The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1868-08-18

trlDutlnS 10 tn6 restOratloA va 'oo Aoi@piVAo
which formerly subsisted between the State
and the Government Of the United States. We
have nothing to say OF what was done or said
during the period Of what is called the provis-
ioual government. II mistakes we're made, it
would have been most remarkable if, at that
time, mistakes were not made. 1t Is enough
for us to know what was the tenure un-
der the laws of the State by which these Judges
held Office; that such laws were not changed
while the law Of conquest could be asserted,
that these Judges were not molested in the ex-
ercise OF their functions while that power last
ed. and that they stood acquitted by the par
don Of tie President; and until and up to the
time when, and even after the restoration of
the State was acknowledged by the Congress OF
the United States, they continued to be ac-
knowledged as the Judges of the State.
Here, then, we see the enormity Of this act.
1t is not to be justified under the interpreta-
tion Of the law of conquest as given US by the
United States, nor under the widest construc-
ton ever given TO it elsewhere; for it was done
when the power Of conquest had ceased, and
the State was acknowledged as such, with all
the control over it's internal relations that
we're derived from it's condition as State.
That control not then to be affected thence
forth in any manner by the legislation Of Con-
gress, but existing independent OF it. But that
control not independent Of the obligations
which rested upon the civil society OF which
that State was composed; and one Of those OBJ
legations, the most SHARPLY defined and clearly
expressed, was the maintenance OF the faith Of
the State, in the recognition Of the official ten
ure of those who were and who are the Judges
of the State. So.complete had boon aud is the
exemption of the officer Of State from the
control OF Congress, that even where that body
has declared o certain act to be duty, the
performance Of which was imposed on an OFF,
Ger of the State, and the officer refused to per-
form it, the Supreme Court has held that there
was no power in Congress to enforce the per-
formance of it by that officer.
If fhe State had not seceded-if no war bad
taken place, and, therefore, no room for the
question of what was the law Of conquest-could
one Of rival parties in the State have ven
tilated it's anger on the Judges by changing
the constitution, and thus affecting the tenure
by which they held their ofices9 And had
this body, by which this act has beer. attempt
ed, more power than any other Legislature
which has ever been convened2 Letit be re-
membered, as wo have said, that when this re-
moval was attempted, the Congress Of the Uni
ted States had acknowledged that the State
was restored, and the power of conquest was
ended. Whatever might have been claimed as
incident to that power-howeyer extravagant,
violative of law, or outraging right and JUS
tice, while the power was claimed to exist,
every pretence for its exercise was lost when
the law Of Congress ceased, and the civil gov.
ernment, or what was claimed'to be such, re-
suned its sway.
So for as the prohibition in the Fourteenth
Amendment is concerned, it may bel dispatched
in sentence. When it Was promulgated
as a part OF the Constitution of the United
States, these Judges had received from the
President their pardon. The prohibition IN
that amendment was, so far as it was intended
to operate as disqualification, an e1pcstf fdctc
law; and if 80 intended, was in plain violation
of the provision in the constitution that
denies to Congress the power to pass such
laws.
These considerations furnish the answer to
the questionable are our judges2 And
that question, however and whenever tried, will
result in but one answer. To those whoare
most interested in the matter-if any can be
moro interested than others in that which
most interests all-it is very high duty to
have the answer given 10 tho question, with
the least@assible delay. JURlnIcUs.