to constitute a State, into whose hands will that power fall?

Beware of committing yourselves to the fatal doctrine of recognizing the existence in the Union, of States which have been declared by the President's Proclamation to be in rebellion. For, by this new device of the enemy, this new version of the poisonous State rights doctrine, the secessionists will be able to get back by fraud what they failed to get by fighting. Do not permit them, without proper safe-guards, to resume in your counsels in the Senate and in the House the power which their treason has stripped from them.

Do not allow old States, with their constitutions still unaltered, to resume State powers.

Be true to the Union men of the south, not to the designing politicians of the border States. The rebellious States contain ten times as many traitors as loyal men. The traitors will have a vast majority of the votes. Clothed with State rights under our constitution, they will crush every Union man by the irresistible power of their legislation. If you would be true to the Union men of the south, you must not bind them hand and foot, and deliver them over to their bitterest enemies.

STATE RIGHTS IN CIVIL WAR.

Beware of entangling yourselves with the technical doctrine of forfeitures of State rights, as such doctrines admit, by necessary implication, the operation of a code of laws, and of corresponding civil rights, the existence of which you deny.

To preserve the Union, requires the enforcement

against public enemies of our belligerent rights of

civil war.

ATTITUDE OF THE GOVERNMENT IN THE BEGINNING OF THE WAR TOWARDS THE REBELS, AND TOWARDS LOYAL MEN IN REBEL DISTRICTS.

When the insurrection commenced by illegal acts of secession, and by certain exhibitions of force against the government, in distant parts of the country, it was supposed that the insurgents might be quelled, and peace might be restored, without requiring a large military force, and without involving those who did not actively participate in overt acts of treason.

Hence the government, relying upon the patriotism of the people, and confident in its strength, exhibited a generous forbearance towards the insurrection.

When, at last, 75,000 of the militia were called out, the President, still relying upon the Union sentiment of the South, announced his intention not to interfere with loyal men, but, on the contrary, to regard their rights as still under the protection of the constitution. The action of Congress was in accordance with this policy. The war waged by this government was then a personal war, a war against rebels; a war prosecuted in the hope and belief that the body of the people were still friendly to the Union, who, temporarily overborne, would soon right themselves by the aid of the army. Hence Congress declared, and the President proclaimed, that it was not their object to injure loyal men, or to interfere with their rights or their domestic institutions.

THE PROGRESS OF EVENTS CHANGED THE CHARACTER OF THE WAR, AND REQUIRED THE USE OF MORE EFFECTIVE WAR POWERS.

This position of the government towards the rebellious States was forbearing, magnanimous, and just

while the citizens thereof were generally loyal. But the revolution swept onward. The entire circle of the southern States abandoned the Union, and carried with them all the border States within their influence or control.

Having set up a new government for themselves; having declared war against us; having sought foreign aid; having passed acts of non-intercourse; having seized public property, and made attempts to invade States which refused to serve their cause; having raised and maintained large armies and an incipient navy; assuming, in all respects, to act as an independent, hostile nation, at war with the United States- claiming belligerent rights as an independent people alone could claim them, and offering to enter into treaties of alliance with foreign countries and treaties of peace with ours under these circumstances they were no longer merely insurgents and rebels, but became a belligerent public enemy. The war was no longer against "certain persons" in the rebellious States. It became a territorial war; that is to say, a war by all persons situated in the belligerent territory against the United States.

CONSEQUENCES RESULTING FROM CIVIL TERRITORIAL WAR.

If we were in a war with England, every Englishman would become a public enemy, irrespective of his personal feelings towards us. However friendly he might be towards America, his ships on the sea would be liable to capture, himself would be liable to be killed in battle, or his property, situated in this country, would be subject to confiscation.

By a similar rule of the law of nations, whenever

two nations are at war, every subject of one belligerent nation is a public enemy of the other.

An individual may be a personal friend, and at the same time a public enemy, to the United States. The law of war defines international relations.

When the civil war in America became a territorial war, every citizen residing in the belligerent districts became a public enemy, irrespective of his private sentiments, whether loyal or disloyal, friendly or hostile, Unionist or secessionist, guilty or innocent.

As public enemies, the belligerents have claimed to be exchanged as prisoners of war, instead of admitting our right to hang them as murderers and pirates. As public enemies, they claim the right to make war upon us, in plain violation of many of the obligations they would have admitted if they acknowledged the obligations or claimed the protection of our constitution.

If they had claimed any State rights, under our constitution, they would not have violated every one of the provisions thereof limiting the powers of States. Asserting no such rights, they claim immunity from all obligations as States, or as a people, to this government or to the United States.

WHEN DID THE REBELLION BECOME A TERRITORIAL WAR?

This question has been settled by the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of the Hiawatha, decided on the 9th of March, 1863. In that case, which should be read and studied by every citizen of the Union, the members of the court differed in opinion as to the time when the war became territorial. The majority decided that, when the fact of general hostili

ties existed, the war was territorial, and the Supreme Court was bound to take judicial cognizance thereof. The minority argued that, as Congress alone had power to declare war, so Congress alone has power to recognize the existence of war; and they contended that it was not until the Act of Congress of July 13, 1861, commonly called the Non-intercourse Act, that a state of civil, territorial war was legitimately recognized. All the judges agree in the position "that since July 13, 1861, there has existed between the United States and the Confederate States, civil, territorial war."

WHAT ARE THE RIGHTS OF THE PUBLIC ENEMY SINCE THE REBELLION BECAME A TERRITORIAL CIVIL WAR.

The Supreme Court have decided, in the case above named, in effect: "That since that time the United

*

If this decision be restricted to its most technical and narrow limits, the only point actually decided was, that the captured vessels and cargoes were lawful prize. The parties before the court are alone bound by the judgment. Viewed in like manner, the only point decided in the case of Dred Scott was, that the court had no jurisdiction of the matter. Nevertheless, learned judges have taken occasion to express opinions upon legal or political questions. Their opinions are of great importance, not because they are or are not technical decisions of points in issue, but because they record the deliberate judgment of those to whom the same questions will be referred for final determination. The judge who has pronounced an extra-judicial opinion, and has placed it upon the records of the court, is not, it may be said, bound to follow it; but it is equally true, that the court is never bound to follow its previous most solemn "decisions." These decisions may be, and often have been, modified, overruled, or disregarded by the same court which pronounced them. If the members of a judicial tribunal, though differing upon minor questions, agree upon certain fundamental propositions, it is worse than useless to deny that these propositions, even though not “technically decided," have the authoritative sanction of the court. The unanimous agreement of all the members of a judicial court to certain principles, affords to the community as satisfactory evidence of their views of the law as could be derived from a decision in which these principles were technically the points in controversy. It is for these reasons that it has been stated in