Perrysburg journal. (Perrysburg, Wood Co., O. [Ohio]) 186?-1965, 1871-03-10


would any one doubt that such a ratihca.
ton would be legal and bindingP
But come now to consider the declara-
tion, that requiring the rebel States to
ratify the amendments as conditions 10
their restoration, was coercion and duress
that rendered. their action null and void,
and that the right to representation in
Congress was absolute, and unaffected by
participating In the rebellion.
II the people of the loyal States had
right to prescribe any conditions, then
those contained in the amendments were
legitimate and proper They were reason
able, just in themselves, and were con-
sidered vital to the safety of the nation.
II, therefore, the right existed to pre-
scribe the conditions, 1t was not coercion
or duress to require compliance with them.
If have the right to prescribe the terms
upon which will convey my house to
my neighbor, it cannot be coercion or
duress when he accepts them, and to give
to this transaction the slightest color of
coercion or duress, 1t must be made to APP
pear that the Southern States and the peo-
pie OF the Southern States lost no rights
under the Constitution by going into the
rebellion, and that Immediately upon their
defeat they had right TO resume their
high places in the government they had
just failed to destroy.
And the argument, pushed to its conclu.
sions, would entitle them to representation
at the very time they were prosecuting
the rebellion, for it cannot be urged with
any show of reason that defeat in battle
and submission to superior power has the
effect to restore a constitutional right that
has been lost The rebel States were in
nowise compelled to ratlfy the amend
ments. They could ratify them and be
restored, or refuse to ratify them and re-
main in the condition in which they had
placed themselves. Their situation was
entirely of their own making They had
voluntarily, and against the prayers of all
loyal men, withdrawn their Senators and
Representatives from Congress, and at.
tempted to cut loose from the government,
and if we had left them for an indefinite
period to lie in their bed as they had made
1t, they could not have Justly complained.
But, not asking indemnity for the past, we
said to them, give us security for the fu-
turn, and we will restore you to the full
fraternity of the Republic They gladly
responded to the offer, and by overwhelm-
ing majorities in every State, and with the
assurances of good faith, accepted the
terms that were prescribed; and having
accepted the terms without protest, how
absurd it is for other States to plead that
their action was under duress, and not
binding upon them.
But it may be said we offered the rebel
States inducement to ratify the amend
ments. That may be true, but inducement
is not coercion or duress. Inducement is
the great handspring to human action.
Texas was induced to annexation by the
a0,AW,a
with this country, but surely there was no
coercion in the case States, as well as in
dividuals, sometimes require inducements
istration of Justice, to the discharge of OBJ
legations imposed upon them by their own
action.
But, it is said, the Southern States should
not have ratified the amendments until
after they had been fully restored. In that
case, the inducement to ratify would have
been taken away, and they would not have
done SO, especially if they had needed the
advice of the Northern Democracy.
When it is necessary for man to give
security for his good behavior, he is re.
quired to execute the bond before he is
discharged from custody; he would hardly
do it afterward, and it was not reasonable
to suppose the Southern States would offeI
guarantees after they had been fully re
stored to political power.
The act of Congress, passed in 1918
contains the following provisions
"SEc. 2. AHd6 be Il further enacted, That when
ever official notice shal have been received at the
| Department of State that any amendment which
heretofore has been or hereafter may be, proposed
to the Constitution of the United States has beer
| adopted according TO the provisions of the Con
sitution it shall be the duty of the said Seeretar,
| of State forthwith to cause the said amendmen
to be published in the said newspapers authorized
to promulgate the laws, with his certificate speci
| flying the States by which the same may have beeI
| adopted and that the same has become valid, L
all intents and purposes as part of the Consiitu
| ton of the United States"
This constitutes the Secretary of Statt
a judicial officer to determine and decide
upon the official evidence of the ratifica
tion of an amendment to the Constitution
of the United States, and if he finds it ha
been legally and properly ratified, to max,
proclamation thereof in the manner pre-
scribed. From his decision there is n,
appeal. and his adjudication is final. Tha
power had to be lodged somewhere, and i
has been vested in the Secretary of State
The joint resolution of the Legislature o
Indiana ratifying the Fifteenth Amend
ment, signed by the presiding officers o
the two houses, duly certified under tn
seal of the State, was filed with the Secre
tary. The evidence was incontrovertible
there was nothing to impeach it placed be
fore him, and there could be nothing. Al
appropriation bill passed by the Legisla
ture of Indiana on the same day, with tn
same quorum, and by the same votes, wa
afterward contested before the Suprem
Court of the State, and held to be valid
the court deciding the evidence of th
validity of the act to be perfect, and tina
nothing could be received to impeach
for want of quorum or by other irregu
larity.
AS before stated, the decision of tn
Secretary of State was made final by tn
law, and no appeal can be taken from il t
Democratic convention or to the acci
dental majority of subsequent Legisla
ture. The question as to whether con
stitutional amendment has been ratified
is essentially POLITICAL and must be deter
mined by the political department Of tn
government. Like those other questions
whether a State has a republican form @
government, or whether State has bee
properly admitted into the Union, as i
the case of West Virginia, it must be dc
termined by Congress or by some office
appointed by a law of Congress for tina
purpose, and when so determined, must b
acquiesced in by the courts and the GOV
ernment, for otherwise nothing can eve
be settled.
But suppose that the Secretary of Stat
had been notified, as he was not, that oil
jections were made to the suficiency {
the quorum in the Legislature of Indian
when the resolution ratifying the Fifteent
Amendment was passed, and had undel
taken to do what the Supreme Court {
Indiana said no court had right to do
go behind the enrolled bill, and benin
the signatures of the presiding officer
and inquire into the sufticiency of tn
quorum-he would have found the follow
ing state of facts That the law of the Stat
provides for the election of one hundre
members to the House, and fifty member
TO the Senate, and that the Constution {
the State provides that "two-thirds {
each House shall constitute quorum I
do business" The Democratic leader
assumed that it required two-thirds of a
the members authorized by law to b
elected to each house to constitute
quorum. That was sixty-seven in th
| HOuca an6 thirfu foYtr In tho ~,