I tempted when the President left it to the Judges, or, in other words, to the Constitution, to say whether Proclamations, which he had issued as Head of the Army, should be allowed to stand. Unhappiest and most contemptible of all nations are we, if whilst every other nation can carry on war with all the latitude of the law of war-of the law of necessity and of self-preservation, we are to be "cabined, cribbed, confined" by a mere paper. Infinitely better that we had no Constitution than that we should have one, which is allowed to fetter our freedom and restrict our choice of means in time of war.

By the way, the most cheering instance of resistance to this practice of supplanting the law of war with the Constitution is the recent disclaimer of the Supreme Court, in Vallandigham's case, of authority to review the proceedings of a military com

mission.

Never yet have we carried on an unconditional and square fight with the rebels: and never can we until we shall have the political and moral courage to resent and rise above the endeavors of demagogues and sympathizers with the rebels to embarrass our conduct of the war by these impertinent constitutional questions. But these questions are not the only hinderance in the way of the only proper mode of warfare. Another and not less serious hinderance has sprung up in the untimely agitation of the question: "Who shall be the next President ?" It is fearful to think how mighty are the electioneering influences, which will now be set at work by office-holders, office-seekers, army contractors, and many other classes. It is fearful to think how wide-spread and deep a concern there will be to conduct the War, not so as to end the rebellion and save the country, but so as to promote party and individual interests. It is fearful to think of the possible extent and character of the divisions that may now be wrought amongst ourselves -divisions that may do more than the enemy can do to destroy our beloved country. Who shall be the next President, should not have been spoken of before midsummer. The New-York Independent says it should only have been thought of. But it should not even have been thought of before that time. In the judgment of this journal, to be thinking from this early day of the Presidential Election-"to be prudently considering it"-to "ponder" itwould be the people's best preparation for acting wisely in it. But their unspeakably better preparation would be to forget the whole subject for the coming four or five months, and to be during all that time united as one man in wiping out the last remains of the accursed Rebellion. Such a perfect union for such a righteous end would be their best possible education for selecting none but a fit man for the Presidency.

Quite a natural fruit of this premature agitation of the Presidential question is it, that there are already on the one hand Union men who are slandering and vilifying Abraham Lincoln, and on the other hand Union men who will not tolerate even the most generous and friendly criticism on any of his views and measures.

ON THE CONSTITUTION.

War goes beyond Constitutional Restrictions.

Down with the Rebellion at Whatever Cost to the Constitution.

"The Body is more than Raiment!" The Country is more than the Constitution. Time now for nothing but to Crush the Rebellion.

TO MY NEIGHBORS :

of it.

"DAMN the Constitution!" said one in the hearing of myself and several others. I had always disliked profanity: and I had always honored the Constitution-welcoming every part Nevertheless this exclamation was music in my ears. Why was it? It was because of the connection and spirit in which it burst from the speaker. He was arguing with rapid and fervid eloquence that the Government should ply every possible means for the speediest crushing of the rebellion-when a listening Conservative threw in the qualification: "But all according to the Constitution!" No wonder that the speaker could not brook this interruption. No wonder that an oath should leap forth to attest the indignation of his patriotic soul. It was not contempt for the Constitution, but displeasure at the thrusting of it in his way, which prompted the profanity. Had it been the Bible itself, that was thus impertinently cited, an oath might still have been the consequence.

In a past century a New-England Puritan, in order to reconcile his black boy to the periodical whippings he gave him, said: "I whip you for the good of your soul.' To which the sufferer very naturally replied: "I wish I had n't a soul!" Often during this War has the excessively tender and untimely care for the Constitution tempted me to wish that we had n't a Constitution. Thus was I tempted when, July 22, 1861, the House of Representatives, instead of manfully resolving that the War was for putting down the Rebellion and for nothing else, meanly resolved that it was for maintaining the supremacy of the Constitution. Thus was I tempted when Congress, a year or two ago, was ridiculously employed in looking into the Constitution to learn how far it might confiscate the possessions of the millions who were striking at the life of the nation. I notice that, now again, Congress is, in this same connection, twattling about the Constitution. Thus was