ferson, Samuel Adams and Patrick Henry, who gave it only a reluctant support, while the Federalists, Hamilton and John Adams, were better pleased and warmly advocated its adoption. And, in truth, there are some features of our Constitution that might be improved upon. The bungling Electoral College, the cqual representation of small and large States in the Senate, the useless office of Vice-President, and the immense power of appointment to office in the hands of the President, are all features in our form of government which experience has proved to be deleterious or useless, and in conflict with the fundamental principle-the people to govern -upon which our political fabric has been reared.

And whilst the welfare and best interests of cach inhabitant of our country can be best promoted by our Union, it may be well to remember that that Union can be made an engine of oppression by the influence of powerful "rings" and "lobbies," taxing the whole people for the interests of a few, and creating numerous and useless offices to be filled with useless and

indolent camp followers. The natural remedy for all this is to retain all possible law-making powers in the hands of the people, to be delegated, first, to the town organization, where all subjects of a local nature may be considered; next to the county, and then to the State, only permitting Congress to legislate on those

subjects of general interest which experience has demonstrated to be just and necessary. The powers now enumerated and granted in the Constitution are, with the slight exception alluded to, eminently wise and just, testifying to the good sense and practical knowledge of the framers of that, in most respects, perfect instru

ment.

The first serious conflict of opinions after the adoption of our form of government occurred on the passage of the Alien and

Sedition Laws, in which the Federalists authorized and empowered the President to arrest and expel from the country any foreigner whom he might suspect to be dangerous, and to stop the publication of any pamphlet or newspaper he should consider seditious. These arbitrary powers, placed in the hands of the Executive, were considered by the people to be very dangerous, and were strongly opposed by the Democratic party. The Federalists became, in consequence of them, very unpopular, and lost the next elections and the control of the government. In 1812 the same party opposed the war with England, which lost it what little remaining popularity there was left, and in 1824-28 it became entirely submerged in the Whig party.

The principal measures advocated by this-the Whig party-were a government bank, in which all the government moneys should be deposited for the use of the "ring" that controlled it,

and with no good security for its return; an extended system of internal improvements, for which the money was to be raised by taxation, to be spent by rings in the furtherance of private interests; and a high protective tariff, the effect of which is to give certain manufacturers a monopoly at the expense of the public. Of course all these measures, inimical to the interests of the people, were opposed by the Democratic party, and constantly defeated as often as they appeared under whatsoever disguise or party nomenclature.

The Whig party having been finally overwhelmed in 1852, was disbanded, and the present Republican party stepped into its shoes, adopting the old name by which the Democratic party had been designated previous to General Jackson's administration.

The distinctive features of the old Federal and Whig parties reappeared in the new organization—a tariff for the protection of "rings' and monopolies, and a disposition to enlarge the powers of the central government at the expense of the State governments and the people.

But the principal feature of the new party was its position on the slavery question. Openly disregarding the Constitution, it proclaimed a "higher law," which its leaders asserted was of greater authority than any law of man or Constitution of the country, and which authorized it to take the stand that slavery should not be

permitted to enter the territories. For the fact that, however much we may dislike polygamy, intemperance and other evils, we may not attempt their suppression, in defiance of law, is too just to be a moment disputed by reasonable men. We should change laws, not nullify them. But although the Republican party took this position in regard to slavery in the territories, it distinctly disclaimed any intention to interfere with the institution where it already existed. And when the Southern States, without waiting for any actual infringement of their rights, precipitated the "Rebellion," the Republican leaders had no other course left them than to "take care that the laws and the Constitution be obeyed."

It is true that they themselves had been strangely and persistently blind to their own violations of the Constitution by the enactment of the Personal Liberty Bills in many of the Northern States, in which their refusal to obey the laws and their determination to obstruct their enforcement, had been for several years exhibited, and this fact renders them liable to the charge of a neglect of duty, and a disregard for law, most strongly at variance with their professed new-born zeal for the Union and the Constitution.

The war for the "maintenance of the Union and the Constitution" having been inaugurated, it was prosecuted by a united North to a suc

cessful conclusion. It is true that there were very many persons in both parties who, like Henry Ward Beecher and Horace Greeley, were willing to let the "crring sisters depart in peace." Actuated by kindly motives, which did their hearts credit, many of them sought to stop the clash of arms and restore the country to its normal condition of friendly feeling and good will, which was, however, simply impossible after the fires had been kindled and the violent altercation had begun between the Northern and Southern Radicals.

The remarkable assertions of the Republicans, that their party alone preserved the Union and re-established the supremacy of the Constitution, and that the Democratic party favored the rebellion, are scarcely worthy the attention of sensible people, and bear upon their face their own condemnation. Nearly equally divided as both parties were, both before and since the war, it is simply preposterous to suppose that if the Democrats, or a majority of them, had favored the secession of the South that the Republicans alone could have overcome their united strength.

The vote of the States not in secession was: In 1864, for Lincoln...2 213,663; for McClellan...1,802,237. In 1880, for Garfield...3,714,846; for Hancock.....3,353,338.

These figures abundantly show that it was physically impossible for the Republican party to have conquered the South if the Northern