THE VETO MESSAGE.

Hawke's Bay Times, Volume 7, Issue 382, 4 June 1866, Page 2

THE VETO MESSAGE.

(From tiio Dally. Alta California, Maroli 15.) Three weeks before the message of President Johnson, vetoing the Freed men’s Bureau Dill, reached us by mail, the facts of its delivery and of the great indignation against it among the majority of Congress were an nouiiced by telegraph. One or two brief extracts from the message, and others from various newspaper an ides, praising or condemning it, were transmitted by the wires ; and upon that basis that people of California were .called upon to lake sides and determine whether they were for or against the Admi niiiraiiiai. Many expi essed very decided opinions ; but we trust that such expressions will rot prevent a careful and impartial study of the complete message, which was published in the Alta of Tuesday morning. If any of our subscribers has neglected to read it, we beg him to read it now; if he bus read it once, he will lose nothing by reading it again. It is a document eminently worthy of stud ; worthy btcause of the excitement which it lias made; because of the possibility that it will serve as a basis for new political organisations ; because of the ability with which it is written ; and because of the source whence it comes—that is, the President and the whole of his Cabinet. The tone is serious, the matter suggestive, the questions treated ve*y important, the argument impressive, the questions treated very important, the argument impressive, and the style clear, logical, and mrcible. Humor has attributed t;,e nies.sego to the pen of Wui, 11. Seward, who, iy universal admission is one.of the greatest of political writers, and although we do not recognise his style, it would certainly do hint no discredit. If it conits from the pen of Andrew Johnson, he will take a higher stand than he has hitherto attained in general reput alien, 'We speak now of the message as a piece of literary and legal composition. Whatever else may be said against it, nobody can deity that it puts the President’s position in the most favorable light, and sustains it by the best possible arguments and illustrations.

When we turn our attention from the form to the substance, from the argument to the conclusion, front the motive of decision to the matter decided, we do' not see how the majority of the Union party can find fault with it, much loss how they could think of declaring the President an apostate from the platform on which he was elected and a traitor to the party which elected him. Those who denounce the President show the weakness of their side by avoiding the discussion of the main point at issue—the merits of the Ereedmeu’s Bureau Bill. Whatever secondary grounds of attack have-been formed, that was the cause of the grand outburst of indignation among the radicals. They insisted upon the bill, and their chief grievance against Johnson was the fact of the veto, not the form of the message. Let us recapitulate briefly the President’s objection to the Freedmen’s Bureau Bill. It provides for trying by military courts, without judge, jury, or fixed rules of evidence, all persons accused of depriving a freedman cf any of his “civil rights or immunities,” which rights or immunities are not defined.. This provision is a violation of the Constitution, which promises a jury and a trial before a civil court in all cases, except in the army or in war time. These military courts would also have jurisdiction over contracts. Let us imagine a military court in every township.) in California, with a lieutenant for a Judge, a jt ur.g man unknown to the people, ami ignorant of the law. Such a man might do credit to. the country by leading a tfiasge on the battle-field, and yet be utterly unfit to pieside in a court of justice. It is well known that a great portion cf our lieutenant, are very young men. The salary would not be sufficient to attract lawyers, nor would the duties be agreeable to their tastes or notions. These military judges would hold their office and their pay at the tnercy cf the President, and they could nut

be independent. Many of them would, as a matter of course, be far more anxious for his favor than for the administration of Justice. If we could not want such Judges in California we should not force them, on the people of the South.

But it is said that the late rebels are oppressing, and will continue to oppress, the freedmen. In this we can only reply, that it is not in the power of the Federal Government to prevent every kind of injustice. Its powers are confined by the Constitution within a narrow limit; and the spirit of constitutional liberty and the only safety for a constitutional Government consists in the strict adherence to the fundamental law. If Congress is to protect and support the oppressed and impoverished black men. in the South, why should they not protect and support poor women throughout the country, the" paupers in New York, the factory laborers in Massachussets, or the unfortunate Chinamen in California ? Justice, humanity, and charily may demand much which Congress cannot grant. The freedmen must depend mainly for their protection on their own right arms. They can fight in self-defence ; they work for their support; they can now travel from State to State. It is now a year since the war closed; the present Freedmen’s Bureau will continue in existence another year. Is not twofyears’ time enough to enable the freedmen to get a' start in sujjporting themselves ? 'Why should not these men, who have been bred to labor, and who are the only laborers in a country full of work, be able to support themselves as well as the poor whites of the South ? When we remember the history of Jamaica we perceive that our country may suffer as much from the encouragement of idle habits among the colored men, as from the injustice of the whites. The President takes pains to declare that he is not an enemy of the freed men ; on the contrary, he has “ the strongest desire” to secure them “in the enjoyment of their freedom and properly, and their entire independence and equality in making contracts.” The tenor of his message is not inconsistent with this declaration. He does not object to the purpose of the bill, but to the means which it employs. Ho is unwilling to add '2 3,000,000 dollars per annum to the annual expense of the Government by creating .unconstitutional tribunals, and placing in the hands of the President a patronage and a power greater than which bus ever been eivjvyt d by that officer in time of peace. So far as the Freedmen’s Bureau Bill is- concerned we heartily rejoice in its defeat, and we tell the Radicals that if they insist on fighting the battle at the polls on that issue, they may as well order their political coffins.