Indiana American. [volume] (Brookville, Ind.) 1865-1872, 1867-04-19
UnqucstionabIe IlIeaajitv.


To be true Democrat, Is TO subject
Constitution law, judicial decisions and
jury vcrdicts to the convenience of the
Democratic party. If the party policy
requires that an object or subject shall be
declared successfully n weasel, n camel or
q whale, ID is affirmed that the Constitution
makes IL so. IL n Judge does not so hold
he is called pejured monster. If n jury
conyicts Democrat for treason or assas-
sination, or any such little democratic pee
cadilloes, they are called murderers, and
this becomes a part of the party creed.
We know Of none more faithful to this
rule than our city contemporary, the En-
quirer Most Democratic journals are con-
tent with the affirmation Of what is re-
quired. If the party siturtion requires
that they should calf treason loyalty and
secession union, their instinct leads them
to conclude that it is the wisest policy to
keep affirming II, and calling names, and
to try to drown reason with clamor. But
the Enquirer will give columns of reason
ing 10 the conclusion that all loyalty is
comprised in making war on the Govern.
ment, and that the seccdcrs arc tho only
lflcnus OF the Union.
Under the abject servitudc ofthe North
ern Democracy to the slave faction, the
Northern Democratic journals and sub
leaders tried to compromise with tho pub
liz conscience by admitting that slavery is
an evil, but excusing il as one which they
were not responsible for, and which could
not well be got rid of. But the Enquirer
never stops at such half. hearted submis-
sion. 1t declares the necessity its highest
joy, and it reasons voluminously that
slavery is the normal condition of the mass
of mankind, and is so ordained Of God.
And so the Enquirer comes up jealous
ly to the demand in the Mississippi case
against the United States. 1t sees no OBJ
stacle'in the way Of State coming into
Court and suing the United States, and
demanding an injunction upon the Nation
al Government. On the contrary, it regards
it as the proven business of the Court to
ted States; and, with wonderful astutencss,
it finds the constitutional power for this
new jurisdiction in the provision that the
judicial power shall extend to all cases in
which the United States shall be party.
1t reasons wisely that as the United
States will be party whenever it is sued,
therefore anybody can sue the United
States. This is the perfection of Demo-
cratic reason, and is what the mind must
come to which undertakes to reduce Dem
ocracy to human reason. The same jour
nal disposes Of the decision in the Dorr
case with equal logical facility. That de-
cision held that the question as to the le
giiimacy of q State Government was not
judicial, but a political question, and
belonged to Congress.
But the Enquirer says the principle of
this decision cannot apply, unless there
are two parties before the Court, each
claiming to be the legal Government of
State. And we suppose it will say also
that it cannot apply to any case, unless
Gov. Dorr is party. The Enquirer al
lows that if two parties come before the
Court, each claiming to beth legal Govern
ment ola State, the Court cannot decide be-
tween them, but must leave the question,
whicbis legal, TO Congress. But it claims
that if there is but one party claiming.to be
the legal Government of a State, neither
Congress nor the Court can question its
legality. 1t does not undertake to affirm
the legality Of these johnson reconstruc-
tons, but it holds, that if illegal there is
no power TO question their illegalitv.
This is law reduced to the Democratic
India-rubber necessity but as all reason
ing is bewildering to the Democratic mind,
and as to others this kind Of reasoning
rather ,roakens thu nosition N il likely |
that the regular Democratic style is after
all more effective. If the conclusion of a
Democratic argument were ofany moment,
this would be rather embarrassing to Dem
ocracy, for it makes out that the President
may by his own will turn out State Gov
crnments, and set up others supported by
military power, and yet neither the Judicial
nor the legislative power can question the
legality Of these usurpations.-[ Gazette.