The Dallas weekly herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1885, 1882-06-01
"a mnNilMrNr OF uArE."

Upon the statute book Of the United
states there Is section prohibiting the APP
pointment to any places of proht or trust
in the regular army of this country any
man who was engaged in the Confederate
service. 1t was passed at that time when
all the bitterest prejudices engehderea ny
the strife Of the civil war were still alive III
their most Objectionable and malignant
TYNE, when il was thought indeed by the
yictsrs that their former opponents
in arms we're never TO be again en-
trusted with the defense of the government
they had attempted to leave for
fifteen or twenty years that declaration Oh
the republican members of congress- not
indeed the expression Of the men VINO wore
the uniforms of the Union and dld us
fighting, has remained law OF the Geherai
government, and is one OF the few distlhct-
iyely preiudiced and bitter monuments oil
the hdste of the days OF its passage, anu
which still stand between the Federal oul-
ces and the complete restoration OF the
South to political rights. With the proper
apnreciulion of the absurdity of the
law and with commendable over
lures to wipe out so narrow-miheo
a provision and one rejecting SO un-
Justly upon some Of the truest pa'riols
and brayest veterans now in the limits OF
the country, the democratic members Oh
the national senate few days since at
Ton, nteJ to repeal the section referred to.
Northern democratic senators displayed the
magnanimity of common sense IN the mat
ter, and sustained the proposition, but such
men as II AwLEY and others took advantage
of the opportunity TO again air their views
on The jmpudence and crininallty -oi Ihe
South in attempting "to break up the gov,
eminent" The debate, in quiet anu
limited way, was the channel ier rele'i,
tion of some of the peculiar sentiments ana
cherished memories which still, after the
lapse of nearly two decades, keep us from
being one people, and was exceedingly
spirited. SENATOR VOORHEES, struck the
correct notes in the few and lmpromplu
remarks made by him during the debate
He said among other things; NOW, "hat
is the difference between appointing man
TO n big office in civil life and appointing
him to an office in the army? The opposi'
ton to the repeal of this section ana IN iao'
the section itself, proceeds, suppose, Oh
the idea {hat there was a peculiar perhdy,
a peculiar dishonesty, peculiar treacheiy'
a peculiar disloyalty to the government III
an army officer wearing the uniform laying
down his sword and turning his back ON 'he
government which had educated nm anu
which he had undertaken to defend. Ihere-
fore. according to the reasoning oi 'his
section. he should never be employed
in like manner again because of his treach'
cry, because of his pertidy; but cannot
man he ireacberous in some other place as
we'll as in The army? Take for instance
judicial officer; there are instances To-Day
in the judiciary &here men betrayed tneii
trust and resigned their positions when the
war broke out, and when the war was over
made their peace with the rullng power
and had their positions back again. Is
less Injurious to the government to place
man as its representative al foreign cour
with the honor of this country in his manu-
than 10 place him back in the army! lh'
senator from Kansas, and so did every olne
sonoior ON that side, voted to confirm
GENERAL LoYGsTREET as minister to an I'm
nortant court abroad where he was 10 hoi'
the honor of this country, and Wher
he was so perHdious, so treacherous' AM
had been proven so by his resignation Q
his old army command, he could nav
stabbed the honor of this government 10 IL
heart There is no logic in this opposltloi
M all. Ifmen who were in the army whei
The war broke out and resigned their pos
lions are fit for one position they are NJ 10
another. If they are fit for high position
! on the bench, fit for foreign appointments
' NJ for cabinet places, they are fit for tines
bl,eyise. Will it do to say that you VII
not trust such man in one place put VII
trpst him ihall others? There is an incon
', gruity about this, and the sooner TINS SCI
ton is swept away the sooner we shaii nav
no more scenes lire these" AS stated D.
: the eloquent and big-Learted lndlaniai
"tbere is no logic in this opposlho
at alI.'' If q man does not enjoy the III
rights of citizenship, he rs sliapiy not
citizen, and his interest in, and attachment
to a country is invariably proportioned
the extent and number OF the privilege
which he is permitted 10 enjoy under GOV
., eminent regulations. If the men OF th
,, North really desire TO see patriots made
this Union. about which they talk so muci
they must first be generous and give men
country. in fact as well as in name, to fgl
for and serve. Until then the rule
the hour will be simply hurtful and int
!. minable chickering's, which only disgust u
better elements Of the country, WIN
, thew keep the worst at strife. In readin
: the glowing and sounding periods OF the r
publican senators in the debate referred !
and in opposition to the repeal OF the ohle
tionable section the question UNCONSCIOUS
arises as 20 what might be the burden
their song in the event Of a foreign wa
when nv their own suicida policy the
had excluded thousands Of gallant me
who made Shiloh. Chickamauga, Getty
: burg. Antietam and the Wilderness anon
the greatest ofthe bloody and famous ba
tlefields Of history. IL il possible that u
impoIicy Of such statutes might then
: most keenly appreciated. We do not q
sire 10 see the experiment made, but ne
, could be bu, one result.
49, - m n 4