power on Congress. Under the true theory of the Constitution a State once established as such in the Union must always remain such; and no power in the Constitution or act of the State could take it out of the Union, or make it anything else than a State.

The use of the sword and the trials of the times had given rise to a sentiment not based upon the organic character of the Government, the real demands. of the occasion, or the better and more elevated instincts of mankind. To put down rebellion and put in operation means to restore States to their active. loyal position as States in the Union, were Constitutional and moral duties. The General Government and the States have no Constitutional right to destroy each other. They are perpetual, one in the other. The General Government has no right to impair or suspend the activities of a State longer than it fails to exert them in the spirit and letter of the Constitution.

It was held by men claiming intelligence that the President and Congress overstepped the boundaries of exact justice and right in treating as null and void the acts of the States while they were engaged in the Rebellion. But this was the utmost folly and drivel, und unworthy of mention otherwise than as making a part of the extravagance of the times. About the scope and character of the pardoning power there was much diversity of sentiment. But if a rebel against the Government, an assassin of the State, was not in need, and a subject, of this power Perhaps the President took the

nobody could be.

true view of this case, and the rebels, at least, had no right to complaim of his course.

Mr. Johnson's plan of reconstruction left out of consideration negro suffrage, and it was such as to bring speedily to the management of the affairs of the States those who had been among the leaders of the Rebellion. But in the main it was the course sanctioned by the Constitutional conditions of the Government, the Nation. And as to these two points, negro suffrage and those who should control the affairs of the States, recently in Rebellion, and share in the management of national politics, how did it finally result? The Republican Congress began at once to agitate the subject of negro suffrage, starting the work where it had undisputed rights, in the District of Columbia. But was this work of making this vast horde of persons, just liberated from centuries of bondage, the highest and best thing to be accomplished? Voting is no certain evidence of freedom, patriotism, manhood, or intelligence. Has universal suffrage accomplished what was claimed, what is yet claimed for it in this country? Have the Republicans gained for their party all they hoped to gain by giving the negroes this privilege? Like West Virginia, was it not a party error? But it can not be so coolly assumed that those who favored and brought about negro suffrage had no higher or better motive than advancing the interests of their party as a mere party. No, many earnest men believed the faithfulness of the negro to the cause of the Union, his efforts for its success, rendered the gift

of suffrage due him. Many more believed it was the broad road to the elevation of a long down-trodden These Republican were the true democrats of the country.

race.

The color question was disagreeable to them as it could be to any one. They could not overcome the feeling against it, nor have they yet done so. But principles they supposed to be right led them to conceal or control the sentiment. Principles which can so control the passions and acts of men must be deemed superior, and worthy of general admiration. As the motives of men can not be handled with utter freedom and indifference, so can not this question of citizen suffrage. It is a delicate question. There appear at times good reasons for suspending or abridging the privilege or right of suffrage. But where to begin or where to end in the work of abridgment it is difficult to say. It certainly would be desirable if all voters could be intelligent, and morally conscious of the responsibility of their actions. The poor man, so-called, may by his votes control monopoly, and curb the ever overreaching money-getter. Yet what assurance is there that the passions and necessities of man will not long continue to be matter of political traffic? Intelligence and virtue only are safe and trustworthy at the polls. These are the only safeguards of individual and community rights, and of national honor.

Mr. Johnson and the Republican party with him claimed that loyal men only should organize and control the insurrectionary States. Then, the Republi

can party held that the President's policy tended directly to throw affairs into the hands of the former rebels, who were at heart yet rebels. This was, perhaps, true, for nearly all men in the South who were fit to manage the affairs of a State had been identified with the Rebellion. The result was that Congress with a two-thirds Union, Radical, or Republican majority, overthrew the President and his plan, and put in operation a plan of its own, throwing the insurrectionary States under military rule, and to a great extent reorganizing the State governments under men who had been citizens of Northern States, who came to be called "Carpet-baggers," and so bringing about negro suffrage and its accompanying guarantees by the force of necessity. And then what followed? Why, in the course of a few years, the Carpet-baggers took back seats, and the former rebels got the management of State affairs. Military rule could not be maintained always. Loyal negroes could not conduct the governments; they had not skill and intelligence sufficient, to say nothing of other disqualifying circumstances. The old rebels. and secessionists drifted into power in the States, in politics, in Congress. And what had been accomplished over Mr. Johnson's plan? Negro suffrage, it is true. But Mr. Johnson only supposed this would be a question of time and preparation, and who can show that this stupendous blessing, if it was such in any sense, would not have followed in a reasonable time? This vote was at the outset of very little benefit to the Republican party in the old Slave

States, and now is of none whatever. In any case this vote in the old slave communities would be controlled by those who had always been at the head of politics. Nor was it likely that this control would change hands in generations, if ever. The Congressional plan landed matters finally about where President Johnson's would have placed them with a saving of much strife and ill-feeling

In view of these things and all that has since transpired it may be doubted whether the censure bestowed on President Johnson has been sustained by the progress of events. If negro suffrage was a blessing to both races not to be deferred or left to the uncertain chances of the future, then the Congressional method was better than the President's, and there was an apology for the course that body took. But the advantages gained anywhere, by the suppression of the President and his plan, do not appear so clear at this day as could be desired. And the rupture between the President and Congress became a subject of national scandal and regret. Perhaps time has not justified Congress in making the issue in the intense manner, it did. Nor can history acquit the President with a much stronger verdict than was reached by the impeachers. Still it by no means appears that the Nation would be better off had events occurred otherwise than as they have.

Drunk or sober, Mr. Johnson had told the negroes at Nashville that he would be their Moses to lead them up out of bondage. But he had never promised them suffrage. And when he became President