The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1868-01-14

It IS scarcely worth while to say that
the new reconstruction act proposed by
THAp. STEvESs's committee is unconstitu-
tional. The question of constitutlonallty
does not enter into Mr.. STEvESs's thoughts.
He has openly declared that the legisla-
ton of Congress upon this subject is "out-
side Of the Constitution" The Constitu-
tion makes the President the commander
in-chief Of the army and the navy. 1t
makes him responsible as such. All Off
GERS are bound to obey him-sworn to dc
so-and no act Of Congress can relieve
him or them Of the reciprocal duties i'm
posed upon him and them. lie thus has
control of all the officers of the army and
the navy and Of course Of each particular
officer. He can order any military officer
in the army to any post in the country
and no one can say him nay. Yet
this act proposes to authorize General
GRANT to remove by his order from com.
mand any or all of the commanders now
in position, and detail other officers
of the army not below the rank OF
colonel to perform all duties and
exercise all powers authorized by the
reconstruction acts. Now, let us see
how this measure would work if it were
attempted to put it into practical opera
lion. The language employed seems to
point to the restoration of General SICKLES,
who is now only colonel, to the COM
mand Of District No. 2. The Constitution
makes the President the officer whom
Colonel SlCKLEs is bound to obey in pre-
ference to any in the army, no matter how
high his rank. Colonel SIcKLEs has taken
an oath to obey this superior officer. He
is lawyer, too. He is not a jackanapes
with uniform on, who would sooner obey
FoRNEY than Mr.. JOHNSON. He kno,1S his
duty. He knoarS that Congress cannot
step between him and the President.
Well, General GRANT orders Colonel
SICKLEs to 60 to South Carolina
and supersede General CANDY. The
President orders him to 60 to Oregon Or
California and join his regiment. Which
will he obey? Which mast he obey? I'm
questionably he is bound to obey "the
COMMANDMENTS Chief of the army and
"the navy" Now, then, even if the act
should be passed, it would be impossible
for it to take effect without the Presidents
consent for even if it bu admitted that
General GRANT would have The power and
the right, with the Presidents sanction, to
detail army officers to fill the positions in
question, yet it would clearly be viola
tion Of the Constitution and of his own
oath for General GRANT to order an officer
to perform one duty who had been ordered
by the President to perform another. If
there be any such thing as regard for the
Constitution in General GRANTS breast, he
will not undertake to execute q law so
palpably violation of that instrument.
But what will HORACE GREELEY say as
to the Presidents duty 10 the premises
1t has been but few days since, in speak
ing of the removal Of STANTON, the 1ri-
1ane said it was GRANTS duty to refuse to
execute an illegal order. If so, it would
be higher duty TO refuse to execute an
unconstitutional act Of Congress. And il
General GRANT may not without dishonor
execute an illegal order, surely it must be
the imperative duty of the President, who
is sworn to protect and defend the Con-
stitution, to refuse to execute an uncon-
stitutional edict Of Congress.