We publish in another column a letter from our correapondent
4IA Yankee," which is valuable in its way, but seems to us made up chiefly of ipse dixits without reasons assigned. Our corre- spondent states categorically that the President will never be im- peached, that impartial suffrage as between persons of different race will never be the law of the Northern States, that the great Executive officers will always be held independent of the Legisla- ture, &c., &c. Our correspondent may be right, but his letter does not add anything to the reasons for anticipating that be will be right. It is quite certain, as regards the Presidential preroga- tives, that a great part of the legislation of last session was intended to curtail and over-rule some of the President's most important functions. For example, the power of removing the General commanding the United States' Armies, and other officers, without the assent of Congress, was denied to the President, who is by the Constitution Commander-in-Chief. Our correspondent's -second sight discovers that all these tokens mean nothing. It may be so, but what is to convince us of the infallibility of our cor- respondent's second sight?
Previous page
