy, not of judicial Interpretation.
! 1t is a question which the country took into
| its own hands when it commenced the war to
| put down disunion, and which it will refuse to
surrender, though Sharkey and Walker argue
never so acutely. Having vanquished the
Rebel armies and crushed the physical ele-
ments of rebellion, the people are not pre-
| pared to leave their advantages of their tri-
| umph contingent upon the chances of a forensic
contest. We have no apprehension that the
! Supreme Court will give aid or countenance
to the affair. But whether in this case an in
! junction be granted or refused, the final de-
| termination of the status of the South will con-
tinue to rest with Congress.
The Handwriting on the WaII-A Panic
In the Radical Party.
| From the World.
Two remarkable articles are published by
| the Providence Journal, Senator Anthony's
organ, and the Springfield (Nlassachusetts)
| Republican, a radical journal of acknowledged
| influence in New England The "lesson Of
| Connecticut" as the Tribune calls it, has been
| thoroughly learned and understood by at
| least two leading radical papers, and the Phi
| ladelphia North american also thinks that the
| radical majority in Congress 'has been push
| ing along the car of national progress a little
too fast for some sections of the party"
The Providence Journal states the case
more nearly when it declares that the party