you say to us: "Do as you please on your own account, peacefully and loyally, and Governor Johnson will not molest you, but will protect you against violence as far as is in his power." If you mean that Governor Johnson will allow us to stay away from the polls without molestation, we trust there is some truth in your assurance. But if you mean to suggest that we hold separate elections "on our own account," and to assure us that we shall not be molested but protected in such a "movement," we know by experience, and by the facts above set forth, that your assurance is a cruel mockery. We will not advise our citizens to put in jeopardy their lives in going through the farce you propose, of holding an election under the laws at one ballot-box, while Governor Johnson holds an election under his "plan" at another. Too many unoffending citizens have already been murdered in our streets by negro soldiers-too many reputable women have been insulted by them. We do not wish to provoke further outrage. There will be no election for President in Tennessee in 1864. You and Governor Johnson may "manage your side of it in your own way," but it will be no election. After consultation with our friends, therefore, in different parts of the State, and having communicated with nearly all of our colleagues, we respectfully announce to the people of Tennessee that in view of what is set forth abovein view of the fact that our people are overawed by military power, the laws set aside and violated with impunity-and in view of the fact that we have appealed in vain to the President whose duty it is "to see that the laws be faithfully executed," and that those who act by his authority shall hold sacred the liberties of the people; in view of these things we announce that the McClellan Electoral Ticket in Tennessee is withdrawn. W. B. CAMPBELL, of Wilson Co. NASHVILLE, October 29, 1864. Suppression of Newspapers-(See pp. 188, 194.) Below is a newspaper report of a trial in October, 1864, growing out of the suppression of a newspaper in Pennsylvania: UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT-Judges Grier and Cadtealader-Wm. H. Hodgson vs. Wm. Millward, United States Marshal. This is an action to recover damages alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff by reason of the seizure of the presses, type, paper, and other printing material used in the publication of the newspaper known as the Jeffersonian, published at West Chester, in this State. The seizure was made on the 23d of August, 1861, by the marshal's deputies, Messrs. Jenkins and Schuyler. The office was closed, and plaintiff alleges that he was deprived of the use of his property, and thereby compelled to suspend the issue of his paper until the 14th of October, 1861, to his great loss and damage, and for which he now Beeks to recover. The authority for the seizure, and upon which the defendant relics as his defence, was the following warrant issued by the then United States District Attorney, Geo. A. Coffey, Esq., who claimed to have issued the same by direction of the Secretary of War at Washington: EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, OFFICE U. S. ATTORNEY. To WM. MILLWARD, Marshal: GEORGE A. COFFEY, United States Attorney. The case was tried before Chief Justice Lowrie, in the Supreme Court at Nisi Prius, in February last, and was prosecuted to judgment, but subsequently, under the provisions of the act of Congress of March 3d, 1863, entitled "an act relating to habeas corpus cases, and for other purposes," the record of the proceedings in the nisi prius was removed into this court, where yesterday it came up for trial de novo. order to Mr. Millward, the verdict should be for the de- 1. That by the third section of the act of Congress of August 6, 1861, the District Attorney of the Eastern District of the United States is authorized to institute proceedings for the confiscation and condemnation of any property within the said district, of the character described in the first section of the act, and that for this purpose the said District Attorney had authority to direct the seizure of such property so found, preparatory to filing an information in and issuing an attachment from the proper court, and that his order to the marshal of the district to seize the Jeffersonian printing-press, and other materials, followed up as it was by the proceedings in the courts of the United States, is a legal justification of the marshal and his deputies for such seizure. If the court should decline to affirm the foregoing proposition, then it is respectfully requested to charge: I. That if the jury find from the evidence that the order from the District Attorney to the marshal was issued under the authority of the President of the United States, then the said order is a justification to the marshal and his deputies for the seizure complained of in this suit. Court of the United States, and the attachment was issued therefrom and the property attached, it was in the custody of the law, and the marshal was in nowise liable for damages for its detention, and that the plaintiff can only recover for the taking and detention of the property from the 23d of August to the 12th of September, a period of twenty days. II. That after the information was filed in the District III. That the measure of damages in this case is the actual pecuniary loss which the plaintiff sustained by reason of the possession of his printing establishment having been taken by the marshal and continued for the period of twenty days, and that there is no evidence in the cause which would justify the jury in giving vindictive damages. JUDGE GRIER'S CHARGE. GENTLEMEN OF THE JURY: After the elaborate arguments of counsel, it is not necessary to say much about the facts of this case. It is your province to deal with the facts. You are the sole judges of them, and are to apply to them the principles of law that will be laid down by the court. You are not to decide the law. That is for the court. You must take care not to let party feeling or passion influence you. You must hear the small as well as the great. While you may recollect that this was done in times of great excitement, yet that a trespass, and a gross one, has been committed, it is not denied. It is a fact, to be sure, for you, but it is not denied that property of the plaintiff was taken. If so, have the defendants made out a justifica tion? The court instruct you, they have not. The marshal cannot plead the order of the Attorney General or his deputy. This is not a justification. If a marshal arrests A when told to arrest B, it is no defence that he had a right to arrest B. The marshal would have had a right to seize for condemnation the kind of property specified in the act of Congress of the 6th of August, 1861, without the order of the District Attorney. But this act had nothing to do with the liberty of the press. It never gave authority for such a seizure as the present one. The order of the District Attorney that has been shown here was no more of a justification to the marshal than if issued by any one now in the court-house. You may arrest a man for murder without warrant, but you The District Attorney had no right to make such an order. show the man committed the felony; otherwise it is no defence to an action of trespass. If the property, then, was within the meaning of the act is liable in damages. Certain points, or prayers for instruc of Congress, the seizure was justifiable; if not, the marshal tion on the law, have been submitted to me by the defendants, which I will now proceed to answer: I. The first point, to a certain extent, is true. The District Attorney might advise the issuing of an attachment, and seize property that was liable under the act of Congress. But it is not the law that this order of the District Attorney was a justification of the marshal in this case. The marshal could act, if the property was liable to seizure, as well without the order of the District Attorney as with it. If the court had decided that the property was liable, the marshal would have been justified. But if the court had decided the property was not properly seized, then the seizure was unlawful and it was trespass, and the marshal was liable. There is not even a certificate as to probable The evidence offered to the court and jury was mainly that adduced upon the former trial, and at that time reduced to writing. The defence set up that the order of District Attorney Coffey to seize the property was a justi- cause for seizure. But I say nothing on this head, for it fication, and as the act of Congress authorized the President does not appear that it was asked, or that it was a case for to direct such seizure, the jury, if they found that Mr. Cof-it. No attempt, however, was made at the hearing of the fey did receive such instructions, and in turn issue his information in the circuit court to show any cause. It was war. clear that the act of Congress did not apply. There was no law forbidding this man, the plaintiff, to write against the war. I doubt whether any act of Congress could have prevented a man giving his opinions candidly against the He had a right to write and to print. The order of the District Attorney makes the case no better. He had no right to issue the order. The marshal had no right to obey it. It was no warrant. If the marshal had consulted counsel, counsel would have told him he was not to obey such an order. I doubt any counsel could have been found who would have advised obedience to such an order. II. In answer to the second point, I say there is no competent evidence of any authority from the President or any of his Cabinet, and if there had been it would make the case no better. If there had been a proceeding in court, and a seizure under protest, it would have protected the officer. But the marshal or sheriff cannot justify under an order like this. III. As to the third point, I instruct you on the question of damages that the jury should give full compensatory damages for all the loss that has accrued to the plaintiff. But the damages should not be vindictive or punitive. There is no evidence that the marshal acted from malice, or was influenced by political feeling, or committed any excess. There is some evidence that the District Attorney did this to gratify some people out of doors. He is not, however, here to answer, and this is not imputable to the marshal. But, for the purpose of vindicating public justice when an officer of the law commits an act almost without a pretence of authority, the damages should be exemplary to vindicate the outraged law, that men in authority may be careful how they trespass on the rights of citizens. There is a difference in this respect between the case of a public officer and a private person, no matter how high the public officer-even the President or one of his Secretaries. The marshal is here liable for the whole time the property was detained. He is liable for all the damages from the beginning to the end. The decree of this court was conclusive against him. I have thus laid down the principles of law which are to guide you, and it will be for you to apply them to the facts of the cause. other individual, domestic, and social rights, and that nothing but a conviction of a high crime can possibly justify its invasion. The clause of the United States Constitution on which the petitioner relies is the first of the second section of Article 4, and is in these words: "The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States." Alexander Hamilton, in commenting upon this clause in the 80th number of the Federalist, says: "It may be esteemed the basis of the Union. And if it be a just principle that every government ought to possess the means of executing its own provisions, by its own authority, it will follow that in order to the inviolable maintenance of that equality of privileges and immunities to which the citizens of the Union will be entitled, the national judiciary ought to preside in all cases in which one State or its citizens are opposed to another State or its citizens. To secure the full effect of so fundamental a provision against all evasion and subterfuge, it is necessary that its construction should be committed to that tribunal, which, having no local attachments, will be likely to be impartial between the different States and their citizens, and which, owing its official existence to the Union, will never be likely to feel any bias inauspicious to the principles on which it is founded." In the same paper he says: "There ought always to be a constitutional method to give efficacy to constitutional provisions." It will be remembered that, to give effect to this very provision, and to secure the invaded rights of her citizens, the Legislature of Massachusetts many years ago sent an eminent jurist, Judge Hoar, to the State of South Carolina, with an appeal to the courts of justice. His appeal was rudely rejected, and himself and daughter by mob violence driven from that State of lawless madmen, who were then just beginning their wild rush from the crime of slavery to the kindred crimes of treason and rebellion against the best Government that ever blessed the world. Nor is it too much to assert that the neglect to give practical effect to this constitutional provision has been an effcient cause of the war now desolating the country. In support of these views the case of Corfield vs. Coryell, 4th volume Washington Circuit Court Reports, pages 350 and 381, is directly in point and would seem conclusive. Mr. Justice Washington in his opinion says of the clause in question: The jury was out about twenty hours, and returned a verdict for the plaintiff for $504 23. George W. Biddle and Wm. B. Reed for plaintiff; John C. Knox and David Webster for de-of fendant. Colored Persons as Witnesses. To complete the record on pages 242, 243, it should be stated that these proceedings were prior to those there recorded: Pending the emancipation bill for the District of Colum bia, Second Session of Thirty-Seventh Congress, in Senate, 1862, April 3-MR. SUMNER, moved to amend Section 7, by adding the words: "without the exclusion of any witness on account of color;" which was agreed to, yeas 26, nays 9, as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Anthony, Browning, Chandler, Clark, Collamer, Dixon, Doolittle, Fessenden, Foster, Grimes, Harris, Howard, Howe, King, Lane of Indiana, Lane of Kansas, Morrill, Pomeroy, Sumner, Ten Eyck, Trumbull, Wade, Wilkinson, Wilmot, Wilson of Mass.-26. NAYS-Messrs. Bayard, Carlile, Davis, Kennedy. Nesmith, Powell, Saulsbury, Willey, Wilson of Missouri, Wright.-9. There was no separate vote in the House on this proposition. Connected with this subject, as stated on page 243, is the following opinion of Judge John C. Underwood, of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, delivered at the late term: [From the Alexandria, Va., State Journal.] United States District Court, District of Virginia, in the matter of the petition of Israel Dorsey, a citizen of Massa chusetts. citizens in the several States? We find no hesitation in The inquiry is, what are the privileges and immunities confining these expressions to those privileges and immunities which are in their nature fundamental. They may be all comprehended under the following general heads: Protection by the Government; the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the right to acquire and possess property of The right of a citizen of one State to pass through or to every kind, and to pursue and obtain happiness and safety. reside in any other State, for purposes of trade, agriculture, professional pursuits or otherwise, to claim the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus, to institute and maintain actions of any kind in the courts of the State, to take, hold, and dispose of property, real and personal, and an exemption from higher taxes or impositions than are paid by the other citizens of the State. These and many others which might be mentioned are strictly privileges and immunities and the enjoyment of them by the citizens of each State in every other State are manifestly calculated (to use the expressions of the preamble of the corresponding provision, in the old articles of confederation) the better to secure and perpetuate mutual frienship and intercourse among the people of the different States of the Union." The right to testify must be included in the foregoing enumeration as a part of the right to use the courts, and several of the rights enumerated are certainly less vital and fundamental than the right in question. No one who has read the able opinion of Attorney Gen eral Bates, utterly demolishing the unfortunate obiter dieta in the Dred Scott case, can doubt that colored men may be indeed, all the counsel in this case seem to admit that the citizens of the United States and of the several States; and petitioner is a citizen of Massachusetts. This court has no doubt that a citizen of Massachusetts use of the courts of Virginia, or any other State of this has a right to demand the protection of his oath, and the Union, in virtue of the above-quoted constitutional pro vision, which, like a treaty stipulation between inde pendent States, abrogates every State law which may attempt to defeat its wise and benevolent and truly nation al operation. Massachusetts may with perfect propriety say to Virginia -no matter with what wrongs, for the sake of sustaining a bloody and barbarous system, you ontrage humanity in the persons of colored men born and reared upon your own soil, I demand of you, by the sacred guaranty of your that the humblest of my dit grave with its barbarous twin brother, slavery, thus obviating the necessity of further action by this court, the case is put over for final action, and, if desired, for further argument, to the next term. gitive Slaves. On the 22d day of June, 1772, the court of the King's Bench decided in the case of James Somerset, claimed as a slave by a Virginia planter named Charles Stewart, that the state of slavery is of such a nature that it is incapable of being introduced on any reasons, moral or political, but only by positive law. It is so odious that nothing can be suffered to support it but positive law, and there.ore Gen. Grant's Orders Respecting Futhe black must be discharged." Such in that celebrated case was the language of Lord Mansfield, the most brilliant light in that constellation of British judges who made their land immortal and raised themselves to the most sublime moral elevation by stooping to lift the lowly and crushed of their fellow-citizens, and to place them upon the great table-land of British security and protection. It was on the argument of the same case that Counselor Davy made the never-to-be-forgotten declaration that the air of England was "too pure for a slave to breathe in." It is time for us to say the soil of Virginia, soaked by the blood of so many martyrs of freedom, is too sacred to be ever again pressed by the footstep of a slave. The Senator from Virginia, who in 1850 excited the indignation of all christendom by demanding of Congress additional enactments to facilitate man and woman hunting through the length and breadth of the country, freely admitted that there was no positive law in Virginia establishing slavery, and that the system rested alone upon custom. He might well have added, "It is a custom More honored in the breach than the observance." How then can any one who respects the humane principles declared in Lord Mansfield's time-honored opinion, for one moment regard slavery or any of its incidents as of any legal force in this State? This court will always be ready to apply Lord Mansfield's principles to slavery and its supports and incidents, and the law in question is nothing more, and it has also the strongest conviction that the State law excluding the testimony of colored men from the courts of justice is utterly null and void, because it is utterly repugnant to her glorious Declaration of Rights, which, following the decision of Lord Mansfield, was adopted in June, 1776, as part of the constitution of the State. Never has that Declaration been repealed, but it has been repeatedly reaffirmed and continued as the basis of every State constitution of Virginia up to and including that of 1864. As an addenda to the military reports, orders, and proclamations, respecting "contrabands," on pages 244, 253, the following, issued at different times by Gen. Grant, and not before published as a whole, are inserted: HEADQUARTERS District of WEST TENNESSEE, GENERAL ORDERS No. 14. FORT DONELSON, February 26, 1862. I. General Orders No. 3, series 1861, from Headquarters Department of the Missouri, is still in force, and must be observed. The necessity of its strict enforcement is made apparent by the numerous applications from citizens for permission to pass through the camps to look for fugitive slaves. In no case whatever will permission be granted to citizens for this purpose. II. All slaves at Fort Donelson at the time of its capture, and all slaves within the line of military occupation that have been used by the enemy in building fortifications, or in any manner hostile to the Government, will be employed by the Quartermaster's Department for the benefit of the Government, and will under no circumstance be permitted to return to their masters. III. It is made the duty of all officers of this command to see that all slaves above indicated are promptly delivered to the Chief Quartermaster of the district. By order of Brig. Gen. U. S. GRANT: JNO. A. RAWLINS, A. A. G. HEADQUARTERS DISTRICT OF WEST TENNESSEE, CORINTH, MISS., August 11, 1862. GENERAL ORDERS No. 72. Recent acts of Congress prohibit the army from returning Among the provisions of that Declaration are the follow-fugitives from labor to their claimants, and authorizing the ing: 1. That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety. 4. That no man or set of men are entitled to exclusive or separate emoluments or privileges from the community, but in consideration of public services. 15. That no free government or the blessing of liberty can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality and virtue, and by a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles. In the light of such guarantics the enactment excluding the testimony of any man unconvicted of an infamous crime could not be executed or tolerated for a moment by a civilized and christian people, but for the debasing and demoralizing influence of the great abomination of slavery; which, invading every department of society, ascending even the pulpit and the halls of justice, has too successfully labored to poison and paralyze the public conscience, pronouncing itself, with all the blazen impudence of the bot tomless pit, a divine institution, and asserting the cruel doctrine that the dearest human rights are only skin deep, and that dusky men have none which paler men are bound to respect. Never should the courts of Virginia deny this fundamental privilege of manhood to any innocent human being, and least of all to a citizen of Massachusetts-the cradle of the American Revolution of 1776-the first State to abolish slavery, the first to scatter the seeds of knowledge and science throughout her bounds, to bless all the people who dwell within the influence of her generous and beneficent institutions. ment. The following orders are therefore published for the employment of such persons in the service of the Governguidance of the army in this military district in this matter: names of the fugitives and claimants given, and must be 1. All fugitives thus employed must be registered, the borne upon morning reports of the command in which they are kept, showing how they are employed. II. Fugitive slaves may be employed as laborers in the Quartermaster's, Subsistence, and Engineer Departments, and wherever by such employment a soldier may be saved to the ranks. They may be employed as teamsters, as company cooks, (not exceeding four to a company,) or as hospital attendants or nurses. Officers may employ them as private servants, in which latter case the fugitive will not be paid or rationed by the Government. Negroes, not thus employed, will be deemed unauthorized persons, and must be excluded from the camps. III. Officers and soldiers are prohibited from enticing slaves to leave their masters. When it becomes necessary to employ this kind of labor, commanding officers of posts or troops must send details (always under the charge of a suitable non-commissioned officer) to press into service the slaves of disloyal persons to the number required. 17. Citizens within the reach of any military station, known to be disloyal and dangerous, may be ordered away of the Government or the use of the army. or arrested, and their crops and stocks taken for the benefit reported and used for the benefit of Government, and be order is strictly executed. The demoralization of troops Had Congress clearly conferred upon this court the necessary power, the relief prayed for by the petitioner would be cheerfully and speedily granted. But the method of proceeding in order to secure the benefit of a right fully guaranteed by the Constitution has been left in great doubt and obscurity from some cause, probably from an infinence which in the future will neither be felt nor feared. With a view, therefore, of obtaining the aid of Congress at the approaching session, and with the hope also that the GENEL ORDERS Legislature of this State, soon to assemble, may do itself JNO. A. RAWLINS, A. A. G. fo. 25. an and our old Commonwealth the honor of wiping the wicked Lumb Corps, digerous publist commanders will afford all enactment, excluding the testimony of colored men in any pcilities for e of our courts, from our code of laws, burving i I. At all military posts in States within the Department, where slavery has been abolished by the proclamation of the President of the United States, camps will be estab lished for such freed people of color as are out of employment. II. Commanders of posts or districts will detail suitable officers from the army as superintendents of such camps. It will be the duty of such superintendents to see that snit able rations are drawn from the Subsistence Department for such people as are confided to their care. III. All such persons supported by the Government will be employed in every practicable way, so as to avoid, as far as possible, their becoming a burden upon the Government. They may be hired to planters or other citizens, on proper assurances that the negroes so hired will not be run off beyond the military jurisdiction of the United States; they may be employed on any public works; in gathering crops from abandoned plantations; and generally, in any manner local commanders may deem for the best interests of the Government, in compliance with law and the policy of the Administration. in and about camps of regiments and detachments will be required to go into the camps established for negroes, and it is enjoined upon Provost Marshals to see that they do so. VI. Recruiting for colored regiments in negro camps will be prohibited, except when special authority to do so is given. VII. All able-bodied negro men who are found, ten days after publication of this order, without a certificate of the officer or person employing them, will be regarded as unemployed, and may be pressed into service. Certificates given to negroes must show how, when, and by whom they are employed, and if as officers' servants, that the officer employing them has not a greater number than by law he is entitled to commutation for. By order of Major General U. S. GRANT: JNO. A. RAWLINS, Assistant Adjutant General Protection to Colored Soldiers. On page 280 is the President's order on this subject, which has been the occasion of more or less correspondence between the Union and Rebel authorities. The latest and most satisfactory statement is included in the subjoined correspondence: HEADQUARTERS ARMY NORTHERN VIRGINIA, October 19, 1864. LIEUT. GEN. U. S. GRANT, Commanding U. & Armies: GENERAL: In accordance with instructions from the Honorable Secretary of the Confederate States, I have the honor to call your attention to the subject of two communications recently addressed by Major General B. F. Butler, an officer under your command, to the Hon. Robert Ould, commis sioner for the exchange of prisoners. For the better unnications. derstanding of the matter, I enclose copies of the commte IV. It will be the duty of the Provost Marshal at every military post to see that every negro within the jurisdiction You will perceive by one of them that the writer has of the military authority is employed by some white per-placed a number of officers and men belonging to the Con son or is sent to the camps provided for freed people. federate service, prisoners of war captured by the United States forces, at labor in the canal at Dutch Gap, in retalia tion, as is alleged, for a like number of Federal colored sol diers, prisoners of war in our hands, who are said to have been put to work on our fortifications. The evidence of this fact is found in the affidavits of two deserters from our service. V. Citizens may make contracts with freed persons of color for their labor, giving wages per month in money, or employ families of them by the year on plantations, &c., feeding, clothing, and supporting the infirm as well as the able-bodied, and giving a portion-not less than one-twentieth-of the commercial part of their crops, in payment for such servico. VI. Where negroes are employed under this authority, the parties employing will register with the Provost Marshal their names, occupation, and residence, and the number of negroes employed. They will enter into such bonds as the Provost Marshal, with the approval of the local commander, may require, for the kind treatment and proper care of those employed, and a3 security against their being carried beyond the employer's jurisdiction. VII. Nothing in this order is to be construed to embarrass the employment of such colored persons as may be required by the Government. By order of Major General U. S. GRANT: (Signed) T. S. BOWERS, No. 53. I. Hereafter, negroes will not be allowed in or about the camps of white troops, except such as are properly employed and controlled. II. They may be employed in the Quartermaster's Department, Subsistence Department, Medical Department, as hospital nurses and laundresses, in the Engineer Department as pioneers. As far as practicable, such as have been or may be rejected as recruits for colored regiments by the examining surgeon will be employed about hospitals and in pioneer corps. III. In regiments and companies they may be employed as follows: One cook to each fifteen men, and one teamster to each wagon. Officers may employ them as servants, but not in greater numbers than they are entitled to commutation for. IV. Commanders of regiments and detachments will see that all negroes in or about their respective camps, not employed as provided in this order, are collected and turned over to the Provost Marshal of the division, post, or army corps to which their regiment or deta ament belongs. V. Provost Marshals will keep all negroes tlcoming The other letter refers to a copy of a notice issued by s Confederate officer commanding a camp near Richmond, calling upon the owners to come forward and establish their claims to certain negroes in the custody of that officer. The writer of the letter proceeds to state that some of the negroes mentioned in the notice are believed to be soldiers of the United States army, captured in arms, and that, upon that belief, he has ordered to such manual labor as he deems most fitting to meet the exigency an equivalent number of prisoners of war held by the United States, and announces that he will continue to order to labor captives in war to a number equal to that of all the United States soldiers whom he has reason to believe are held to service or labor by the Confederate forces, until he shal! be notified that the alleged practice on the part of the Confederate authorities has ceased. Before stating the facts with reference to the particular negroes alluded to, I beg to explain the policy pursued by the Confederate Government towards this class of persons when captured by our forces. All negroes in the military or naval service of the United States taken by us, who are not identified as the property of citizens or residents of any of the Confederate States, are regarded as prisoners of war, being held to be proper subjects of exchange, as I recently had the honor to inform you. No labor is exacted from such prisoners by the Confederate authorities. Negroes who owe service or labor to citizens or residents of the Confederate States, and who, through compulsion, persuasion, or their own accord, leave their owners and are placed in the military or naval service of the United States occupy a different position. The rights to the service or labor of negro slaves in the Confederate States is the same now as when the States were members of the Federal Union. The constitutional rela tions and obligations of the Confederate States to the own ers of this species of property are the same as those so fre quently and so long recognized as thoso appertaining to the Government of the United States with reference to the same class of persons by virtue of its organic law. From the earliest period of the independence of the AmerStates it has been held that one of the duties incumgovernments under which enemy. It has been uniformly held that the capture or In the war of 1812 with Great Britain the course pursued by the United States Government was the same, and it recognized the right of the owner to the slaves recaptured from the enemy. Both the Continental and United States Governments, in fact, denied that the abduction of slaves was a belligerent right; and the latter Power insisted upon, and ultimately secured by treaty, pecuniary indemnity from the British Government for slaves taken by its forces during the war of 1812. And it is supposed that if a slave belonging to a citizen of a State in which slavery is recognized, and which is regarded as one of the United States, were to escape into the Confederate States, or be captured or abducted by their armies, the legal right of the owner to reclaim him would be as clear now as in 1812, the Constitution of the United States being unchanged in this particular, and that instrumaent having been interpreted in the judicial decisions, legislative and diplomatic acts, and correspondence of the United States, as imposing upon that Government the duty of protecting, in all cases coming within the scope of its authority, the owners of slaves, as well as of any other kind of property recognized as such by the several States. The Confederate Government, bound by the same constitutional obligations, considers, as that of the United did, that the capture or abduction of a negro slave does not preclude the lawful owner from reclaiming him when captured, and I an instructed to say that all such slaves, when properly identified as belonging to citizens of any of the Confederate States, or to persons enjoying the protection of their laws, will be restored, like other recaptured private property, to those entitled to them. Having endeavored to explain the general policy of the Confederate Government with regard to this subject, I beg leave to state the facts concerning the particular transactions referred to in the enclosed communications. 445 States, regardless of color or nationality. When acknowl- question; therefore decline answering the arguments ad- In answer to the question at the conclusion of your letmy hands shall receive the kindest treatment possible, conter, I have to state that all prisoners of war falling into sistent with securing them, unless I have good authority for believing any number of our men are being treated otherwise. Then, painful as it may be to me, I shall inflict like treatment on an equal number of Confederate prisoners. taliation upon any man held as a prisoner of war, I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient servant, Hoping that it may never become my duty to order reU. S. GRANT, Lieutenant General. Military Order Respecting the Elec tion in Missouri-(See p. 314.) sued an order establishing the regulations for the election in Missouri. The following are 1864, October 12-Maj. Gen. Rosecrans ispassages from the order: and fair opportunity for all who are entitled to vote at the The General commanding expects the united assistance of the true men of all parties in his efforts to secure a full approaching elections in the State of Missouri, and in excluding from the polls those who, by alienage, treason, guerillaism, and other crimes and disabilities, have no just right to vote. and who take the oath prescribed by the laws of the State, I. Those, and only those, who have the qualifications, copies of which are hereto annexed, shall vote. The negroes recently captured by our forces were sent to Richmond with other Federal prisoners. After their arrival it was discovered that a number of them were slaves belonging to citizens or residents of some of the Confeder- of the United States, or voluntarily given aid and comfort II. No one who has borne arms against the Government ate States; and of this class, fifty-nine, as I learn, were ent, with other negroes, to work on the fortifications judge or clerk at election; nor shall any county judge to its enemies during the present rebellion, shall act as around Richmond until their owners should appear and knowingly appoint any such person to act as judge at elec claim them. As soon as I was informed of the fact, less than two days afterwards, not wishing to employ them offenders brought to trial by the local military authorities. here, I ordered them to be sent to the rear. By a misap- or intimidation; attempting to hinder legal or to procure tion. Violation of this will be promptly noticed, and the prehension of the engineer officer in charge, they were III. Outrages upon the freedom of election by violence transferred to our lines south of the James river, but when challenge of voters; acting as officers of election in contraapprized of the error, I repeated the order for their reor encourage illegal voting; interfering with the legal moval. If any negroes were included among this number vention of law or orders; wilful neglect to perform their who were not identified as the slaves of citizens, or resi- duties, under the laws and these orders, by officers of elecdents of some of the Confederate States, they were so in- tions, and especially taking the voters' or officers' oath cluded without the knowledge or authority of the War De- falsely; and all other acts and words interfering with the partment, as already explained, and the mistake, when dis-purity and freedom of elections, are crimes against the Covered, would have been corrected. liberties of the people, and are declared military offences, and will be rigorously punished. orders, is declared a military offence, subjecting the offenVoting, or attempting to vote, in contravention of law or der to arrest, trial, and punishment, if convicted. It only remains for me to say that negroes employed upon our fortifications are not allowed to be placed where they will be exposed to fire, and there is no foundation for any statement to the contrary. The author of the communications referred to has considered himself justified by the reports of two deserters, who do not allege that the negroes in question were exposed to any danger, in placing our pris. oners under the fire of our batteries. In view of the explanations of the practice of the Confederate Government above given, and of the statement of facts I have made, I have now, in accordance with my instractions, respectfully to inquire whether the course pursued toward our prisoners, as set forth in the accompanyng letters, has your sanction, and whether it will be main ained? Very respectfully, your obedient servant, HEADQUARTERS ARMIES OF THE UNITED STATES, Gen. R. E. LEE, C. S. A., Commanding Army Northern Virginia: GENERAL: Understanding from your letter of the 19th that the colored prisoners who are employed at work in the trenches near Fort Gilmer have been withdrawn, I have directed the withdrawal of the Confederate prisoners employed in the Dutch Gap canal. I shall always regret the necessity of retaliating for Wrongs done our soldiers; but regard it my duty to protect all persons received into the army of the United the Convention of Missouri, and printed on Report of Hon. J. Holt, Judge Ad- Hon. E. M. STANTON, Secretary of War: SIR: Having been instructed by you to prepare a detailed During more than a year past it has been generally chiefly military in its character, has been rapidly extending known to our military authorities that a secret treasonable itself throughout the West. A variety of agencies, which organization, affiliated with the Southern rebellion, and will be specified herein, have been employed, and successfully, to ascertain its nature and extent, as well as its aims arrest, in several States, of a humber of its prominent and its results; and, as this investigation has led to the members as dangerous public on |