fom A. Hoy jo The Democratic Tale ~The Jtluse. For the Watchman, MY MOTHER. Atfectionately dedioated to my earliest and most faithful friend. BY JOHN P. MITCHELL. ‘Oh, with that name thoughts ever throng From mem’ry’s voiceless sea, Of days, when ’mid the flowers I lived, And danced in childish glee ; And little knew the tears you shed Upon my thoughtless, childish head, Were only wept for me; And never dreamed I e’er should be, By tem ests, tossed on life’s rough sea. AANARNAAAANAAAANNAA Like music, swelling low and sweet Ia harmony sublime, Comes sweeping back, at mem’ry’s touch, The far-off heavenly chime ; Your gentle voice I hear once more, In soothing cradle-sorgs of yore, Sound o'er the flood of time; And oh. ’tis sweeter to my heart Than all the labored notes of art. “When voices from eternity, Their far off whispers bear, When visions of the future’s realm Ave pictured in the air, ‘When phantoms grimly ‘round me crowd And the sad soul to dust is bowed Ir anguish and despair ; Those dear old hy: gone hours have power To brightly painc iife’s darkest hour. As rivers widen as they flow Until they reach the sea; While gazing back the flood of time, So seems its course to me ; But still the flowery banks I view, Where childhood 's path meanders through, And still your form I see ; Four gentle face. in kindness, beams Like angel faces in my dreams. In lonely hours, mysterious hands My heart-strings oft have swept, And waked to life, by some strange power, Dead hopes which lang have slept ; And as the past I ponder o'er, 1 see why ycu, in dayscf yore, Gazed on your child and wept; Cold hearts have met me, and I know What you had learned long years ago. Fou looked with Lind affection’s eye, And all my faults were few ; But man’s hard heart will not decide So partially as you; The wounds you healed so kindly then, Are deepened by the touch of men, And faults that come to view, Which you forgave for leve of me, Lhe world’s cold eye is sure to see. {Upon the stormy sea of life ‘Ihe tides may ebb and flow, And angel hands their harps muy tune To cheer my path below ; But 1 ne’er hope, in life, again, Amid the stern, cold hearts of men, Such friend as you to know ; For me you've labored, wept and prayed And gently led me when 1 strayed. adie to heaven I attain And you have gone betore, My mother dear, 2 know we’ll meet Upon the shining shore ; And though on earth I never find Another friend so true and kind Tili lite’s poor dream is o'er, The lessons you have taught will come To guide my earth-worn spirit home. Howarp, PA., Dec. 5th, i863. eee Al enn ‘For the Watchman. WHAT IS IT WORTH? BY JOE W. FUREY. What is it worth—this human life, For which men wildly pray, And catch at straws, in eager strife, To save their mortal clay ? What is it worth—to live amid The world’s remorseless cares, With virtue’s rarest tr asures hid Beneath the rankest tares ? What is it worth? when Goodness tries In vain to raise her head, And Purity, affrighted, flies, To seek the sainted dead ! What is it worth, (I ask ye men Who live to buy and sell,) To gain the whole of earth, and then Sink down to endless hell? What is it worth—when human hearts Are lined with sordid gold, And sympathy no love JEjuis To natures stern and cold ? What is it worth—when Truth and Right Succumb to wrong and fraud, And Justice, shorn of all her might, Flies, ehrieking, up to Gon? What is it worth ? in vain, my soul The answer, trembling, waits ; Lock’d is the Future's deathless scroll, And barred its massive gates. 0! whitened head of hoary age, 0! youth with flowirg hair, €an ye unfold the mystic page, And read the secret there ? And tell me what this life is worth, This animated clay— For what, a wretch like me had birth, To plod my weary way? A broken wreck upon the shore, A waif upon the tide, I mock the surges’ sullen roar, And wish that Thad died! For oh, my soul is deathly sick Of human hopes and fears, Of joys that vanish 2ll 0 quick And leave a trace of tears. 'Mid all the chambers of the dead, In life, or up Above, No human soul hath ever plead, For more of human love! And now, I long to lay my head Upon some faithful breast, And there, ere yet the spark had fled, My soul might find its rest! BELLEFONTE, PA., Dec. 6th, 1863. Wliscellaneous. pes. The last news from Warsaw announ- ces an increase of tke arbitrary rule of Russia. Thousands of men and women have been seized, stripped naked to their skin, and whipped, Does this account for the Muscovite sailors now in our harbor ? ga A great fallacy that thisisa world of change. At what time of the day was Adam created !—A little before Eve. gay The largest room in the would is THE CONSCRIPTION ACT. THE SUPREME COURT OF PENN- SYLVANIA DECIDES THE CON- SCRIPTION ACT TO BE UNCON- STITUTIONAL. Henry S, KNEEDLER, ye bills equity VS. and each ona David M. Laue vs. same p motion in each W. F. Nickels vs. same | case for special | injunction. OPINION OF JUSTICE THOMPSON: The act of Congress under which the ~omplainant in this caseis required to enter the army of the United Statesas a sol- dier, for a period of three years or during the war, provides for the enrollment, by officers of the United States, of all persons liable to do military duty, between the ages of 20 and 45 years and classifies them, — The names of ‘all persons thus enrolled. were required to be put into a wheel. and the requisite number for the districts with a surplus of 50 per cent, for contingercies were to be drawn thence, under the super- vision of certain federal officers. Those thus drawn from the wheel, if not exempted from disability or otherwise. w Il be ccmpell- ed to serve for the period mentioned, or find acceptable substitutes, or commute the service by the payment of three hundred dollars. Beyond all controversy this isa draft, or involuntary conscription from the militia of the State, without any requisition upon State Executives, or upon officers in com- mand of the mil tia in the State, and with- out any reference to state authorities. Is this enactment In accordance with the feder- al constitution ¥ The answer to this ques: tion determines the case, for itis not de- nied that the complainant is within the pro- visions of the act, and was drawn as and for a soldier under its provisions. He must, therefore, serve, 1f the act be constitutional or seek exemption under some of 1ts provi- sions, Our jurisdiction of the case, T think is plain. We have authority to restrain acts9 contrary to law,and prejudicial to the rights of individuals, act of 16th June 1863. If the act of Congress of 3d March, '63, under ard by virtue of which the complainant is holden as a soldier, and sought to be coerc- ed info the service, be not ccnstitutional, the custody of his person under pretence of it, is con trary to law, and prejudicial to his interests. The injury too, it the proceed- ing be illegal, is undoubtedly within what is denominated irreparable injury or mis- chief,and hence the propriety of the specific remedy An action for damages would per- haps not be sustainable under a recent act | of Congress, but if it should be, it would be against parties who intended no injury, and from whom on account of cbeying wha! they supposed to be law, in conducting the proceedings against him, bat little could be recovered, although the soldier may have been carried to distant places, from his home, and may have naderg-ug great haed- ship and vicissitudes. I dismiss this branch of the case, with this short view ot it, and with the additional remark, that if our judgment 1s against the constitutionality of the law, the case can be removed to the fed- eral judiciary at Washington. if the author ities there see proper, and be reviewed by the Court in the last resort in such cages, a thing which the President of the United States has, on a recent occasion, ex- pressed a wish for, and determination to facilitate. I now preceed to the main question. The constitution of the United States defines and enumerates the power of the General Government, and limits them by the solemn decfaration that ‘the powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States are reser- ved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The government established by the Con- titution, 1s, therefore, a limited Government beyond the limitations of which, including necessary incidents of expressly granted powers, all excrcise of authority by Con- gress is mere usurpation. We should remember this in constructing the Constitution. and we should remember also, that the entire machinery of Govern- ment, provided by it, was poised between checks and balances designed not only to prevent it from transcending its own orbit. al limits, but to guard against aggressions from other soarces. The objects to be at- tained, as declared in the preamble must also be kept 1n view, when we are called to expound its provisions ; and we are bound to construct it so as to preserve and advance them all. The purpose as declared in the preamble was to form a more perfect Un- ion, establish justice, ensure domestic tran- quility, provide for the common defence. promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to curselves and our posterity.” Each of these ohjects are supposed to be secured by the Constitution, and no one of them must be overlooked in a too eager desire to lend a supposed efficiency to some other. To do so would endanger the whole. To ‘provide for the common de fence 18 one purpose avowed {or establish. ing the Constitu ions and the duty devolves upon Congress to execute it ; but 1t must not be executed in such a manner as to en- croach on the paramount purpose of secur- ing “the blessings of hberty ta ourselves and our posterity,” also declared. This is the room for improvement. one instance to show that no legislation, nor no construction can be valid or sound which is not in harmoney with every provi- sion of the Constitution. In the light of these general and funda mental principles, we must investigate the grave questions presented by the bill of the complainant now before us. And ‘here I may express my regrets, that it did not meet the views of the governwet official, having in charge the law department for this United S ates district, to appear at the argument of this case, of which they had notice, and give us the benefit of their views and researches on the momentous questions volved. It can hardly, I pre- sume, be fairly attributable to a disregard of what might be the ulumate judicial ac- tion of the State on the question, or in con- tempt of State authority altogether. What- ever may have been the reason for the course adopted, the magnitude of the ques- tion involved is not at all diminished there- by, nor is our duty most carefully to exam- ine the whole case in all its aspects, the less imperative. Is the act of Congress approved march 3d, 1863, entitled **An Act of enrolling and calling out the national forces, and for oth- er purposes,” now familiarly known as the Conscription Aci unconstitu- tional ? In order to provide for the common de: fence and thereby promote the general wel- fare, Congress has by the constitution pow- er to ‘raise and support armies” and ‘‘to provide and maintain a navy.” It was un- der no extraordinary pressure of circumstan ces or emergent necessity that this power was granted. It was deemed to» be, aud thereupon introduced as, a part of the or- dinery machinery of government, the con- vention acting on an aXiom as old as gov- ernment itself, ‘“that the surest means of avoiding war is to prepare for it in time of peace.” Wiihout such a power, ‘it would’ says Story in his commentaries on the Con- stitution, 1185, *‘present the extraordinary spectacle to the world of a nation incapac- itated by a constitution of its ewn choice from preparing for defence before actual in- vasion.” 1t was an crdinary power not superinduc- ed by impending war. * com- pose it, and thatit might be extended to embrace all the able-bodied citizens in the States ! It required many numbers of the ablest paper ever written on the Constitu- tion, I mean the Federahst, to remove (ho-e fears See Fed. from No. 22 to 28 inclusive on this subject. The constitutien was adopted 1n ignorance certainly. of any such power 1f it does ex- ist, and it has required the lapse of thre tuarters of a century to develope its laten evils, Tre iisual evidences dre all against the idea, and I think something wore de- monstrative will show that these evidences stand not alone against it. The power to raise an army by conscrip- tion or coercion, (he words are nearly sy- nonymous). A conscript is one taken by lot from a conscription (or enrollment) list, “and compelled to serve as a soldier or sailor,” (Web. Dic. verb, conscript,” and rests alone on the idea that the power is un- limited, as to the means to be used, as well as to the numbers of which it may be com- posed. If there was no other power or principle 1n the instrament to be affected iv its operation by such a view, there would be force in the idea. But the constitution must be administered so that the whole may stand in full force, unimpaired by any particular portion. i The limitation of a power may appear otherwise than by express terms. Its scope may be curtailed by the necessity to pre- serve some other function necessary to co- exist for preservation of the whole. One object in framing the Constitution, as al- ready 1cmarked, was to ‘perpetuate the blessings of liberty.” It can hardly be contended for by any one, that the execu- tion of a power which would e!'ectually de” stroy this object would be constitutional.— Again, a power so exceuted as to destroy the reserved rights of the States, could hardly be claimed to be consti-utional.— There are, therefore, limitations as effectual as if expressed, ‘ul res magis valeat quam pereat” is a maxim out of which this grows. A limitation of this power was undoubt- ly supposed to exist in the discretion of Congress ; but that cannot be relied on in this argument. To give it any force would bz to allow the acts of Congress to be evi- dence to establish the proper discretion of Congress. This would be to argue in a circle, and would prove nothing—we are testing the acts of Congress, not by Con- gress, but by the Const'tatioh. So, too, 1t was supposed to exist in a time when no more voluntary enlistments could reasonably be procured, or wnen they might not be procured rapidly enough. That this was 50 is demonstrable by the fact that the Con- stitution provides for calling out the militia when the army may not be sufficient, I use this contingent expression because I look on the army as an ordinary powcr, and ordina- rily to be used, unless insufficiect for the end in view, or the exigencies of the times. llowever this may be, 1t is absolutely cer- tain that the military forces of the govern- went for all purposes, were to be the army and the militia. In the article of the Constitution contain- ing the power to ‘‘raise and snpport ar- mies,” and consecutive to that and other war powers and as part of thew, is the power to be found in Congress ‘lo pr. vide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasion #7’ “To provide for or- ganizing, eriming and disciplining the mih- tia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the Uni. ted States, reserving to the States respect ly, the appointment of officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress, The army to be raised and the militia li. able to be employed in the service of the United States, are the constituted military force of the Government. They co-exist, and must co-exist if the Constitution be ob- ligatory. We sometimes employ volunteers but they are merely a form, as they are a part of the militia, and do not militate against the idea of two species of forces. — It is conceded that both may not be requir- ed in any given case, but both must exist, or rather the militia cannot be destroyed or extinguished by an Act of Congress. The Constitution forbids this by the positive in- junction to provide for organizing, arming and disciplining them. They are the security of the States against the Federal Govern- ment, and rheir only security ; for the States themselves are not allowed to support ar mies. «It may safely be received as an axiom in our political system,” says the Federalist No. 8, “that the State governments will in all possible contingencies, afford complete security against invasions of the public lib- erty by the national authority.” * LA « I'hey can at once adopt a regular plan of opposition in which they can combine all the resources of the community!" How can this security be afforded against the danger of invasion of the public liberty by the Na- tional authority, unless there be some mili- tary force with which to resist it? What resources ara there in a community, if all the **abie-bodied men" may be absorbed in the national forces? It will at once be agreed, I think, in view of the constitutional provisions cited, that the militia, the only power of the States, must be maintained intact, and that no system is constitutional which extingnishes them. Let us inquire, therefore, whether or not, the Act of Con. gress of the 31 of March, 1863, known as the Conscription Act, docs not in fact at- tempt the complete demolition of the militia of the States. The preamble to the act sets forth the ex- istence of insurrection and rebellion ; that a military force is indispensable to suppress it; that to raise and support which, ‘all persons ought willingly to contribute.” It 18 therefore enacted, Sec. I, “that all able- bodied male citizens of the United States and persons of for:ign birth who shall have declared on oath their intention to become citizens in pursuance of the lars thereof’ between the ages of twenty and forty-five years, except as excepted, are hereby de- clared to constitute the National forces and shall be hable to perform military duty in the service of the United States, when call- ed out by the President for that purpose.” Then follow numerous provisions for classi= fring them, for the lottery or draft of the required number in each military district the closing up of the wheel until again re- quired, and the order and term of service, not as militia men belonging to and officer- ed hy the States, but as a part of the army of the United States, raised and supported under the clause of the Constitation which provides for raising and supporting afmies and to be officered by federal authority ex- clusively. Every able-bodied man in the United St’s is by these provisions enrollod, ani declar- ed to constitute the national forces. Th:s covers the entire materiel of the militia in tae Union. All able=bodied white men be- tween the ages of twenty and forty-five years, are liable as militia men in this Com- monwealth, and it is believed that this is about or near the standard m most {f not all the other States. This act is broader, both as to age and color, The specified age, however amounts to nothing, for Corgress by a very slight extension of power mn fix- ing the standard could just as well have made it to include all between the ages of eighten and sixty, Let th power be once established the right must follow, and in this way every man in public or private life in a State. between those ages, might be in- cluded. No one is exempt ander the pres: ent law but the Governor. All other offi- cers, judges, legislators, representatives in Congress, sheriff. magistrates, county and township functionaries of every description, if unter forty-five, are liable now to be forced into the army or to commute by the payment of three hundred dollars, or to fiod substitutes. As it is, this would draw hea- vily upon the public and necessary local of- ficers—but if extended to the ages of eigh- teen and sixty, as it could as readily be made to do, it might include all, not except- ing eyen the Governor. Can it be that the machicery of our government is so incon: gruous as to admit of this? Can ‘t for a moment be believed that the frawers of the Federal Constitution intended to create such a monstrous power? One that would not only absorb the military authority of the State, but the civil also. This is exactly the priveiple of this enactment and to a great extent will be the practical workings of it. I hold that the act plainly and directly destroys the militia system of the States, as recognized in the Constitution, and the acts of Congress ot 1792 and 1795. By its pro- visions the militia are to be enrolled, as part of the NATIONAL FORCES, another term, as will be seen, for National armies, ard it re- quires each individual so enrolled, to answer and report himself, when drawn, to the mil_ itary officers of the Federal Government,un. der the pains and penalties prescribed for desertion. If this is not a taking possession of the entire materie! of the militia, and consequently the militia itself bodily, I can- not comprehend the meaning or effect of language. The direct object of the act is to consti- tute the National forces of the same mate- rial as that which constitutes the militia of the State, and for that purpose a federal en rolment is made and portion so enrolled, and drawn from the wheel and separately and individually transferred to the army of the United States to be commanded not by state but by United States officers. They are henceforth not militia men but regulars.— They are to be carried into the army under the power grantel to Congress “to raise and support armies ;”’ not under that other power which autliorizes Congress «to pro- vide for calling out the militia to execute the laws, snppress insurrection and repel in- vasion.”” If called out in this capacity, it would be done by requisition of the Presi- dent upon State authorities, at least upon State militery officers, aad then the militia would come forth in organized bodies, not as individuals, and be officered by State au- thority. This is widely different from di- recting the Federal authority to each indi- vidual—to conscript him in his individual ‘character, and to compel him to serve not with State contingents and under State offi- cers, but under Federal cr army offizers. In short, the provisions of the Act incor- porates into the Federal armies, the entire material constituting the militia, by direct- ing their authority to them individuaily, without a requisition on the States, and with- out any power in any State to appoint a sin- gle officer to command them, although the entire force was, by the Constitution, to be, when called into the service of the. United States, under the military officers of the State. Such an Act, disregarding such plain provisions of the Constitution, is certainly unconstitutional, if such a thing be possible at all of any act of Congress, and this view if correct, establishes conclusively the hmit- ation of the power to raise and.su,port ar mies. Those enrolled and not drawn out of the wheel at the first draft, remain subject to be called out afterward. They are the un- employed national forces, and are declared | to be subject to be called into service un- der the plan of the act for two years aite the Tst of July succeeding the enrollment. to serve for three years or during the war. It is true when called into service, the act says they shall be ‘‘placed on the same foot- ing in all respects as volunteers including advance pay and bounty, as is now provid- ed by law.” I presume it is not meant by this. that the conscripts are to elect their own officers. But even if this were 50, it would be no less a deprivation of the right of the States to appoint the officers of their militia, and unconstitutional for that reason, As the enrollment or conscription into the natienal forces for two years, although unemployed, is nevertheless an iucorpora- tion of them with the national forces, it isa withdrawal of them for that poriud (rom the control of the States. The act would fie worth nothing if the States might resolve that this should not be. The act of Con- gress is supreme or it is nothing, If it be sapreme then the enrolled men can be and are directly under the federal authority all the time, and thus every eitizen or enrolled person, 1n or out of service, may be liable to be controlled by military law all the time, if Congress chooses. One portion of the militia conscripted and actually in the field, the balance conscript- ed and not yet mn the ficld, but subject to the military authority of the United States where are the military and where is the Se- curity of the States against being entirely absorbed, and against invasions of the pab- lic liberty by the national authority, which the writers of the Federalist thought existed in the militia 2 It 1s neitherin the field, nor at home, it is abolished, Apprehensions doubtless, or just such an enactment as this now under consideration superinduced the introduction of the Bill of Rights by amendment and consent of two thirds of the States, in which 1s the declara tion that ¢:a well regulated militia being necessary to the security ofa free State the rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” I contend that the act of Congress under discussion, violates this declared right, by absorbing the militia into the army, as con- tra-dis-tinguished from the milit a; by tak- ing all the material which constitutes the wilitia and calling them out individually without 1cquisition on the States. and placing them under officers not chosen by the States. It disregards the organization of the muli- tia altogether, not ouly in providing others than militia officers, butin its total disre- gird of State rezulations and exewptions.— Heads of departments of the States, Judges of the several courts, ministers of the gospej vrofessors in co'leges, school directors are exempt by our militia law. But the mode adopted for calling out the forces of the coun- try. disregarding the militia system, disre gards all these. These were within the militia i*self is overthrown by the Act in qney tion, they fail with it. It is possible that this power may be exercised, and the States live through it, but although they may not fall, their foundations wiil be fata- ly sapped, and if the precedent remain, it will in time become he authority for their extinction. The Cosstitntion authorizes Congress to provide for calling out the militia to sup- press insurrections and repel invasions.” — During the whisky insurrection in this State President Washington called upon the mi- litia for this purpose, by a requisition on the Governor, and in person comi.anded them So the militia were called out from many of the States during the war with Great Britain, and in every instance a requisition was made by the President upon the Gov- ernors of the States. It is true that in 1814 the question was much agitated in Congress whether or not, under the power to raise armies, the militia might not be conscriptad by the Federal authority. The bill whieh proposed this had the sanction of high names—but 1t differed much from thig Act and was never finally acted on, beeause of the termination of the war by the peace of Ghent. The discussion on this bill was able but partizan, and furnishes little aid to a judicial examination, and hence I have not recurred to it much in taking the view here- in expressed, That a Government like that of Great Britain may resort to conseription to fill the ranks of her armies, and has done s0 on many occasions, is no argument or precedent for that practice under the Feder- al Constitution, Even in England this is far from the ordinary mode of recruiting the army, and it will hardly be contend-d that the exception to the rule will establish a custom, by which to define the meaning of the words ‘to raise and support armies,” used in our federal constitution, so that ex vi termani, conscription or draft, both invol- untary modes, were thereby meant. But the precedent would go for nothing in this inquiry, even if the practice had been cowmon in England, The difference be tween the construction of the British and Federal Constitutions is radical. In the former, all governmental powers not ex- pressly probibited to the government, may be lawfully exercised. In the latter what- ever power is not expressly granted is with. held, There is no grant of such a power to the latter, as [ have endeavored to show: and no restraint upon it m the former, as han, Constirnticns, Between them (nat same diftorence in construction exists. The gov- ernmental powers of the States extend fo all rightful subjects not prohibited —and the national only to-such as are granted.— It therefore does nst advance the argument a step in favor of those who contend for the constitutionality of the Conseription Act, to point to instances in wh ch drafts have been wade by State authorities. Militia duty is compulsory in all the States. They are not prohibited {rom compelling it any more than from compelling the payment of the taxes, It is in this way, and in thus way only, in my opiniun, that the national forces can’ be compulsorily raised ; that is to say hy a re- quisition on the State authorities for militin men in a just proportion to population. Why have not the militia been called out in the present emergency 7 They are com- posed of the men the Araft proposes to furne ish. They are to bs governed while in the service, as Congress shall prescribe. They may be reclaimed for ene, two or three years, or while the insurreciion lasts; and will become just as good soldiers in the one character as the other. They are the con- stitutional power for that purpose, if the ar- my be not sufficient to effect thie object with- out them. Why not employ them? “There is but one of two alternatives,” says Judge Story, «which can be resorted to in oases of insurrection, invasion, or violent oppositioi to the laws: cither to employ regular troops or to employ the mnlitia to suppress them.” [Story on Con. sec 1201.] Lf it be said that the militia will be suflicient, which I deny, with eqnal traning, I insist t iat the imper- fection of the system is no justification for the overthrow in part or mx whele; of the Const tution. There is 10 hivg on earth that f so much desire as ‘o witness the suppression of this enjustitiable and monstrous rebellion. Tt mast be put down to save the Constitution, and the constitutional means for the purpose I believe to be ample, but we gain but little if in cur (forts to preserve it when a: sailed in one quarter, we voluntan!v rmpair other portions Uf it. Its en irety is vital; it must all stand, er 1t will ull fall ; it can nevir La apportioned. Believing that I have shown that the pow- er ‘‘to raise and support armies” is limited to voluntary enlistsments, and necessarily so limited that the miliiia of the States may remain in full force, I am impellel by no choice of alternatives, to the conclusien that as the Act of Congress transcends these limits, and by force of law attempts to abol- sh the militia, instead of calling on them o suppress the insurrection now so wide spread, T am of the opinien that the act of Congress is violative of the Constitution of the United States, and void. 1 most sincerely confess that it would have becn a much more agreesble duty to me to have been able at this time and at ail times, to Inve given my full accord to che the measures resorted to to restore the peace ard ordor of our once happy country, but looking to the Constitution, as the reasons for its provisons, and then to the solemn obligation which I have voluntarily come under to support the constitution, I cannot even at the risk of misrepresentation of mo- tives, hesitate where the question 1s a judi- cial one, t» express my unmixed convictions as I have done, of the enactment in ques- tion. Standing recently on the gentic slopes at Runnymede. memory sent a thrill to my heart in admiration ot those old Barons who stood up there and demanded from a tyr- annical sovereign that the lines between power and right should be then and there di tinctly marked, and all my fee ling at the same moment pail an involuntary tri- bate of regard to the fidelity with which their decendants have maintained what they then demanded and obtained although, often overshadowed by insurrection and war. Our forefathers marked thess lines in the Federal Constitution. I must adhere to them. T cannot help it, and while IT live I trust to Heaven that I may have the strength to sy that I will ever do so. There is no legal authority, in my opini nin the offizers of the Government to hold the complainant against his cor= sent, I am therefore in favor of enjoining them as praved for until further hearing and I agree to the same order in the other cases. ee rr elt eee tet. PoLAND AND THE Sout. —Wha ever tho't it possible that the descendants of a race which Kosciusko fought tc take free would vie in atfentions to the enslavers of hig countrymeé®? Who ever dreamed that a people, whom the calam ties of Greece could arouse to an enthusiastic s' mpathy, could wine and dine and fete the .opresentatives of aland whose whole power is exerted to grind aspiring Poland to the dust? Poland asks only to be free and for the temerity 18 hewn asunder by collossal Russia; our “leading men toast her sovereign, our wo- men dance w.th her offi ters and soldiers— for what? Because th express sympathy with Poland would be seif-condemnation.— To wish freedom fo the deserving Poles would be treading on dangerous ground.— That is why we wine russian officers and de: tain her frizates in our ports. in order, that each may have an ovation. Not we. not tha people but the commant party. They who seck to crush hberty at home, smile on the succes: which attends such efforts ‘aoroad. In praising them we roagnify ourselves; or, if net, itis a fellow feeling which make us this wondrous kind. An imperial despot- the exercise of it proves. Ths re vatk is equally applicable to the difference between the State and Federal ism and a republic wedded to the same purpose : the crushing out of liberty with- in their domint.ns! Think of it, you who ever think, ~ Drsrere Mera.