did for four years constitute a government "de fucto;" and it follows that all those who assisted in creating that de facto government, by voting in convention for an ordinance of secession or signing the same, or who voluntarily took the oath of allegiance to or held office, civil or military, under the said "de facto" government, which offices could only be held by citizens of a government then hostile to and at war with the United States, thereby alienated themselves from the government of the United States, and, by thus renouncing their allegiance, disclaimed all pretensions to its protection, and are therefore aliens to this government, and can only be restored to the rights of citizenship through the established laws of naturalization, or by a special act of legislation.

8th. There can be no difference in law or in fact in the political status of those Southern persons who have taken the oath of allegiance to the "de facto" government of the so-called Emperor Maximilian, and those who have taken a similar oath, or otherwise made themselves citizens of the "de facto" government of the so-called President Davis.

9th. These being the natural, lawful, and unavoidable consequences of sccession, alienation, and treason, it follows that the functions of government in those states lately in rebellion have been suspended by the unconstitutional action of those temporarily in authority in those states; and that these state governments can only be restored through the action of the law-making power of the United States; and upon the suppression of the rebellion and the restoration of peace, the right to govern and control these states naturally, constitutionally, and inherently devolves on the loyal citizens thereof, who have fallen heirs to the estate, and who can not lawfully be subjected to the power and control of alien enemies to them and to the country; and that these loyal citizens have also a natural, constitutional, and inherent right, under the sanction of said law-making power, to resume their original position in the government and councils of the nation; and, therefore, all representatives to Congress who present themselves with the proper evidence of clection, and who are prepared, honestly and in good faith, to comply with the Constitution and laws of the United States, should be admitted without unnecessary delay to a participation in the legislation of the nation; and to withhold this right is to place the loyal on the same platform with the disloyal—the friends on a footing with the enemics of the country.

10th. The President is clothed with the power to grant reprieves and pardons to those who have committed offenses against the United States; but as none are legally offenders, and as no man in this country can be

legally punished for any offense, no matter how atrocious or aggravated the crime, until he has been tried and convicted of the offense with which he stands charged, so no reprieve or pardon (the exercise of which powers commence simultaneously) can be constitutionally granted before the party or parties have been tried and convicted according to law; and, therefore, all pardons heretofore granted to those lately in robellion have been premature, and are null and void.

11th. It is patent to observing men that all attempts at reconstruction in many of the states, through the misplaced confidence and unappreciated kindness and magnanimity of the President, through the action of those who have occupied the relations of alien enemics to the United States, have not only failed in their anticipated effects, but are in many respects unsafe as a precedent, pernicious in their results, dangerous to our institutions, and should be commenced "de novo."

12th. Therefore, in all such states as have not, in the opinion of the law-making power, been finally reconstructed, it will be right and proper that a military or provisional governor of loyal antecedents should be appointed (except for the State of Virginia), with instructions to call a convention, to be composed of loyal men only, to be elected by those who are authorized to vote by their existing State Constitutions.

13th. The State of Virginia, although a large majority of her people were in rebellion, has been continuously and without interruption, through the action of a portion of her loyal citizens, recognized as a state government by every department of the government of the United States; with a governor regularly elected under the Constitution of 1851; with her representatives admitted to seats in each branch of Congress during the rebellion, she therefore stands in a different relation to the government from those States that have disclaimed all right to such representation, and that have had provisional governors since the war appointed by the President. 14th. But inasmuch as the Constitution of Virginia, now in operation, declares that the House of Delegates shall consist of not less than eighty, nor more than one hundred and four members, and the Senate shall never be less than one fourth that number; and inasmuch as the first Legislature that assembled under that provision of the Constitution consisted of only fourteen in one house and six in the other, and as the present Legislature now in session at Richmond was authorized and convened by the said "town council” (as it has been aptly termed in the Senate of the United States), which possessed no such authority; and as the present Legislature is composed, in a large part, of those who were expressly forbidden by the

Constitution under which they profess to act to hold any office whatever; and inasmuch as such Constitution imperatively requires an oath to be administered to each one before he shall be qualified to serve as a member of the Legislature, which oath has never been administered to any one member of the body, but has been totally disregarded and set aside; and inasmuch as they have proceeded without authority to remove all disabilities imposed upon themselves by the Constitution, and have at the same time endeavored, by their legislative action, to make treason a virtue to be rewarded, and loyalty to the United States a crime to be punished, by removing from office every loyal citizen whom they could reach, and substituting in their stead those who have figured conspicuously in the rebel service, and who are disqualified by the Constitution from holding the offices which they have been selected to fill; therefore, it is clear that there has been no constitutionally organized legislative body in Virginia since their present Constitution was adopted in the year 1864, and that, by necessary consequence, all acts, and parts of acts, resolutions, elections, appointments, and other proceedings adopted by either of the bodies styling themselves "The Legislature of Virginia” since the adoption of the Alexandria Constitution, have been in violation of the plainest provisional requirements of that Constitution, and are absolutely null and void, and of no effect.

15th. In this condition of things it is imperatively necessary that the restoration of that state to its national rights should be commenced "de novo" by the call of a Legislature by the governor of the state, to be composed of loyal men only, under such restrictions upon the eligibility to office as the Constitution provides, and under such enlargement of the qualification of suffrage as the military authorities may prescribe (that state being still under military control), as will render an election practicable.

THE GARNETT LETTERS-THE FIRST LETTER.

The following letter will explain itself. It was addressed to a gentleman that I knew to be a warm personal friend, and I had supposed sympathized in all my political views, but in this it seems I was mistaken. Whether the fault was mine or his, it is not proper here to inquire; but I addressed the letter to him through the public prints-having first asked his permission to do so-in reply to one just received from him.

This letter was intended as an explanation of the above axioms, and as illustrative of my views of the political sentiment and condition of Virginia at the time.

MUSCOE GARNETT, Esq. :

Alexandria, Va., February 16, 1866.

DEAR SIR,-Your letter reached me last night, in which you say, "The report of the proceedings of the Alexandria meeting has been published here, and is doing you serious injury; the committee appointed to wait upon you reported that suffering from neuralgia prevented you addressing tho mccting, and that you declined doing so with thanks, leaving it to be inferred that, if well, you would have accepted the invitation, and that you approved the object of the meeting. This has inspirited your enemies and dispirited your friends to a degree you can scarcely imagine. Your letter to me says you disapproved of the movement, but I am not authorized to publish it; it is due to yourself and your many warm friends that you should clearly define your position. We can elect you to the Senate before the adjournment, with this difficulty removed; let it rest as it is, and there is no chance."

You will excuse me, my good friend, for saying that no man, in my opinion, ever had a body of as many warm friends as I know, and gratefully know, I have, who was so frequently called upon to defend himself before them for every idle and ridiculous conjecture that his enemies might whisper to his disadvantage. Let me state the facts of the case: I arrived here on that afternoon without the slightest knowledge that such a mecting was in contemplation; during the evening the committee appointed for that purpose called, and extended the invitation to attend the meeting and address them, to which I replied, "Why, gentlemen, it would be impossible for me to address the meeting without making my. self an unacceptable guest, as I do not concur with you in your views. I am inflexibly opposed to your whole scheme. I can not admit that there is any power in Congress to reduce a state to the condition of a territory; the Constitution provides for making a state out of a territory, but it nowhere provides for reducing a state to a territory." They then asked me if they should give that as my reply to the meeting. I said, "Oh no; that might be regarded as discourteous to the meeting; mako some excuse for me: say I have the neuralgia, and am afraid to venture out," and I might have added, return them my thanks for the compliment. If I did not, I should have done it; common civility required it, and I am obliged to the committee for supplying the omission if I did not; but it never entered into my mind that this most innocent occurrence would involve me in so much trouble with my friends elsewhere; but that to decline an invitation to address a meeting, with "thanks" for

the compliment extended, would justify the inference that I was necessarily in sympathy with the views and political purposes of the meeting, is just one inch and a half beyond the extent of my comprehension !

It was but the last month that I declined an invitation from the Tammany (Democratic) Society of New York to dine with them, and I expressed to them, in more than ordinarily strong terms, my thanks for the invitation; but I have never heard of any Democratic enemy whispering the apprehension that I was, therefore, in sympathy with the Democracy, and was about to join that party. Morcover, it was known to at least thirty or forty of my friends in the two houses that I was entirely opposed to the objects and purposes of the Alexandria meeting, for they had heard me express that opposition only ten days before while I was on a visit to Richmond, and, without any publication from me, they could have made that fact known to every man in both houses in thirty minutes by the watch. The only question connected with territories in which I felt any interest was that General "Terry" should be left to manage the "Tories" in Richmond according to their respective merits.

If the record of my life should hereafter be deemed worthy of a chapter in history, it would contribute a singular paragraph that would read thus: The Legislature of his state was just about to elect him to a seat in the Senate of the United States, but it unfortunately happened that just at that time a meeting of his fellow-citizens invited him to address them, which he respectfully declined, with his "thanks" to the meeting for the compliment, which was deemed so offensive to his friends that they abandoned the idea.

But you say, "It is due to myself and my many warm friends that I should clearly define my position." If I could live to the age of "Methuselah," when would the necessity cease for defining my position? I see other public men pass through a long life of public service without ever once being called on by their friends to define their position, and when their enemies take them to task, and hold them up to public censure, their friends are never backward in coming to their defense and defining it for them. Not so with me and my friends; they have always lent a too ready ear to the tales of our common enemics. Is this because I have been a doubtful man-one who halted and hesitated, waiting to catch the popular breeze before I took my position, and who, having taken it, was not to be relied upon for holding and maintaining it? I do not think the record of my life would justify this lack of confidence on the part of my friends. I believe my worst enemics entertain no such opinion of me.