New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1878-12-12
"P1KwG OVER OLD SORES"

"R4KING OVER OLD SORES"
From excellent Democratic authority we
learn that for a Republican United States Sena-
tor to oppose action in the Senate, for the
mere reason that it violates an express statute
law, is in very bad taste, as we'll as evidence
of bad heart and unforgving disposition.
A bill being before the Senate for the APP
pointmcnt of julius l.. Powell to be Assistant
Surgeon in the Army, the fact being
that Powell had served in the Confed-
crate Army, and was consequently in
eligible for the position under the sec
ton of the Revised Statutes which pro-
vIdcs that ono person who has served
" in any capacity in the military, naval or
civil service of the sO-Called Confederate
" States shall be appointed TO any position in
the army" Mr.. Edmqnds called attention to
the statute and opposed the passage OF the
bill. And The World thus reports it: " Mr.
Edmunds, seeing what he believed to he d
good chance to rake over old sores, persist
entity insisted that the bill could not pass
because il was contrary to that section Of
the Revised Statutes which provides that
"no person who served in the Confederate
Army during the rebellion can be appointed
1t is also added that Mr.. Edmunds took tins
| opportunity to say a few mean things about
" the Coniederates aud the rebellion and the
Army,n which the Senate disregarded by
passing the bill, every Democrat and sew
cral caTpet-bag Senators voting for it, And
then Mr.. Beck. OF Kentucky, doubtless iDdig-
nant that statute of this offensive char
actor had been permitted to remain so loLg
unrepealed after the "era" had set in, an
nounced that he would introduce a bill next
day TO repeal this section OF the law; and the
Senate being. by virtue of Republican absen-
| teeism and grace OF the carpet baRgers,"
! Democratic, the repeal will, no doubt, be
carried through both houses.
This, we presume, is part OF the Demo
cratic programme, which consists in imme-
date reduction Of tho army on the score of
economy; then the repeal of this offensive
statute, which was intended to deprive the
| late rebels of at least one oppor-
tunity of reversing the verdict Of
the war; and, finally, the reinstatement
of The Southern army officers who in 1861
betrayed their trust and went into rebellion.
This IL IA much easier way than fighting;
and comes to the same thing in the end.
Being part of the programme laid
out by the party which will shortly have
seems indeed to have aready-posseSson of
both branches of Congress, it is not worth
| while perhaps 20 raise an cutlery or make
factious opposition to it. All that we desire
| TO do in the premises is to keep the
people informed of the progress of IL,
so that if they permit it to be con-
summated, it will DO knowingly and
| of free choice with their eyes WIDE open.
What We would like to know, however, in
connection with this discussion and the com
| mept of our Democratic contemporary thereon,
il whether we are TO deduce from these OK
pressiOns the general rule that oil the statutes
| of q character similar to the one quoted, which
| have been passed since the rebellion began
and remain If not in force at least unreDealed,
arc to be held as abrogated by general con-
sent. The objection raised by Senator Ed
munds to this mans appointment was based
upon an existing statute, the provisions of
| which, if enforced, would be fatal. NO:One de-
mics that the law is on the statute book,
and nominally in force. But 80 sensitive
are our Democratic friends in the Senate to
any reference to such matters, that they
want to disregard it contkmptuously, with
out so much as paying 1t sufficient re-
spect formally to repeal it. Mr.. Edmunds is
charged with "raking over old Sores"
in directing the attention of the Senate to it
and Mr.. Beck, no doubt, looked upon it as a
hardship upon the South and u ruthless
revival of the animOsites of the war; so
that he was obliged formally to move
its repeal. And the Vermont Senator is
charged in addition with saying mean
things about the rebellion, as if it was
getting to be almost reasonable to refer to
the conduct of the men who were put down
in their attempt to subyert the Government.
We submit that it is not impossible to carry
this thing too far. 1t has already come to
that pass that we cannot protest against a
widespread system of fraud and intimidation
in eections-a system which makes voting a
farce and free institutions a mOckcly
and sham-without being told that we are
reyiyng the animOsitics of the war and him
derng the benignant process of reconciliation.
And now it seems 1t is "mean to say any
thing about certain historical facts. and "rak-
ing over sore spots y to insist upon living
statutes not being considered null and void
until they are regularly and formally re-
pcalcd Isn't this something more than Il
reasonable and becoming scnsitivencss
The process of reversing the results OF the
war goes on somewhat too rapidly. The
next committee of investigation will have to
be set to work on the question, "WhO tCerc
"the victors in the late war anyhow T'-if
indeed Democratic Congress docsn't
settle it Ivy JOINT resolution without
debate, under call of the previous question,
that there has been no war, and that all refer
ences to 1t in the laws are invalid, and in de-
3