tude, and love on which they counted when they went forth to fight her battles. Our slain soldiers, could they speak, would bid us stand by the Government. Our tens of thousands of broken families weeping over those who went to the army never more to return from it, bid us stand by the Government. The enlightened friends of freedom and righteousness the earth over bid us stand by the Government. And, loud above all, comes down the voice out of heaven: "Stand by the Government! Stand by the Government!"

DENYING SUFFRAGE EVEN TO SOLDIERS!

TELL the drunkard or the debauchee that he is a ruined man, and he will stare upon you with astonishment and frown upon you with indignation. So is it with this nation. She is annoyed and angry at the charge of being ruined. Nevertheless she has been ruined for more than forty years. From the sad hour when Slavery triumphed over Freedom in the Missouri Compromise, down to the present no sadder hour she has never ceased to be a ruined nation.

Our nation saw a fierce and mighty Rebellion spring up within her borders and ripen into the organization of an independent government. She saw here and there her little peace army, or rather armed police, betrayed into its hands; and here and there the rebels plundering her treasuries. She saw them so bold as to fire at her ships, and seize her forts, and build up fortifications over against her own. Nevertheless (thing unheard of in the history of nations!) she did not move. Why did she not? Simply because she could not. Why could she not? Simply because she was ruined.

It is true that the news of the taking of Sumter proved that the nation was not entirely dead. This electric shock detected some lingering remains of patriotism. But that President Lincoln, though loyal and loving the right, was nevertheless incompetent to avail himself of the occasion and to strike effectively for her salvation, was among the painful proofs that the nation was still ruined. In common with the nation, he was drugged and debauched by Slavery. How then could he suddenly rise up in earnest resistance to the Rebellion it had prompted? prompted? Oh! could he have then believed that the military necessities of the country would justify his summoning to his standard every slave in the land, how soon would the Rebellion have been put down! Or even had he gone no farther than to summon to it, at that nick of time, the slaves of the revolted States. Are we told that the people were not yet prepared for so strong a measure? They were: and never since so well. Moreover, the measure itself would have completed the preparation-would have supplied any possible lack in it. Nothing is so mighty to convert men to the right as bravery for the right. The fearless and unhesitating leader is the one they love to follow. Had the tide in our nation's affairs been taken at the Sumter flood it would have led her "on to fortune." But our

leader lacked the courage and decision to take it. Through his timidity and indecision it was left to subside, with but little profit having come of it. And alas, how has her voyage since been "bound in shallows and in miseries!" The enthusiasm kindled by the outrageous and infamous assault on Sumter was suffered to pass away. Very soon the people sank down into a willingness to hear demagogues and traitors prate about the Constitution. In none but a ruined nation can the people, at the very time when the life of their nation is struck at, give ear to such prating.

Does this late-in-the-day call upon the blacks to enroll themselves in our army prove that our nation is not ruined? Far from it— especially so, since the Government has not the manliness to promise to see to it that captured blacks shall, instead of being murdered or sold into Slavery as the rebels threaten, be treated as prisoners of war.

I referred to this prating about the Constitution. It continues unabated to this day. Anxiety lest we may lose, not the Country, but the Constitution, is no less irrational and is infinitely more ruinous than would be anxiety to save, not the man from drowning, but his hat from going down stream.

I, who have never spoken or written one word against the Constitution, and who have spoken and written more words for it than did ever any Pro-Slavery man living or dead, can afford to say that this prating for it has made "Constitution" the most offensive of all the sounds that strike upon my ear. "Slavery" itself is to me a less disturbing word than this one under cover of which Slavery is hypocritically served.

I spoke of the continuance of this prating. In reply to every proposition for a more vigorous prosecution of the war, we are still met with the cry: "The Constitution! The Constitution!!" And even now, when we would help on the war by allowing the soldiers of the State of New-York to vote at her elections, we are met by this same cry. Surely, surely, we have here another proof that our nation is ruined.

How commanding are the reasons for allowing them to vote! No other class of men have so emphatic a right to vote for the rulers of their country as these, who are periling their lives for her and doing more than any and all other classes to save her. There is no other class of men whose rights we should hold so sacred. Then to convince them that we love them and stand by them, we should hasten to recognize all their rights and to facilitate their exercise. Moreover, that they may be inspired to do their utmost for their country they must see that they are regarded, not as her armed defenders only, but as still her citizens-and her citizens not robbed of, but protected in, their rights by their fellow-citizens whom they have left at home. A European army is for the most part made up of the dregs of the population-of men without acknowledged political rights and without character. Very dif ferent is our army. It is composed of those, who, besides being our superiors in patriotism and courage, are our equals in rights,

intelligence, and character. Let this be borne in mind by all who would disfranchise them. I add that there is no other class of men, whom we should feel ourselves so strongly bound to honor and to gratify in every possible way as our noble and beloved soldiers. Another argument for allowing the soldiers to vote is, that here one of them who is a Democrat and there one of them who is a Republican will, under some excuse or other, go home to play his part in deciding a hotly contested and doubtful election. This, besides damaging the efficiency of the army, furnishes just ground of complaint, now to one of the parties and now to the other. Nevertheless the temptation to this violation of duty is too strong to be successfully resisted by all. American citizens, educated, as they are, to prize the ballot, and accustomed, as they are, to cast it, can not easily school themselves into contentment with not casting it.

But it is claimed that the framers of the Constitution of our State intended that voting at our elections should be always in person and never by proxy. Our Pro-Slavery demagogues have made so much account of the Pro-Slavery words of some of the framers of the Federal Constitution, that the habit of interpreting a Constitution in the light of what its framers intended has come to obtain all over the country. But in point of fact the intentions of its framers as such are not to be allowed to enter at all into the interpretation and meaning of a Constitution-no, no more than the intentions of the scrivener, who wrote the deed, into the interpretation and meaning of the deed. What the people who adopted it intended by it is the only legitimate inquiry at this point: and what they intended by it is to be learned solely from its letter where that is unambiguous. Nay more-where the purpose is to defeat rights (and suffrage is among the highest rights) we are not at liberty to seek help outside of the letter of the Constitution.

The letter of the Constitution in the case before us is entirely free from ambiguity. It clearly leaves it to the Legislature to say how the voting shall be-whether in person or by proxywhether it shall be all in one way-or a part in one way, and a part in another. It does say that a part of the voting shall be by ballot: and it might as easily have said that all voting shall be in person. But it does not say it. What it would have said, had it spoken on the point, is an utterly impertinent inquiry. Moreover, it is a fair, not to say irresistible inference that inasmuch as the Constitution does at one point and only one point prescribe the manner of voting, it intended to leave it to the Legislature to prescribe it at every other. I add that were it our custom to vote by proxy no one would regard such voting as repugnant to the Constitution. But clearly if with that custom it would not be unconstitutional, the lacking of that custom can not make it unconstitutional. Not custom, but the Constitution, determines what voting is Constitutional.

So far as the Constitution is concerned the Legislature may

provide that all the voting be by proxy. I admit that such a provision would be unwise. I admit too that I can conceive of no other case than that of the soldiers in which it would be wise. In their case it would be, not only for the reasons I have mentioned, but because the soldiers are so numerous. I would not, for the sake of accommodating a comparative handful of aged or infirm men, have our States allow so objectionable a mode of voting as is that by proxy. But for the sake of securing the rights of half a million to a million of soldiers I would not only have them allow it, but I would denounce the denial of it as unreasonable and unrighteous-a high crime against both the soldiers and the country. For one I shout with joy, and I would have every other lover of his dear country and of her dear defenders do so, that there is not one line nor one word in our State Constitution against voting by proxy.

I said that our nation is ruined. She is. But I have never despaired of her recovery from her ruin. Few things inspire me with so strong a hope of this recovery as the growing disposition to let the army vote. They who meet the rebels face to face, know better how to vote than do we who keep ourselves at a safe distance from the foe. Ay, and they have better earned the right to vote. If either of us must be disfranchised-I, who remain amidst the comforts and safety of home, or he who welcomes the sufferings and perils of the soldier; I, who know the rebels but by hearing of them, or he, who knows them by seeing and feeling them; I, who but read of the battles, or he, who has part in them—then, in the name of reason and religion, it should be I and not he. GERRIT SMITII.

PETERBORO, April 20th, 1863.