Dallas herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1849-1873, 1867-03-23


persons of every color, sex and con
dition, and every stranger within
their limits-to the most abject AM
degrading slavery. No mas;er ov
or had control so absolute owe
his slaves as this bill gives to tn
military officers over both white ant
colored persons.
1t may be answered to this tha
the officers Of thcarmy are too mag
nanimous, just, humane to oppres'
and trample upon subjugated pco
pie. | do not doubt that army offl
GERS are as well entitled to this kint
Of confidence as any other class o.
men. But the history Of the world
has been written in vain, if it does
not teach us that unrestrained au-
thority can never be safely trustee
in human hands. 1t is almost sure
to be more or less abused under any
circumstances, and it has always re
suited in gross tyranny where the
rulers who exercise it are strangers
to their subjects, and come among
them as the representatives Of n dis
tant power, and more especially
when the power that sends them is
unfriendly. Governments closely
resembling that here proposed have
been fairly tried in Hungary and
Poland, and the suffering endured
by those people reused the sympa-
thies of the entire world. 1t was
tried in Ireland, and, though tenn,
pcred at first by principles of Eng
lish law, it gave birth to cruelties so
atrocious that they are never re-
counted without just Indignation
The French Convention armed its
deputies with this power, and sent
them to the Southern departments
of the Republic. The massacres,
murders and other atrocities which
they committed show what the pas
sions of the ablest men in the most
civilized society will tempt them to
do when wholly unrestrained by
law.
The men of our race in every age
have struggled to tic up the hands
of their Governments and keep them
within the law; because their own
experience of all mankind taught
them that rulers could not be relied
on to concede those rights which
they were not legally bound to re-
spect. The head of a great empire
has sometimes governed it with a
mild and patcrnal sway; but the
kindness of an irresponsible deputy
never yields what the law does not
extort from him. Between such Il
master and the people subjected to
his domination there can be nothing
but enmity; he Furnishes them if
they resist his authority, and, if
they submit he hates them for their
scrvility.
l come now to question which
is, if possible, still more important.
Have we the power to establish and
carry into execution a measure like
this? / answer, certainly not, if
we derive our authority from the
Constitution, and if we are bound
by the limitations which it imposes.
This proposition is perfectly clear
that no branch of the Federal
Government, executive, legislative
or judicial, can have any just pow
ers, except those which it derives
through, and exercises under, the
organic law of the Union. Outside
of the Constitution, we have no le-
gal authority more than private cit
izens, and within it we have only so
much as that instrument gives us.
This broad principle limits all our
functions, and applies to all subjects.
1t protects not only the citizens of
States which are within the Union,
but it shields every human being
who comes or is brought under our
jurisdiction. We have no right to
do in one place, more than another,
that which the Constitution says
we shall not do at all. If, therefore,
the Southern States were in truth
out of the Union, VIC could not treat
their people in a way which the fun
damental law forbids.
Some persons assume that the sue
cess of our arms in crushing the
opposition which was made in some
of the States to the execution of the
Federal laws, reduced these States
and all their people-the innocent
as well as the guilty-to the condi-
ton of vassalage, and gave us a
power over them which the Consti-
tuition does not bestow, or define, or
limit. No fallacy can be more trans
parent than this. Our victories sub
iected the insurgents to legal obcd-
ience, not to the yoke ofan arbitra-
ry despotism. When an absolute
sovereign reduces his rebellious SUBJ
iects, he may deal with them ac-
to his pleasure, because he
had that power before. But when
a limited monarch puts down an in
he must still govern ac-
cording to law. If an insurrection
should take place in one ofour States
against the authority of the State
government, and end in the over
throw ofthose who planned it, would
that take away the rights of all the
people Of the counties where it was
favored by a part or a majority OF
the population Could they for
such a reason, be wholly outlawed
and deprived of their representa-
tion in the Legislature? have al
WAYS contended that the Govern
ment of the United States was SOW
sreign within its cOnstituti on al
sphere; that it executed its laws, like
the States themselves, by applying
its coercive powers directly to indi-
viduals; and that it could put down
with the same effect as
! State. and no other. The opposite
Il Ia "