Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1868-02-13
COLUMBUS, O., THURSDAY MORNING,

designate republican form of govern
ment. They were Mortified some years
ago when an individual from the South
went into the Commonwealth of Massa-
chusetts and contracted with slavers for
the delivery of a certain number Of
slaves, and then attempt to control their
action. 1t don't trouble them now when
their agents down South try, hang and
shoot offending citizens of these
States. 70 them this is. the quint-
of republican 5oe govern
ment. There's where we differ.
They claim to have made conquests of
these States and therefore the right to
set up military districts upon the, ruins
of the State Governments is natural
one. I claim that the Constitution is
the supreme law of the land and all
officers must obey it. There is no
officer but who, before entering upon his
duties, takes an oath to maintain and
support inviolate that instrument. Con-
cerning this doctrine of conquest I de-
sire to quote from a judicial decision
rendered by Judge Sprague, of Massa-
chusetts. distinguished Judge of the
United States Court, in one of the prize
cases. at has been supposed says the
learned Judge, "that if the Government
have the rights of belligerent, then
after the rebellion is suppressed, it will
have the rights of conquest; that State
and its inhabitants may be permanently
divested' of all political privileges and
treated as foreign territory acquired by
arms. This is an error, grave and
dangerous error. Belligerent rights can
not be exercised when there are no bel
ligerents. Conquest of foreign coun-
try gives absolute and unlimited sover-
eign rights. But no nation ever makes
a conquest of its own territory. If a
hostile power, even from without or
within a nation, takes possession and
holds absolute dominion over any por-
ton of it's territory, and the nation by
force of arms expels or overthrows the
enemy, and suppresses hostilities, it ac-
quires no new title, but merely regains
the possession of which it had been
temporarily deprived. The nation re-
quires no new sovereignty. but merely
maintains its previous rights. During
the war of 1912, the British took pos
session of Castine, and held exclusive
and unlimited control over it as conquer
ed territory. Castine was restored to
us under the treaty of peace, but it was
never supposed that the United States
acquired a new title by the treaty, and
could thenceforward govern it as con-
quered territory"
Mr.. Speaker, we find nowhere among
the Fathers of the Republic such teach
ings, or doctrines, as are advanced by
our friends of the opposition upon this
floor. Why, sir, no longer ago than
1864, Benz. F. Wade-the gentleman
whom our Republican friends delighted
to honor with their votes-but few days
ago, in speech delivered in the United
States Senate, asserted that there was
no such thing as destroying States.
The following extract from his noted
speech, I read from the Congressional
Globe of July 1st, 1864: a.5
+" It has been contended in the House
of Representatives. has been contend
ed upon this Aoor-that the States may
lose their organization-may lose their
rights as. States-may lose their corpo-
rate capacity by rebellion. l utterly
deny that doctrine. l hold that once a
State of this Union. always State,
that you cannot by wrong and violence
displace the rights of anybody, or dis
organize the State. 1t would be
most hazardous principle to
assert that No. sir the fran
ers of your Constitution intended nc
such thing. They did not leave this
great question untouched; and when we
study that great instrument. I can hard
ly help but stop and contemplate the all
embracing wisdom that seemed to actilate
them, for you can find hardly an exigency
that may arise in the complicated affairs
of Government that they did not antici
pate and provide for. They did foersee
that in the progress of the Government,
some of the States might go into rebel
lion, that they might undertake them
selves to absolve their connection with
the General Government and set up some
hostile government of their own and
they expressly provided for just such a
case and how gentlemen with this prin.
ciple of the Constitution staring them in
the face can fancy that States can lose
their rights because more or less OF the
people have gone off into rebellion is
marvellous to me. The priciple of law
everywhere is that no honest man shall
lose right by wrong or usurpation.-
The act ofre6ellion IS Uoid % 3, l..-.
Ben. Wade is High Priest Of the
Republican party, and he made this dec
laration upon his solemn oath. If he
was right then, the doctrine which he
advocated is right now. If the doctrine
is right now, on what pretense, | ask, does
Congress send down these military die
tators to oppress these people. They
say these States have lost their or
ganization. When did they lose
their organizations Was it when
Lee and Johnston surrendered ? or
was it when the war begun? The doc
trines held by Mr.. Lincoln was that the
rebellious States failed to get out of the
| Union, and he repeatedly recognized
them as States in the Union. Your Con
stitution very explicitly says that an
officer shall first take an oath to support
the Constitution of the United States be-
fore entering upon his duties, and, there
fore, these military dictators must, them
selves, subscribe to the required oath
otherwise their acts are made null ano
void. 5.4 IA
Congress, itself, repeatedly recognized
these States as being in the Union. The
old State of Virginia had little Legis'
lature sitting in Wheeling. which was re
cognized by Congress as the Legislature
of that State, and in order that they
might better act, Congress, in violation
of the Constitution, struck off and created