Valley Spirit

DEAR EAGLE-the colored citizens have come to grief in Connecticut. He may ride in railroad cars or crowd white trash in the jury-box, but Connecticut says he can't vote.

I sympathize with Sambo, at the same time I congratulate Connecticut.

Which shows my impartiality.

I have no prejudice against citizens of African descent.

American citizens can have any descent they like.

As to color it is a matter of taste.

Some may prefer 'Wearing the Green.'

Some may prefer black.

For my part give me the Red, White and Blue.

Some people base their objection to the African on the 'scent' rather than the 'descent.'

Sambo may not be as fragrant as the Egyptian Lotus, which Cleopatra is understood to have perfumed her handkerchief with, when she went down to the Nile to meet Mr. Anthony.

(N. B.-I have this from the artist who executed Hooley's drop curtain.)

But this is a free country and everybody has a right to select his own perfume.

I object to being led by the African, politically or otherwise.

I insist on giving the African fair play.

Being a man, and somebody's brother, he has a right to self government.

Let him go off somewhere and govern himself.

He needn't be particular where he goes to, so long as he goes. There are some countries where his complexion is fashionable; where he can lay off in perpetual sunshine, and the inhabitants are not troubled with tailors bills.

If he has set his mind on the ballot-box he can go to Massachusetts, where his superiority to the white man is recognised.

Particularly in war time, when the privilege of doing all the fighting will be cheerfully accorded to him.

But should the African depart; what would become of the republican party?

No. 9 Court street would soon be advertised to let to a small family without children.

Boss Gale would have to turn his attention to some honest pursuit for a living.

Brother Tilton would have to hire a handcart and peddle the proceeds of his tin wedding.

Plymouth Church would probably be turned into a religious edifice.

Commissioner Spooner would dry up, and make an interesting fossil for a glass case in the Historical Society's collection.

Just think, my boy, what would have been the consequence if Nah has signed the pledge before he cam out of the Ark; or his son Ham knew better than to laugh at the tight old navigator, because he forgot to draw on the bed clothes when we went to sleep off his drunk.

Then there would have been no colored persons-and no republican party. No rebellion. No drafts.

No National debt.

No Income tax.

This shows the necessity of encouraging the Temperance movement.

I wonder Gough never used the African as a frightful example of the ultimate result of intemperance.

He can use this illustration in his next lecture.

It ought to be a very effective argument with the American people.

Think of Noah and imagine an African at the bottom of every tumbler.

CORRY O'LANUS

The issue is soon to be made in Pennsylvania. The white man of our old Commonwealth will soon be called upon to say whether or not the negro shall enjoy all the rights of citizenship. Political equality without regard to color will soon be the rallying cry of the Radicals. A vigorous effort will be made to infuse this sentiment into the minds of the masses. Wherever the word white occurs in our State Constitution, as conferring rights on the Anglo-Saxon race which are denied to the Africans, it is to be stricken out.

Will you, can you, believe it, laboring men of Franklin county, that a systematic effort is about being made to force negro equality upon you? And yet such is the feat. Under the lash of the party whip it is contemplated to force this most obnoxious measure upon the white freeman of the country. It is believed by the Radical leaders that, rather than see the Democratic party successful at the ballot box, you will swallow any dose which they can administer. They know that many men were never in sympathy with the Republican party vote for its men and its measures because of antagonisms to their old opponents. There is an intense feeling of hatred in the breasts of some men towards the Democratic party simply because they harbor the recollections of the numerous defeats which they have suffered at its hands in the past, as old line Whigs. Such men can be counted on to support any men or any measure hostile to democratic principles. This is certainly a weakness, but all Republican leaders know that it is this blind hostility to the Democratic party, together with "the cohesive power of public plunder" which holds the discordant elements of their party together, and it is this hostility that these same leaders will appeal to carry out their odious measures.

Many an honest farmer will vote for negro suffrage for no other reason than that his Democratic neighbor votes against it. But while this will undoubtedly be the case in numerous instances, there are some honest conservative Republicans who cannot, and will not swallow the dose. They will refuse to obey the behests of their party leaders when it come to this. They will assert their independence of party trammels and show their scorn for the men who seek o degrade their manhood and place them upon the level with the negro. In our own county, we know many good men in the Republican ranks-mechanics, working men and farmers, who will never bow the knee to the black God which the Rump Congress is setting up for worship in the land. Senator Cowan-of whom Pennsylvania may well feel proud, has raised his voice in the Senate in denunciation of the negro-equality proposition, and will, without doubt, throw the strength of his great intellect into the scale against the obnoxious measure.

The effort to force it upon the District of Columbia, which has repudiated it by and overwhelming vote, means to us to be one of the greatest and most outrageous acts of arbitrary power, but we trust that if even the Senate should pass the measure the President will arrest the monstrous iniquity by interposing the Executive veto, and thus save the country from the crime of forcing upon the inhabitants of the District a measure which they have rejected by almost a unanimous vote.

Stand up for your race, Andrew Johnson! Stand up for the honor of your country--follow the teachings of the fathers of American liberty, let the principles of your youth and those of the founders of this white man's government stomata you! Assert the broad truth, and maintain it, that the government shall be administered, in the future as in the past, by white men , for the benefit of white men. Then the PEOPLE will rally around you from every part of this great country and from ever party and creed, and all true lovers of the white race, and of the government as our fathers made it, will delight to do you honor.

We hope no Republican in Pennsylvania will profess to be astonished when he finds the party with which he has acted preparing to confer the right of suffrage upon the negroes in this State. When every Republican member of Congress form this State votes to give the hordes of negroes who cluster in thick masses around the city of Washington the same right to vote that white men have had in the past, how can any one one of them refuse to advocate the same thing at home? We are not at all surprised to find the Harrisburg Telegraph rejoicing at the unanimity with which the Republican Congressmen from this State acted. We expect before many days elapse to see it and other Republican journals join in the effort which is even now being made to force negro suffrage upon the people of this State. The Pittsburg Commercial, one of the largest, most widely circulated, able and influential Republican papers in the State, calls upon the Legislature now in session to move in this matter at once. It says:

While the vote in the House of Representative conferring unlimited suffrage on the colored men in the District of Columbia is fresh in the mind, we take occasion to remind the particular advocates of the principle that there are in Pennsylvania several thousand intelligent bus disfranchised negroes. Many of them enlisted into the army, fought will, and have returned home, where they are living orderly but disfranchised citizens--if, under this disability, they can be so called. The zeal Mr. Kelley has shown in carrying through his bill will long be quoted in his favor. Has he not the influence--have not the other Pennsylvania members, who favored the bill, the influence--to produce a movement in the Legislature to enfranchise the "intelligent, tax-paying, returned soldier colored population of Pennsylvania? We count confidently on somebody moving our Legislature. Let us back up or representatives with prompt action. The Union majority in congress have marked out the way--let us march boldly in it.

That is plain talk. There is one thing, however, to commend about it. It is honest talk. It speaks out the real sentiments, and boldly lays bare to the world the designs of the leaders of the Republican party in Pennsylvania. They are in favor of conferring the right of suffrage upon the negroes here as well as elsewhere. Now that they have put themselves in a position where they can no longer deny their real sentiments we may expect them to act and to act boldly. Nothing but a fear of defeat in the campaign of next fall will prevent the Legislature form taking the necessary steps toward striking the word white from the Constitution of Pennsylvania. They may refuse to take the initiatory steps during the present winter; but so surely as they are not defeated in the coming campaign they will be emboldened to do what they would willingly do now if they did not fear that they would be repudiated by the masses.

One thing at least is settled. The Republican party are fully committed to the doctrine of negro suffrage, and they will confer upon them that right without restriction, unless the white men of the country rise up in their might to prevent the perpetration of that most infamous outrage upon their rights and their race. If the white men of Pennsylvania would save themselves from the degradation and disgrace of negro suffrage and negro equality, they must take a bold stand for their rights, and at act once with decision.

Correspondence of the VALLEY SPIRIT.

HARRISBURG, February 3, 1866.

The Governor's message was read in both Houses of the Legislature on Tuesday, and the usual number of copies ordered to be printed, for the use of the members. He makes a brief allusion to the burning of Chambersburg and suggests a further appropriation for the relief of her citizens, though in much less positive terms than was desired by the friends of relief. His animadversions on the course of the late national administration towards this State, are somewhat severe. He shows pretty conclusively that "our martyred father" simply lied when he promised that the State should be reimbursed for expenses incurred in calling out and equipping the militia of the State for the defence of the border in 1863. To hold the word on promise to the ear and break it to the hope seems to have been the policy of the War Department towards the State of Pennsylvania during the entire war.

The great sensation of the week here was the discussion of the negro suffrage question in the Senate. The resolutions favoring negro suffrage in the District of Columbia, as stated in my last, were made the special order for Wednesday of this week. The discussion was opened by Mr. Landon, of Bradford, the author of the resolutions, in a lengthy and eloquent speech in favor of unqualified negro suffrage, not only in the District of Columbia, but throughout the entire country. He frankly admitted that the District of Columbia bill was merely the entering wedge to its introduction in the other States, and particularly the States lately in rebellion. His candor in this particular is commendable, destructive and ruinous as is the doctrine his advocates. His speech was conceded to have been the ablest made on that side of the question. He was followed on the Republican side by Messrs. White, Lowry, Bigham, Brown and Hall, and on the Democratic side by Messrs. Donavon, Clymer Wallace, Beardsloe, Latta and Hopkins, Republicans and Democrats speaking alternatively.

The discussion created a great deal of interest among the outsiders, drawing large crowds to the Senate chamber at every session during its continuance. Every available space in the hall was constantly crowded. The sympathies of the masses on this great question were unmistakably indicated by the frequent outbursts of applause which greeted the Democratic speakers from the galleries. The Republican speakers were seldom applauded, and then but feebly. The Radicals found out before the discussion ended that they had a bigger elephant on their hands than they could manage. The terrible vollies of hot shot poured into their camp from the Democratic side made them squirm like wounded serpents. Hence on Thursday evening before the meeting of the senate to continue the discussion, they held a caucus at which it was decided by a majority of one vote to send the ill-timed measure back to the Committee of Federal Relations, there to sleep the sleep that knows no waking. It is said that Landon, of Bradford, delivered a most terrible invective in the caucus against the weak-kneed Republicans who failed to stand up to the resolutions, charging them with cowardice, and as being miserable tricklers, which they certainly are. When the vote was subsequently taken in the Senate on the motion to re-commit, old Lowry was found to be the only man among them who had the courage and manhood to vote against the dictation of the caucus. Even the brave Landon "caved in." "What a fall was that, my countrymen!"

The eloquent and pungent speech of Hiaster Clymer fell like a bomb-shell among the disconcerted negro-suffrageites. His cutting home-thrusts made the radicals wince and put them to an exceedingly ban humor. Unable to answer his arguments, they nevertheless growled most terribly. It was indeed piteous to see the wounded birds flutter as they were repeatedly struck buy the sharp arrows from the bow of this skillful marksman. The speech of Mr. Clymer on this occasion was indeed a masterly effort, and created a most profound sensation. That of Mr. Wallace, who followed in the evening, was scarcely less powerful. It was probably owing to the effect of these tow great speeches, more than to anything else, that alarmed the radicals and caused them to back down by sending their resolution back to the committee. But it is too late; the issue has been made, clearly and distinctly, and the pole of Pennsylvania will hold them responsible at the next election for the degrading doctrine of negro suffrage and negro equality, so boldly avowed and enunciated by them in this discussion.

The approaching contest for Governor is beginning to loom up. Prominent politicians of both parties now here are busy laying their ropes for the March Conventions. On the Democratic side the contest seems to be narrowing down to Clymer and Cass, with the chances in favor of Clymer. On the Republican side the most prominent candidates are Geary, Morehead and Ketchum. Cameron is said to be in favor of Geary. If that be so, he'll win. Cessna seems to be literally without friends. Poor "Dad!"

The bill for the relief of Chambersburg was reported by the committee on Wednesday, with a favorable recommendation. The chances seem to be in favor of its passage as reported, but it might still be unsafe yet to make a positive prediction to that effect. The only difficulty, if any exists, is in the House. The Senate is said to be all right on the question. It is expected to come up regularly on the calendar about Thursday of next week, when its strength can be more certainly ascertained.

Both Houses adjourned over yesterday, the House untill Monday evening and the senate untill Tuesday morning.

BRUTUS.

To the Honorable the Speaker and Members of the Senate of Pennsylvania:

The undersigned respectfully begs leave to present the following minority report from the committee of the Senate elected to try the contested election case form the Nineteenth Senatorial District, between Calvin M. Duncan, the sitting member, and David McConaughy the contestant.

The petition complaining of an undue election and false return of Calvin M. Duncan, contained fifteen distinct averments. The first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth alleged about fifty votes to have been cast for Mr. Duncan which were illegal on account of the non-residence, non-assessment, and alienage of the voters. The eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh and twelfth averments of the petition complained of one hundred and forty-one votes cast for the sitting member, which were illegal under the provisions of the act of Congress, approved the 3rd day of March, 1865, entitled "An act to amend the several acts heretofore passed to provide for the enrolling and calling out of the nation forces and for other purposes."

The answer of Mr. Duncan denied and traversed the allegations contained in the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth averments of the complaint, and demurred to the eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh and twelfth averments. He also set forth in his answer over eighty illegal votes of non-residents, non-taxpayers and aliens which had been cast and counted for Mr. McConaughy. In addition to this he alleged that over fifty deserters had cast their ballots for the contestant. In order to avoid a tedious and protracted investigation into questions of fact by the committee, Mr. Duncan agreed to rest his right to the seat entirely upon the legality of the "deserter vote," as it was called. This contestant, with apparently great reluctance, and after a full day's deliberation, accepted the proposition, and in that shape, the case came before the committee.

There were three distinct classes of persons who were charged by complaint to have been disfranchised by the act of Congress of the third day of March, 1865. 1st. Those persons who had gone beyond the jurisdiction of the provost martial of the 16th district, or beyond the limits of the United States, to avoid a draft duly ordered; and this class is said to contain forty-eight votes. 2d. Those who having been actually mustered into the military therefore; and this class was alleged to contain twenty-one votes. 3d. Those who having been duly drafted into the military service of the United states, had neglected or refused to report to be mustered into the army; and this class is alleged to contain seventy-two votes. There was no allegation in the complaint that the forty-eight persons who had gone beyond the jurisdiction of the said provost martial, or beyond the limits of the United States, had done so after the passage of the act of Congress. Indeed it could not be pretended with any degree of condor that they did so, because it was well known that no draft was ordered by the President of the United States after that date.. An examination of the language of the act of Congress will satisfy every intelligent mind that it is plainly and undoubtedly prospective, so far as it speaks of this class of offenders. Its words are: "And all persons who shall hereafter desert the military or naval service, and all persons, who being duly enrolled, shall depart the jurisdiction of a district in which he is enrolled, or go beyond the limits of the United States with intent to avoid any draft into the military or naval service duly ordered, shall be liable to the penalties of this section." It is manifest from this language that Congress did not intend to disfranchise those persons who had departed from the districts in which they were enrolled prior to the 3d of March, 1865. They could not have chosen more distinct or unequivocal words to make the act prospective. This class of voters were therefore qualified electors within the meaning of Congress, and the contestant made but a feeble attempt at denying the legality of their ballots.

In regard to the twenty-one persons who were alleged in the petition to have been in actual military service and to have deserted therefrom, it is not worth while to discuss the legality of those votes, because of Mr. Duncan's majority, numbering twenty-five, and this class numbering only twenty-one, these ballots, even if illegal, did not and could not change the result of the election.

The question, therefore, which the undersigned proposes to discuss, is narrowed down tot he simple proposition--whether persons who were duly drafted into the military service of the United States, and failed to report to he provost material, are disfranchised by the act of Congress. The petitioner alleged that there were seventy-two such persons who had voted for Mr. Duncan in the counties of Adams and Franklin. The answer admitted that seventy-two persons had voted for Mr. Duncan, and that prior to the day of election and before the passage of the act of Congress, they had been duly drafted into the military service and had failed to repot to the provost material, and that upon the records of his office they were set down as deserters. But the answer wholly denied that they thereby became disqualified to to exercise the right of suffrage in Pennsylvaniy.

The undersigned believes the legal position of the answer in this behalf to be well sustained for the following reasons:

1st. it is incompetent for Congress, under the Federal Constitution, to impart, either directly or indirectly, the right of suffrage in the State.

2d. The act of Congress is ex post facto, and therefore violates the Federal Constitution.

3d. The act proposes to inflict and impose pains and penalties upon offenders before and without a trial and conviction by due process of law, and therefore is in direct antagonism to the "bill of rights."

Time will not allow a full discussion of these positions, but in order to put the case fairly on the record the undersigned, will give his reasons briefly in support of each of these propositions.

No one will doubt that before the Federal Constitution was adopted and the Union was formed, all governmental power was in the States. By the adoption of the Constitution a division was made of this power and certain portions of it were delegated to the United States, the residuum remaining in the States, except so far as it was extinguished by express prohibitions upon the States. Thus the Constitution of the United States declares: "Powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people?" We have thus the Constitutional fact, that States are to exist concurrently with the Federal Government, having certain powers beyond the control of the United States, for they or the people are expressly declared to the possessed of all powers not delegated to the Federal Government, or expressly prohibited to them. It will also be admitted, that whilst the United States are absolutelysoverign over all subjects delegated to them, yet their jurisdiction being derivative, is necessarily limited. We have then these two constitutional facts: 1st. States are to exist concurrently with the United States, having a class of subjects exclusively within their dominionand beyond the reach of Federal power.

Second. The Federal Government is to exist concurrently with the States having an absolute and sovereign control over all matters delegated to it.

The theory of our Government is imperium in imperio.

[The report then proceeds to cite the powers of Congress, quoting form the Constitution.]

This is the chart of powers granted by the States to the Federal Government, and besides those therein enumerated, and undersigned knows of no others.

[The report then cites the prohibitions upon the States.]

It will thus be observed that outside and beyond the powers delegated by the Federal Government at prohibited to the States, there is a large class of subjects which relate to the domestic economy and policy of the people, over which the States are expressly admitted, by the Constitution of the United States, to have absolute jurisdiction and complete control. In searching for the domains Federal and State jurisdiction respectively, we must not forget the rules of interpretation, which have been applied by all distinguished jurists to the Federal and State Constitutions.

[The report then defines the relative powers of the State and Federal legislatures, confining the regulation of the right of suffrage to the State authorities alone, and it belongs exclusively to the State legislation.] This right varies in almost all the States, and yet who ever supposed that Congress would interfere to change the rile adopted by the people in regard to it? Why, then, attempt to control it here?

We know that in these latter days an opinion has grown up that Congress have the right to prescribe the qualifications of the electors in the seceded States. But this notion is based solely upon the dogma that these States are out of the Union, and are to be treated as conquered provinces. The very basis of this doctrine is pregnant with the affirmation that it has no existence in or application to a State that never seceded. Is there any one so bold as to assert that Congress has the constitutional power to declare that non but negroes shall be allowed to vote in Pennsylvania, or that no white man shall be allowed to vote here until he has attained the age of 30 years?

President Johnson has recently, on more than one occasion, declared, in most emphatic terms, that the whole theory of our government surrenders this entire object of right of suffrage to the exclusive and absolute control of the States. No statesman of any character has ever questioned it since the earlier days of the Republic.

The report pronounces the act of Congress disfranchising deserters as in the nature of a bill of attainder or an ex post facto law, which is prohibited by the Constitution, because it changes the punishment and inflicts a greater one than the law annexed to the crime when committed, alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less or different testimony than the law required at the time of the commission of the offence. The act itself declares "that in addition to the other lawful penalties of the crime of desertion from the military or naval service," &c.

Article 5 of the amendments to the Constitution declares that "no person shall be held to answer for a capital or infamous crime unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia when in actual service in time of war or public danger. Nor shall any person be subject, for the same offence, to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled, in any criminal case, to be a witness against himself; nor be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law."

[The report also quotes the 6th article.]

Our forefathers regarded these provisions as important bulwarks against the oppression of power, and therefore incorporated them into the organic law. It was among the worst acts of infamy of the last Congress to pass a law which totally tore down and scattered to the winds all these safeguards of life, liberty and property. It is contended, in this case, that congress meant that the failure of a drafted man to obey a drat notice and report to a provost marshal, was and shall be disfranchised in consequence thereof, before and without the ascertainment of his guild by any court, civil or military. If such be the true construction of the act, (and we confess it looks as though it were,) then the stamp act and the duty upon tea which brought on the American revolution were respectable enactments in comparison with this specimen of the enlightened jurisprudence of the last Congress. * * * * * * * * * * * *

Upon the argument of the case before the committee, the counsel for the sitting member read a clear and forcible opinion of Judge King, recently delivered in the contested election case for District Attorney in Franklin county, in which exactly the same questions were raised and decided. The high legal attainments, pure character and fervent loyalty of Judge King, entitles his opinion to great weight and respect. He held that deserters could not be disfranchised under the act of Congress, until they had been tried and convicted by due process of law.

In the committee, the counsel for the sitting member proposed to rest this question with the Attorney General of the State; which was not allowed.

If additional reasons were needed to convince the undersigned that he was right in not signing the majority report, they are to be found in the facts; 1st, That after the sitting member had proposed to rest the whole case upon the legality of the "deserter vote," the contestant at first wholly refused to accept the issue thus tendered; and it was only after twenty-four hours of deliberation that he felt safe in trusting his own legal question to a committee composed of six member belonging to his party. 2d, Although the sitting member repeatedly declared his willingness to have the committee take the opinion of the Attorney General, yet the contestant has often, by his frequent silence, admitted that he was afraid of the light that great lawyer might cast upon the case.

It will be observed that in the foregoing report the undersigned has quoted largely from the Constitution of the United States. His only excuse for doing so is, that in these latter days that sacred instrument has been almost worn away by the fierce and ceaseless attritions of newly discovered war powers and fine spun pleas of military necessity. The undersigned is not ashamed of the Constitution of his country; for it is a power with truth for the redemption and salvation of the oppressed and enslaved citizens from the usurpations of tyranny and the chains of fanaticism.

Respectfully submitted by

DAVID B. MONTGOMERY.