Year: 1866

The constant assumption of the Presidents
organs that no no'attempt has been or will be made
to refute the logic of his vetoes is striking ex-
ample of the dishonest method of argument
which some journalists adopt. The veto OF the
Freedmen's Bureau bill was publicly discussed,
and ably refuted, in the precise place contem-
plated by the Constitution for such discussions.
The speech of Senator Trumbull was, however,
utterly ignored by the Conservative" press;
and, instead Of replying to it, these judicious
editors assert, in substance, that no such speech
was ever made The unfortunate death OF Sen.
ator Foot, occurring when it did, inevitably
postponed Mr.. Trumbull's review Of the veto
of the Civil Rights bill; and meanwhile this
enforced silence was claimed as an admission
that the veto is unanswerable.


The veto of the Civil Rights bill is founded
upon arguments so shallow, that they can be an
swered in very few words. The objections on
the score of policy merely are hardly worth dis
cussing at all. If there is any Republican who
is opposed to granting citizenship to tho colored
race, wo leave him to argue the question with
the editor Of The Times, who introduced bill
for that purpose into Congress, at all early
period of the session. and enthusiastically urged
it in his weathercOck columns. The cOnstitu-
tional objections are all that we care to notice.


The objection to any interference by Con-
gress to secure equal civil rights to the negro is
sufficiently answered by tho Message itself,
which expressly declares the Presidents will
ingness to cooperate with Congress in securing
to him these rights. How can it be unconstitu-
tional to protect him in part of these rights,
as the vetoed bill does, when the President
offers (whether sincerely or not) to protect him
in dNi But, apart from this, it is obvious that
q man deprived Of civil rights is substantially a
slave running loose, who may be appropriated
like a wild horse, by the first man hdring rights,
who may seize him. Liberty, without the right
to enforce it by suit or testimony, is hideous
mockery of that sacred name. Aud if Congress
cannot secure TO the negro the simple rights
guaranteed to him by this bill, II cannot in any
way enforce the constitutional prohibition of
Slavery. A law against murder, which should
be construed as excepting throat-cutting would
be as effective as an Interpretation of the great
amendment which should authorize Congress
to prohibit Slavery. but deny to it the power to
secure civil rights TO the cnslavcd.


The objection to the section giving to the
United States Courts jurisdiction over cases
arising under the bill, is fully met by the clause
in the Federal Constitution which declares that
the judicial power of the United States shall
extend to all cases arising under the laws OF the
United States


The objection that the bill makes it penal
ofIense for Legislatures TO make or judges to
administrative inconsistent herewith, is wholly
without foundation. The penal clauses of the
bill are so framed as TO apply only to executive
officers, such as marshals, sherifs aud jaers.
The bill, as originally proposed in the Senate,
was thought to DO open to miSconstruction
upon this point, and it was amended for the
very purpose Of making it clear. We shall not
enter into full argument upon this subject,
but refer our readers to the speech Of Mr.. Trum-
bull for its further calculation.


The result Of our examination has been TO
satisfy US Of the utterly frivolous character of
the Presidents objections to the bill; nor do We
believe that any respectable lawyer, not a
bigoted devotee of Slavery, will venture to
argue in its favor.