ble that number. So intense is the feeling against the North, and the prospect of independence so much diminished by their recent victories, that a reunion with England or France, as colonies, has become a frequent subject of conversation, and would secure the approbation of the Southern people so soon as the hope of success is lost. I cannot but think, when looking over the foreign papers, that England and France would rejoice to see each section exhausted in prosecuting the war, under the hope of the restoration of their colonies, or the certain diminution of the power of the United States, which they have dreaded ever since the days of General Jackson, or fearing the rivalship of the United States in the commerce and trade of the world. A restoration of the old Union, under any possible oppression, I believe to be impossible. . . I have, as you know, always been a Union man, and violently opposed to secession, and was selected as the Union candidate in my old district, because of my long and determined hostility to nullification and secession, and received a unanimous vote in it. I would have spent my last dollar in its defence, or cheerfully yielded up my life for the preservation of the Union. But when I saw the President and Congress had set aside the Constitution, and under the tyrant's plea, necessity; that all security for property was gone-the habeas corpus suspended-citizens arrested and imprisoned without warrant, upon the suspicion of the Secretary, or other inferior officerspublic trials refused-the civil authorities made subordinate to the military-martial law declared by their generals, under which I am now writing, and for which I would be sent to Fort Warren, if deemed of sufficient importance-I could not but believe that our people acted rightly in seeking protection elsewhere than in such a Union. What could I promise them under such men as Lincoln and Seward, backed by two or three hundred thousand troops and a subservient Congress? When Andy Johnson with fifty or a hundred thousand men is sent here for our Governor, and Fremont is sent to abolitionize Eastern Tennessee and Western Virginia, can there be a doubt that subjection and the abolishment of slavery are the main objects of the war? If it shall end in subjugation and emancipation, it will be succeeded

by horrors, such as the world never witnessed-more destructive to the black than the white race, exceeding in cruelty the bloody scenes in Paris in '89, and our great and glorious Union will share the fate of Rome; military chieftains, ambitious and unprincipled, will be found to play the part of Cæsar, Lepidus, and Anthony, partition our country into Northern and Southern, instead of Eastern and Western empires, and the South, the beautiful, sunny South, will be divided out to the Goths and Vandals, who conquer us, and the people be made slaves of petty tyrants, like the Italians for hundreds of years, and for what? Because we thought we could not live in peace with our brethren of the North! or because they would not, and enslave us that they might emancipate the blacks! or because they wished our beautiful country to reward their Germans for conquering us.

"I am now too old and infirm to engage in any business, and sit in my room, day after day, meditating on the misfortunes which have fallen on my country, until my heart sinks with its future prospects."

This shows the operation of a good man's mind when reflecting upon passing events. Whether it took the correct view, is not the question; which is, did it, in fact, thus view things? This cannot be denied. The Union men South were led to take the views here presented some of which seem prophetic-and many acted accordingly. It was the acts of Mr. Lincoln and a Republican Congress that changed the Southern Union sentiment to what this letter states. The acts that produced this change were nearly or quite all of them wholly unnecessary, and might have been avoided, and the Union sentiment in the slave States not only preserved, but strengthened and confirmed. But this the abolitionists and real secessionists did not desire. It would have defeated the real purposes of both. They wanted war and disunion, and what has since followed, though destructive to the interests of all sections of the country. the first gun was fired.

Both of these parties were glad when

105. THE SUSPENSION OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS.

Every instance of the violation of the Constitution, or of rights of persons or property, was heralded at the South as evidence that remaining in or defending the old Union would subject everybody to the same or like wrongs. These violations of the Constitution, and not the right of secession, became the popular questions, and were, in the state of the public mind there, promptly decided against their authors, and the Government under which they acted. The authorized suspension of the great writ of freedom, by army officers-the habeas corpus, by Mr. Lincoln, not being permitted by the Constitution, saddened many a Northern heart, and gave a new impulse to secession. Mr. Lincoln, as President, had no authority to suspend this writ, and much less to confer that power upon others, as provided in his proclamation of May 10, 1861. Neither Mr. Lincoln nor his advisers, seem to have understood, or at least to have regarded the Constitution on this subject. That instrument forbids the suspension of this writ "unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it." The Constitution does not direct who shall determine the question of safety, or who shall make the suspension. It is certain that this power is not included in the enumeration of executive powers. We are necessarily thrown back upon the condition of things in England, at the time our Constitution was framed, to understand what those preparing it really contemplated. There is no difficulty in this. The writ of habeas corpus in England was designed to restrain and control the Executive power-to prevent it from shutting up men and refusing them the privileges of a trial, at the will of the executive power. This was a restraint upon the executive authority, which could only be removed by a law of Parliament, where the legislative and executive authority act together in making laws. Executive authority in England never suspended the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, nor was it ever suspended except by law, or ever authorized to be suspended by any authority, except that of Parliament. It never occurred to the English people that it might be

conferred upon military men down to the lowest grade. But this was done here by executive authority.

The laws of Congress require the United States judges to issue this writ when applied for in cases where they have jurisdiction. Every State, it is probable, has laws to the same effect. Mr. Lincoln's administration avoided the submission of the question of his authority to suspend the judiciary, by permitting or directing those having prisoners in custody from making any return, or obeying the judicial authority requiring their production. The Chief Justice of the United States, in John Merryman's case, issued a writ of habeas corpus, which was not obeyed by General Cadwallader, and his communication to Mr. Lincoln on the subject was unheeded. Other cases of defying the right of the writ of habeas corpus occurred. The Constitution and laws in this respect were ignored by Mr. Lincoln, his Cabinet, and all others acting under his authority.

Congress, by its Act of March 3, 1863, in conferring the power upon the President of suspending the writ of habeas corpus, furnished conclusive evidence that it did not believe the President had a right to exercise that power. If they believed he could suspend the privilege, why pass an act authorizing it? The judges of the Circuit Court, for the District of Columbia, expressed the opinion that they had the right to issue the writ of habeas corpus, whereupon the law creating the court was repealed by Congress, and approved by Mr. Lincoln, and they were thus legislated out of office, and more subservient men, under a new law, put in their places.

This Act of March 3, 1863, required a list of "state or political prisoners," to be furnished to the judges of the United States courts, and authorized the discharge of those not indicted within a certain time. But this part of the Act was never, in fact and good faith, executed. It contained other provisions not authorized by the Constitution-that whatever should be done in the name of the President, whether right or wrong, legal or illegal, or constitutional or not, should be a defence against all suits and proceedings claiming otherwise. Although the Constitution authorizes nothing of the kind, it being in conflict and in deroga

tion of that instrument, still, there was no means of resisting it. Laws tending to and in favor of liberty were not enforced during Mr. Lincoln's administration, by whatever name called, or however authorized. Military and executive tyranny had perfect sway, even beyond what he was permitted by his Cabinet to know-but if not, he was guilty with them, of impeachable offences. He acted without their knowledge, and they acted without his.

The great writ of civil liberty-the habeas corpus—was strangled by executive usurpation, in the land of liberty and law, and Congress confirmed it, and passed laws to protect all wrong-doers who acted under his authority. But Congress had no power to confer authority on him or any one else to suspend it. The suspension of this writ must be a legislative act. Congress is responsible to the people for the laws they make. A New York Legislature passed a bill concerning schools, which was to become a law, if a majority of voters should so determine at the election, which they did, but the courts held that the Legislature could not delegate any of their powers, but that they must take the responsibility of passing all laws. The suspension of the habeas corpus is not among the executive powers, nor does the Constitution authorize the delegation of legislative powers. Those framing that instrument, when seeking to restrain the suspension to two cases only, were not likely to provide that officers of the army, or any one else, should become judges, to determine whether the public safety required it. It was not intended to commit the question of individual liberty to the very persons designed to be restrained from suspending it, to protect their own wrongful acts in arresting and imprisoning a man. And yet thousands of military officers, probably, were authorized even to represent the Executive in this usurpation. In what age of the world before did usurpation of power delegate to others? Anciently men were thrust into dungeons, and detained there for years, with no means of redress. The executives then did precisely what was done in this country during the late civil war.

The fourth amendment of the Constitution is in these words: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,