The Evansville journal. [volume] (Evansville, Ind.) 1866-1870, 1868-02-21

De the otner, ana still the Union be
unimpaired, aud the jurisdiction of
the United States over the t tory
I'd people of that State be as com
p etc as if no such wicked and foolish
act had been committed.
And here allow me to notice the oft
repeated assertion, that those who ao-
knowledge the power of the people Of
a State to destroy its government, in
GLIDING not only its organization Of
The several departments of gcgern-
ment, but also its constitution upon
which the Organization is based, there
by cOncede the power of secession.
The advocates OF secession in the
South fought for no such abstrs ctiOn
IS that involved in the question,
whether a State without a State Con-
stitution aud government was a State
in the Union, or no State at all but
on the contrary, they battled for the
right and the power to withdraw, By
their own State action, their territory
and people from all obligations Of
allegiance to the Government and
people of the United States.
Mr.. Hendricks says he does under
stand that if State should cease to
have government, that its people
would still be under the law and au-
thority of the Federal Government to
the extent of the jurisdiction of that
government. E.f. f...
l respectfully submit that this is
not the sort of dissolution Of the
Union, for the achievemento of which
the rebellion was inaugurated and
prosecuted; 22d I'll ut a person may
we'll believe that State government
may be destroyed without becoming a
secessionist. i believe that the
governments Of the revOlted States
have been utterly destroyed, and
yet L designate them as States
in the Union. During the war
they were States In the Union,
but at the same time, States In re-
bellion. Since the close Of the war
they are States in the Union, but by
reason of the war, States in anarchy,
except so far a, order has been pre-
served by the paramount authority Of
the United States, But if anybody
else shall contend that, they are re-
duced to the condition of territories,
| shall not quarrel with them about
names; because, we both agree that
they did not succeed in throwing OF
their allegiance %. the United States,
and are still completely Withins aud
subject to the, law7makipgg power of
the nation, to the extent of its iUris-
diction under the Constitution.
A new exposition of the guarantee
clause of the Consultation is also
resorted to by the Democratic party
in its efforts to exalt rebellion, and to
restore political power to the hands
of the men who for four years Waged
most atrocious war against the Gov
erG ment to destroy it.
The entire section in which the
guarantee clause is found, contains
three distinct clauses, each of which
imposes a distinct duty on the United
States. 1t reads as follows
The United States shall guaran-
tee to every State IN this Union a re-
publican form of government; and
shall protect each of them against in
vasion; and on application of the
Legislature or of the executive, (When
the Legislature cannot be convened,
from domestic violence"
In giving an exposition of this seq
ton, in his late speech in the Senate,
Mr.. Hendricks assumes these posi-
tons. lid
1st. That the duty of executing the
guarantee contained In the first clause.
rests upon the Government of the
United States.
I'd. That the clause imposing this
duty is addressed to each department
Of the Government, and if the act to
be done to enforce the guarantee Is
judicial, then the duty is upon the
judiciary; if a legislative act, then IL
is upon the legislative department,
and if it be an executive, then the
duty rests upon the executive.
Sd. He treats the three distinct
clauses of the section as one entire
clause imposing a single duty, and
says the clause itself contemplates
ecisttao State Governments, having a
Legislature and an Executive Depart
ment, and that it simply imposes the
duty on the Government Of the
United States to protect, maintain,
and defend that existing republican
form of government.
/ admit that the duty of enforcing
the entire section rests upon the Gov
eminent Of the United States, but
deny that it is addressed to each de-
partment of the Government, for the
simple reason that neither of these
duties can be performed without the
exercise of legislative powers.
True, Congress may, las it has In
relation to the third clause empower
the President to perform the duty,
but In doing so he acts not by virtue
of authority, granted him by the Con-
stitution, but in execution Of the LAM
of Congress.
Let US test the doctrine, that, the
H. oe IN n 70 m Eaainr o n.nrrn III inn