a traitor; and there were few officers or men in the United States armies who were not also traitors to their country, for they nursed the wounded and the sick, relieved their suffering, and fed their enemies; and who but a brute would not help a fallen foe? And does any one suppose that a civilized and enlightened people would regard it as treason to hold a refreshing glass to the parched lips of a wounded soldier whom he himself has just laid prostrate at his feet? And the government of the United States too, under this interpretation, has been a traitor to itself; for who fed so many as Mr. Lincoln? Who nursed so many of the sick and wounded as Mr. Lincoln? Who clothed so many as Mr. Lincoln, and then restored them to the ranks of the Confederate army; and yet, could not he take this oath? If to give food to the hungry or nurse the wounded and sick was an offense, so it was equally a crime to give a glass of water to the thirsty; and if this constituted treason, I confess myself as among the most culpable of traitors; for all this have I done. I have probably fed to a greater extent than any one man in the Confedcracy (only because they were around me all the time); but God knows as well as I that it was never done with a view to help the rebellion, for which I never, for the first moment, had the least particle of sympathy or respect. I did sympathize with my misguided, deluded, cheated, betrayed countrymen, but never did I have the least sympathy for the rebellion or its authors.

If this was the only difficulty in the way of my friend, Mr. Rives, I think he would manage to swallow the oath; but, unfortunately, there is the other difficulty of his having accepted the commission of captain in the Confederate service, under which he could not take the oath; and I regret it deeply and sincerely, for I believe he was in his heart all the time a Union man; and although we have always differed in politics, I believe he is an honest, fearless, patriotic man in every sense and in all relations but this, in which he made, as I think, a great mistake; and believing in his entire loyalty now, I should be highly gratified to see him in the public councils at this time if it were not that he can not conscientiously comply with the laws of his country; and I commend his example, in withholding the use of his name for the purpose of stirring up more discord and trouble in the land, as one worthy of imitation by others who are in the same situation.

I am, with great respect, your obedient servant, JOHN M. Borts. To W. H. Southall, James H. Burnley, J. W. Bowcock, William T. Early, G. Peyton, Thomas Wood, Ira Garrett, C. II. Price, and T. W. Woods, Esqs.

Auburn, near Brandy Station, September 26, 1865. MY DEAR SIR,-Your letter of the 22d instant was received yesterday, and I have given to the views you present that careful consideration which your opinions always command from me, and to my mind it appears that if we do not entirely agree, it is a distinction without a difference.

You claim for Congress all the power that I claim; but you put it on the ground of a "general legislative function” and an "inherent power of Congress to defend itself against disloyalty in the service of the government;" and in doing this, I think, you surrender the whole question, for how can this general legislative function, this inherent right to pass a law which creates an additional qualification for members of Congress be defended, unless it is in pursuance of the provisions of the Constitution? And if its constitutionality is conceded, from what clause can it be more clearly derived than from that to which I have traced it? If the same power can be derived from any other clause, it only serves to strengthen my position.

You first deny the power of Congress to prescribe any additional qualification to those already enumerated in the Constitution, and then you claim for Congress the power to prescribe this particular test-oath, which you admit, and which does, beyond doubt, create an additional qualification.

Now I might content myself with asking you "What is the difference between the power of Congress to prescribe an additional qualification and the power to pass a law the effect of which is to create this qualification? Or, if you prefer it, what is the difference between a law that is designed to produce a certain effect and one by which the same effect is produced? The first maxim we were taught in mathematics in our schoolboy days was, that 'things equal to the same are equal to one another.'" But I want to vindicate my own position with you, and will not be content with your solution of this problem, and therefore I proceed.

You and Mr. Stuart (in his card) both seem to dread the abuse of this power of Congress over the qualification of its members. Undoubtedly this, like all other powers, may be liable to abuse, but less so, perhaps, than almost any other, for the reason that it operates equally upon themselves as upon their successors; but its liability to abuse is no argument against its legitimate exercise. There are but few if any powers conferred upon the executive branch of the government that have not been abused-especially the veto power and the power of appointment to and removal from office have been grossly abused; but it can not for that rea

son be argued that the veto power and the power to appoint and remove for cause have not been conferred upon the President, although not a word is said in the Constitution about the power of removal. It is a derivative power, and one derived from the power to appoint; as is this a derivative power, derived from the powers to which I have already called attention. Now if the framers of the Constitution meant to say that no other oath should ever be required, why didn't they say so? Why did they confine their prohibition to this one specific religious test-oath? In short, all power is liable to abuse, whether lodged with the executive, legislative, or judicial department of the government, and each, in turn, has abused its power.

If the Constitution had said, as our State Constitution reads, "Any person who has attained the age of twenty-five, has been a citizen for seven years," etc., etc., shall be entitled or qualified to serve as a representative in Congress, then I might agree with you that the qualification was fixed and unalterable. But such is not the reading of the Constitution; it deals in the negative, and not the affirmative qualifications. It says: "No person shall be a representative without certain specified qualifications, which are deemed all-important, and shall, under no circumstances, be dispensed with." Then in another part of the Constitution one other indispensable requisite is prescribed, to wit, that the representative shall be sworn to support the Constitution, but no religious test-oath shall ever be required. Shall ever be required by whom and how? By Congress, and by law, of course. But is not this equivalent to saying that, if hereafter it shall be found necessary and proper, Congress may by law require any other than a religious test-oath, especially, too, when it is provided that Congress shall have power "to make all laws which may be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing power, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof?" And can there be any thing more necessary and proper in conducting the government than that there should be wise, judicious, patriotic, and loyal legislation, and an honest and faithful execution of the laws?

The only qualification prescribed by the Constitution for a judge of the Supreme Court, and consequently for chief-justice, is that he shall take an oath to support the Constitution. Now suppose some beast of a President, with a demoralized Senate at his heels, should nominate for chiefjustice an ignorant tool as a reward for his partisan services, or some political prostitute who had been convicted of bribery, perjury, or other infamous

P

offense, or an alien, ignorant of our laws, customs, and language, or a popular military commander who had no knowledge of law, or in any other way the necessity had arisen or was likely to arise, do you think it would violate either the letter or the spirit of the Constitution if Congress were to add to this oath to support the Constitution such other qualifications as that he should be of a certain age, that he should have studied and obtained a license to practice law, that he had never been convicted of an infamous offense, and that he should be a white man, and a citizen of the United States; and if they could thus add to the constitutional qualifications of a judge, why not to those of a member of Congress?

"Each house shall be the judge of the elections, returns, and qualifications of its members." I can not concur in your interpretation of this clause, that it was only intended to interdict mandamus, etc. That this was one object I do not doubt, but not the only one. Nor does it follow, as you suppose, that by my construction one house might prescribe one set of qualifications, and the other another.

I think this clause was intended to apply to the qualifications as provided by the Constitution, or such as might at a future day be prescribed or required by law, and not that each house might establish qualifications for itself, but that each should judge for itself whether its members possessed the qualifications and came up to the requirements of the Constitution and the law. At the time of the adoption of the Constitution negroes were nowhere and by nobody recognized as citizens of the United States; therefore to require that the President, Vice-president, members of Congress, etc., should be citizens of the United States, was equivalent to requiring that none but white persons should be capable of filling these offices. But now this whole matter has been changed. Negroes have been made citizens, and the right to vote and to represent has been claimed for them; and already a colored lawyer has been admitted to practice in the Supreme Court. Now let me ask you if you think it would conflict with the terms of the Constitution, or with the purposes of its framers, if Congress were to provide by law that no one of African descent should be capable of filling these high offices? Or do you think our institutions would be endangered thereby? But can any thing be more absurd than the pretensions set up, that while these men have forfeited their lives to the requirements of the Constitution and law, that, nevertheless, the same Constitution has secured to them an inalienable and indestructible right to legislate for the country they had for four years labored and fought to destroy?

You can not infer from my letter to the gentlemen in Albemarle who did me the honor to seek my opinions that I intended to deny the power of each state to fix the qualifications of its own officers, in addition to the one prescribed by the Constitution of the United States. On the contrary, my purpose was to show that they had such power, and that it had never been disputed; but my argument was, that as this clause did not operate as a limitation to the power of the state except as to the religious test-oath, so in like manner it did not operate as a limitation to the power of Congress to add to as circumstances might require, but not to depart from the qualifications therein prescribed.

I am sorry there should be any difference between us on this point, but, as I have already said, it is more in the use of terms than in substance, and I care very little for the use of terms provided I get the substance.

May I not, then, ask you to review your own argument, and tell me why more apprehension should be felt for the safety of our institutions bccause the law-making power is intrusted with the right to add to the qualifications of the members of Congress, and to throw additional safeguards around the legislation of the country, than they are from the power to raise armies, make war, regulate commerce, impose taxes, and enforce the laws by arms if necessary; and, when you have done this, I will take much pleasure in reviewing my own arguments, and recanting my opinions if convinced of my error.

I am ever faithfully and truly yours,

JOHN M. Borrs.

PRESIDENT JOHNSON'S POLICY OF RECONSTRUCTION.

When Mr. Johnson's policy of reconstruction was first announced, I thought he committed a mistake in not calling Congress together, that the law-making power might act harmoniously together, and because I believed that reconstruction could not be valid and complete without the sanction of the Senate, House, and President; nevertheless, it was not for me to cavil about it while all others seemed to acquiesce.

That policy, as I then understood it, was to extend pardon to the least culpable of the rebels, and to make “treason odious" by some judicious system of punishment for the more wicked and guilty offenders, and especially that all political power was to be withheld from those who had shown themselves so unfaithful to their obligations of duty, and so unfit and unworthy to be trusted again.

Under these circumstances, and with this understanding, I labored for months in efforts to restore harmony to the distracted South, in procuring