Slidell, Mason, Eustis, and McFarland were taken and forced into the boat. The officers of the San Jacinto went back to the cabins and took possession of the baggage, and sent it with their prisoners on board the San Jacinto. Mr. Slidell said, as the boat shoved off, that he expected redress from the British Government for this outrage while under the protection of its flag, and called upon the English captain to represent the case properly. The lieutenant stopped on board, having ordered the boat to return. He then stated that he had orders to take Captain Moir and his papers on board the San Jacinto, and that the Trent was to be moved nearer. Captain Moir replied: "You will find me on my quarter-deck; if you want me you will have to come there for me," and he immediately walked on deck. The lieutenant, however, went into one of the boats, and told Captain Moir that he could proceed. The boat pulled for the San Jacinto, and the Trent steamed ahead for St. Thomas. The officers of the San Jacinto asked for provisions for the prisoners, stating that they were short of stores. Captain Moir told the four gentlemen that at their request he would supply what was needed, and they having expressed a wish that he should do so, all the necessaries were supplied.

An officer of the San Jacinto thus reports the affair: "About 11.40 A. M., the look-out at the masthead reported a smoke as from a steamer from the westward, and about 11 A. M. she was visible from the deck. We were all ready for her, beat to quarters, and as soon as she was within reach of our guns, every gun of our starboard battery was trained upon her. A shot from our pivot gun was fired across her bow. She hoisted English colors, but showed no disposition to slacken her speed or heave to. We hoisted the 'Star Spangled Banner,' and as soon as she was close upon us, fired a shell across her bow, which brought her to. Our captain hailed her, and said he would send a boat on board, and ordered Lieutenant Fairfax to board her; he went in the second cutter; at the same time Lieutenant Greer was already in the third cutter to shove from the port side should his assistance be required. On coming alongside the packet, Lieutenant Fairfax ordered the other officers to remain in the boat with the crew until force should become necessary, and he went on board alone. The captain of the mail steamer refused to show his papers and passenger list, knowing very well the object of our visit and the character and mission of the commissioners. But Mr. Mason being recognized, a part of the armed crew was ordered from the boat, and came on board. Messrs. Mason and Slidell were then requested to come on board the San Jacinto, but declined, and said that they would only yield by force; Mr. Slidell making the remark that it would require considerable force to take him on board the San Jacinto.' Lieutenant Fairfax then ordered Mr. Houston to return to our ship and

report that the Confederate commissioners were on board the mail steamer, and refused to come on board the San Jacinto by other means than force. Lieutenant Greer then shoved off and went alongside the Trent, sent his armed crew and marines on board, and stationed them at both gangways, and then, after a gentle application of force, the four gentlemen were taken in the second cutter and conveyed on board of our ship, where they were received by Captain Wilkes at the gangway, and shown into his cabin, which they afterwards occupied. Two other boats were then sent on board to remove the luggage, and the ladies having declined the hospitalities offered them, at 3.30 we parted company from the Trent."

The commissioners made a protest to Captain Wilkes on the next day, in which they say that when the Trent got within hailing distance, her captain inquired what was wanted? The reply was understood to be: "They would send a boat." Both vessels were then stationary, with steam shut off. A boat very soon put off from the ship, followed immediately by two other boats, with full crews, and armed with muskets and side-arms. A lieutenant in the uniform of the United States navy, and with side-arms, boarded the Trent, and, in the presence of most of the passengers then assembled on the upper deck, said to Captain Moir that he came with orders to demand his passenger list. The captain refused to produce it, and formally protested against any right to visit his ship for the purpose indicated. After some conversation, implying renewed protests on the part of the captain against the alleged object of the visit, and on the part of the officer of the San Jacinto that he had only to execute his orders, the latter said that two gentlemen, naming Messrs. Slidell and Mason, were known to be on board, as also two other gentlemen, naming Messrs. Eustis and McFarland, and that his orders were to take and carry them on board the San Jacinto. On first addressing the captain, he announced himself as a lieutenant of the United States steamer San Jacinto. The four gentlemen named being present, the lieutenant addressed Mr. Slidell and afterwards Mr. Mason, repeating that his orders were to take them, together with Messrs. Eustis and McFar land and carry them on board his ship. Messrs. Slidell and Mason, in reply, protested in the presence of the captain of the Trent, his officers and passengers, against such threatened violation of their persons and their rights, and informed the lieutenant that they would not leave the ship they were in unless compelled by the em ployment of actual force greater than they could resist, and Messrs. Eustis and McFarland united with them in expressing a like purpose. That officer stated that he hoped he would not be compelled to resort to the use of force, but if it should become necessary to employ it, in order to execute his orders, he was prepared to do so. He was answered by the commissioners that they would submit only to such a force.

The lieutenant then went to the gangway where his boats were, the commissioners going at the same time to their state rooms on the next deck below, followed by Captain Moir and by the other passengers. The lieutenant returned with a party of his men, a portion of whom were armed with side-arms, and others, appearing to be a squad of marines, having muskets and bayonets. Mr. Slidell was in his state room immediately by and in full view. The lieutenant then said to Mr. Mason that, having his force now present, he hoped to be relieved from the necessity of calling it into actual use. The gentleman again answered that he would only submit to actual force greater than he could overcome, when the lieutenant, and several of his men, by his order, took hold of him, and in a manner and in numbers sufficient to make resistance fruitless; and Mr. Slidell joining the group at the same time, one or more of the armed party took like hold of him, and those gentlemen at once went into the boat..

One account says, an exciting scene took place between Mr. Slidell, his eldest daughter, a noble girl devoted to her father, and Lieutenant Fairfax. With flashing eyes and quivering lips, she threw herself in the doorway of the cabin where her father was, resolved to defend him with her life, till, on the order being given to the marines to advance, which they did with bayonets pointed at this poor defenceless girl, her father ended the painful scene by escaping from the cabin by a window, when he was immediately seized by the marines and hurried into the boat. The commissioners were taken by the San Jacinto to Fort Warren, in Boston harbor, where they remained as prisoners.

A most intense excitement was aroused in England upon the arrival of the news of the transaction. Preparations for war with the United States were commenced, troops were sent to Canada, and a formal demand was made for the surrender of the commissioners, and an apology for the act by the Government. (See DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONDENCE.)

A vote of thanks to Captain Wilkes passed the House of Representatives subsequently, but the authorities at Washington sent instructions to the commandant at Fort Warren to deliver the Confederate commissioners to the representatives of the British Government. They were, therefore, quietly placed on board of a small steamer and taken to an English steam vessel at anchor near Provincetown, some distance from Boston. In her they were conveyed to the island of St. Thomas, and thence by the line of steam packets took passage to England, where they safely arrived, and were landed without any special official attention.

TUCKER, GEORGE. A Virginian jurist, born in 1775, died 1861. He was elected to Congress in 1819, from the district composed of the counties of Pittsylvania, Halifax, and Campbell, at that time one of the twenty-two districts of Virginia. While in Congress, Mr. Tucker oc

cupied a high position as a debater and a constitutional lawyer, and his constituents manifested their appreciation of his merits by reelecting him in 1821 and 1823. In 1825, he retired from Congress to accept the Professorship of Law in the University of Virginia, which position he filled for a number of years. In his retirement from public life, Professor Tucker continued to render himself useful to his countrymen by the preparation of several works, the most important of which were a Life of Jefferson, and a Political History of the United States.

TYBEE ISLAND. Tybee Island is in Tybee Bay, on the south side of the entrance to Savannah River, in Georgia. The Savannah River is the dividing line between the States of South Carolina and Georgia. This island is southward of the bar, and about twenty miles southwest of Port Royal. It is one of the chain of sea islands which stretch all along the coast of Georgia and the adjoining States. The island is small, not as large as Port Royal Island. Cockspur Island lies immediately to the north of it, on which is situated Fort Pulaski-a very strong work, that defends the entrance to the Savannah River, and the defensive outpost of the city of Savannah itself. Tybee Island has been notable chiefly with mariners on account of its light-house, (Tybee Light,) one of the most prominent on the Southern coast. It was a fixed light, 108 feet above the sea, on the northeast end of the island, and in clear weather it might be seen at the distance of sixteen miles. This beacon was extinguished by the Georgians shortly after they had seceded from the Union. Tybee is long, narrow, and somewhat marshy, in the coast county of Chatham, and in climate and scenery is very much like Port Royal and the other Carolina sea islands. A small amount of sea island cotton is raised upon it, and its inhabitants are few. It has a beautiful creek to the west of it, where a ship of any burden may lie at anchor in perfect safety.

On the 26th of November, General Sherman, from the Port Royal expedition, determined to make a reconnoissance of the island, and landed with a small party. They discovered, on the point of land reaching out beyond the lighthouse, a fortification which had apparently been deserted for about eight days. It was a mere redan with flanking curtains, and had been mounted with not more than four or five guns. These had been moved. Behind it was a martello tower, with embrasures, altogether unfit for use. The light-house was deserted, and no trace of occupation discovered anywhere in its vicinity. The island is about two miles wide by five long, and its nearest point is distant only about a mile from Fort Pulaski. The lighthouse and battery are on the opposite corner from the fort. General Sherman, with an escort of marines, having examined the lower and deserted battery, approached the point of the island nearest to the fort, and was honored

with a shell or two from Fort Pulaski, which came quite near them. Lieutenant Magner, however, was allowed to examine another small work situated so as to cover the whole line of the beach between its two angles. He found no guns left, but that the position was admirable for defensive purposes. The enemy had evidently been aware of its importance; as once in possession of Federal forces, it would be very easy to throw shells into Fort Pulaski. The remains of a hutted encampment large

UNITED STATES. The population of the United States is numbered at the end of each ten years. The first census was taken in 1790, at which time the whole population was 3,929,827. The last census was taken in the month of June, 1860. The whole population, consisting of white, free colored, and slave, and the ratio of increase of each class since the previous census in 1850, were as given below.

The election for a President of the United States took place on the 4th of November, 1860.

enough for a hundred men were to be seen from this place, but they bore no trace of having been recently occupied. There was no flag on the island, and it had evidently been completely abandoned. The fact that Federal vessels could come under the lee of the island and anchor in sight of Fort Pulaski, (only fifteen miles from Savannah,) and that shells could be thrown into the fort without difficulty, made its possession, at any cost, a matter of importance to the Federal force.

The candidate of the Republicans was Abraham Lincoln, of Illinois. The distinctive principle which he represented was the non-extension of slavery to the territories of the United States, and its speedy removal from all places belonging to, or under the exclusive control of the Federal Government.

Stephen A. Douglas was the candidate representing the principle of non-intervention, which was understood to mean that Congress should not interfere with the question of slavery

or no slavery in a territory, but that it should be left to the inhabitants to determine when they assembled in convention to form a State constitution. The friends of Mr. Douglas consisted of a portion of the Democratic party. John C. Breckinridge was the candidate representing the principle of protection to slavery in the territories, regarding slaves as a species of property recognized in the Constitution of the United States. After the territories become States, the whole question is under their control. The friends of Mr. Breckinridge constituted that portion of the Democratic party which did not support Mr. Douglas.

John Bell was the candidate of a party whose platform was the Constitution, the Union, and the enforcement of the laws."

The vote of the people at the election was as follows: Lincoln, 1,857,610; Douglas, 1,365,976; Breckinridge, 847,953; Bell, 590,631.

The Government of the United States at this time was composed of the following officers: President.-James Buchanan, of Pennsylvania. Vice-President.-John C. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Secretary of State.-Lewis Cass, of Michigan. Secretary of the Treasury.-Howell Cobb, of Georgia. Secretary of War.-John B. Floyd, of Virginia. Secretary of the Navy.-Isaac Toucey, of Conn. Secretary of the Interior.-Jacob Thompson, of Miss. Postmaster-General.-Joseph Holt, of Ky. Attorney-General.—John S. Black, of Pennsylvania. The movements in South Carolina early attracted the attention of the Government. Some of its members were doubtless informed that measures leading to secession would be immediately taken after the day on which the presidential election was held; others probably apprehended some movements of this nature, but were not informed what they would probably be. As early as the 20th of November the Attorney-General sent a reply to some questions respecting which his opinion had been asked by the President. These questions related to the obligation of citizens to obey the laws; to the power of the Government for the collection of duties, for the protection of public property, and to put down unlawful combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings. On the first question the view taken by the Attorney-General was expressed in these words:

The will of a State, whether expressed in its consti

tution or laws, cannot, while it remains in the Confederacy, absolve her people from obeying the just and constitutional requirements of the Central Government. Nor can any act of the Central Government displace the jurisdiction of a State, because the laws of the United States are supreme and binding only so far as they are passed in pursuance of the Constitution. I do not say what might be effected by mere revolutionary force. I am speaking of legal and constitutional right. This is the view always taken by the Judiciary, and so universally adopted that the statement of it may seem common-place.

With regard to the collection of duties at any port, his views were as follows:

Where the law directs a thing to be done, without saying how, that implies the power to use such means as may be necessary and proper to accomplish the end

of the Legislature. But where the mode of performing a duty is pointed out by statute, that is the exclusive mode, and no other can be followed. The United States have no common law to fall back upon when the written law is defective. If, therefore, an Act of Congress declares that a certain thing shall be done by a particular officer, it cannot be done by a different officer. tion must be used, to the exclusion of all others. For The agency which the law furnishes for its own execuinstance, the revenues of the United States are to be collected in a certain way, at certain established ports, and by a certain class of officers; the President has no authority, under any circumstances, to collect the same revenues at other places, by a different sort of officers, or in ways not provided for. Even if the machinery furnished by Congress for the collection of the duties should by any cause become so deranged or broken up that it could not be used, that would not be a legal reason for substituting a different kind of machinery in its place.

The law requires that all goods imported into the United States within certain collection districts shall

be entered at the proper port, and the duty thereon shall be received by the collector appointed for and residing at that port. But the functions of the collector may be exercised anywhere at or within the port; there is no law which confines him to the customhouse, or any other particular spot. If the customhouse were burnt down, he might remove to another building; if he were driven from the shore, he might go on board a vessel in the harbor. If he keeps within the port he is within the law.

The right of the Government over public property is thus explained:

been bought or erected on ground where the Legislature of the State in which it is, has not passed a law consenting to the purchase of it and ceding the exclusive jurisdiction. This Government, then, is not only the owner of those buildings and grounds, but by virtue of the supreme and paramount law, it regulates the action and punishes the offences of all who are within them. If any one of an owner's rights is plainer than another, it is that of keeping exclusive possession and property includes also the right of recapture after it repelling intrusion. The right of defending the public has been unlawfully taken by another. President Jefferson held the opinion, and acted upon it, that he could order a military force to take possession of any land to which the United States had title, though they had never occupied it before, though a private party claimed and held it, and though it was not then needed nor proposed to be used for any purpose connected with the operations of the Government. This may have been a stretch of Executive power; but the right has been carrying on its lawful business, and from of retaking public property in which the Government which its officers have been unlawfully thrust out, cannot well be doubted; and when it was exercised at Harper's Ferry, in October, 1859, every one acknowledged the legal justice of it.

It is believed that no important public building has

The next question asked of the Attorney-General, was the most important of all the inqui ries. His view of it is interesting, as it comprises the ground upon which the succeeding Administration relied at the commencement of its military operations.

I come now to the point in your letter which is probably of the greatest practical importance. By the act of 1807 you may employ such parts of the land and naval forces as you shall judge necessary for the purpose of causing the laws to be duly executed, in all cases where it is lawful to use the militia for the same purpose. By the act of 1795 the militia may be called forth "whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed, or the execution thereof obstructed in any States by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by

the power vested in the marshals." This imposes upon the President the sole responsibility of deciding whether the exigency has arisen which requires the use of military force; and in proportion to the magnitude of that responsibility will be his care not to overstep the limits of his legal and just authority.

The laws referred to in the act of 1795 are manifestly those which are administered by the judges and executed by the ministerial officers of the courts for the punishment of crime against the United States, for the protection of rights claimed under the Federal Constitution and laws, and for the enforcement of such obligations as come within the cognizance of the Federal Judiciary. To compel obedience to these laws the courts have authority to punish all who obstruct their regular administration, and the marshals and their deputies have the same powers as sheriffs and their deputies in the several States in executing the laws of the States. These are the ordinary means provided for the execution of the laws, and the whole spirit of our system is opposed to the employment of any other except in cases of extreme necessity, arising out of great and unusual combinations against them. Their agency must continue to be used until their incapacity to cope with the power opposed to them shall be plainly demonstrated. It is only upon clear evidence to that effect that a military force can be called into the field. Even then its operations must be purely defensive. It can suppress only such combinations as are found directly opposing the laws and obstructing the execution thereof. It can do no more than what might and ought to be done by a civil posse, if a civil posse could be raised large enough to meet the same opposition. On such occasions, especially, the military power must be kept in strict subordination to the civil authority, since it is only in aid of the latter that the former can act at all.

But what if the feeling in any State against the United States should become so universal that the Federal officers themselves (including judges, district attorneys, and marshals) would be reached by the same influences and resign their places? Of course the first step would be to appoint others in their stead, if others could be got to serve. But, in such an event, it is more than probable that great difficulties would be found in filling the offices. We can easily conceive how it might become altogether impossible. We are therefore obliged to consider what can be done in case we have no courts to issue judicial process, and no ministerial officers to execute it. In that event troops would certainly be out of place, and their use wholly illegal. If they are sent to aid the courts and marshals, there must be courts and marshals to be aided. Without the exercise of those functions, which belong exclusively to the civil service, the laws cannot be executed in any event, no matter what may be the physical strength which the Government has at its command. Under such circumstances, to send a military force into any State with orders to act against the people would be simply making war upon them.

The existing laws put and keep the Federal Government strictly on the defensive. You can use force only to repel an assault on the public property, and aid the courts in the performance of their duty. If the means given you to collect the revenue and execute the other laws be insufficient for that purpose, Congress may extend and make them more effectual to that end.

If one of the States should declare her independence, your action cannot depend upon the rightfulness of the cause upon which such declaration is based. Whether the retirement of a State from the Union be the exercise of a right reserved in the Constitution or a revolutionary movement, it is certain that you have not in either case the authority to recognize her independence or to absolve her from her Federal obligations. Congress, or the other States in convention assembled, must fake such measures as may be necessary and proper. In such an event I see no course for you but to go straight onward in the path you have hitherto trodden, that is, execute the laws to the extent of the defensive means placed in your hands, and act generally upon

the assumption that the present constitutional relations between the States and the Federal Government continue to exist, until a new order of things shall be established, either by law or force.

On the right of Congress to make war upon a State, and require the President to carry it on, the views of the Attorney-General were also given. Subsequent events attach interest to these views, which they would otherwise hardly possess. They were doubtless the opinions which controlled the action of the Administration until the close of its term.

Whether Congress has the constitutional right to make war against one or more States, and require the Executive of the Federal Government to carry it on by means of force to be drawn from the other States, is a question for Congress itself to consider. It must be admitted that no such power is expressly given; nor are there any words in the Constitution which imply it. Among the powers enumerated in Article I., section 8, is that "to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and to make rules concerning captures on land and water." This certainly means nothing more than the power to commence and carry on hostilities against the foreign enemies of the nation. Another clause in the same section gives Congress the power “to provide for calling forth the militia," and to use them within the limits of the State. But this power is so restricted by the words which immediately follow, that it can be exercised only for one of the following purposes: 1. To execute the laws of the Union; that is, to aid the Federal officers in the performance of their regular duties. 2. To suppress insurrections against the States; but this is confined by Article IV., sec. 4, to cases in which the State herself shall apply for assistance against her own people. 3. To repel the invasion of a State by enemies who come from abroad to assail her in her own territory. All these provisions are made to protect the States, not to authorize an attack by one part of the country upon another; to preserve their peace, and not to plunge them into civil war. Our forefathers do not seem to have thought that war was calculated "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." There was undoubtedly a strong and universal conviction among the men who framed and ratified the Constitution that military force would not only be useless but pernicious as a means of holding the States together.

If it be true that war cannot be declared, nor a system of general hostilities carried on by the Central Government against a State, then it seems to follow that an attempt to do so would be ipso facto an expulsion of such State from the Union. Being treated as an alien and an enemy, she would be compelled to act accordingly. And if Congress shall break up the present Union by unconstitutionally putting strife and en mity and armed hostility between different sections of the country, instead of the "domestic tranquillity" which the Constitution was meant to insure, will not all the States be absolved from their Federal obligations? Is any portion of the people bound to contribute their money or their blood to carry on a contest like that?

The right of the General Government to preserve itself in its whole constitutional vigor by repelling a direct and positive aggression upon its property or its officers cannot be denied. But this is a totally different thing from an offensive war to punish the people for the political misdeeds of their State government, or to prevent a threatened violation of the Constitution, or to enforce an acknowledgment that the Government of the United States is supreme. The States are colleagues of one another, and if some of them shall conquer the rest and hold them as subjugated provinces, it would totally destroy the whole theory upon which they are now connected.