The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1869-06-18
uyo1,e VIC Wells.

Wells VS.. Welis.
c,p1.sp or Shadweli letter TO-
.o. m WELLS says: "The act (of reeeiion]
,,.as ~ m offence against the Government q
w. 1a,,cd States-thc punishment OF At mas
nce,, 6,eclared by competent a"thor'ty IN "'
appropriate form, and no S'o'e o'g'' - "
This " annropriatc form" of course is the
c,,,rtoorth amendment. which was paSseG
nv congress June Is, 1867 and the recon
str,,c,ion laws all point to that amendment
90 nrescribing the punishment"
Now. on the Goth of January last, Governor
WIS. before the Reconstruction Commit
tcc of Congress, took the ground that
state could 90 beyond that " punishment
He admitted to Mr.. BECK that the proscr'p-
tive clauses of the USpERwooD constitution
went "far beyond the reconstruction acts,
and of course the fourteenth article. But
behold the art of the demagoguc
Question bv Mr.. Beck: wan you be kind enough
sustaining the provisions of this section eScn'ing
that class OF persons from voilns could no;,t vour
Answer do not know that couia point your
attention To any distinct clause of the rccohsrhc-
tion acts hut understand the spirit OF ,nosc acls
audi
prcss and the people fthc United states, recoeh-
zinc as a fact that certain class OF indiNlduti.
mngng In public affairs Of the Goumtry ""ght
ON tho war-thcy design that that class Of persons
shall be excluded from participating further III
punic affairs until! you have secured rcco''S'i u'
lion. X
Question nv Mr.. Boutwell, And do you think II
In accordance with the spirit OF the rcc"nSIIrnc-
fion acts while cnfranchsing one race TO "7'r"h-
chsc another IL any cHhhi !"" SEC u. wifi, th,
Ctr
reconstruction acts.
Just after this, in replying TO 4 question
of Mr.. BECK, lie said:
"TMt,k it is aIsol,ttely necc&&drM Ia "rner 10 10
carry ont egsctireiy the provisions u nc dcss q
(touGrssS tSdisfrdnchiSeG certain nu!hber ~ 90
terS-rchGtcrcr number mag 5ereIp'rsd.'
What adroit trickery and cummings here
Congress has declared specifically what ne
In his GARLAND letter styles "the punish
mcnt" for rebellion. He preSumcs to infer
that the object of that punishment was to
nut those who rchcllcd out Of power, ana
of course the Radicals in power, i'll virgil
mia rs we'll as all through the South. And
he contends that it il entirely in conformity
with that object to " diSfranch'se certain
number of roters-achdtcrcr number may 6e
TcqUFCu.
Now what are we to think OF this TO
vernon WELLS? lie was struggling before
the Committee of Reconstruction to get be-
yond the punishment prescribed IN the
fourteenth article with the view Of bringing
Virginia into the Union with all her white
people in chains; but finding his game
baked, and having to confront General
GRANT, he changed his dress, appeared in
new garb, acquiesced in the submission OF
the DISTINGUISHING and tcst-oath clauses Sc
parately, and publicly declared that " no
State ought to go beyond the fourteenth
article in proscription-in the punishment
of "rebcls."
This Inconsistency is gross, and attended
with circumstances that damn its motives.
But what of all that? Inconsistencies are
nothing-neither are motives with party
which has no principles. We might rs
we'll accuse the Governor of purloining
pin. Indeed, that would he more grave
accusation; for pin is more valuable than
principle to his motley followers.