Had not he said that 'in the work of restoration, that work should be put into the hands of friends, not smothered by its enemies? That if there were but five thousand men loyal to. freedom, loyal to justice, these true and faithful men should control the work of re-organization and reformation absolutely? Such was the confidence reposed in Andrew Johnson by the loyal Union men of the South that they suffered in silence the persecutions of traitors, believing that when their patriotic President had experimented sufficiently in his restoration policy, he certainly would discover that such a policy sustained traitors and crushed loyal men. They waited hopefully and patiently, believing that when their loyal President should discern the true character of his appointees, they would receive their just reward—that traitors would be punished according to his solemn promises.

"Alas! that Andrew Johnson should have stultified his history, abandoned his party, and fallen from that position where a confiding liberty-loving people had placed him, expecting him to carry out the great principles the lamented Lincoln had pointed out as necessary to save the Republic. Alas! that the Chief Executive should descend from that exalted position so recently occupied by the Great Martyr of Liberty, to denounce the principles of that party, of that Congress who are struggling to maintain the immortal cause for which the leader of Republicanism-the noble Lincoln-had died.

"Liberty bowed her head and wept, methinks, on the night of February 22d, 1866, when the Chief Magistrate of the nation mingled with the traitors of the land to insult a Republican Congress, to strike at the vitals of

Liberty, to treat with contempt the memory of Washington and Lincoln. It was not strange that the nation stood aghast and loyal hearts were filled with shame and humiliation, while traitors shouted and fired guns in honor of their avowed leader.

"President Johnson declares that he is but carrying out the policy of Abraham Lincoln. If he had reconstructed and restored States according to his promises, he would have carried out Mr. Lincoln's policy. Has this been his course? Has he adhered to the principles for which he was elected to restore the States? Has not Andrew Johnson said 'The leaders of the rebellion have decided eternal separation between you and them. These leaders must be conquered and a new set of men brought forward, who are to vitalize and develope the Union feeling in the South?' This was the policy of Abraham Lincoln; this was the promulgated policy of Andrew Johnson, as an avowed Republican. This is not his present policy. His policy is to arm the rebels, to veto Liberty Bills designed to give protection to the loyal against traitors, to denounce patriots as traitors. and fraternize with the red-handed monsters of the land. "Listen to what Governor Brownlow says of Andrew Johnson's policy: When I put the President in nomination at Baltimore for the Vice Presidency, I felt that he had so thoroughly committed himself to the Union cause, and had been so badly treated by tha rebels, it was impossible for him ever to get around to them again; but I give him up as lost to the Union party, and as the man who is to head the rebels and Democrats. Every rebel in this country, every McClellan man, and every ex-guerrilla chief are loud and enthusi

astic in praise of the President. The men who but a few months since were cursing him for an abolitionist and traitor and wishing him executed, are now for executing all who dare oppose his policy, or even doubt its success.' In the eleven rebellious States, can any one point out the 'new set of men?' No. The leaders of the rebellion, through the influence and power of Andrew Johnson, to-day hold the offices and places throughout these States, and openly declare that Andrew Johnson, whom the loyal millions trusted, is the friend and supporter of the leaders of the rebellion, while they know that the loyal Union people are unprotected and subject to the tyranny of the instigators of the rebellion. Andrew Johnson is shamefully guilty of displacing men who have lavishly spilt their blood and expended their treasure to secure an undivided country, and given those places to men distinguished for their treason. The policy of Abraham Lincoln was in bright contrast with this policy. During Lincoln's life, were men known to have been partisans of secession, appointed to govern the States? Were its instigators allowed to hold offices or positions of honor or trust? Did traitors dream of asking such favors from the just and honest Lincoln? They knew that the great object of that noble life was to put down treason and restore the Union. In contrast to Johnson's proceedings, Lincoln acted according to his convictions of right and justice. His acts were in harmony with his words. Andrew Johnson declared that influential and wealthy traitors ought to suffer 'the penalties and terrors of the law,' and now seeks to conciliate them, honors them by placing them in Government employ, and giving them

positions of power, where their influence in favor of treason is unlimited. Is this 'arresting, convicting and punishing' men who have been guilty of the greatest of crimes-treason? Is this making treason odious?

"Andrew Johnson has recently declared, in praise of his restoration policy, that Louisiana and South Carolina, are now more loyal than they have been for the past twenty five years. The men who have been crushed by the despotic tyranny of President's Johnson's reconstructed rebels, because they have fought for the Union and republican principles, place a different construction upon loyalty. The men who have fought treason and slavery for the last twenty-five years, and who have been commissioned by high authority to investigate these important matters, do not talk thus of the loyalty of Louisiana and South Carolina. The true, loyal Union men of these eleven rebellious States know that rebellion is only conquered by the bayonet, that military power alone keeps it in check. Why is the press of these States, if they are so loyal, constantly filling the public mind with the same ideas that were popular during the rebellion.

"Hearken to what Horace Maynard says: 'With the same traitor editors as before and during the war, pardoned it may be, but manifestly unchanged in temper and purpose, there is displayed the same sectional feeling and hatred of the Federal Government, though not the same stomach for fight. Under a thin disguise of of flattery of the President they assail his friends who have stood by him all through the dark years of the conflict, and vilify those whom they call radicals, meaning all Union men who oppose their infamous course and

who are now unwilling they should be restored to power over loyal men. Their diurnal venom affords the strongest argument against the admission to their seats of your Congressional representation. The ideas and principles of the rebellion are constantly instilled into the popular mind.' This is known to be true by all loyal men in the South. The unrepentant rebels still resist the laws of the Nation, despise the sacred oaths they have taken, and only took them for the purpose of gaining power through the mysterious magnanimity of Andrew Johnson, praise the institution of slavery and despotism, and generally embrace the sentiments of men like T. Yancey, of Mississippi, who says: As for recognizing the right of freedmen to their children, I can say that not one Southern man or woman in the whole South recognizes the negro as a freedman, but as other stolen property forced by the bayonets of the damnable United States Government.'

"Such are the 'loyal men' in power in these reconstructed States. Such are the men now guarding the vital interests of eleven States of this Republic of Liberty. Does that flag which is the pride of the Nation, in the folds of which may be read 'Liberty, Justice and Equality,' wave triumphantly over these States? Although Andrew Johnson has proclaimed the 'insurrection at an end,' war has not ended, peace has not come. The Union men of the South yet look upon Federal bayonets as their only hope of salvation, and must so do, until a truly Republican Congress can secure peace to the country by reconstructing the rebellious States upon a loyal basis, until those who are traitors are made to take a back seat,' and are shorn of all