South could never be conquered-never. And not that only, but I was satisfied-and you of the abolition party have now proved it to the world-that the secret but real purpose of the war was to abolish slavery in the States. In any event, I did not doubt that whatever might be the momentary impulses of those in power, and whatever pledges they might make in the midst of the fury for the Constitution, the Union, and the flag, yet the natural and inexorable logic of revolutions would, sooner or later, drive them into that policy, and with it to its final but inevitable result, the change of our present democratical form of government into an imperial despotism.

"These were my convictions on the 14th of April. Had I changed them on the 15th, when I read the President's proclamation, and become convinced that I had been wrong all my life, and that all history was a fable, and all human nature false in its development from the beginning of time, I would have changed my public conduct also. But my convictions did not change. I thought that if war was disunion on the 14th of April, it was equally disunion on the 15th, and at all times. Believing this, I could not, as an honest man, a Union man, and a patriot, lend an active support to the war; and I did not. I had rather my right arm were plucked from its socket, and cast into eternal burnings, than, with my convictions, to have thus defiled my soul with the guilt of moral perjury. Sir, I was not taught in that school which proclaims that all is fair in polities.' I loathe, abhor, and detest the execrable maxim. I stamp upon it. No state can endure a single generation whose public men practise it. Whoever teaches it is a corrupter of youth. What we most want in these times, and at all times, is honest and independent public men. That man who is dishonest in politics is not honest, at heart, in any thing; and sometimes moral cowardice is dishonesty. Do right; and trust to God, and Truth, and the People. Perish office, perish honors, perish life itself; but do the thing that is right, and do it like a man. I did it. Certainly, sir, I could not doubt what he must suffer who dare defy the opinions and the passions, not to say the madness, of twenty millions of people. Had I not read history? Did I not know human nature? But I appealed to TIME, and right nobly hath the Avenger answered me.

"I did not support the war; and to-day I bless God that not the smell of so much as one drop of its blood is upon my garments. Sir, I censure no brave man who rushed patriotically into this war; neither will I quarrel with any one, here or elsewhere, who gave to it an honest support. Had their convictions been mine, I, too, would doubtless have done as they did. With my convictions I could not. "But I was a Representative. War existed by whose act no matter-not mine. The President, the Senate, the House, and the country, all said that there should be war

war for the Union; a union of consent and good will. Our Southern brethren were to be whipped back into love and fellowship at the point of the bayonet. Oh, monstrous delusion! I can comprehend a war to compel a people to accept a master; to change a form of government; to give up territory; to abolish a domestic institution-in short, a war of conquest and subjugation; but a war for Union! Was the Union thus made? Was it ever thus preserved? Sir, history will record that after nearly six thousand years of folly and wickedness in every form and administration of government, theocratic, democratic, monarchic, oligarchic, despotic, and mixed, it was reserved to American statesmanship in the nineteenth century of the Christian era to try the grand experiment, on a scale the most costly and gigantic in its proportions, of creating love by force, and developing fraternal affection by war; and history will record, too, on the same page, the utter, disastrous, and most bloody failure of the experiment.

"But to return: the country was at war; and I belonged to that school of politics which teaches that when we are at war, the Government-I do not mean the executive alone, but the Government-is entitled to demand and have, without resistance, such number of men, and such amount of money and supplies generally, as may be necessary for the war, until an appeal can be had to the people. Before that tribunal alone, in the first instance, must the question of the continuance of the war be tried. This was Mr. Calhoun's opinion, and he laid it down very broadly and strongly, in a speech on the Loan bill, in 1841. Speaking of supplies, he said:

I hold that there is a distinction in this respect be tween a state of peace and war. In the latter, the right of withholding supplies ought ever to be held subordi nate to the energetic and successful prosecution of the war. I go farther, and regard the withholding supplies, with a view of forcing the country into a dishonorable peace, as not only to be what it has been called, moral treason, but very little short of actual treason itself.

"Upon this principle, sir, he acted afterward in the Mexican war. Speaking of that war in 1847, he said:

Every senator knows that I was opposed to the war; but none knows but myself the depth of that opposi tion. With my conception of its character and conse

quences, it was impossible for me to vote for it.

"And again, in 1848:

But, after war was declared, by authority of the Government, I acquiesced in what I could not prevent, and felt it to be my duty to limit my efforts to give such what it was impossible for me to arrest: and I then direction to the war as would, as far as possible, prevent the evils and dangers with which it threatened

the country and its institutions.

"Sir, I adopt all this as my own position and my defence; though, perhaps, in a civil war, I might fairly go farther in opposition. I could not, with my convictions, vote men and money for this war, and I would not, as a representative, vote against them. I meant that, without op

voice, who legislate for them, who declare the popular will, which, as our ancestors maintained, is to them the voice of God, that they submit to an enactment, passed by their rep resentatives, commencing be it enacted," as the Israelites of old would submit to a "thus saith the Lord." But, sir, when a thing is assumed to be done by the order of any one individual, the Secretary of War or the President, their jealousy of despotic power exercised by an individual is such, that although he may be acting within his clear constitutional power, the people, perhaps, are less likely to acquiesce in an order of the War Department or an order of the President than they are to acquiesce in an enactment of Congress."

Mr. Bayard, of Delaware, opposed the delegation of power to the President, thus: “I suppose this bill does give the power if you can delegate it in this way. If the power exists, certainly those who claim that the power exists in the executive are only making a reflection upon him if they undertake to grant him the power. I suppose this bill does give the power if you can grant it to him. Then comes this objection: can you delegate the legislative authority of this nation to the executive, to be determined upon his discretion and not upon yours? Let those who believe that the power to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is vested in the legislavested in the legislative power reconcile it to themselves, if they can, that they can dispense with their own judgment as to whether the public safety requires that the writ should be suspended, and can delegate that power of legislation, founded on an act of high discretion, to the executive of the nation. Why, sir, you might just as well delegate to him the power to make any appropriations out of the Treasury he saw fit. You might as well delegate to him all your powers of legislation and abdicate your seats in Congress, and do what this and other bills you have passed will do-create a single despotic government in this country. Do it, and in terms you abandon legislation." Mr. Powell, of Kentucky, said: "Of the two propositions, I favor the one of the senator from Virginia, and I will assign to the Senate very briefly the reasons why I prefer the proposition of the senator from Virginia. The proposition of the senator from Virginia requires that no citizen of the United States during the existence of these troubles shall be arrested except upon oath or affirmation of a loyal citizen of the United States. It further requires that any citizen who may be deprived of his liberty by being arrested shall have the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, in order to have the facts concerning the arrests judicially investigated. The proposition of the senator from Illinois is widely different. The amendment proposed by the senator from Illinois, which is offered in lieu of the original bill, authorizes the President of the United States to suspend the writ of habeas corpus in

all cases of political offences. I would ask the learned senator to define what he calls a political offence. There is no definition. You leave it to the discretion of the executive to say what a political offence is. We know that since these unhappy difficulties have existed in this country, persons have been seized in every part of the country upon charge of political offences, and that those offences have been, perhaps, as variant as the names of the persons seized."

Mr. Trumbull, of Illinois, replied: "The senator from Kentucky objects that the bill declares that the President of the United States shall have authority by proclamation to suspend the 'privileges of the writ of habeas corpus in all cases of political offences.' He says the term 'political offences' is not a technical term, it has no fixed and definite meaning, and that it is uncertain what it does mean; and he asks, who is to decide what is meant by 'political offences? Are you to leave it to the President to decide at his discretion? And he thinks this is monstrous. Now, I will compromise with the senator from Kentucky, who is in favor of compromise, and I will strike out of the bill the words, in all cases of political offences,' and then the President will be authorized to suspend the writ of habeas corpus whenever, in his judgment, the public safety requires it during this rebellion, everywhere

and for all offences."

After a considerable debate on political issues, the amendment was adopted, and the bill passed as follows:

YEAS--Messrs. Anthony, Chandler, Clark, Collamer, Doolittle, Fessenden, Foot, Foster, Grimes, Harlan, Harris, Hicks, Howe, King, Lane of Kansas, Morrill, Pomeroy, Sumner, Ten Eyck, Trumbull, Wade, Wilkinson, Wilmot, and Wilson of Massachusets-24.

NAYS-Messrs. Carlile, Henderson, Kennedy, Lane of Indiana, Latham, Powell, Rice, Richardson, Saulsbury, Turpie, Wall, Willey, and Wilson of Missouri

-13.

This bill was reported to the House, and finally laid aside, as having been provided for by the report of the Committee on Conference, above stated, which had been adopted.

In the Senate, on the 22d of December, Mr. Saulsbury offered the following resolution:

Resolved, That the Secretary of War be, and is hereby directed to inform the Senate whether armed soldiers were sent into the State of Delaware, to be present at the polls on the 4th day of November last, the day of general election in said State; and if so, by whose orders, upon whose application, the necessity, if any, for their being so sent, for what purpose they were sent, to what places by name they were sent, how many were sent, how many to each of such places, the names of the regiments or companies sent, the names of the officers commanding such regiments and companies; and whether any, and, if so, how many provost marshals were or have been appointed, and at what places, in said State, with their names, the neces sity, if any, for their appointment, and the powers conferred upon them; and that he communicate to the Senate all papers and orders in his Department relating to the sending of such soldiers into said State.

Mr. Saulsbury, of Delaware, said: "Sir, in a State where everything was perfectly calm and quiet, where there had been no attempt since the commencement of this revolution to take sides with the States in revolt, military were sent on the day of the general election to every voting place in the two lower counties of that State except two. I state to the Senate and to the country what I know to be true, and what I can prove, that peaceable citizens were arrested on the day of the election, and incarcerated in the common jail of the county, at one place; that at another voting place, peaceable citizens, who were making no disturbance, doing nothing illegal or improper, were arrested and placed in confinement in a room; that at another place, peaceable citizens, before they arrived on the ground, before they had done or said anything on the election ground, were taken from their wagons and fastened up in a house, and some of them deprived of their right to vote. I state another fact which can be proved: at another voting place, persons were intimidated from voting, and others were assaulted. At some voting places the inspectors of the election were compelled to take what they believed to be illegal votes; at other voting places, persons having a clear legal right to vote were prevented from voting by the military.

"Now, sir, I do not say that the General Government desires this to be done. Gen. Wool left his headquarters, went to the town of Seaford, in my State, and stayed there until after the election. I believe, as far as Gen. Wool was concerned, and as far as the election was concerned at that place, there was very little wrong done-nothing further than what would be the natural effect of having soldiers at a poll, the natural intimidation which it occasioned. I will state also that where there were regular soldiers, under officers of character, there was not generally so much wrong done as at other places. But, sir, where Maryland home guards were stationed, outrages of a gross character were committed upon our citizens. I want to know-and that is the object of this resolution what were the reasons for the sending of these men into the State of Delaware; what representations have been made to the General Government."

Mr. Bayard, of Delaware, said: "I hope the resolution will be adopted. I do not desire to debate it; but I desire the information. I think we are entitled to it. The Government of the United States having sent into the State of Delaware, under the command of a major-general of the army of the United States, some three thousand troops, on the day before the election, and distributed them throughout the State-a State which has at no time whatever, either by her position, her course of conduct, or the action of her people, offered any resistance to the authority of the United States-we have a right to know the reasons for such actions. It may be, and probably it will be

shown, that some of our own citizens, in the heat of political excitement and partisan resentment, have made improper, erroneous, and false statements to the Secretary of War. If that is so, we have a right to know it. We have a right to know who those recreant sons of Delaware are. The people of Delaware have a right to know who it was that thus attempted to cause civil strife and military rule to be established in the State."

Mr. Sumner, of Massachusetts: "I think it were better that the resolution should be passed over; and I therefore move that it lie upon the table." Mr. Anthony, of Rhode Island, said: "Will the senator from Massachusetts withdraw that motion for a moment? I was going to suggest that the resolution be referred to the Committee on Military Affairs."

Mr. Sumner: "I have no objection to that." Mr. Anthony: "I have no objection at all to the information asked for being obtained; I desire that it should be laid before the country; but I think the resolution is not expressed in such felicitous language as the senator from Delaware usually employs. It seems to charge all the matter that is to be inquired into upon the Secretary of War, and the particularity of the inquiries seems to imply that unless he is pinned down to the exact point, he is going to evade the inquiry. I do not think it is respectful or proper. I would prefer that a resolution should be offered inquiring generally into the matter; and if the Secretary should not reply fully, then we should know, what the resolution now seems to assume, that he does not mean to answer the inquiry?"

Mr. Saulsbury, in reply, said: "Mr. President, I offer this resolution asking information of the Secretary of War. The proposition now is to refer a resolution asking for information from the Secretary of War to the Committee on Military Affairs. Can the Committee on Military Affairs give the information? How can you refer a resolution of inquiry, directed to the Secretary of War, to the Committee on Military Affairs? It is not to be supposed that they are the persons who have sent soldiers into the State of Delaware. I would prefer, and I say so frankly to the Senate, if they think we ought not to be furnished with this information, that they meet the question fairly and vote the resolution down."

Mr. Grimes, of Iowa, followed, saying: "It seems to me that a part of the information sought for in this resolution is manifestly improper. It not only inquires of the Secretary of War whether he has done this thing, but it requires an inquisition as to who instituted these proceedings, who made the representations to the Secretary of War that induced him to take this official action, if he did take it. It is manifestly improper for us to go into any such inquiry as that. Does the senator desire to lay the basis here, or to furnish the testimony for any number of judicial investigations,

of the apostles of that doctrine to force a collision between the North and the South, either to bring about a separation or to find a vain but bloody pretext for abolishing slavery in the States. In any event, I knew, or thought I knew that, the end was certain collision, and death to the Union.

"Believing thus, I have for years past denounced those who taught that doctrine with all the vehemence, the bitterness, if you choose -I thought it a righteous, a patriotic bitterness-of an earnest and impassioned nature. Thinking thus, I forewarned all who believed the doctrine, or followed the party which taught it, with a sincerity and depth of conviction as profound as ever penetrated the heart of man. And when, for eight years past, over and over again, I have proclaimed to the people that the success of a sectional anti-slavery party would be the beginning of disunion and civil war in America, I believed it. I did. I had read history, and studied human nature, meditated for years upon the character of our institutions and form of government, and of the people South as well as North; and I could not doubt the event. But the people did not believe me, nor those older and wiser and · greater than I. They rejected the prophecy, and stoned the prophets. The candidate of the Republican party was chosen President. Secession began. Civil war was imminent. It was no petty insurrection; no temporary combination to obstruct the execution of the laws in certain States; but a revolution, systematic, deliberate, determined, and with the consent of a majority of the people of each State which seceded. Causeless it may have been; wicked it may have been; but there it was; not to be railed at, still less to be laughed at, but to be dealt with by statesmen as a fact. No display of vigor or force alone, however sudden or great, could have arrested it even at the outset. It was disunion at last. The wolf had come. But civil war had not yet followed. In my deliberate and solemn judgment, there was but one wise and masterly mode of dealing with it. Noncoercion would avert civil war, and compromise crush out both abolitionism and secession. The parent and the child would thus both perish. But a resort to force would at once precipitate war, hasten secession, extend disunion, and, while it lasted, utterly cut off all hope of compromise. I believed that war, if long enough continued, would be final, eternal disunion. I said it; I meant it; and, accordingly, to the utmost of my ability and influence, I exerted myself in behalf of the policy of noncoercion. It was adopted by Mr. Buchanan's Administration, with the almost unanimous consent of the Democratic and Constitutional Union parties in and out of Congress; and, in February, with the concurrence of a majority of the Republican party in the Senate and this House. But that party, most disastrously for the country, refused all compromise. How, indeed, could they accept any? That which

the South demanded, and the Democratic and Conservative parties of the North and West were willing to grant, and which alone could avail to keep the peace and save the Union, implied a surrender of the sole vital element of the party and its platform-of the very principle, in fact, upon which it had just won the contest for the Presidency; not, indeed, by a majority of the popular vote-the majority was nearly a million against it--but under the forms of the Constitution. Sir, the crime, the "high crime" of the Republican party was not so much its refusal to compromise, as its origi nal organization upon a basis and doctrine wholly inconsistent with the stability of the Constitution and the peace of the Union.

"But to resume: the session of Congress expired. The President elect was inaugurated; and now, if only the policy of non-coercion could be maintained, and war thus averted, time would do its work in the North and the South, and final peaceable adjustment and reunion be secured. Some time in March it was announced that the President had resolved to continue the policy of his predecessor, and even go a step farther, and evacuate Sumter and the other Federal forts and arsenals in the seceded States. His own party acquiesced; the whole country rejoiced. The policy of non-coercion had triumphed, and for once, sir, in my life, I found myself in an immense majority. No man then pretended that a Union founded in consent could be cemented by force. Nay, more, the President and the Secretary of State went farther. Said Mr. Seward, in an official diplomatic letter to Mr. Adams:

For these reasons he [the President] would not be disposed to reject a cardinal dogma of theirs [the secessionists], namely, that the Federal Government could not reduce the seceding States to obedience by conquest, although he were disposed to question that proposition. But in fact the President willingly accepts it as true. Only an imperial or despotic Government could subjugate thoroughly disaffected and insur rectionary members of the state.

"Pardon me, sir, but I beg to know whether this conviction of the President and his Secre tary is not the philosophy of the persistent and most vigorous efforts made by this Administration, and first of all through this same Secretary, the moment war broke out and ever since till the late elections, to convert the United States into an imperial or despotic Government? But Mr. Seward adds, and I agree with him:

This Federal Republican system of ours is, of all forms of government, the very one which is most unfitted for such a labor.

"This, sir, was on the 10th of April, and yet that very day the fleet was under sail for Charleston. The policy of peace had been abandoned. Collision followed; the militia were ordered out; civil war began.

"Now, sir, on the 14th of April, I believed that coercion would bring on war, and war disunion. More than that, I believed, what you all in your hearts believe to-day, that the