Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1889-06-15
Facts for Ex.Rebels Of The South"

TS-ibrr1e gravely asks us 10 reproduce GER
tain extracts which il quotes from opinions
of the Supreme Court of the United States
rs bearing upon the question whether Viz
yinia in 17SS did or did not reserve the right
70 withdraw from the Union. Is the Tri-
fau.e totally destitute Of the logical faculty?
Did its editor never hear OF the jury of
which the whole panel hsd "hcd some of
The pork? We quote the fathers Of the
republic to prove that the northern people
have wronged Virginia, and he quotes the
men who porpctrated the wrong TO prove
that il was no wrong at all. However, we
wish TO be perfectly fair, and SO we quote
the extracts which the Tr.latne requests us
10 copy. though they are entirely oil the
question, or rather come from Interested
parties.
Here is the first extract:
a political society which attempted 90
separate itself from the Union dld not de
stroy its identity rs State nor free itself
from the binding force of the Constitution.
Hence. all its acts during the period OF re-
bclliou are obligatory on the state now,
except those IN aid of that rebellion or IN
conflict with the Constitution and laws OF
It's authority. At no time were the rebel
lious States out Of the pale Of the Union.
Their rights under the Constitution were
suspended, not destroyed. Their constltu-
tional duties and obligations We're unaI-
fectcd. as a citizen IL still q citizen, though
guilty of a crime and visited with punish
mcnL'
That's good doctrine as the case now
stands. But if at emo time were the re-
belhous States ont Of the Union" whence
did the Republican Congress derive the
power 10 deny to them representation IN
Congress:
Here are heother two extracts which the
1rilsg,e asks Us 10 reproduce:
1.-The United States acted both rs belliee-
rcnt and as sovereign As belhgcrent She
enforced herauthorty ly capture aS soye-
reign she recalled her revoltcd subjects 81
allegiance by pardon and restoration Of
rights"
THE war in tie United states was ac-
COmpanied boy the general incidents of an
international war. p As war is ne
Cessarily trial - strength between the
hell.gorents. the ultimate object Of each Is
70 lessen the strength Of hls adversary or
Udd 90 ms own. Whatever rs necessary 10
accomplish this end is lawful, and each
belliccrent determines for himself what Is
necessary
We might answer those extracts by
uuoting from the opinions Of the same
high court before II had been prostituted
10 partisan purposes. But We need only
remind the reader that the justices Of the
Supreme Court who wrote ont the opinions
quoted from by the Tribune are all of the
"new issue" They were made Justices
because they were known 20 hold the doc
trincs set forth in those opinions Has the
Tribune lost sight of the fact that the Re
publican Supreme Court first decided the
legaltender act 10 be- unconstitutional. and
then, General grant having called two new
Justices 10 the bench, reversed their Own
decision aud held that that act was consji-
tutional? Does the Tribune respect the de-
cision in the DRED-SCoTT case :--namely,
that negro could not be "a citizen Of
this country? We believe that when the
abOve-quoted opinions were given there
was not one Democrat-not one south
ern man-not one man who did not
hold the ccntrl-de-potism theory Of
Poyernment-upon the Supreme bench.
And the decisions of these latter-day
saints-thc-e men who We're selected be-
cause they did not hold TO the teachings Of
the fathers Of the republc-are seriously
quoted as AN offset % those teachings
We cite "a case IN point. JAMES IL. had
in JOSS "a clear TILE to tho crown OF Eng
land. There was no person who could set
up an adverse claim Ills title was IS free
g.. 4. T.r.
was indeed not "a doubt upon the subject
But hc was So bad king that the people
could not stand his rule; and. therefore,
they i'm some way OF other so frightened
him that hc ran away-escapcd from the
country. His title TO the crown was still
good blt what did the lords and COM
monst They passed anAct OF settlement,
which did not have the Kings approval,
and therefore was null and void, and in
virtue of that law seated WILLIAM and
Macy upon the throne. Thereafter the
Court of Kings Bench and all the lower
courts in England held that the said law
was good law. and that the title of VII
liam and MARY 10 the crown was indeIecii-
bic But the fact was that King JANIS 5
title was stlll good, and there was no power
on earth that could make it bad-that is.
under the laws and customs of all the
kingdoms of Christendom. The lords and
commons OF England acknowledged his
title 20 be good in placing his daughter
upon the throne.
II now WILLIAM and Macy could in some
way have induced the Court OF Kings
Bench 20 pass upon thoir title. that court
would of course As indeed it did have
held that their tide was good and that
King JAsEs's title was not a good one.
And il would have been just as reasonable
20 expect a court owing It's life 30 WILLIAM
and MARY to decide that they were not en-
preme Court Of the United States ap.
pointed by LINCOLN, GRANT, SC, 10 decide
that Virginia had reserved in 1888 the right
20 withdraw from the Union.
Courts are composed of falible men.
These men cannot be expected 20 decide
Alright when all their passions and preju-
dices are enlisted upon the wrong side
But they are not apt to be thus governed
except in few cases Of particular sort
The Supreme Court Of the United States is
the highest Judicial tribunal in the world
Its Justices are probably as profound law
yers as ever sat upon that bench. That
court ID the one feature of our institutions
against which the breakers Of an angry
populace VIII never be able to beat W,
respect and honor It's decisions in all cases
which 1t looks at with unclouded vision
We agree that It's theory as 10 the natur,
Of our Government is the correct one as
things now stand. The stern abitrameni
of war leaves no room for argument on that
point. But we must nevertheless contend
20 the end that such WAS not the theory Of
the founders Of the republic.