adopted and installed in Arkansas and Louisiana shall be set aside and held for nought, thereby repelling and discouraging the loyal citizens who have set up the same as to further effort, or to declare a constitutional competency in Congress to abolish slavery in States, but am at the same time sincerely hoping and expecting that a constitutional amendment abolishing. slavery throughout the nation may be adopted, nevertheless I am fully satisfied with the system for restoration contained in the bill as one very proper plan for the loyal people of any State choosing to adopt it, and that I am, and at all times shall be, prepared to give the Executive aid and assistance to any such people, so soon as the military resistance to the United States shall have been suppressed in any such State, and the people thereof shall have sufficiently returned to their obedience to the Constitution and laws of the United States, in which cases Military Governors will be appointed, with directions to proceed according to the bill.

It was not unnatural that the mover of this bill should be unpleasantly affected by its failure to become a law. He had matured, to his own entire satisfaction, a method of " reconstruction "the vexed question which had been so much aud so prematurely discussed-and it had received the indorsement of both Houses of Congress. He could not doubt its perfect sufficiency as a solution of the problem; yet his work had. become of no effect for the lack of the President's signature.

Mr. Davis, however, was mistaken in supposing that the people attached any special value to his scheme, or that any appeal he could make to them would avert their ready and intuitive conclusion that he, rather than President Lincoln, was in the wrong. Such an appeal was, nevertheless, determined upon. At a moment when the country was growing impatient and apprehensive over severe losses in the field, without the decisive victories hoped for, when the Opposition was exultant in the prospect of a Presidential triumph in November, and when all cordial supporters of the Baltimore nominations were earnest and united in their efforts to avoid a possible defeat of the cause, Mr. Davis' arraignment of the President was issued. The paper was published on the 5th of August; Senator Wade also giving it his signature. In its imputation of bad motives, in its sweeping denunciations and in its angry

uncharitableness of temper, it was more remarkable than in the weight of its arguments or in the accuracy of its representations. The New York Tribune, which was chosen as the medium for laying this address before the people, although unfriendly to Mr. Lincoln's renomination, and although its chief editor, at a later day, was concerned in a secret movement to bring about his withdrawal, promptly expressed its approval of the President's action in withholding his signature from the measure in question. The principal effect to be anticipated from this manifesto was a weakening of public confidence in the Government, and an embarrassment of the Administration party at the most critical period of the political canvass. The

I have not deemed it worth while to copy,, in the text, from a passionate effusion so speedily forgotten by the public, and which its author would, perhaps, gladly forget. The following brief extracts will suffice to justify what I have said as to its general character:

The President, by preventing this bill from becoming a law, holds the electoral votes of the Rebel States at the dictation of his personal ambition The President's proclamation . . . . . discards the authority of the Supreme Court, and strides headlong toward the anarchy his proclamation of the 8th of December inaugurated . . . . . A more studied outrage on the legislative authority of the people has never been perpetrated He has already exercised this dictatorial usurpation in Louisiana, and he defeated the bill to prevent its limitation.

.....

Bearing in mind that the President has a qualified veto power, by the Constitution, in regard to all legislation; and, further, that the Davis bill was opposed by a considerable minority of "Union men" in both Houses, the accuracy of the following extract from the same paper, will be fully appreciated:

But he must understand that our support is of a cause and not of a man; that the authority of Congress is paramount and must be respected; that the whole body of the Union men of Congress will not submit to be impeached by him of rash and unconstitutional legislation; and if he wishes our support, he must confine himself to his executive duties to obey and execute, not make the laws-to suppress by arms armed rebellion, and leave political reorganization to Congress. If the supporters of the Government fail to insist on this, they become responsible for the usurpations which they fail to rebuke, and are justly liable to the indignation of the people whose rights and security, committed to their keeping, they sacrifice.

Let them consider the remedy for these usurpations, and, having found it, fearlessly execute it.

event showed, however, that its influence with the people was inconsiderable.

As illustrating President Lincoln's views in regard to the deportment of Southern Union men in the early part of the struggle, and his mode of dealing with the people of Louisiana in particular, a characteristic letter of his, written in 1862, is subjoined. A Mr. Durant had written to the President, through Mr. Bullitt, a gentleman known to him, and a former resident of Kentucky, manifesting dissatisfaction with the policy pursued by the Government at New Orleans, after the capture of that city. Among other things complained of, was the alleged protection given to escaping slaves, and their retention from their masters. It was also urged as a grievance, that men choosing to avail themselves of the benefits of the reèstablished Government were required to take the oath of allegiance, and that trade with the Rebels was prohibited. The President replied to this singular appeal as follows:

WASHINGTON, D. C., July 28, 1862.

Sir: The copy of a letter, addressed to yourself by Mr. Thomas J. Durant, has been shown to me. The writer appears to be an able, a dispassionate, and an entirely sincere. man. The first part of the letter is devoted to an effort to show that the secession ordinance of Louisiana was adopted against the will of a majority of the people. This is probably true, and in that fact may be found some instruction. Why did they allow the ordinance to go into effect? Why did they not exert themselves? Why stand passive and allow themselves to be trodden down by a minority? Why did they not hold popular meetings, and have a convention of their own to express and enforce the true sentiments of the State. If preorganization was against them, then why not do this now, that the United States army is present to protect them? The paralyzer the dead palsy of the Government in the whole struggle is, that this class of men will do nothing for the Government-nothing for themselves, except demanding that the Government shall not strike its enemies, lest they be struck by accident.

Mr. Durant complains that, in various ways, the relation of master and slave is disturbed by the presence of our army; and he considers it particularly vexatious that this, in part, is done under cover of an act of Congress, while constitutional

If more de vela vi me ke sugressed in LouisLI I Die priset Tad met there wil barber help to do I. LTL De Spenment u or without their help.

Now I took the Tm zumery is very diferent from what is #Lesiet 1 X: Duran a does it be in rounding the JULI DES É the ver but in removing the necessity for the

The pen it to Lousin whe wish protection to person and y, Dave but i reach forth their hands and take it. Let them in good faith reimagurate the national authority, 2nd set by a State Government conforming thereto under the Constitution. They know how to do it, and can have the protection of the army while doing it. The army will be withdrawn so soon as such Government can dispense with its presence, and the people of the State can then, upon the old terms, gov

ern themselves to their own liking.

and easy.

This is very simple

If they will not do this-if they prefer to hazard all for the sake of destroying the Government-it is for them to consider whether it is probable I will surrender the Government to save them from losing all. If they decline what I suggest, you scarcely need to ask what I will do.

What would you do in my position? Would you drop the war where it is, or would you prosecute it in future with elderstalk squirts, charged with rosewater? Would you deal lighter blows, rather than heavier ones? Would you give up the contest, leaving every available means unapplied?

I am in no boastful mood. I shall not do more than I can, but I shall do all I can to save the Government, which is my sworn duty as well as my personal inclination. I shall do nothing in malice. What I deal with is too vast for malicious dealing.

Yours, very truly,

A. LINCOLN.

The following response to a petition in behalf of a secessionist clergyman in St. Louis, will afford an example of President Lincoln's mode of disposing of impudent pretensions set up by rebellious people in the Border States, and is otherwise memorable:

I have just looked over a petition signed by some three dozen citizens of St. Louis, and their accompanying letters, one by yourself, one by a Mr. Nathan Ranney, and one by a Mr. John D. Coalter, the whole relating to the Rev. Dr. McPheeters. The petition prays, in the name of justice and mercy, that I will restore Dr. McPheeters to all his ecclesiastical rights.

This gives no intimation as to what ecclesiastical rights are withdrawn. Your letter states that Provost Marshal Dick, about a year ago, ordered the arrest of Dr. McPheeters, pastor of the Vine-street Church, prohibited him from officiating, and placed the management of affairs of the church out of the control of the chosen trustees; and near the close you state that a certain course "would insure his release." Mr. Ranney's letter says: "Dr. Samuel McPheeters is enjoying all the rights of a civilian, but can not preach the gospel!" Mr. Coalter, in his letter, asks: "Is it not a strange illustration of the condition of things, that the question who shall be allowed to preach in a