Spirit of Jefferson. [volume] (Charles Town, Va. [W. Va.]) 1844-1948, 1867-06-25

on the 10TH day OF may, 4cOSI uIO give lts
consent TO the formation ola new State within
tie jurisdiction of LkesGiI STATE Of VIrgiRi0."
From this act the following are inevitable
deductions:
Let. That the 3lst day Of December, 1862, there
was "a State Of Virginia."
the jurisdiction of the said State Of Virginia-out
Of that portion of Virginia known West Vir-
Sd. That there was 's Legislature of Virginia"
capable OF exercising CT the highest functions
sao S no NE sSs SSa Of
Virginia.
It is admitted on the brief of the defend.
ants counsel, that Virginia had government
which was recognized by Congress until the
close of the S7th Congress, aud part if not
all the 3sth Congress; but it is asserted that
the Legislature which met on the first Monday
of December, 1865, Congress has steadily
refused to recognize.
1t is plain that when Congress has once
recognized government us lawfully estab-
lished in State, no further recognition is
necessary for any judicial purpose so long as
that same government is perpetuated, accord
ing to the forms aud by the means provided
in its Constitution. Under all American Con-
situations those representatives Of the people
who personally exercise legislative power,
cease to hold their Offices at fixed times, and
are either reelected or others chosen in their
stead. But these changes of the natural
persons who represent the people in legislation
are not changes ofthe established government.
They are changes in conformity with the
organic law Of the government and which
that organic law must provide for to be republi
can in form. The government of the United
States is the same government as went into
operation in 1889, though there have been
forty different Congresses assembled under it.
1t is manifest therefore that recognition
by Congress, in 1862, of tho Legislature of
Virginia as then the legislative power of
lawfully established government Of that State
in the Union, is recognition not ola particular
body of natural persons, but recognition of
a lawfully established Constitution Of govern
ment, republican in form, and capable of
perpetuating itself through elections by the
people, and so long as that same government,
without any essential change in its organic
law, has perpetuatcd itself through regular
election made in conformity with its organic
law, so long the effect Of the recognition neces-
sarily continues. For Notwithstanding the
changes in the natural persons who exercise
its powers, the government which was recog>
nized continues unchanged-the same in 1865
as in 1862.
That the government of Virginia recognized
in 1862, has perpetuated itself by regular
elections, made in conformity with its organic
law down to December 5, 1865, when the act
Withdrawing the consent of Virginia was
passed by its legislature, is not capable Of
question.
do not suppose this involves any matter
Of fact of which the Court will not take judicial
notice. If it does, all such matters of fact
are confessed by the demurrer to the bill,
which alleges that this act was passed by 'the
Legislature of the State of Virginia
But l suppose the Court will take judicial
notice and make judicial Prescriptions con-
corning all facts and laws necessary to cover
this question whether the same government
recognized in 1862 had been regularly perpet-
uated down to December 5, 1865.
The case is this: In 1862, by the recogni-
ton of Congress, there was lawfully estab>
lished government of Virginia, republican in
form, having as one of its branches IegisIa-
ture.
That government was organized under a
written constitution, of the existence and con-
tents of which this Court has judicial knowl-
edge. That constitution provided for cleo
tons by the people of senators and represen>
tatives at stated times. And when it appears,
as it does by the allegations of this bill, that
by the Legislature of Virginia, on the 5th of
December, 1865, the act now in question was
passed, the presumption, Omnia rite eSSc acta
covers the whole ground. This legislature
must be taken to have been duly elected,
assembled and organized so as to pass this law,
as clearly as the Legislature of Massachusetts
was presumed to have been duly elected,
assembled and organized to pass the prohibi-
tory liquor laws, on which this Court has re-
Gently acted.
Indeed no question is made on this SUBJ
Of hH-f tn Hafa
rely on is not that the same government, re-
cognized by Congress in 1862, as the lawfully
established government of Virginia, was not
continued in existence without any change
whatever down to December, 1865, but that
Congress tctttdrcc its recognition Of that gov-
eminent.
Their argument is, that Congress passed a
concurrent resolution" ON the second day of
March, 1866, declaring that no senator or
representative should be admitted into either
branch Of Congress from the State of Vir-
ginia.
The first answer to this is, that if this we're
a mortal blow,it was not struck until more than
three months after the act in question was PASS
ed by the Legislature of Virginia. The date of
that act was December 5, 1865; that of the
concurrent resolution was March 2, 1866
Certainly it is incumbent on defendants to
show not only that the recognition of this
existing government of the State of Virginia
by Congress was at some time, and to some
extent, or for some purposes withdrawn, but
that 1t was at such time, to such an extent
and for such purposes withdrawn, that this
Court cannot recognize the act of December
D, 1860, as valid law
The defendants rely on the refusal of each
branch of Congress to admit representatives
from Virginia. But each branch of Congress
is not the legislative power of the United
States. Congress can manifest the legisla-
tive will Of the people of the United States