The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1868-02-13

| pOstN LHul III TIE recent SpSccH VI t'SndtOl
Morrill, of this State, on the reconstruction
bill now pending. We quote the following
| passages from the Congressional Globe o.
| Saturday:
The argument about the interference OF
Congress with the rights OF the States is oil
course upon the assumption that the rights oil
these States have an existence. Ifthe rights
OF these States disappeared during the events
| ana BY the progress OF the war, then, OF course
| the charge falls 10 the ground. Now. ~ on
what theory is the notion OF the "abiding
rights" OF these States based? 1t is based mp
on the theory that after all, il turns out
that the nation has not been at war in le-
| gal sense. 1t is upon the theory of the hon
| ora0ie Senator from Maryland, lMr. John
| SON. argued here during the rebellion, ar
| gued many times since, and, of course, al
| ways argued ably and WELL that We have 10
| war in the sense of war; tnat we have only
| been engaged in an effort on the part of the
| Government to put down an insurrection {:
! that what we have seen and witnessed in the
| last six years is only the exercise OF the po-
lice power OF the nation in dealing with in
surrection, and in no sense war. That | un-
defstand to be the position Of the honorable
Senator from Maryland, OF Senators in the
Opposition, and is the necessary logic of all
opposition to reconstruction either by Con-
gres5 or the President; the Senator from
Maryland sees very clearly that if we have
been at war certain war rights have been ac-
quired by the Government; that if the Gov
ernment wased war on rebellion certain
grand results would follow; the nation would
be victor; the nation would be triumphant: {:
somebody would be defeated rights woald be
acquired or lost according 10 the success or
the defeat of the respective parties Of war
So the honorable Senator early cuncIrreu in
the ground taken by Mr.. Bcchanan and bv
those who held that we had no remedy
against the rebel States by war; and that the
only exercise OF authority by Congress, or the
President, or the nation at large, was the
exercise of the police power of the
Government to put down insurrectioL and
that we had under the Constitution, no au.
thority whatever ior war; that war was de-
struction OF the Union, and thefore could not
be exercised
On this theory we have learned to mscali
things altogether. On this theory the grand
Army of the Republic, three million men,
were only posse conlitdtus, not TO enact
war; but 10 preserve order and arrest traitors
Lieutenant General Grant, at the hea1 of all
the forces of the United States, was only the
grand high constable OF the nation; was in
no sense military chieftan he was not
prosecuting war; he was trying to keep order:
and his grand mach from the Rapidan TO
Richmond was not campaign in the sense
OF war, by which rights were to be enforced
or lost, but 1t was simply a movement OF the
hlgh constable with posse cOH,itdtus to
Richmond to force that city to keep the
peace; not for its capture; not to destroy it,
il need be. In the light OF this Interpretation
OF the Constitution, all your battles-Antie-
tam, Charlottesville, Gettysburg, Williams.
burg, the Five Forks, and the surrender
are all nothing, SO far as affecting the rights
OF the parties is concerned; the Government
having prosecuted this war for four bloody
years at an expense ofblood and treasure, un-
paralieled in history, came out where they
went in, settling nothing by this "last resort"
an appeal to arms.
But sir, in the providence Of God it was
not to be so. The effects Of this war upon
state governments and State institutions is
not an open question. The CONGRESS of the
United States, the supreme legislative war
power OF the Government, settled it in 1851
by the act OF declaring non-intercourse with
States. 1t settled it again in1S61 by the act
declaring them public enemies and awarding
against them confscation OF estates and
freedom OF their slaves and civil and political
disabilities TO those engaged in rebellion
both the exercise OF the supreme power of
war on the principle OF public law. and ade-
quatc, It prosecuted 20 extremes TO work an
States 1t was settled also by the supreme
executive authority of the Government of the
United States in the execution OF these laws,
the Issuing OF the proclamation OF non-in-
tercourse under the act OF 1861 and the en-
forcement OF the act OF 1862, aud by the
march OF its armies within the limits and iu-
risdiction of these States, the destruction of
their cities and their towns, the overthrow OF
their Institutions, liberation ofslaves the de-
Strnption nj liEn
Army made its way, leaving desc
lation and destruction in its track.
Was that war or the exercise OF the police
functions OF the Government? Sir, it was war
in IFS most terrible reality. 1t was so adiudg-
ed, moreover, finally, by the supreme judicial
tribunal of the Government, that the war
waged by the Government of the United
States against the "insurrectionary States"
was in fact and in law, under the Constitu-
tion and by the principles of public law, war,
and it gave to the Government of the United
States all the powers and authority and rights
OF war which any one nation could properly
have against another nation.
NOW, sir, is this an open question? / UNI
derstaDd the theories and the speculations of
the learned Senator from Maryland, tor whose
opinions 40 man here or elsewhere can have
more profound respect than l have. am not
arguing the question with him, but am SIM
ply StdIllS lllS lactS Oi history, am Stafllg
simply the current events of the war, which
oyelrule his opinions; and which, sound or
unsound, show they are no longer of the
slightest practical importance to anybody but
himself. The contest was war; and the ma
tion had all the rights OF a nation at war; and
the resolts of the war involved the enemy the
domestic enemy, in all the pains and penal
ties and forfeiture5 and disabilities OF a nation
at war; That is the verdict of all the depart
ments of this Government, legislative, eXecu-
tive and judicial, and it IS conclusive. 1t is
conclusive with the present, it is conclusive
with the past, and it will be conclusive with
| the future. Allinstitutions, constitutions, in
terests, courts OF Law, general or State, must
| and will conform to this great, historical fact
| of war, war on the part of the nation right
fully and properly wased, with all the rights
of a cation at war, and with all the results OF
q victorious and conquering nation.
| This is the record On which Congress
| stands: the results Of the war were attended
| with aDnihilation OF State governments and
"State rights" Who, sir, as a lawyer, will
stand here, after this general judgment OF the
| concurring and coordinate departments OF
| the Government of the United States. and ar
| que for State rights, in the extreme sense al
| ways political lallacy, has by war become
an absurdity, a legal and constitutional para
dox. As a serious proposition, as a basis OF
| legislative action here, ii is an arrogant and
| impudeut assumption in contradiction TO the
| whole history n fhp war