should be submitted to South Carolina and Georgia, or the governing powers of those States. Was this the adoption of the system of negro service? Not at all. Laurens went to South Carolina and urged his scheme. He had some strong men to indorse it, not for lighting the flames of servile war or inflaming anew the raging elements of a civil war growing out of the agitation of the servile relation, but to prevent these very results, by organizing the slaves under and with their masters for the protection of both from a foreign foe. What became of this project? The historian tells us that it encountered at once that strong, deep-seated feeling nurtured from earliest infancy among that people, which was ready to decide, with instinctive promptness, against "a measure of so threatening an aspect, and so offensive to that republican pride which disdains to commit the defence of the country to servile hands, or share with a color to which the idea of inferiority is inseparably connected, the profession of arms, and that approximation of condition which must exist between the regular soldier and the militia man." This reasoning of the elder day is applicable now. Men are black yet and white yet, and time has not changed them. We cannot help the fact that the negro is black. We cannot reverse the established order of Providence and make him white. And if we cannot do that, we can never eradicate from the great body of the white people of America that prejudice against the black race which has been carried from private life into the public service, and which, if you run counter to it, will destroy the vigor and esprit of the army. Why, Mr. Speaker, perhaps one-third of our present army is made up of Irishmen. We know that a great part of the spirit of our army comes from the Celtic stock. Look at your Massachusetts regiments. I think that you will find in those regiments a majority of Irishmen. I tell you, sir, these Irishmen will not fight side by side with the negro. You might as well be warned of these things in time. You would listen to such warnings, if indeed you wished the army to succeed, and the Union restored.

I know that in the revolutionary times some States did allow negroes to enlist. New Hampshire allowed them. New Jersey disallowed the practice, true as ever to the most sensible views of public duty. New York did allow it at one time, but I think discouraged it as demoralizing and degrading. We have a report of a regiment raised in Massachusetts and quartered in New York, in which there were a few negroes. Of the effect of their military companionship upon the whites, it is said:

"Even in this regiment there were a number of negroes, which, to persons unaccus tomed to such associations, had a disagreeable, degrading effect."

I do not understand the arguments made on the other side of the House in favor of this measure. Some gentlemen propose not to mix black and white in the same company or regiment. Why? Give me a reason for it, and I will give you the reason why they should not be mixed in the same army. Gentlemen should not be so sensitive, who are willing that negroes should go into the same army.

Mr. Speaker, the reason why this side of the House has fought this question so pertinaciously is the one which I gave when I asked to be excused from voting, that it was a part of a plot to drive the border States

out of the Union. Gentlemen know very well, if they know any thing of the people of the border States north and south of the Ohio as represented in or out of the army, that they will never consent to the formation of this force of black janizaries for any purpose. They will but incite the people to mobs and mutiny. The people are not yet so degraded as to desire to save their Government by the aid of black brigades; nor do I believe the projectors of this measure expect to save the Government by such means. But if they had racked their brains for a contrivance of mischief to prevent a hearty coöperation by the border States with our cause, they could not find a more mischievously diabolical plan than this bill. There are momentous consequences dependent on this sort of legislation. I beg the House to pause before they adopt it. This bill proposed at first to raise a negro army of one hundred and fifty thousand. I believe that the substitute of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. STEVENS] is not limited to any number. The law as now existing gives the President the fullest discretion to "employ" negroes in the service. He may use these black brigades wherever and however he pleases. Do you believe that such a scheme will ever be started or pursued with success? Will the people, sir, allow it to go on? Gentlemen forget that the people exist, and have spoken. This legislation is in total disregard and contempt of their voice. They have spoken for the Democracy. They have a right thus to speak; a right which the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. LOVEJOY] undertook to exercise on behalf of the honest masses and against the dishonest leaders of the Democracy! He to speak for the Democratic people! In his speech of yesterday he more than intimated that the Democracy were sympathizers with secession. He was called to an account by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. DUNN], who said that such remarks would have a bad effect in the country.

Mr. WICKLIFFE. And in the army.

Mr. Cox. I quote the reprimand of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. DUNN], for this slander upon the Democracy:

"I have no especial regard for that institution, but I am afraid that such general, sweeping denunciations of the Democratic party as the gentleman has indulged in may have a bad effect. I, at least, have full faith in the loyalty of the great masses of the people of the loyal States, no matter to what party they may belong."

What did he mean by that? Why would the slander of the Jacobin from Illinois produce a bad effect in the country? Was it because it was untrue? Was it because it was unwise? What was the object of that particular reprimand? I will tell you. The gentleman from Indiana knows that the great body of this army that answered the call of the President, and entered into a war to be carried on in pursuance of the resolution of the extra session of Congress, offered by the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. CRITTENDEN], went out to fight the battle of the Union and the Constitution, and when that object was accomplished, they believed the war should stop. They never went into a crusade of abolition; and when denounced as secessionists, because not abolitionists, the "bad effect of such sweeping denunciations" might appear in both army and people. After this overhauling of the Illinois member by the member from Indiana, the former changed his denunciations from the Democracy

to its leaders, here and elsewhere. The denunciation gained nothing in truth or decency by the change. Here is what he said:

"I did not refer to the honest masses of the Democratic party. If they had seen the cloven foot manifested by the Democratic leaders in this House, and in different portions of the country, they would never have given them a seat here. Governor Seymour would not have been elected Governor of New York. The people know them now. We knew that the leaders were in sympathy with the secessionists, but it did not manifest itself. The emancipation policy of the President brought it out. Last year the gentleman from Kentucky eulogized the President. He almost put him on a niche by the side of Washington. We have not heard one word of eulogy of the President from that gentleman at this session."

The member from Illinois thought that the President's emancipation proclamation was like Ithuriel's spear, that it had developed the secession sympathies of the Democratic party, or of its representatives here. I wanted to remind the gentleman at the time, that the "diamond-pointed proclamation" was issued thirty days before the election; and that as soon as it appeared, the people took the alarm, and they gave an unrivalled majority to the Democrats over their opponents. The other side of the Chamber was defeated by that unwise, ill-timed, and seditious proclamation.

The gentleman from Illinois said the other day, that he thought there would be a reversal of the late elections, and that he looked forward with pleasure to that result. Some time ago he said that we could not beat them again. Perhaps not, and for a good reason; for his remark reminds me of the dog which had his tail cut off, and then turned around to the man and said, "You cannot do that again." [Great laughter.] Why, sir, the late elections took from that side of the House from twenty to thirty members, and added them to the Democratic side.

The gentleman said something about the secession sympathy of the Governor of New York; that he did not represent the loyal element of that State. If the Governor elected by the people does not represent the loyal element, who does? If the gentlemen reëlected to this House do not represent the loyal sentiment, who does? I would like to know whether my colleagues from Ohio on the other side represent the loyal sentiment of Ohio? If they do, that loyal sentiment is in a minority; and that is not an unpleasant message to send out to Jefferson Davis. This vituperation is a slander upon the majority of the people of the North. We on this side are the representatives of the people. We have no sympathy with secession; neither have the people of the North; none. We have in our own way sustained this Government. I have voted all the men and money last session and this session to carry on this war. But, notwithstanding all this, we are, forsooth, to be stigmatized by the gentleman from Illinois as secession sympathizers! A few days ago, in the same strain of vituperation, he took me to task, too, for a speech on Puritanism, which I made in New York city. For lack of something better, he referred to my small size. My only response to this coarse and irrelevant mode of debate, is this epitaph for the gentleman, which I once met with, and which, slightly changed, would answer all that he can say of the Democracy during his life, and suit his case very appropriately after death:

"Beneath this stone OWEN LOVEJOY lies,

Little in every thing-except in size; [Laughter.]

What though his burly body fills this hole,

Yet through hell's keyhole crept his little soul." [Great laughter.]

PERSONAL LIBERTY.

MILITARY ORDERS AGAINST FREE SPEECH-QUESTION IN MR. VALLANDIGHAM'S CASE.

A FEW days after the arrest of Mr. Vallandigham, at the annual May Convention of the Democracy of Licking County, Ohio, MR. Cox spokeas follows:-Citizens of Licking: In the last Congress you were my constituents. It is proper that I should answer your call to address you; for you should know every reason for every vote I gave as your Representative. I shall not be deterred from this duty to you by any fear from any quarter; nor shall recent events and daily threats provoke me to utter sentiments less patriotic or more immoderate than I have been wont to utter. Come threats, come imprisonment, come torture, or come death itself, my lips shall not be locked. I shall do this to-day, not in the spirit of bravado, not for any sickly desire for martyrdom; but because I respect the law, as the supreme authority and rule of my conduct. If I speak in this spirit, I may bring the policy of the Administration into disrepute, but I shall magnify the Government thereby.

General Hascall, in his order No. 38, has interdicted all such speaking as will make the Administration disreputable; and he has said that General Burnside has approved of that order. I hope this is not true. General Burnside could not have approved of that order, and then have told Judge Leavitt in his return to the habeas corpus in Vallandigham's case, that "if the people do not approve the policy of the Administration, they can change the constitutional authorities of the Government at the proper time and in the proper method." What time and method? At and by the elections provided by law. To this we all agree. No going to jail for saying that. Nor is General Burnside so absurd as to accord to us the privilege of election, without the means to make up our minds as to the policy of men to be voted for; for he goes on to say: "Let them freely discuss the policy in a proper tone." Very good, I agree to that. No bonds for me yet. If therefore by a "proper tone" I should bring the Administration into disrepute, General Burnside will not send me to prison. Indeed, I do not think an improper tone can ever bring any one into disrepute except him who uses it. But General Burnside would stop what he calls "license and intemperate discussion." Had such discussion been prohibited years ago, this war would not be on us now. As to the propriety of stopping that sort of discussion by military arrests, even if they were legal, I dissent; but as to the bad taste and policy of such discussion I should agree. No "offence" in saying that, I trust. The same thing has been said in various ways since men wrote with the stylus, or Cadmus made the alphabet. Indeed, he weakens his cause, who uses an intemperate or licentious tone. Is he therefore to be suppressed? His statements may be falsehoods, his logic fallacies, his principles abhorrent, and his

motives base; all these do not furnish a reason why he should be prohibited from uttering his views. Why, even the New York "Tribune" has said that "our Federal and State Constitutions do not recognize perverse opinions, nor unpatriotic speeches, as grounds of infliction." must, to be faithful citizens, take the dross with the gold, in the current discussions of the day. Better let the little speck of license remain upon the eye, than put out the orbs of public intelligence, and live in sightless and despotic gloom. The people of this land cannot change their nature nor their education. Much as they may deprecate bad sentiments, they prefer to see them flash like powder innocuously above ground, than, pent up, explode with fearful ruin and combustion. How can the laggard authorities be urged to duty and tyrannical officials be lashed into discretion, especially in time of war, when power tends to play fantastic tricks and aggrandize its importance and function, except by bold discussion? In the Cabinet, in the public Assemblage, in the Court, in the Legislature, among all parties, everywhere, Reason should be allowed a free combat with Error. If Error strikes foul, the public will know how to award the prize. It is in the spirit I have indicated, of decorous and discreet moderation, that I propose to discuss the question, uppermost in your mind, connected with the arrest of Mr. Vallandigham. It is unnecessary for me to denounce his arrest as illegal. I come not to stimulate passion. I ask you to practise the courage of endurance, to the end that we may more speedily have a remedy. No amount of temporary restraint will prevent popular action. As a matter of philosophy, and not as a defiance, I state what you know, that Democratic thought is irrepressibly outspoken; and that for every Democrat restrained, a hundred will leap to his place and court the honors of persecution.

The question involved in Mr. Vallandigham's arrest does not concern him alone. If it is a breach of law, it involves the fate of each and all. His arrest is a breach of the Constitution, State and Federal, which provides for the security of the people "in their persons, houses, papers, and effects;" which forbids that any one should be held to answer for any crime except by indictment; which protects life, liberty, and property by the processes of law; and which declares for free speech without abridgment. This view is conclusive, but the state of civil war enlarges the discussion.

The question in that view is: Can a citizen, not connected with the army of the United States, remote from the scene of its operations, and in Ohio, where all the laws of the land are yet enforced by constitutional means, be subjected to military arrest, imprisonment, and trial before a military commission and punishment at its discretion, either for offences unknown to the law, or, if known, for which the law has provided a mode of trial and penalty? In other words: In this time of great peril, has the Federal legislature, after two years of war, failed to provide for all its emergencies? and, if it has failed, can the Executive act instantly and beyond the limits of the law, at his discretion? In pursuing these questions, I hold:

1. That Congress has provided for the offence alleged against Mr. Vallandigham. In the specifications he is charged with various expressions, "all of which opinions and sentiments he well knew did aid, com