New-York tribune., 1867-08-30


that we were bound by these laws, but they
did not think it necessary or proper 10 hiSel'
them in the Constitution.
Mr. Johnson alleges in justification of the
cxcrtions ne has made, and Is making to de-
feat the will of Congress, that the cohstltu-
tionaI rights OF Southern citizens, suspended
only during war, revive rs soon as the enemy
lovs down his arms. That Is bad law.
treaty. or any other compact, made during
rcocc and cancelled by war, does not revive
with tbc cessation of hOstitics. The matter
il then rs open to negotiation as If no treaty
or compact had been made A treaty in the
same words, or with different conditions, may
be entered into; but this depends on the con-
currcpcc of the parties who may contract. 1t
oyails. therefore, nothing to tell us that the
Constitution provides that each State shall be
rcprcscntcd in the Lower House, that no State
shall, without its consent, be deprived of its
equal suffrage in the Senate; and that
inasmuch as Congress witholds from the ex-
insurrectionary States representation III the
House and the Senate, the Constitution suffers
violation. Ii suffers violation lust as much
as it did during the Rebellion when the
enemy was deprived Of his life, liberty, ana
property, without due process OF civil Law
Just as much, and no more. The incidents
of war do not cease as soon as the
sword is shcathed. just war Is waged'
not for the purpose of destruction, but
of security. The war over important du-
ties press upon the victor. Every publiclSt OF
rcpu,c has set forth (what common sense sug-
gcsts) that victorious nation ought to protect
itself. not only against immediate but against
prospective danger. Nattcl says:
"Whcn conqucror has subducd hostile nation, he
may fpludcncc sorcqurc render her incapable OF doing
mischief with the same ease IN future. II
the safety OF the state lies stake prccauon and
ght cannot bc extended too far Must we delay to
avert our rum till 70 has become ineyitaBlcl An
injury gives night to provide for our future safety py
dcprylus the unjust 1ssrcssor OF the means oi iJu'"B
us"
If these words stood in the Constitution would
Mr.. Johnson assert that Congress had over
stcppcd its duty; that it had no right to provide
for the future safety of the nation by dcpnyIhS
"thc unjust aggrcSsor of the means oi lnJuiIhg
"us" Bat is the right less clear or The duty less
imperative because these are set forth IN the
Law of Nation, and not in oW organic law
Does patriotism. according To Mr.. johnson, con
si,t in ignoring International law The Con-
"stitution the whole Constitution that Is well;
bnt nothing but the Constitution Is that the
Presidential doctrinc7 1t is related, as our
readers may remember, of a certain Moslcm
Vandal coaqucrOr of Alexandria, that when the
fate of its celebrated library was referred 10
him, he consigned it to the flames, declaring:
"If these Greek writings agree with the Koran
"thcy are useless, and need not be preserved; If
"thcy disagree, they are pcnicious, and ought
" to be DESTROYED Are the pages of Grotius
and Vattel good for nothing better than to be
used rs fuel to heat the baths Of the White
HouscP Is President johnson, in the Nine
teenth century, but a. far advanced in liberal
ity of sentiment as Caliph Omar was in the
Seventh. At all events, we consider his posi-
tion today les, teuablc than that OF buchanan
in 1860 Buchanan appealed 10 tie Consttu-
ton against what he iorcsaw would be ter
riLle war; marked with incalculablc bloodshcd,
10 be followed by sectional hcart-burnings after
its close The war is fought through; there
are half million of dead; three thousand mil
lions are expended. Johnson, approving the
sacrifices which the nation has made, sets HIM
self to render her past sacrifices futile and un-
ayaiIing To defeat the efforts of her prudence
and foresight, to ciTcumycnt her cndcayols TO
provide for her future safety. He thinks We
have right TO destroy, but not to save; a
right to fl ght the battle, but no night to secure
the best fruits of victory.
1t may be, hOweyer-lct MS put upon the
Presidents warfare against Congress the most
charitable Interpretation we can't may be
that he approves the object of the Rcconstruc-
ton acts desires TO see the South deprived of
power to iniurc MS in the future, but that he
dsapproves the manner in which this is done.
Under this, the most favorable suppositon, how
stands the case? The people, through their
Representatives, have decided that, to secure
the public safety, reconstruction shall bc cf-
fectcd in one way; the President Is determined
it shall be brought about in another. Who has
a right TO dccide-Andrcw johnson OF the peO-
pie 7-they who fought the battle and have to
pay the score, or a man, never voted for as
President, whom the people neither love nor
trust4
The issue, be it remarked, is not whether the
plan of reconstruction as devised 10y the people
through their representatives, and passed by
overwhelming maiOrities is the best and wiscst
that could have been cOntIiycd. The real issue
is much simpler than this. 1t turns on the qucs-
ton 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
enactmcnts7 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 legis-
latiye authority, shall be executed by our Chief
Magistrate, not fecbly, carelessly, protcstingly,
but faithfully and earnestly, according to their
spirit and intent. If one man will not do this,
another can be found who will Everything is