The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1899-01-14
AS TO UNCONSTITUTIONALITY.
How the Claim Has Been Invoked in
the Past Against Necessary Measures.
,ditor of the indianapolis Journal:

To the Editor of the indianapolis Journal
Apropos of an editorial in the Journal
of Jan. II, in which you speak of the fall
lacious character of the claim that the an
nexation of the Philippines is "unconsti-
tutonal," it seems to me that it is a good
time to remind the people how frequently
this claim Of unconstitutionality has been
urged against the most desirable and neces-
sary measures Of the government. These
claims were admirably summarized by Sena-
tor Morton in 1871, on the occasion of the
proposed Ku-Klux act which provided for
Furnishing cOnspiracies to deprive citizens of
the equal protection of the laws. The Dem
ocratic senators declared that the bill was
unconstitutional. Morton replied contemptu-
ously:
Il have heard such declarations from the
Democratic party ever since / have had
anything to do with politics. / remember
that in 1884, when the Missouri compromise
was repealed, that repeal was put on the
ground that Congress had no power origin
ally to make the compromise or, in other
words, that Congress had no power to ex-
clude slavery from the TerritOries-that that
power belonged to the people of the Terri
tories, and was denOminated popular SOW
ereignty.t The repeal of the Missouri COM
promise may be said to have been the be-
ginning of the war. In 1858 the Democratic
party took the ground that the people of the
Territories had no power to exclude slaV-
J..
by its own inherent force, carried slavery
into all the public domain and protected it
there.
In the wilmer of 1S60-61 Mr.. Buchanan, in
his message to Congress, took the ground
that the government had no power to coerce
State to remain in the Union, and that po-
sition was sustained by the Democratic
party in Congress, with but few exceptions.
when Mr. Lincoln called out 1900 men
in April, 1861, this was said to be a violation
OF the Constitution. 1t was alleged that ne
mad no power TO do so. When the issue of
legal-tender notes was made the Democratic
party declared that that was a violation Of
the Constitution, that there was no power
to make those notes a legal tender for the
payment of debts. Again, it was said that
Sary to MI up our army, was gross viola
ton of the Constitution of the United States
Again, II Was said that Congress had no
power to pass confiscation laws I believe
the Gonsululonanty OF those acts mas Deen
decided by the Supreme Court within the
last ten days.
Then it was saiG that Mr.. Lincoln had no
power 10 issue his proclamation OF blockade
He was severely denounced for that. The
act was said to be a gross and fragrant viO-
States. Then it was said that Congress had
no power 10 prescribe test 0athS for the
purpose Of keeping rebels out OF office. .
Then 1t was said the President had no
Then 1t was denied that there was any
power TO make military arrests. That was
source OF very bitter denunciat1On against
the administration. Then the Democrats
declared that Mr.. Lincoln had no power to
issue his proclamation of emancipation. that
1t was gross violation of the Constitution.
Then, again, ii was said that Congress had
no power TO pass an act to disfranchise de
serters Then IL was said that the States
mad no power to make appropriations OF