The New York herald., 1868-05-07


disc or pandemonium under this policy of radi-
cal reconstruction From present appear
ances it will not be an inviting region for set
tlement to any white man who is not prepared
for negro supremacy in the State and negro
equality in the family; but lit is long lane
that has no turn"
Massachusetts ON Unconstitutional Laws
Position Of Senators Sumner md Wilson,
The position assumed by the two impeach-
ment Managers, Messrs. Butler and Bing-
ham-that the President has no power or
right to question the cOnstitutiORality OF the
Tenure of Office law-and the very great proba-
bility that Senator's Sumner and Wilson hold
the same opinion, revive some historical recOl-
lections which will be found quite appropriate
at the present time. When the Legislature Of
Massachusetts, in 1856 passed the Personal
Liberty bill" over the veto of the Governor
this action was defended on the ground that
and, consequently, null and void. Now, it must
be remembered that the Supreme Court of the
United States had not declared the law uncon-
stitutional. Massachusetts, in her sovereign
capacity, pronounced it SO, declared that it
should not be enforced on her soil, and by
means of the law referred to inflicted severe
punshments and heavy fines upon all who at
tempted to obey it. The only justification of
this virtual notification of law of Con-
gress consisted in the assertion that
every State had the power and right to
question the constitutionality of law and
to resist its enforcement until the Supreme
Court decided whether it was or was not con-
stitutional. Did the President take so ad-
vanced position as that with the Tenure of
Office law? Did ne resist its enforcement to
as great an extent as the State of Massachu-
sets resisted the enforcement of the Fugitive
Slave law
It is of interest in this connection to know
what the position and views of Senators Sumner
and Wilson were at the time the Personal Lib
erty bill was passed A member of the State
Legislature having expressed the same views
referred to in the foregoing paragraph, Mr..
Sumner addressed him letter in which he lauded
the speaker for his sentiments and stated that
he agreed with them. During the same year
(S55) Mr. Wilson was elected to the Senate of
the United States, principally because he was,
next to Mr.. Sumner, the most prominent de-
fender and exponent of the principles enun-
ciated in the Personal Liberty bill And these
principles, as we have explained already, rested
almost entirely on the right of Massachusetts, to
resist the enforcement of what was deemed an
unconstitutional measure. What, then, to-day
is the position Of Senators Sumner and
Wilson? The Presidents alleged violation
of the Tenure of Office law is identical with
Massachusetts, violation of the Fugitive Slave
law. An enforcement Of the one would
affect Mr. johnson more than would the en-
forcement OF the other; for where the one
reduces the executive officer of the nation to
the condition of the creature of his own crea-
ton, the other affected only abstract ideas and
principles. Is it criminal in the Chief Magis-
trate of the nation to resist an attempt TO make
! him subservent to his own subordinate, and
proper for State to resist the execution of a
law intended to protect citizens in their right
to certain kind of property? Both laws
were passed by Congress; one is claimed to
be unconstitutional, the other was claimed to
be unconstitutional. In all respects, save in the
extent of their effect upon the country, both
stand identically alike. Senators Sumner and
Wilson will soon be called upon to decide
whether Mr.. Johnson has been guilty of the
high crimes and misdemeanors charged against
him. We would advise them, when their
names are called, to remember the position
they held in 1856, to explain wherein Mr..
Johnson has offended to a greater extent than
for conviction, that in so doing they declare
themselves having been guilty. thirteen years
ago, of treason to the constitut on and laws of
the United States.