had been deliberately and repeatedly denied to argument.

We now come to the Governor's treatise on State rights, martial law, and military arrests. To attempt anything like a critical examination of this elaborate argument would consume hours, and I cannot venture to ask such an indulgence from the Senate. I shall, therefore, from necessity, merely glance at these subjects. I would

not even do that except to point out what I think is a spirit of bitterness against the general government, and an unwarrantable perversion of its purposes.

That

I concede, sir, that there is much in this argument which is entirely sound. The general proposition that the Federal and State governments are distinct, and that the rights of each must be respected, no one will dispute. The importance of a strict obedience to the constitution cannot be too strongly expressed. property and persons shall be secure from unjustifiable seizure and arrest, is a principle we all maintain. There is no difference of opinion between the administration at Washington and the administration at Albany about these things; and yet the whole of this phillipic against the federal administration is built upon the assumption that the officers of the general government deny these fundamental principles.

The position of the administration upon these subjects, as I understand it, is briefly and in substance this :

as

That the constitution amply provides for its own preservation, and also for the preservation of the government it creates. If it did not, it would be a failure, because inadequate to save even itself. That the destruction of the government is the destruction also of the constitutionand therefore the constitution confers upon the government every power necessary for its own self-preservation. It does not, in the language of this message, leave the government to sume" such powers, but the instrument itself confers them and consequently that the exercise of such powers, in a proper case, cannot be in violation of, but is in obedience to, the constitution. At a moment, then, when a gigantic rebellion springs, ready armed, upon the government, it is not only authorized, but commanded, to use every means necessary to put down the insurrection and save itself. And in such an extremity, every means allowed by the laws of war which will strengthen the government and weaken the enemy in the conflict, may properly be said to be necessary.

Whether a particular means employed be or be not necessary, is not a question of constitutional law, therefore, but a question of fact, to be determined like any other question of fact. But to ask whether the government has a right to use a means conceded to be necessary to put down a rebellion, is no question at all-it is simply nonsense. I say, then, that the government, in proclaiming martial law and arresting persons for treasonable offences, has designed to act in obedience to the constitution, and not in violation of it. Whether it has misjudged or not in regard to this necessity in particular instances,

is entirely another thing. And I insist that the only way to test the constitutionality of any particular act of this kind, is to determine whether or not it was necessary-or in other language, whether it was calculated to aid the government in suppressing the rebellion. If it was thus necessary, then it was constitutional-if it was not, then it was unconstitutional. In my judgment, this is the beginning and the end of all legitimate inquiry upon the subject. Dissertations, therefore, upon the civil powers of the President, upon the constitutional guaranties of life, liberty and property, and upon the rights of the States, have no application to the question. Nobody claims that the President can do these things in his capacity of Chief Magistrate and in time of peace. His powers as civil executive are then limited by the restraints imposed upon him, as such, by the express language of the constitution. But the President is not merely the Chief Magistrate and civil executive of the nation, he is also the Commander-in-Chief of the army and navy-and the same constitution which makes him the one, makes him the other also. The same instrument which defines and restrains his powers in time of peace as civil executive, confers upon him every military power necessary to save the government in time of war, as Commander-in-Chief.

The only legitimate question, therefore, as I have before stated, is one of fact-viz: whether there was any necessity for the acts complained of or in other words, whether these acts would aid the government in putting down the rebellion. This is an open question, undoubtedlyin regard to which men may differ as widely as the poles.

As respects military arrests, I think the government had a constitutional right to make them. And in addition to this, I must differ entirely from the Senator from the Third, by affirming that the people themselves clamorously demanded these arrests. So rapidly have momentous events rolled over us since this war began, that we sometimes forget the situation of affairs and the state of public opinion, even a few months ago. If we will go back to the outbreak of this rebellion, and when our people were making their preparations to resist it, we shall call to mind a small class of persons whose atrocious language and conduct made the blood of every honest man boil with indignation-men who declared in our streets that our armies, composed of our own sons and brothers, ought to perish-who did all they could to prevent enlistments-who said that if they fought at all they would fight for the South-who sneered and taunted when our soldiers were beaten-and who even threatened to inaugurate civil war here at home.

In the then temper of the public mind, such language and conduct could not be endured. With almost entire unanimity the people called upon the Government to arrest these traitors and prevent their doing further mischief. In response to this demand, and to stop the spread of treason at a moment of imminent peril, the government did order the arrest of a few of the noisiest and worst of these men. And yet it is

this which Governor Seymour pronounces a "high crime." It is by these arrests, made under such circumstances, that the general government "has treated this loyal state, its laws, its courts and its officers, with marked and public contempt, and violated its social order and sacred rights," according to Gov. Seymour, and that 66 a department at Washington insulted our people and invaded our rights"-"and-he assures us against these wrongs and outrages the people of the State of New York at its late election solemnly protested."

Sir, this language is extraordinary, to say the least. I have already shewn that the constitution warranted military arrests at a time of such peril, and that the people themselves demanded them. As respects the late election, I concede that every man in the State who had been, or who ought to have been arrested, voted for Governor Seymour, and no doubt, protested with all his might against all these arrests. I concede that many good and patriotic men of both parties, doubted the policy of this measure-that some insisted that Government had no right to make them at all, and that no body justified the abuse of this power which was seen in a few instances. But when all is said, I deny that the majority even of those who voted the democratic ticket considered their rights invaded or themselves insulted, because the government, in a few instances, had exercised the power to make military arrests. Why, Sir, some of these very men had been a short time before as clamorous as any body for these arrests. This kind of deduction from the results of the late political campaign is as preposterous as it would be for me to say, that the people of this State, at the late election, declared themselves in favor of the rebellion, because every sympathiser with the South in the state voted the democratic ticket.

No doubt instances of improper arrests can be cited. Unfortunately, it is not possible for the most vigilant and conscientious government to perform a duty like this with unerring wisdom, any more than it can carry on a gigantic war without inflicting misery upon many innocent persons. These errors, mistakes and unintentional injuries, are the inevitable consequences of a state of rebellion.

I know, Sir, that the right of the meanest to the protection of law, has been the theme of some of the noblest eloquence ever uttered by man. I never read or hear a defence of this sacred principle without deep emotion. No man has a profounder conviction of its truth than I have, and no man shall maintain it with greater zeal than myself. But in the name of our common country ready to perish, shall this great truth be dragged from its high eminence, and employed in the work of stirring up the people against the government at an hour like this?

And now, Sir, having said thus much in defense of the motives and objects of the government in making these arrests, allow me to add, that I now regret, and have always regretted, that arrests were ever made in New York or in any state similarly situated. I have never doubted the right, as I have said, but it was apparent from the first

that the subjects of it, although temporarily silenced, would afterwards form themselves into a band of martyrs and thereby have increased power of evil, and at some future time, too, of perhaps greater danger. It was certain, also, that politicians would not hesitate to use a matter so easily perverted, and that it would be employed by them as a means of attack upon the administration. In short, I feared that it would be used just as I find it used in this message.

I must pass without examination a great many assertions and conclusions upon this subject of martial law and military arrests. I cannot stop to consider his assertion, repeated over and over again in various forms of language, that the President has exercised more than regal powersthat he has assumed the right to declare war and then extinguish the state and national constitutions that this is not claimed to be done "by reason of a necessity which overleaps for a time all restraint and which is justified by a great exigency," but that it is claimed that his military power exalts him above his civil and constitutional rightsthat the President and his friends hold that there is no sanctity in the Constitution, and that it has no authority to keep the executive within its restraints. There is not one word of truth in all this, from beginning to end. It is bold assumption, transparent fallacy and outrageous abuse o the general government. And it is not original at that. These positions were taken months ago by the leaders of the rebellion, and now we find them "echoed" at the capitol of the State of New York.

But says the Governor, Washington never declared martial law, during the revolution. have had no time to re-examine the history of that period-but grant that he did not formally declare martial law, did not his army, through the whole course of the war, constantly seize and arrest every active tory that could be found? Did the cowboys of the Hudson, or spies and informers generally, enjoy the immunity here claimed for their lineal descendants? Were tories permitted to hurrah for King George, and publish newspapers denouncing the revolution? Nay, further in the whole conduct of our fathers, which his Excellency so wisely recommends us to imitate, can there be found the example of a party, or of a true man, that made war upon the government for these military arrests ?

Again, the Governor pronounces the recent proclamation of emancipation to be an unconstitutional attempt, on the part of the President, to carry on the war, not for the restoration of the Union, but for the abolishment of slavery. He does not use this language, but no one will deny that this is just what he means. He says the government has abandoned the policy of fighting simply for the restoration of the union, and adopted "the views of the extreme Northern States," by which he means abolition as an end.

After what has already been said on this subject during the progress of this debate, it is not necessary for me to make an elaborate argument in defence of the proclamation. I must however

call attention to the wanton perversion of the the objects of the government here displayed. The President in his proclamation of the 22d of September on this subject, solemnly declared: "That hereafter as heretofore, the war will be prosecuted for the object of practically restoring the constitutional relation between the United States and the people thereof, in which States that relation is or may be suspended or disturbed."

And in his proclamation of January 1st he again declares that he issues it "by virtue of the power in him vested as Commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority and government of the United States, and as a At and necessary war measure for suppressing the rebel ion."

On another memorable occasion he said in substance and effect, that if he could save the Union by freeing all the slaves, he would do it. If he could save it without freeing any, he would do it; and if he could save it by freeing a part and leaving a part, he would do that. That his sole object and effort was to save the Unionthat he would do nothing which did not, in his judgment, promote this object; and that he would do anything warranted by the laws of war which would accomplish it.

Is not this language clear and unequivocal? Can any man's purpose be more explicitly or emphatically expressed?

What then is the alternative? We must either concede that he means just what he says, and that he has not and will not wage this war for the abolition of slavery or for any object whatever except the restoration of the Union, or we must assume that Abraham Lincoln has meanly, hypocritically and cowardly lied in these solemn declarations.

Nobody above the grade of a pothouse politician has yet ventured to say that. Why then will anybody, for mere party purposes, so misrepresent the designs of the Commander-inchief?

And those who are engaged in this warfare upon the administration are not aided by quotations from the speeches of Wendell Phillips, or any other abolitionist. Wendell Phillips, and men of his school, have no influence whatever with the government in the conduct of this war, and everybody knows it. The great mass of the people of the north who approve of this proclamation, do so because, and only because, they agree with the President in considering it a necessary war measure. They think it will weaken the enemy and strengthen the government, and this for reasons which have been frequently expressed and are well understood. Nor is the case of these gentlemen bettered by the wild, senseless, incendiary cry of "Abolition." I have shown that any such charge is as "baseless as the fabric of a vision."

When I hear a man, therefore, call the administration and its supporters abolitionists, I know that he has exhausted his reasoning powers, and is obliged to resort to abuse. He would compel an epithet to do the work of argument. And yet

I must concede that it has its effect, for it appeals to the blindest and the lowest passions of human nature. It is as potent as whisky in raising the desired cheer from a certain class of men. As the cry of "infidel" inflames the ignorant and fanatical Moslem, so "abolitionist" is here the shibboleth of degraded politics.

I have stated that I should make no special argument in defense of this proclamation. Indeed, I have already said what was requisite upon the constitutionality of war measures. If this was a necessary war measure, if it would assist the government in putting down the rebellion, then it is constitutional beyond all question. For I repeat, the constitution creates him Commander-in-Chief and commands him to "preserve, protect and defend the constitution," in war, as well as in peace, and in war, by the use of all necessary means justified by the laws of

war.

But, says the Governor, "The President had already signed an act of Congress which asserts, that the slaves of those in rebellion are confiscate, and that the sole effect of this proclamation, is to declare the emancipation of slaves of those who are not in rebellion, and who are therefore, loyal citizens." And he facetiously adds, that this is an extraordinary way to uphold the constitution and restore the Union. The governor is obliged to pervert the facts, that he may point his sarcasm.

One of the allegations here made, is that the "act to suppress insurrection, to punish treason and rebellion, to seize and confiscate the property of rebels and for other purposes," approved July 17, 1862, is the same in substance and effect, as this proclamation, so far as the slaves of rebels are concerned.

But this proclamation declares that all slaves in the actually rebellious states, are free, and that the "Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain their freedom." Therefore, the statement of the governor is, that the confiscation act declared the slaves of those in rebellion free, and pledged the executive, military and naval power of the government to maintain that freedom. Do I misconstrue this proposition? I appeal to the context. After saying that the President had already signed this act "which declares the slaves of those in rebellion confiscate," he adds, "the sole effect of this proclamation, therefore, is to declare the emancipation of the slaves of those who are not in rebellion." That is, it produces no effect whatever upon the slaves of rebels, which was not already produced by the confiscation act

If we will examine the act referred to, we shall find that it does not confiscate " slaves at all. It confiscates the property, other than slaves, of certain specified persons, and it also declares that certain slaves of certain rebels shall be free. The only sections of this act which relate to the emancipation of slaves are the first, second and ninth. I will cite enough of these to show their provisions. The first section declares "that every person who shall

hereafter commit the crime of treason against the United States, and shall be adjudged guilty thereof, shall suffer death, and all his slaves, if any, shall be declared and made free. Or, at the discretion of the court, he shall be imprisoned for not less than five years, and fined not less than $10,000, and all his slaves, if any, shall be declared and made free."

The second section makes it a crime to incite rebellion, and declares that any person convicted of this offence shall be punished by fine or imprisonment, and the liberation of his slaves, if he have any.

The ninth section provides: "that all slaves of persons who shall hereafter be engaged in rebellion against the government of the United States, or who shall, in any way, give aid or comfort thereto, escaping from such person or persons and taking refuge within the lines of the army; and all slaves captured from such persons or deserted by them, and coming under the control of the government of the United States, and all slaves of such persons found or being within any place occupied by rebel forces, and afterwards occupied by the forces of the United States, shall be deemed captives of war, and shall be forever free of their servitude, and not again held as slaves."

It is not true, then, that this act "asserts that the slaves of those in rebellion are confiscate." Neither does it assert "that the slaves of those in rebellion are" free. It declares that the slaves of such rebels and inciters of rebellion as may be tried and convicted in a court of justice shall be free. It also declares that such slaves of rebels as may escape into our lines, or such as we may capture, shall be free, and this is all. But this perversion is so gross and palpable, that I need not pursue it further.

Mr. Chairman, in my poor opinion there is no part of this message more incorrect in statement, unsound in conclusion and mischievous in tendency, than that portion devoted to the differences of interest, views and purposes alleged to exist between New England and the rest of the loyal states; but I have left myself no time for its examination.

This new apple of discord grew upon rebel soil, and was thrown among us by the archtraitor at the head of the insurrection, and sorry am I to see loyal men here receive it, admire it, furbish it up, and send it through the land to work its unholy and disastrous mission.

Sir, he cannot be just who attempts to teach the different sections of the country that their interests are antagonistic, for there is not a state or community in the Union whose interest is not promoted by the advancement of the interests of every sister state and community. And to cause one part of the loyal states to believe that another part entertains political views and purposes, in the conduct of this war, diametrically opposed to their own, is to precipitate the nation to certain destruction. It is "sowing the wind to reap the whirlwind." And, Sir, this most extraordinary argument is a fresh illustration of the great inconsistency sometimes exhibited by the ablest of men.

The Governor's message is filled with denunciations of the persons who, he says, systematically and laboriously inculcated misapprehension between the sections before the war, and taught them to despise each other; and here, in time of war, when the existence of the Nation is trembling in the balance, he himself deliberately and elaborately inculcates such misapprehension between loyal states, and teaches them to hate and despise each other to the utmost of his ability.

Sir, has the solemn and prophetic warning of Washington, contained in his farewell address, ever before had so clear and distinct an application ?

I will not attempt a reply to this attack upon the patriotism of New England. The familiar words of Webster, in answer to a similar attack, are all that need be said. They are just as appropriate here, as upon the occasion when they were uttered. Allow me to quote them:

"I shall enter on no enconium on Massachusetts She needs none. There she is-behold her and judge for yourselves. There is her history-the world knows it by heart-the past at least is secure. There is Boston and Concord, and Lexington, and Bunker Hill, and there they will remain for ever. The bones of her sons falling in the great struggle for independence-are mingled with the soil of every state from New England to Georgia, and there they will live forever. And, Sir, where American liberty raised its first voice and where its youth was nurtured and sustained -it still lives in the strength of its manhood, and full of its original spirit. If discord and disunion shall wound it-if party strife and blind ambition shall hawk at and tear it-if folly and madness-if uneasiness under salutary and necessary rest aint shall succeed to separate it from the Union by which alone its existence is made sure it will stand in the end-by the side of that cradle in which its infancy was rocked. It will stretch its arm with whatever of vigor it may still retain-over the friends who gather around it, and it will fall at last, if fall it must, amidst the proudest monuments of its own glory, and on the very spot of its origin.

But, Sir, I must bring these desultory remarks to a close. I have spoken plainly. The momentous questions we are considering, demands plain speaking. I can most sincerely add, that I never performed a duty with more reluctance, than this review which I have now made of a portion of the Governor's message.

I deprecate this discussion of the causes of the war-and this persistent attempt to crush the administration at a moment of extreme peril It fills my mind with dire forebodings.

It has already divided the North-I had almost said, fatally divided it. It surely cannot go much further without involving us in irretrievable ruin. If there be those who think they can see peace and a restored Union-through the defeat of the North in this warthey are mad-stark mad. If there be those who think, that in such a disaster, their political opponents only will suffer, they are the victims of an unexampled infatuation. We shall

all be saved or all be lost together. This being so manifest, how can we account for the conduct of many of our people? Is it not enough to make angels weep, to see American citizens engaged in pulling down their leaders and defenders at the very moment the enemy is upon them? To see them sacrificing their country and their all, under the insane delusion that they are achieving a party victory?

Sir,-Is there to be no end to this? Will newspapers and politicians persist at all hazards, in spreading discord, bitterness and strife among the people and in the army?

Then, Sir, we have seen the beginning of the end. Our destruction is only a question of months. It will certainly come.

And yet, sir, notwithstanding this deplorable state of things, it is not, in the language of the Governor, too late to save the country. It can

be done. But there is only one way to do it. We must crush out this rebellion. Nothing short of this will avail.

And we can crush out the rebellion, gigantic as it is. We have only to be united to be ultimately victorious. We must sustain our army and navy and our commander-in-chief. We must cease to appoint and remove generals and to dictate the conduct of the war, as the condition of our support. We must leave military affairs in the hands of those to whom they belong.

And to this end, also, patriotic ardor must once more be revived in the hearts of the people. It is there. It still burns, though deadened by losses and disappointments. May each one of us fan these embers until they blaze again with increase effulgence.