Raftsman's journal. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1854-1948, 1868-02-05

! plan can vote against it. Then, sir, unless
1t mad majority of all the voters-not only
a majority of all the votes cast, but major
ity OF all the legal voters in the State, co IN
tlng those who from any cause omit to vote
against 1.-THE whole plan falls to the groud.
Again, when constitution is framed it
must be submitted to the people, and if a
majority vote against 1t that is the end of
1t. What despotism is there in that?
but you have put the names of colored
men upon your list of voters why is that :?
Mr Speaker, there is a large number of white
voters IN those States who are opposed to
the continuance of the Federal Union They
have not only so said, but leagued them
| selves together to destroy it. TO be sure,
the armed power of the confederacy has been
ovefthrown, but ats memory and purpose Is
still enshrined in the hearts of its followers.
lhey put their money in that cause and now
hold It's bonds and notes. Their affections,
going out to their fallen kindred, are in it.
Ihelr honor is linked with it, and as,they
crave good name in the future they must
forever defend 1t. The confederacy is gone,
but the cause survives and comes back TO
struggle through the ballot box for tri-
umph not achieved in the field They will
yoJe no pension to the crippled soldier nor
honors to the gallant captain The colored
people III the States, on the contrary, are
interested in the preservation of the Repub-
lie. They are grateful to it for liberty al
ready conferred, and they look to it for frl-
ture protection. We allowed them to vote
because We saw IN their Votes justice to the
soldier and safety 10 the Union. They are
not numerous enough to out vote the dlsu-
nionists, to be sure; but they are numerous
enough to counteract in scme degree their
I'D, l. l ~
providence ofGod, that in seeking the per
petuity and safety of the Republic aud the
liberties vouchsafed to us all under it we
could do some little justice to a long wrong
ed but hard working and meritorious class
OF our fellow beings, and approximate more
closely the great principle which under
lies our form OF government, TO wit, the
equality OF the human race. Wea ayailed our
selves of this opprtunity more, | fear, from
necessity than from sense of Justice This
is what is called unconstitutional, revolu-
tionary, and despotic
a bill of a few lines, supplementary TO
the legislation of March last, is now made
the occasion to renew this coarse and unde-
served denunciation. " hat is the bill? As
long ago as last June the President discov-
cred that the act of March was liable to be
misconstrued or differently construed in the
different districts ofthe South, and that no
person was authorized to correct or unity
these various constructions. We concur
with the President. We propose to clothe
an officer of the Army superior in rank to
any now charged with the execution of these
laws, tossupervise the whole, to detail Off
GERS and instruct them in their duties. 1t
is in accordance with the Presidents sug-
gestion What possible objection can there
be to that? None, | suppose at least |
have heard none. But it is claimed that we
have made mistake in selecting the officer
who is to perform these duties. We have
devolved them upon the General of the Ar
my; whereas, it is said, that the Comman-
der-in- Chief wouldShave been the filter Off
Ger. 70 plain man it would seem as If the
gentlemen were trifing. The rules of the
Army authorize the captain to supervise his
company and give orders to his inferior Off
GERS, the colonel his regiment, the briga-
der his brigade but the General of the Ar
my commands the whole We impose du-
ties and liabilities upon each grade of Off
GERS, but nobody ever before supposed that
it violated the Constitution Of the United
States.
The gentleman from Connecticut Mr.
Hubbard says that the General of the Ar
my might order an inferior officer to one du-
ty and the President order him to another
at the same time. D0eS not tnat often Oc-
cur? Has it not always occurred? The infe
rior must obey the Commander in Chief,
but the Commander-in-C Chief is answerable
to his const itutionai judges il he gives an
order in violation of law. But there is an
other provision 1t re declares that the
johnson Seward governments are void. L
have already shown that these governments |
are void Why should we not declare it by
act of Congress? These are the simpl le and |
proper provisions which are so tereely de-
nounced as unconstitutional, revolutiona-
ry, and despotic." From the other side of |
the House we do not hear even the gentlest |
admonition to the men who tore down and |
destroyed the old constitutional fabrics in
these States but every effort to rebuild
them and restore the States to their old pla-
ces in the Union is followed here with this |
unchanging cry Unconstitutional, revou-
tionary, and despotic and then; without
apparent shame, they charge Us with inter
posing the obstacles to the readmission OF
these States
TT