Staunton Spectator

Matters are fast tending to an issue at Washington. The President is determined to stand by the Constitution and the Radicals are equally determined to disregard it. A collision, therefore, between the Executive and Congress seems imminent -- one or the other must back down, or a fearful contest must ensue. The President cannot back down. His oath of the office forbids it. He has sworn to support the Constitution, and all his measures, heretofore, have been directed to that end.

On the other hand, the Radicals are obstinate and ferocious and fatally bent on mischief.

We must confess we can see the peaceful solution of the difficulty. Slighter disagreements have, in other countries, been referred to the arbitrament of the sword.

How do matters now stand? The President assume -- and properly assumes -- that the Southern States did not succeed in getting out of the Union. They made the attempts, but failed. Their rights, as members of the Union, were suspended, but not annihilated. When they conform to the coalitions required of them, they are entitled to be restored to all their rights as co-equal States.

This they have, in good faith, done, and the President, carrying out the pledges given both by Mr. Lincoln and himself, will shortly issue his proclamation declaring that the rebellion is over the Union restored -- and that the Southern States are entitled to all their rights and duties as co-States, including the right to be represented in Congress.

The Radicals deny the President's theory.--They say that the Southern States were out of the Union, and have been conquered. That they now stand as conquered provinces, with no constitutional rights, and subject to such terms sa the dominant party may impose of them.

It is easy to see the motive which prompts the Radicals to falsify their own declarations, and assume a position so much at war with the Constitution, with justice and with common sense.

Their object is to perpetuate their own power. They wish to retain a two-thirds majority in Congress so as to override the action of the President, and, if need be, to override the President himself. They are unwilling to let Southern Representatives into Congress because they know that Southern members would stand by the President and frustrate their unhallowed and revolutionary plans.

What is to be the next act in the grand drama? Time only can disclose the answer to this question.

Suppose the President issues his proclamation declaring all the States in the Union and entitled to representation in Congress -- what next?

Congress will refuse to admit them. Will it not then be the duty of the President to refuse to acknowledge the authority of this "rump parliament," which persists in disregarding the Constitution, by excluding men having as good a right as themselves to seats in Congress?

The Constitution provides for representation of all the States. Is Congress properly organized until it yields obedience to this provision of the Constitution?

What is rebellion but resistance to the Constitution, and laws of the U. S. passed in pursuance thereof? Rebellion may be made by Congress as well as by common people.

One of the highest duties of the President is to suppress unjustifiable rebellion, come from what quarter it may.

He has fulfilled what he conceived to be his duty in regard to the Southern States. Their rebellion has been put down.

Is he now to stand by, and see rebellion raise its head in other quarters, without seeking to crush it? We think not. We think it is his duty to suppress unjustifiable rebellion, come from what quarter it may, and to employ such agencies as are necessary to accomplish the end.

Suppose this "rump-parliament" were, in a moment of reckless desperation, to seek to impeach, and remove the President? By their constitutional exclusion of Southern members, they may have the numerical strength to do it. Would the President fulfill his duty to the country, by standing by, passively, and allowing himself to be made the victims of Danton, Marat and Robespierre -- re-incarnated in the persons of Stevens, Sumner and Howe?

We think not. We think it is his duty to protect himself, as the embodiment of the Executive government.

If no milder means will avail, the Constitution gives him, as commander-in-chief, the right to employ the military power to save the Constitution and preserve the Union.

Possibly if some of the Congressional rebels were indulged with quarter, free of charge, in the case-mates of Fortress Monroe, their health and possibly their manners, might be benefitted. This may be a new phase of the "Monroe doctrine," but we think it would prove more wholesome to the body politic than the original pronunciamento.

We are for equal and impartial justice. Rebellion has been whipped out of us of the South by force of arms. We have knocked under.--We have thrown secession and rebellion to the winds. We recognize our duty and allegiance to the government of the U. S. But we wish the same measure of compulsion -- the same salutary discipline extended to other offenders.--We are for putting down rebellion come from what source it may, and show itself in what form it may. The rebellion of 1861 was hatched in Congress. By delaying the suppression too long, time was given for the brood to spread itself over the whole South. President Johnson had better profit by experience and crush this second rebellion in the nest.