The Montgomery advertiser., 1906-05-19
rREAsoN ANp rRAIroRs.

It will perhaps be remembered that in book written number of years ago. Mir. Roosevelt referreds 10 Jeffer- son Davis as ''an arch traitor and akin to Benedict Arnold" MT. Alfred c. Broom, of Georgia. has written per- sonal letter to the President asking him. in view of the great age of Mrs. Davis, and her enfeebled condition. to wire Mrs Davis that you now retract the statement"
 The New York Timea speaking of the statement so freuuently made that those who withdrew from the Union were traitors, especially so if they had as soldiers or oficials sworn ailegiance to the government of the United States. calls attention to the we'll established fact that up to 1881 the right of a State to secede was an open one. The Times further shows that the aues- ton was purposely left open because the States Rights men of the earlier days would not have joined in adopting a Constitution which made the Federal government superior to the states. But our contemporary repeats the theory that the right of State to secede was definitely settled at Appomatox. Since then" it continues. ''the paramountcy of National allegiance has been estab- lished beyond lawful cavil.'
 It is somewhat strange that we'll in- formed writers will insist that ques- tion of constitutional power. or Of right or wrong, is ever settled by war. The result of the great war did not in any particular destroy the right of se- cession If it ever existed, nor did 1t make any change in the Constitution in that respect. If the right ever ex- isted 1t still exists. and no amount ot fighting can take 1t from the States until the Constitution is so amended as to prohibit such action on the part of a State. We may admit that the result of the war teaches that the policy of secession is not good one. and that 1t will be useless for a State to attempt 1t. And. by the way II the whole Of the New England States. with New York joining them, should secede from the Union. would The Times argue that they had violated the Constitution? And would 1t advise force to drive them back to their "al- Iegiance?" We doubt it.
 But we suppose that 1t is idle to discuss that matter, as there is little probability that it will ever become living question, and we only refer to 1t because of it's connection with MT. Davis. But The Times puts 1t up to the President very neatly when it declares that it is pity that "the President should be called to account now for this particular indiscretion How many speeches has he been mak- ing in these latter years about his equal respect for the men who bore the blue and the traitors" who wore the gray. Visiting the seat of his maternal ancestors in Georgia last year, he de- clared that his maternal grandfather was the most complete incarnation he had ever encountered in real life of the Colonel Newceme of Thackeray's imag- ination. Now this revered grandfather was Admiral Bulloch of the Confed- crate Navy. Before the war he had been an officer of the United States Navy, and had, of course, taken the oath of allegiance to the United States. There is no difference whatever be- tween his status and that of Jeff Da- wis. If ono was traitor" so equally was the other. It seems therefore, that a particular constraint is put upon the President by this appeal. He must either Fetraet what he wrote so long ago about Jefferson Davis, or proceed with all convenient speed to deile the | grave of Admiral James Dunwoodie ! Bulloch, c. 8. N"
 To this presentation by The Times we add that when Roosevelt in Geor- gia was extolling Admiral Bulloch, his mothers father, he was speaking of a | man who was as near akin to Bene- dict Arnold" as MT. Davis was.