and negroes, and making them competent for jury duty, it proceeds to declare how voting shall be done on the new constitution. Voters are required to swear that they have never given aid to secession in any State. This offers a premium to perjury, or shuts the door of repentance and reformation against those who have erred; and is of itself a monstrous instance of injustice. Not satisfied with this, the framers of the constitution clap a muzzle upon every man's mouth by requiring him to swear that he accepts for all time the social and political equality of the white and black races, not merely the 'political,' observe, but the 'social!' But the essential despotism of this new constitution reaches the climax when, after insisting on all these qualifications for voting, it disfranchises all persons who shall vote against the new constitution. We match this against any thing that can be found in the previous history of the world."

The Tennessee constitution is but little better, and it is probable that other constitutions will be found to contain some equally absurd propositions. But these are sufficient to show to what extremes Republicans will go to preserve their power. Not a Republican paper or speaker, as far as we know, has condemned these outrages upon the rights of man. If they do not openly praise the actors in these matters, they doubtless secretly applauded the effort to accomplish what they desire done. How long the American people will permit such abuses for such purposes, rests with them. We are no advocates of military tyranny; but even that, under respectable, well-informed, and honest officers, is preferable to the negro tyranny sought to be fastened upon the South through these reconstruction conventions. What the Republicans will next propose, remains to be seen. They are now too busy in trying to convict and depose the President to attend to reconstruction. When that work shall be completed, a new chapter will be acted.

123.-THE AMERICAN PRESS AND THE TELEGRAPH.

The first amendment of the national Constitution wisely forbids Congress to abridge the freedom of speech and of the press. During Mr. Lincoln's administration both these privileges were violated without even the formality of a law, and Congress passed

indemnity laws to protect those guilty of violating these rights. The press is an immense power in this country, consisting of papers of little consideration and those of the highest and most useful character. In many, the best capacity and highest characters are laboriously and conscientiously employed in ascertaining and publishing the truth, and in developing and disseminating the true principles of government. There is a wide difference between a sheet of news-portions of which may be without foundation —and a dignified and conscientious journal that labors to give its readers reliable facts and safe political principles, both tending to enlighten and benefit mankind.

Error once diffused through the telegraph is seldom corrected. This instrument, the work of scientific minds for ages, now made practically useful, chiefly by Professors Henry and Morse, both Americans, has been of immense service during the war, and continues to be so since the proclamation of peace. But this scientific instrument is made the vehicle of much error and many falsehoods, in the form of mere news, which bad men circulate for mischievous, and mostly for political purposes. During the Kansas troubles, falsehoods constituted the rule and truth the exception. This was so during the war, as was seen when General Pope telegraphed that he had won a victory at the second battle of Bull Run, when he had been defeated. Since the war, the telegraph has been the vehicle of more falsehoods than truths, from the South, sent by Freedmen's Bureau agents, military men, and others in the interest of the Republicans, for political effect. Grave speeches and fiery newspaper articles have been based on such information, when they were mere myths-the creation of the brain of some reckless partisan, willing to live by framing and circulating falsehoods which disgrace the nation. Our political contests call into service many such pens. We know of no remedy for these evils, but their injurious effects can be avoided to a con siderable extent, by carefully scrutinizing and weighing all such in telligence, and by patronizing and relying only upon papers conducted by able, careful, and candid men. We have in mind now an instance when in March, 1857, about eleven years since, a falsehood was telegraphed from Washington to all parts of the

country, which is still believed by a large portion of our people. The telegraph stated, and the Republican papers throughout the country, on the strength of it, declared that Chief-Justice Taney had, in the Dred Scott case, "decided that negroes had no rights that the white man was bound to respect." This has been a text for eleven years for the Republican party-its press and speakers -upon which to condemn and denounce him, and the party of which he was a member. Although its truth has been constantly denied, that party has persisted in the repetition of the charge. We know this charge to be untrue in letter and spirit. The Chief Justice neither held, believed, nor wished any thing of the kind. He had inherited a large number of slaves; he educated those that were capable of acquiring education, and gave all, who would accept it, their freedom, and supported, during life, those who, unable to support themselves, chose to remain with him. He preferred hiring labor to holding slaves. To misrepresent a judicial act of such a man is unpardonable, whatever the motive may be. With most of those who disseminated the charge there is no excuse, because they could have read what he did say in the Book of Reports, and then correct their error if it were unintentional. But, instead of doing this, the false charge followed that eminent and good man to his grave. The words quoted were not a part of the rulings of the Chief Justice or court, but are found in his recitals of historical facts of former times. After stating that negroes were not made citizens by the Federal Constitution, he said: “On the contrary, they were, at that time, considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings, who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and government might choose to grant them. It is not the province of the court to decide upon the justice or injustice, the policy or impolicy, of these laws. The decision of that question belonged to the political, or lawmaking power; to those who formed the sovereignty and framed the Constitution. The duty of the Court is to interpret the instrument they have framed, with the best lights we can obtain on the subject, and to administer it as we find it, according to its

true intent and meaning when it was adopted. . . . They had, for more than a century before, been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold, and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever a profit could be made by it. This opinion was, at that time, fixed and universal in the civilized portion of the white race. It was regarded as an axiom in morals as well as in politics, which no one thought of disputing, or supposed to be open to dispute; and men in every grade and position in society daily and habitually acted upon it in their private pursuits, as well as in matters of public concern, without doubting for a moment the correctness of this opinion. And in no nation was this opinion more firmly fixed or more uniformly acted upon than by the English Government and English people. They not only seized them on the coast of .Africa, and sold them, or held them in slavery for their own use, but they took them, as ordinary articles of merchandise, to every country where they could make a profit on them, and were far more extensively engaged in this commerce than any other nation in the world. The opinion thus entertained and acted upon in England was naturally impressed upon the colonies on this side of the Atlantic. And, accordingly, a negro of the African race was regarded by them as an article of property, and held, and bought, and sold as such in every one of the thirteen colonies which united in the Declaration of Independence and afterward framed the Constitution of the United States. The slaves were more or less numerous in the different colonies, as slave-labor was found more or less profitable. But no one seems to have doubted the correctness of the prevailing opinion of the time" (19 Howard, pp. 404, 407, 408). It will be seen that, instead of declaring it to be his opinion that the negroes had no rights which white men were bound to respect, he was stating historical facts, known by all well-informed men to be true, and which no one will deny, as the probable reason why the Constitution contained only the pro

visions then found in it. He showed that the English brought negroes from Africa and sold them where they could make profit, thus leading her colonies to do the same thing, stating what both thought of the matter. The Chief Justice was not responsible for history, and committed no offence in stating it. This is one of the cases where falsehood has been knowingly circulated by the telegraph and the Republican press, and the well-informed of the party, for political effect. There can be no denial or concealment of the fact that the charge was wantonly false, and known to be so by him who first sent it over the wires, and by the Republican press after the denial of its truth, for the purpose of injuring one of the best men in the world, and weakening and destroying the force and effect of what he did decide, to wit, that, under the Constitution, negroes of African descent were not citizens of the United States, and, therefore, the Court had no jurisdiction over a case where it depended upon the citizenship of a negro plaintiff. Whether that question was rightly or wrongly decided has nothing to do with the opinion falsely imputed to the Chief Justice, reiterated, and never recalled, and all for political effect. This was no fault of the telegraph, but of those who used it.

124. THE SECESSION STATES WERE NEVER, IN LAW, OUT OF THE UNION.

The Constitution expressly provides that new States may be admitted into the Union. Every new State has been admitted under this provision by an express statute, all of which remain unrepealed, nor is there any power in the Constitution authorizing a repeal. Nor any conferring power on the States to leave, withdraw, or secede, or permitting Congress to expel a State, or to declare war upon, or to conquer it. When once admitted, a State forms a part of the Union forever. There is no more power in Congress or a State to change this relation than there is for them to annul the Union, which we all claim to be sacred. Neither can change, except by successful revolution, shaking off the old Government and forming a new one, as we did when we expelled the British power and set up our own. Had our effort to shake off the British power fallen short of success, we should