The New York herald., 1868-01-29
The Great Debate in tho United States
senate.

senate.
The debate to which the Reconstruction bill
has given rise in the Senate is the most notable
that has fixed the national attention since the
great Intellectual contest that still classes in
historical association the names Of Webster
and Hayne. In that debate the constitution
was the topic, as it Is in this and as then the
discussion of the powers of that instrument and
Of the rights Of the people under it gave
ample scope for the exercise Of the best ability
Of the nation, SO now the same fruitful themes
awaken argument that looms up grandly above
the ordinary nothingness OF Congressional
reports. Mr.. Doolttle opened this intellectual
tournament by vigorous assault on the radi
cal bill, and through that on the whole revo-
ludonary policy behind it-taking the case in
broad, statesmanlike view-placing himself
indeed at the standpoint Of the people and
not on any narrow party platform. He pointed
out distinctly how the bill must tend to destroy
those vital principles Of the right Of the people
around which our whole governmental system
Is built up He was Immediately assailed by
the small party snarlers for having made
political speech !" for everything is "politi-
cal speech" or "demagoguery" that is not
downright radicalism. But it was seen that
this would not do, that the speech was too
strong, too direct, too damaging to the bill to
be permitted to 60 before the country without
more respectable attempt at answer than the
mere use of opprobrious phrases /; so radical
ism marshalled Its forces. Mr.. Trumbull re-
sponded feebly on the same day on which Mr..
Dooittle had spoken, and on the next day Mr..
Morton, of Indiana, gave fully and ably what
il intended as the answer of bis party. Mr..
Wilson, of Massachusetts, and Mr. Johnson, OF
Maryland, have spoken since. the latter in
strain Of close and learned argument, the
former in very schoolboy's rigmarole OF
vapid wordy, absolute nonsense
Senator Morton was chosen apparently by
the common consent of his party associates
in the Senate to sustain their reconstruction
BILL to argue elaborately the abstract justice,
the proprety and the political, necessity of
that measure, although he was physically un-
able to stand up on The floor of the chamber
and had to address the President from his seat
We shall, perhaps not err in supposing that
the man specially fixed upon in such circum-
stances for such purpose is regarded as the
veritable Daniel Of his party, and shall be JUS
tifable in assuming that the statement of the
party policy is confcssedly the strongest that
can be made. Taking Senator Morton's speech
in this light his party has no reason TO feel
especially satisfied with its case. The Sena-
tors argument for the bill is mainly based on
three definite points, which, he assumes, form
the common ground Of agreement between the
Northern people OF all parties These points
are:-First, that Immediately after the sur
render of General Lee there were no govern
ments, from our point Of view, in the Southern
States second, that under the constitutional
clause requiring the guaranty OF re-
publican form OF government il was
the duty Of the United States to establish
governments in those States; and, third, that
the United States government could only do
this by means Of law of Congress, in which
law Congress has the right to insert whstever
il may deem necessary for its real purpose.
Senator Morton, moreover, holds that, insert
what il may in such law, Congress is not
acting outside the constitution, and that radical
politicians who assert the Reconstruction laws
to be extraconstltutonal make that assertion
"only for themselves" II might well be
objected that these points are not a common
ground of agreement for the Northern people,
and especially that Mr.. Morton stretches the
point derived from the constitution to an appli-
cation absolutely irrational. He argues that
the constitutional requirement to qua
ranty republican form OF govern
ment is an "unascertained power" that
may cover anything and be carried
as far as necessity may require, the
dominant party being always the Judge of the
| necessity. But certainly the constitution pro-
| vides limit for this power, and that limit is
all that part Of the constitution with which,
beyond given point, the power would be in
consistent Senator johnson says well on this
head =" II is . universal principle of con-
slructon that in ascertaining the meaning Of
any particular clause IL shall be read in con-
| nection with other clauses, and that the Sena-
tor had disregardcd other clauses intended to
restrict this and every other clause Of the con-
stitutioD." Indeed, such an Interpretation IS
Senator Morton gives is not only repugnant TO
other clauses and to the whole spirit Of the
organic law, but also to common sense. Were
he right, IL must finally be admitted that part
is greater than the whole, and that one line
Of the constitution can give a power to over
ride The constitution itself and destroy the
| very things IL was framed TO secure There
is significance even in the very
| word chosen in the constitution. The United
States Is required to guaranty !" and this
| word, implying so clearly that the act is to be
done on the behalf OF The people OF State,
would itself cstop Congress, II the words Of the
law had any power in the premises, from erect
| ing Of in arrogant will and altogether despite