Year: 1866

1t is frequently asserted by the spe.
cial organs of the Administration, among
their many excuses for opposing the
Congressional policy of reconstruction,
that the sections OF the proposed cons,i-
tutional amendment which guarantee
universal evil rights, and the 'inviolabili-
ty OF the national debt, and which for.
ever prohibit the assu&p ption or payment
of obligations incurred for reasonable
purposes, as well as the payment of
claims of compensation tor cmanci-
patton OF slaves, are unnecessary and
Of little consequence In our judg.
ment they are Of transcendantly more
consequence than any mere provision
to punish traitors by excluding them
from office or from voting. In the
former case the sections concern great
and momentous political princi lies In
the latter thev concern an evil which
time must do more TO cure than any
other agency with wh;eh we are ar-
quaintcd.


OF the vast Importance of securing
civil rights to all our ci liens lmpar,ially
and without distinction, we have already
said so much that we 10 not now pres
pose to repeat it, especial y as tie OPP
ponents of the Civil Rights bill have
abandoned their case, and seem to be
wiling to admit the necessity of the
measure. But they do not say SO in
distinct terms. They merely leave the
fact to be inferred from their course. At
the same time they arttully urge that
the section of the proposed amendment
which guarantees civil rights is a tacit
admission. that the statute previously
enacted is unconstitutional. This sort
of argument, though very shallow, and
not apt to deceive any one, is constant
ly rcsorled to by the opponents of the
amendment, and has even been gravely
urged in Congress by men claiming to
be statesmen. The Civil Rights bill,
over which we had such an exciting
contest, is an ordinary act of Congress,
enacted into a law, but repealable at any
time when a reactionary majority may
deem it proper to do so. 1t is perfectly
constitutional; but if its provisions were
contained in the Constitution it would
not have been necessary to pass the bill,
nor indeed to enact any other OF the
numerous constitutional laws with which
the statute books are filled. The Con-
sttution il not code Of laws. 1t is a
framework OF government, under which
the laws are to be made. The amend
ment now pending is in the nature of a
declaration Of popular rights, and Con-
gress is endowed with the power to
pass laws for their enforcement But,
it is urged, this admits that without the
amendment Congress had no right to
enact such law. How so? The
power of Congress to pass that act like
its power to do very many other things,
did not rest upon any well known and
indisputable provisions, but was a de-
ductlon from the spirit of the instrument,
and would be so held by the Supreme
Court. Most OF the powers granted by
the Constitution are generally stated
and this fact leaves the opening through
which the strict constructionists make al
their trouble. The fact that so high q
functionary as the President should have
asserted the unconstitutionality Of the
Civil Rights bill in a grave official mes
sage, although possessing no authority
of law--sinoe only the Supreme Court
oor oive deoisions on such p0ints-is