Year: 1868

opinion on .an abstract question OF stale
sovereignty Ia it a belief that Con-
gress is warning upon the rights OF the
States2 Is il belief that the power
conferred upon Congress was to protect
individuals and not to interfere with the
exclusive rights OF the States2 Is
mere difference Of political opinions
disloyal2 The honorable member may
think such opinions an error OF judg'
ment, but does that make them dis
loyal2 fit would not be considered in
bad taste, he would like to illustrate by
his own case. Was he disloyal2 Was he
disloyal because he disagreed with the
majority on this floor, or because he
disagreed with some of the policy
of the Executive, or because he
sincerely believed, and probably would
believe in the future, some OF the
decisions of oftheSupreme Court erroneous.
Was he disloyal because he had before
and since the war denounced secession
as utterly unauthorized by the Constitu-
iion2 Yet there We're thousands OF his
fellow-citizens who disagreed with him
on this point. Jefferson, the very apostle
of liberty, had maintained the inherent
right of a State 10 secede in certain con.
tinrencies. He (Mr j. was not old
enough to bO here in 1899. Had he been.
he should not have accused Jefferson OF
disloyalty, and certainly Congress did
not at that time believe him to be disloyal.
The Senator (Mr. Morton) had in his
speech spoken OF his State Maryland
as being in the hands OF rebels. The
Senator had made this allusion in the
debate on the question of admitting his
colleague (Mr. Thomas). In regard to
those in power in Maryland, no matter
what their opinions might be, he (Mr. J.}
had no earthly doubt that they were
rightfully in power under the Constr
tuition aud the laws. Perhaps they
did hold different views from him,
but the war was now over, slavery
was ended forever, and he could
not for the soxl Of him see why
we should not become more prosperous
aud united than we had ever been. 1t
the States and the General Government
would remain within their respective or
bits, he saw no reason why the union OF
the States should not be permanent
The honorable member Mr.. Morton) had
also neglected to read this clause in con-
nection with the other clauses: The Con.
stitution provided that no bills of attain
der and ex post facto laws should be
passed. Rebellions had existed the
world over and bills of attainder had been
passed. The men whe made the Constr
tuition knew this, and imbued with the
trite spirit of liberty and republicanism,
had prohibited such legislation. There
was another thing which did not escape
them. The guillotines of the old world
had been' busy in punishing political
| offenses, and to prevent such scenes in
this country they had resolved that trea-
son should only consist in levying war
against the United States, or adhering
to the enemies of the same; and again,
realizing the danger to be apprehended
from military power, they provided that
no citizen not in the military or naval
service should be tried but by the civil
process before a jury of his couutrymep.
| The fights of the private citizen were
thus to be protected equally in war as in
peace


What was the bill now lying on their
table giving absolute power to the Gene
ral-in-chiefP He recognized the great
services of that officer, the debt of graf
itude owed to him by the country, but
were he Washington himself, he (Mr. j. J
would not grant such power to him; the
power to disregard all the requirements
of the constitution, to imprison, to exc
cute-the placing above any responsi-
bility.


The next question which he should
PROFOUND was, "Are not these commu.
mites States?" From the beginning of
the war, in 1861, up to this moment he
had held that they never for one moment
ceased to exist as States, and such was
the view taken originally by all branches
of the government. AT that time the
idea that the United States, exerting its
constitutional powers to preserve the
States of the Union, could exert that
same power to destroy them was never
| dreamed of. He knew that there were
those around him who, though disclaim-
ing any such idea then, held it now. 1t
was not for him to account for the
change.


Mr.. johnson here sent to the desk and
asked for the reading of an opinion OF
Chief Justice Chase op a case pending
in the State of North Carolina, and de-
| Iivered at sitting of the Circuit Court
of that State, where it Is charged that
the ordinance OF secession affected in no
way the relations of North Carolina as a
State did not for one moment change
her status as State, Here we have the
head Of the Judiciary of the United
States deciding that the rights of North
| Carolina as a State have in no wise
been impaired; that during the rebellion
the relations of the State to the Union
we're suspended, but at its termination
the relations we're renewed, and became
as obligatory as before; yet Congress
assumes that North Carolina is re-
manded to territorial condition, and is
proceeding to deal with her on this
assumption. The decision of the Su-
preme Court relative to trial by military
commissions was also quoted by Mr..
johnson. The war being at an end, no
man can be tried for treason or any
other offense, except in the mode and
manner prescribed by the Constitution.
Such had been the opinion of the Chief
Justice, as pronounced in the above case.


In the vocabulary Of the Constitution
was no such word as necessity. Now,
when no hostile foot treads foot Of the
country, when those who strayed away
are desirous aud willing to return to
their allegiance, they are met, under the
plea of necessity that under soma clause
in The Constitution wehave the right TO
treat them as rebels; that while we ex-
act all the obligations Of the Constitution
we deny all its guarantees, deny all pri-
vate rights-that there is one Constitu-
ton for them and another Constitution
form. Az he had proclaimed over aud