ernment has no power to coerce a state, because by the eleventh amendment of the Constitution of the United States, it is expressly provided that you cannot even put one of those States before the courts of the country as a party. As a State, the Federal Government has no power to coerce it; but each State was a party to the compact to which it agreed with the other States, and this government has the right to pass laws, and to enforce those laws on individuals, and it has the right and the power, not to coerce a State, but to enforce and execute the law upon individuals within the limits of a State.”

This was the view held by Hon. John A. Logan, and by many who even now are members of the Republican party, and why should it be strange that Democrats announced those doctrines?

They did not deny the duty and power of the Federal Government to enforce its laws at the point of the bayonet, if resisted.

President Buchanan, in his message to Congress, on January 8th, A. D. 1861, says:

"The dangerous and hostile attitude of the States toward each other, has already far transcended and cast in the shade the ordinary executive duties, already provided for by law, and has assumed such vast and alarming proportions as to place the subject entirely beyond executive control. The fact cannot be disguised that we are in the midst of a great revolution. In all its various bearings, therefore, I commend the question to Congress, as the only

The

human tribunal, under Providence, possessing the power to meet the existing emergency. To them, exclusively belongs the power to declare war, or to authorize the employment of the military force, in all cases contemplated by the Constitution." Congress might then have taken action. Republican party had the power in both branches of Congress, by reason of the secession of Southern Senators, who left the Republicans in control of the Senate, and they had held the House of Representatives before that event occurred. No person ever doubted the right and duty of Congress to pass laws to enable the President to defend the Union against armed rebellion.

At this time the question of coercion had already passed away. The Southern States had seceded and taken forcible possession of public property, and had, themselves, become the assailants. To this Congress the President appealed to decide the question; but though the Republicans were in power in both branches, Congress shrank from its duty. It might have been commendable had it desired to prevent the effusion of fraternal blood, and restore the Union. Perhaps that might have been their object; still the duty of the hour confronted it, and they shrunk from it. Had it promptly passed the bill to enable the President to call forth the militia, or to accept the services of volunteers, as Lincoln did when Congress was not in session, it might complain; but it failed to do so, and is estopped

from charging others with a want of vigor in this respect.

Why, then, charge Democrats with dereliction of duty, when its own chosen party legislative power was then assembled, and failed to do that with which they would now blame the Democracy. It was his duty to enforce the laws-theirs to pass them! Then how absurd to blame others for that which they were guilty of themselves.

This, then, is a brief allusion to the subject of coercion, and the exercise of military power to suppress the rebellion, and there is nothing in it that any Democrat need blush to acknowledge. These charges are only made to divert the mind of the voter from the real questions at issue between the parties, and can furnish no reason whatever, why a man should not be a Democrat after twenty years have passed away, and almost a new generation has come upon the stage of action.

These sound views of the Constitution, and convictions of patriotic duty in those trying days of our national peril, should induce men to rally under the flag of Democracy, and place in power those who have been true to the great principles of free institutions, upon which our government is founded. Men are Democrats because they believe this to be their duty.

CHAPTER XIII.

CARDINAL DOCTRINES OF DEMOCRACY.

THE RIGHT OF PETITION-SHOULD BE JUDICIOUSLY USED-NOT TO BE CONFOUNDED WITH PETITIONS FOR PARDONS--OR FROM THE ARMY-OR THREATS FROM ANGRY MOBS-PUBLIC MEETINGS AND ASSOCIATIONS-THE RIGHT OF PUBLIC MEETING AND ASSOCIATION MUST BE GUARDED-POLITICAL CLUBS OF FRANCE -THE SUPREMACY OF THE LAW-EVERY CITIZEN SUBJECT TO THE LAW AND ONLY TO THE LAW-MARTIAL LAW-"HABEAS CORPUS"-MILITARY SUBSERVIENT TO CIVIL LAW-THE WAR POWER-LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE.

THE Right of Petition for a redress of grievances, is a right conceded and sanctioned by Democratic principles. That this right has been abused is no argument against its proper use. When it is made the means of insulting legislative bodies, and of merely consuming much valuable time, and merely for political effect, it is not to be commended. Still it may correct many wrongs, and the foundation upon which the right rests is and must ever remain inviolate. The people deprived of this right, would immediately degrade the real sovereign-the people in the eyes of the servant-the representative. It is as necessary a right as that of free speech or a free press. It is a privilege not denied by Deity itself,

and is a right inherent in the people, or wherever the relation of inferior to superior in power exists. How much more proper is it, where the real sovereign has entrusted his authority, for a brief season, to his chosen representative. To petition, in the Democratic sense of the word, is, simply directing those in power, in what their constituents conceive to be, the discharge of their duties. When consid

ered however, in the light of a possibility, that the servant has taken the oath of office, and his supposed superior facility for acquiring necessary information, and his relations to his oath of office, where required to bind his conscience as such, it is of doubtful utility. It is always commendable when resorted to for a redress of grievances, and in such instance is, in accordance with the highest conception of free government. The right of peti

tion here spoken of is, that right of a citizen to petition the law-making power for a redress of his grievances, in cases where he conceives it is his duty to make them known to those who are entrusted for the time being, with the exercise of this proportion of the legislative power. It must not be confounded with that of merely petitioning, by force of numbers, to the executive in case of pardons, which is, in many instances, rather the subversion of the wholesome execution of the law. So also petitions by the army are not favored in free governments. So carefully is this right, and prerogative of the legislator and legislative bodies guarded, that