Clearfield Republican. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1851-1937, 1868-10-22
.fsi .sfdress by fhe CenfraF Ercc-
uftre Committee or the Demo-
cratic F'drfH or 6,e0rgf<s.
Rooms DEnocRArIc Crxrl,AL Bxf COMMITTEE,
ATLANTA, Ga, Sent 26 1893.

uftre Committee or the Demo
cratic Party or Georgfn.
Rooms DEhocRArIc CESrnAL TX. COMMITTEE.
ATLANTA, Ca, Sept. &c, 1898
The position of the Democrat
). party Of Georgia in relation to th
Reconstruction measures of Congres
Tor the establishment of government
IN the Southern States being misun
derstood, it is believed that an author
ltativc declaration of what the part,
holds in regard TO those measures viii
not be deemed Inappropriate in tn,
: present junction Of political affairs.
The Central Executive Committe,
IN the following declaration of princi
pies, do not hesitate to say, that they
speak truly the sentiments and feel
'nss &c ths r--ty tisVy IvIyrcsonJ, anu
they desire to speak for themselves
and their party, that their true posi-
ton may be known.
The Democratic party South is
charged with still being rebelious in
spirit, and in the event of the election
of the Democratic candidates to-the
Presidency and Vice Presidency OF
the United States, with an intention
TO arrest the further enforcement OF
the Reconstruction Acts of Congress,
without awaiting the action OF the
Judicial Department of the Govern
ment upon the question of their uncon-
stitutionality, and thus to inaugurate
another civil war.
This charge places us in a position
we do not occupy, and we meet it with
denial Of its truth.
We claim the right to define our
true position.
We hold the Reconstruction Acts Of
Congress TO be unconstitutional, that
is TO say, they are unauthorized by
any grant Of power in the Constitu-
tion. To believe an act of Congress
unconstitutional, does not imply an
intention TO resist its enforcement by
violence, or to get rid of it by revolu-
tionary measures. Different views of
the constitutionality of Congressional
Legislation will necessarily exist, but
the sword is not the arbiter of such
disputes, else the country would be in
state of continual war
There is tribunal for the settle
ment of all such questions, and when
its adjudications are pronounced, ac-
quiesence becomes the duty Of all
the people Individual opinions must
yield TO official and authoritative de-
cisions of the Judiciary.
Notwithstanding, we hold that the
Reconstruction Acts of Congress were
enacted "outside of the Constitution"
and without constitutional authority,
we do not propose, or intend, TO main
tain our position by resort TO force.
The constitutionality of these acts is
a question to be decided by the Fed
eral judiciary upon q proper case
made. If their decision should be
ADVERSE 10 the consutuuonalIty Ji,uv
Legislation, we will claim all the con-
sequences which will legitimately re-
suit from such a decision, and il win
not be unreasonable in us to expect
that those who hold opposite views
will acquiesce in the decision, and ac-
cord to us all the rights TO which it
may legally entitle us.
On the contrary, ii the constitution.
ality of tho Reconstruction measures
should be sustained by the Supreme
Federal Judiciary, as peaceable, law
abiding citizens we will yield obedi-
ence to that decision, and cease all
further opposition to those measures.
Aud in another contingency, if the
Supreme Court should refuse to enter
tain jurisdiction of cases presented
under these acts, the only alternative
left will be 10 yield them obedience,
as laws obligatory and binding, or to
resist them by revolution, and the lat.
ter we unhesitatingly reject. We de-
sire peaceable solution of the com.
plications arising under these acts,
and a inality TO the agitation which
they have produced.
In our own State we recognize the
government which has been organized
by authority of these acts, and will
recognize it now, and henceforth if IL
should not be superseded by authority
Of law. If our State shall be remand.
ed to the government existing prior
TO the enactment of the Reconstruc-
ton Acts, it must be done by opera.
ton of law, and not by revolution
We hold, then, that the question Of
the constilutionality of the acts re-
lerred to, is a question for tho iudicia-
ry, and not for an appeal to arms, or
any violent revolutionary measures
to be initiated by the President of the
United States to set up, or set aside
those measures by his own nero will.
Whichever of the present candidates
for the Presidency of the United States
may be elected to that office, neither
should use his arbitrary will either in
enforcing these measures against
decision of the Supreme Court, declar.
ing them unconstitutional, or in super
seding them and setting them aside
before the action Of the judiciary can
be had
If the Republican candidate should
be elected and the Reconstruction Acts
should be pronounced unconstitutional
by decision Of the Supreme Court of
the United States, acquiesconco in that
decision will be his duty, no less than
Of a private citizen. If the Demo
cratic candidate should be elected, his
election will not, per SC, author ize him
to declare those acts unconstitutional,
null and void, and no longer Of any
binding force and efficacy; but il will
be his duty to await the decision Of
tho question by the proper tribunal to
which it belongs, and on whichever
side il is made, to regard the decision
as obligatory and binding, as an act
Of Congress which is clearly in con
fOrmitV 10 the Constitution