Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1868-02-03
COLUMBUS O., MONDAY MORNING,

. r 9f97 m T :
( States? Rhode Island, or portion of her
citizens, engaged in rebellion. Massa-
chusetts passed her ordinances of seces-
sion, Pennsylvania had her whisky
insurrection; and he who now disgraces
the seat once occupied by Marshall,
and Taney, while Governor of Ohio,
advised resistance to the execution of a
federal writ, and armed men were sent
to murder federal officer while in the
discharge of his sworn duty. Repre-
sentatives of Ohio, do not, I beseech you,
-vote.to degrade sister States for doing
what Ohio taught them they had the
right to do. Not single State which I
have named was for single day de-
prived of its Constitutional representa-
tion in the Federal Legislature. And in
many instances, the men who had la
bored to bring about collision between
the State and Federal governments have
been elevated to place and position
by the party that now wish to
degrade eight million of our country
men to condition worse, far worse, than
that occupied by the menials in the feu-
dal age of England. And to do this
they trample upon and disregard the
plainest provisions of the Constitution,
to preserve which million and half of
brave men forsook all the endearments
of home, and cheerfully underwent all
the hardships of soldiers life. Is it
true that all this blood and treasure has
been expended in vain? I am aware
that to speak of written. Constitutions,
or plead for their observance, is to invite
and receive the denunciations of those
in authority, and be classed among those
who are denounced as ''disloyal." So
be it. I care not. ! belong to the pat
riot party-loyalty belongs to Kingly
governments; tits servile word that
should never be used to express devotion
to Republican government. The tories
of the Revolution were loyalists-the
men who for British gold endeavored to
betray Washington, and his little de-
voted band of patriots. into the hands of
the hirelings of George III, were loyal
lists. The loyalists of the present day
have drawn their ideas of govern
ment from the men who met
in convention at Hartford, in 1914, and
plotted treason against the Federal Gov
ernment, and who in 1912 burned blue
lights upon our New England shore to
light the British foe into our harbors.
The party of to-day is the same their
principles have been handed dowiiifr6m
sire to son; they have adhered to ffifsml
under all circumstances, and are now at
tempting to force the same ideas upon
the whole coupfry. freely accord to
them the titIS of the "loyal party."t,
But there were patriots who opposed
loyalty and royalty in the revolution of
'76. So there are patriots in this revo-
luton who will oppose the mad schemes
of the loyalists. and adhere to the princi-
Piles of free government bequeathed us
by Washington and his co-patriots. To
that patriot party l am proud to belong.
Where Washington stood an American
need not fear to stand. aaaT,l i1
: If the late terrible war, nom which
we have just emerged was, as the, Rad
icals assert, war between too natioz$
both clothed with the attributes of Sosar-
eignty-that the Confederate States&ere.
and are not now States of this Confed-
Grafton, in the meaning of the Constitu-
tion phrases aof States of. tlis Union,''
and upon the cessation of fh6stilities. and
the surrender of the Confederate ar
mics the north acquired the right to
deal with the vanquished as the con-
querer in all ages has claimed toward
the conquered-if, I say, this is the
view taken of the subject, from whence
does the fragment styled Congress de-
rive its authority to govern the South
ern States, as they propose to do, under
the so-called reconstruction lawsl There
is certainly nothing in the law of nations
which authorizes such barbarous treat
ment toward conquered people, e,more es-
pecially when we take into consideration
the fact that the people thus treated are
our own countrymen. l read from Hal
rleck on International and Laws of War,
page $50. In speaking of the authori-
ty of the United States over conquered
territory, he says: "The local govern
ment, acting under the direction of the
President, represents the sovereignty of
the United States, to which the territory
has passed; and as that sovereignty is
the United States under the Federal
Constitution, no power can be exercised
in that territory, either by the President,
or by Congress, which are opposed to
the Federal Constitution, and it neces-
sarily follows the inhabitants of such
territory acquire, Immediately ON its be-
coming part of the United States, the
privileges, rights and immunities
guaranteed by the Constitution"
Neither the President nor Congress, can
impose conditions over territory we
acquire by conquest, which are unau-
thorized by the Federal compact. The
very moment the vanquished lay down
their arms they are, entitled to all the
rights and privileges of citizens under
the Constitution. Again, the same au-
thor says: "They owe allegiance to the
government of the United States and
are entitled to its protection" The au-
thor to sustain the position he assumes
quotes number of authorities of the
very highest order-authorities which
are accepted by every American states
man, and disregarded by none except
those who are determined to destroy the
fair fabric of government erected by the
-fathers,-men whose hatred of free gov.
ernment has bedimmed that intellec,
God has given for noble purposes.
The proposition to govern one-third
of the republic by the code military, is
equally unauthorized by the Federal
compact, or any rule of the law of ma
tions. Art. III of Amendments of the
Constitution. declares, that "no soldier
shall in time eff peace be quartered in
any house without the consent of the
owner" Can any member upon this
floor tell the number of persons who