The Iowa plain dealer. [volume] (New Oregon, Howard County, Iowa) 1867-1895, 1868-10-30
Blair ON RecOnstru ctiOn.-
HIS Form er Letter Explain
ed and Elaborated.

ed and Elaborated.
The Lafayette, Indiana, Courier,
of Saturday last publishes the fol-
lywing letter from General Frank
P. Blair, to citizen Of Lafayette /:
''Fonr sAsDEas, WYOMING TsRa,roar,
August 81, 1868.
ITO James Howes, Esq, Lafayette, Indiana:
DEAR SIR: I have received
your letter, in which you ask mo if
I would endeavor to have the con-
stitutionality Of the reconstruction
acts tested by the Supreme Court
before proceeding to treat them as
null and void. In answer, I say
that the vital principle of the re-
construction acts has already been
decided to be unconstitutional, unll
and void, by the Supreme Court,
the whole bench concurring in the
case Of Milligan and Bowlcs, which
went up from the State cf Indiana
on writ of Habeas Corpus.
''1n that case it was decided, in
the plain language of the Csnstitu-
tion, that the Government could
not establish martial law in time
Of peace, or try a citizan by mill
tary commission, or court-martial.
The reconstruction acts, so-called,
stand on martial law, and nothing
else. It is the essence Of these
acts. They were prepared and put
in execution in time of profound
peace, in defiance Of the unanimous
decision of the Supreme Court, to
which I have referred, and they,
and all that has been done under
them, are null and void.
"a case was made under these
acts-the case of Nc cCardls, Of Mis-.
sissippi-and brought before the
Supreme Court !; and it is well
known that the Court was ready to
declare these acts unconstitutional,
when Congress passed another act
to deprive the Supreme Court ofits
jurisdiction, and openly attempted
to intimidate the Judges by threats
Of ofremodeling the Court.
"The Supreme Court, in another
case-that of Cummings, of Missouri
decided that tho disfranehise-
ment of the white people Of the
Southern States by an act of Con-
Gress, was bill Of attainder and
an Ex POST FAcTo law, both OF
which were forbidden in express
terms by the Constitution. Even
the Radicals admit, in their Chica-
20 platform, that the States alone
have the right to decide who shall
be entitled to suffrage within the
States and yet Congress has as.
sumed to take tho right from the
white people and give it to the
negroes within the Southern States.
s.The reconstruction acts violate
the Constitution in all these partic-
ulars, and it has been already SC
decided by the Supreme Court. The
Constitution says the military shall
always be subordinate to the civil
authority, but these acts have su.
perceded oil civil authority, and
created military governments at the
South. Do you want o decision oi
the Supreme Court to show that this
is unconstitutional? Arc those who
say that the military is subordinate
to the civil authority reyolutionists!
Are those who demand the restora-
tion of the trial by jury, which has
been suppressed in the South BY the
reconstruction acts, revolutionists
Are those who claim the benefit Of
the great writ Of right, the nABEAs
CORPUS, which is denied to 5000,
900 Of our people by the infamous
reconstruction acts, to be branded
as revolutionists?
.'Shall we be called revolutionists
because We proclaim, in the very
Language of the constitution, that
Congress shall pass no bill Of attain
der or ex post facto law? or shall we
be thus branded for claiming what
the Constitution comedies in express
words, that the States shall regulate
suffrage for themselves? Do we
want moro decisions of the Supreme
Court on these points? The truth is
that the Radicals are the real rev.