Litchfield enquirer., 1869-04-22
Reconstruction and Supreme Court.

t
 On our first page will be found extracts from an important decision of the U. s. Supreme Court, all the more important, sbecausethe opinion has the sanction of tho out of the three Democratic Jus tices now on that bench. In the first place, as we should naturally expect, it up- sets the State Rights theory of the right of Secession: fn 4, svs44 ~. ses
 The Consultation, in all it's provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestruc- l hble States.
 So far from supporting the " Congress ional usurpation" theory of Andrew John soa and the Tammany Convention, 1t ex- pressly affirms the power of the National Legislature over Reconstruction: 92o s1s But the power to carry into effect the clause of guaranty Is primarily legislative power and re- sides in Congress. 9as8e : sy,s,5s sl
 The constitutionahty of the ,emancipa- ton proclamation, is affirmed: =
 And emancipation was confirmed rather than ordained, by the amendment to the Constitution prohibiting slavery throughout the Union. . l Not only does the Supreme Court sus- tain Congress in its claim that the eonsti. tuition vests in them the right to prescribe to the rebellious States the mode of their
 Reconstruction;b but it impliedly justifes their extension of the suffrage to the blacks | The ne,o treemen necessarily become e part of Mt people, and the people still constituted the State for States, like individuals, retain their identity though changed to some extent in their constitu- ent elements. And it was the State lhus constituted which was now entitled to the benefit of the con stitutional guarantee. e@# as fss1f- -s-.841s55
 In short the court decides that the most important action of Congress since the wal --that which the opposition have delighted to characterize as tsunconstitutional, reve lutionary and void '--..has, been exactly what the constitution made it their duty to do. and what no other department of the gen 'eral government could perform. oi2ta f-e
 99 We clip the following from the Bos
 ton correspondents of the Hartford Cou
 unt h. @lA G..z .tssslasfsc c.aat9 VI l5sIhsf..
 Rev. Mr. Murray, of Park street, and Rev. MT. Hepworth, our two most popular lpreachers, just now, by all odds, have botl
 thought Father Hecker's lectures here in
 favor of Catholicism, worthy of being re
 piled to. hear that they have seyerallJ 1 demolished him in their tpulpits. j. MT
 Hepworth. often as he is heard here, filled the Boston Theatre last Sabbath evening in half the time that any star actor can draw an audience into it. MT. Marray; k treally clerical lion. He has had the la.g
 est audiences, on. week day evenings, to hear him expoand the old ideas of theolo. gy, as one of my liberal friends tells me
 with amazement, that so many hearers lcould be brought out on such a topic in
 Boston. His book, describing a summer tour of adventure in the Adirondacks, which
 Field, Osgood X O., have just got out, is selling, and makes considerable comment People say that they find some of. the un- clerical points about the Roy. A. l.. Stone l intensified in this volume. MT. Stone was MT. Murray's predecessor. think we i'm ported him also from Connecticut. He had a weakness for fast horses, and seemed to take mischievous pleasure in creating g sensation among the parishioners of what had been the straitest Calyinistic Church in Boston,. It was supposed that no maj, at all like him could be got again. But I now they have 8 sportsman, they say, tc whom MT. Stone was but novice. Don'i
 understand me that people are at all scan. dallzed as, regards Mr. Murray On the contrary, I think they rather like these points in his character. It is only theil novelty that sets men and women talking Mir. Murray has great opportunities of use fulness before him, if he bears himself with modesty and sef-poise in his office. He
 will undoubtedly find the lecture commit. tees of lyceums soon after him. and may dc Iany amount of lecturing next winter. if he tchooSes.i.1 u lItl..4l Gi.an3a2a7a2 a5azl. E. Iz Nor ADAPTED I've have seen some rath
 CT ingenius Democratic theories, account. ing for the defeat of Dixon, Babcock and
 Gallagher, but nothing that quite equals the following from the Danbury Times :2- :2-
 We have no objection to these gentlemen, but It appears that there was large number in theil unfortunate nominations. Messrs. Dixon and