.. , .
. N
J
OAT' . .
".. • ;. . , 1
: E
M
-1 . :
C t.
A
:
1
A. J. GERRITSON, Proprietor.}
-
Two DIESSAGES OF THE PRESI
DENT.
The Sherman Military Bill and tenure of
Office Bill returned to Congress 'without
approval.
WASHINGTON, March 2.
The following is the message of the
President of the United States, returning
to the House of Representatives a bill en
titled "An act to provide for tile more
efficient governut6it of the Rebel States:
To the House of Representatives—l have
examined the bill "To provide -tin• the
more efficient government of the Rebel
States' with the care and anxiety which
its transcendent importance is calculated
to awaken. I am unable to give it my
assent, for reasons so grave that I hope a
statement of them may have some influ
ence on the minds of the patriotic and en
lightened men with whom the decision
must ultimately rest.
The bill places all the people of the ten
States therein named under the absolute
domination of military rulers, and the
preamble undertakes to give the reason
upon which the measure is based, and the
ground upon which it is justified. It de
clares that there exists in those States no
legal governments, and no adequate pro
tection for life or property, and asserts the
necessity of enforcing peace and good or
der within their limits. Is this true as
matter of fact? It is denied that the
States in question have each of them an
actual government, with all the powers,
executive, judicial, and legislative, which
properly belong to a free State. They
are organized like the other States of the
Union, and like them, they make, adminis
ter, and execute the laws which concern
their domestic affairs. Au existing Jefac
:a government, exercising such functions
as these, is itself a law of the State upon
all matters within its jurisdiction. To
pronounce the supreme law making pow
er of an established State illegal is to say
that law itself is unlawful.
'rile provisions which these governments
have made for the preservation of order,
the suppression of crime, and the redress
of private injuries, are in substance and
principle the same as those which prevail
in the Northern States and in other civ-
clantries. They certainly have not
f.ucceeded in preventing the commission
all crime, nor has this been accomplish
ed anywhere in the world. There, as
lis-r ”ir...udCl 3 NUILIUL VS'
cape for want of vigorous prosecution,
and occasionally, perhaps, by the ineffi
ciency of courts, or the prejudices of ju
ror.. It is undoubtedly true that these
evils have been much increased and aggra
vate), North and South, by the demoral
zng influence of civil war, and by the
rancorous passions which the contest has
engendered. But that these people are
maintaining local governments for them
selves, which habitually defeat the object
of all government, and render their own
lives and property insecnre, is in itself ut
terly improbable, and the averment of the
bill to that effect is not supported by any
evidence which has come to my knowl
edge. All the information I have on the
subject convinces me that the masses of
the Southern people and those who con
trol their pubic acts, while they entertain
divers opinions on questions of Federal
p.dicy, are completely united in the effort
to reorganize their society on the basis of
peace, and to restore their mutual pros
perity as rapidly and as completely as their
cireum4tances will permit.
The bill, however, would seem to show
upon its face that the estab'ishment of
peace and good order is not its real id);
j , •ct. The fifth section declares that the
preeedinz sections shall cease to operate
in any State when certain events shall
have happened. "These events are:
1. The selection of delegates to a state
Convention by an election, at, which ne
groes shall be allowed to vote.
2. The formation of a state Constitn-
tion by the convention so chosen
3 The insertion into the state constitu
tion of a provision which will secure the
right of voting at all elections to negroes,
and to such white men as may not be dis
franchised for rebellion or felony.
4. The submission of the -Constitution
for ratification to negroes and white men
not disfranchised, and its actual ratifica
tion by their votes.
5. The submission of the state constitu
tl-,,;n to Congress for examination and ap
proval, and the actual approval of it by
that body.
G. The adoption of a certain amend
ment to the Federal constitution by a vote
or the Legislature elected under the new
, Constitution.
7. The adoption of said amendment by
a sufficient number of other states to make
it a part of the constitution of the Uni
ted States. All these conditions must be
fulfilled before the people of any of these
States can be relieved front-the bondage
of military domination; but when they
are fulfilled then immediately pains and
penalties of the bill are to cease, no mat
ter whether there be peace andi order or
not, and without any reference Co 'the se
curity of life or property. The excuse
given for the bill in the preamble is O
mitted by the bill itself not. to be real.
The military , rule which it establishes is
plainly to be used, not for any purpose of
order or for the .prevention Of crime, but
solely as a means of coercing the people
into the adoption of principles and mess
tires to which k is known that they are
opposed, and upon which they have an
undeniable • right to exercise their own
judgment.
I submit; to Congress whether this
measure is not in its whole character,
scope, and object, without precedent and
without authority; in palpable conflict
with the plainest provisions of the Con
stitution, and utterly destructive to those
great principles of liberty and humanity
for which our ancestors on both sides of
the Atlantic have shed so much blood
I and expended so much treasure.
The ten states named in the bill are di
vided i❑to five districts. For each dis
trict an officer of the army not below the
rank of Brigadier General is to be appoin
ted to rule -over the people, and he is to
be supported with an efficient military
force to enable him to perform his duties
and enforce his authority.
Tiose duties and that authority, as de
fined by the third section of the bill, are
" protect all persons in their rights of
person and property, to suppress insur
rection, disorder, and violence, and to
punish, or cause to be punished, all dis
turbers of the public peace or criminals.
Tile power thus given to the comman
ding oftle,er over all the people of each dis
trict is that of an absolute monarch. His
mere will is to take the place of all law.
The law of the states is nuw the only rule
applicab'e to the subjects placed under
his cow to!, and that is. completely dis
placed by the o'ause which declares all in
t r . crence of State authority to be holland
void.
He alone is permitted to determine
what are rights of person or property,
and he may protect them in such way as
in his discretion may seem proper. It
places at his free disposal all the lands and
goods in his district, and he may distrib
ute them Without let or hindrance to
whom he pleases. Being hound by no
state law, and there being no other law to
regulate the subject, he may make a crim
inal code of his,own, and he can make it
as bloody as any recorded in history, or
he can reserve the privileges of acting
upon the impulses of his private passions
in each case that arises. He is bound by
no rules of evidence; there is indeed no
provision by which he is authorized or
required to take any evidence at all. Ev
erlthing is a crime which ho rh
call so, and Ail persons are congarnUa
whom he pronounces to be guilty. He is
not bound to keep any record or make
any report of his proceedings. He may
arrest his victims wherever he finds them,
without warrant, accusation, or proof of
probable cause. If he gives them a trial
before he inflicts the punishment, he gives
of his grace and mercy, not because he
is commanded so to do.
To a casual reader of the bill, it might
seem that some kind of trial was secured
by it to persons accused of crime, but such
is not the case. The officer " may allow
civil local tribunals to try offenders ;" but
of course, this does not require that he
shall do so. If any state or federal ccnrt
presu mes to ex.ercise its legal jurisdiction
by the trial of a malefactor without his
special permission, he can break it up and
puuish the judges and jurors as being
i hemselves malefactors-, Ile can save his
friends from justice, and despoil his ene
mies contrary to justice.
It is also Itrovided that " He shall have
power to ()Tapir.: military commissions
or tribunate,'
But this power he is not commanded
to Oxercise. It isimerely, permissive, and
is to be used only when in his judgment
it may be necessary for the trial of offen
,
i tiers. Even if the sentence of a commis
-1 sion was made a prerequisite to the punish
ment of a party, it would be scarcely the
slightest check upon t i officer, who s
authority to organize' it asase. s
,
prescribe its mode of proceeding, appoint
its members from among his own subor-
I dinates and revise all its decisions. In
stead of mitigating the harshness of his
' single will, such a tribunal would be us-
ed much wore probably to divide the re,
spnnsibility of making it more cruel and
unjust.
Several provisions, dictated by the hu
manity of Congress, have been inserted in
the bill, apparently to restrain the power
of the coin mandincr officer, but it seems to
me that they are of 6 no avail for that pur
pose. The fourth section provides:
I 1. That trials shall not be unnecessarily
delayed; but I think I have shown that
1 , the power is given to punish without tri
: al, and, if so, this provision is practically
inoperative. •
2. Cruel unusual punishment is not
to be inflicted; but who is to decide what
is cruel and what is unusual ? The words
have acquired? legalmeaning by long use
in the courts. Can it be expected that
military officers will understand or follow
a rule expressed in language so purely
technical, _and not pertaining in the least
degree to their projession ? If not, then
each officer may define cruelty according
to'his own temper, and, ifit is not usual,
ho will make it usual. • Corporeal punish
ment, imprisonment, the gag, the ball and
, chain, and the almost insupportable forms
of torture invented for military punish
' went; lie within:the range of 'choice.
8. The seateiicie.of-c commission is not
to be ereentA without being • approved
MONTROSE, PA., TUESDAY, MARCH 19,1867.
by the commander, if it affects life or lib
erty, and a sentence of death most be ap
proved by the President. This applies
to cases in which there has been a trial
and a sentence.
I take it to be clear under this bill that
the military commander may condemn to
death without even the form of a trial by
a military commission; so that the life of
the condemned may depend upon the will
of two men instead of one.
It is plain that the authority here giv
en to the military officer amounts toabso
lute despotism. But to make it still un
endurable, the bill provides that it may be
delegated to as many subordinates as he
chooses to appoint for it declares that he
shall " punish or cause to be punished."
Such a power has not been wielded by
any monarch in England for more than
five hundred years. In all that time, no
people who speak the English language
have borne such servitude. It reduces the
whole population of the ten States—all
persons of every color, sex and condition,
and every stranger within their limits to
the most abject and degrading slavery.
No master ever bad a control so absollito
over his slaves aschhis bill gives to the
military officers over both white and col
oted persons.
It may be answered to this that the of
ficers of the army are too. inagnanithous,
just and humane to oppress and trample
upon a subjugated people. I do not
doubt that army officers are as well enti
tled to this kind ofeonfidence as any other,
&ass of men. But the history of the
world has been written in vain if it does
not teach us that unrestrained authority I
can never be safely trusted in human
hands. It is almost sure to be more or
less abused under any circumstances, and
it has always resulted in gross tyranny
where the rulers, who exercise it, are
strangers to their subjects, and come
among them as the representatives of a
distant power, and more especially when I
the power that sends them is unfriendly.
Governments closely resembling that here
proposed have been fairly tried in Hunga
ry and Poland, and the suffering endured
by those people roused the sympathies of
the entire world. It was tried in Ireland,
and though tempered at first by princi
ples of English law, it gave birth to cru
elties so atrocious that they are never re
counted without just indignation. The
French conveution armed its deputies
Werailmages tne" republic.
The massacres, murders, and other atro
cities which they committed, show what
the passions of the ablest men in the most
civilized society will tempt them to do
when wholly unrestrained by law.
The men of our race in every ag e have
struggled to tie up the bands of their gov
ernment and keep them within the law,
because their own experience of all man
kind taught them that rulers could not be
relied on to concede those rights which
they were not legally bound to respect.
The head of a great empire has sometimes'
governed it with a mild and paternal
sway, but the kindness of an irresponsible
deputy never yields what the law does not
extort from him. Between such a mas
ter and the people subjected to his domi
nation, there can be nothing but enmity;
he punishes them if they resist his author
ity, and if they submit to it be hates them
for their servility.
I come now to a question which is, if
possible, still more important. Have we
the power to establish and carry into ex
ecution a measure like this? I answer,
cot tainly not, if we derive our authority
from the constitution, and if we are bound
by the limitations which it imposes.
This proposition is perfectly clear that
no branch of the federal government, ex-
ec).lthe, Legislative or judicial, can have
. ny just powers except those which it de
rives through, and exercises under the or
ganic law of the Union. Outside of the
Constitution, we have no legal authority
more than private citizens, and without it
we have only so much as that instrument
gives us. This broad principle limits all
our functions, and applies to all subjects.
It protects not only the citizens of States
which are within the Union, butit shields
every human being who comes or is bro't 1 1
under our jurisdiction.
We have no right to do in ono place
more than in another that which the Con
; stitution says we shall not do at all. If,
therefore, the Southern states were, in
truth, out of the Union, we could not
I treat their people in a way which the fun
damental law forbids.
I Some persons assume that the success
of our arms in crushing the opposition
I which was made in some of the States to
! the execution of the Federal law, reduced
those States and all their people, the M-
I nocent as well as the guilty, to the condi•
tion of vassalage, and gave us a power
over them which the Constitution does
not bestow, or define, or limit.
No fallacy can be more transparent
than this. Our victories subject the in
surgents to legal - obdience, not to the
yoke of an arbitrary despotism. When
an absolute sovereign reduces his rebell
ions subjeet*, he may deal with them ac
cording to his pleasure, because he had
that power i)efore. , But vihan a limited
monarch pots down an insurrection, he;
mast still govern aceording-10,1aw. - If ito
,* insurrection should - take piece in 9128 Of
or.r States egeirst the ivrerefamtv oft r e
State government, and end in the over- I
throw of those who planned it, would that
take away the rights of all the people of
the counties where it was favored, by a
part or a majority of the population?
Could they, for such a reason, be wholly
outlawed and deprived of their represen
tion in the Legislature ? I have always
contended that the government of the
United States was sovereign within its
constitutional sphere,Shat it executed its
laws like the States themselves by apply
ing its coercive power directly to indi
viduals, and that it could put down insur
rection with the same effect as a State,
and no other. The opposite doctrine is
the worst, heresy of those who advocated
secession, and_oannot be agreed to with
out admittiu(tbat heresy, to be right.
Invasion, insurrection, rebellion, and do
mestic violence, were anticipated, when
the got , ernment was framed, and the
means of repelling and suppressing them
were wisely provided for by the Consti
tution; but it was not thought necessary
to declare that the States in which they
might occur should be expelled from the
Union.
Rebellions, which were invariably sup
pressed, occurred prior to that out of
which- these questions grow. But the
states continued to exist, and the Union
remained unbroken: In Massachusetts,
in Pennsylvania, in Rhode island, and in
New York, at different periods in our his
tory, violent and armed opposition to the
United States was carried on. But the
relations of those States with the federal
government were not supposed to be in
terrupted or changed thereby, after the
rebellious portions of their population
were defeated and put down. It is true
that in these earlier cases there was no
formal expression of a determination to
withdraw from the Union. But it is al
so true, that in the Southern States the
ordinances of secession were treated by
all the friends of the Union as mere nul
lities,
and are now acknowledged to be
so by the States themselves. If we ad-
ntit that they had any force or validity, or
that they did, in fact, take the States in
which they were passed out of the Union,
we sweep from under our feet all the
grounds upon which we stand in justifying
the use of Federal force to maintain the
integrity of the government. This is a
bill passed by Congress in time of peace.
There is not in any one of the States
itisurreettori. The laws of the states, and
of the Federal government, are all in un
disturbed and harmonious operation. The
courts, state and Federal, are open and in
the full exercise of their proper authority..
Over every State, comprised in these five
military districts, liberty, and prop
erty
are secured by State laws and Feder
al laws, and the national Constitution is
everywhere in force, and everywhere
obeyed. What then is the ground on
which this bill proceeds P The title of
the bill announces that it is intended for
the more efficient government of these
fen States. It is recited by way of pre
amble, that no legal State governments,
nor adequate protection for life or prop
erty, exist in those states, and that peace
and good order should be thus enforced.
The first thing which arrests attention
upon those recitals which prepare the way
for martial law is this : That the only
foundation upon which martial law can
exist under our form of government, is
not stated or so much as pretended : ac
tual war, foreign invasion, domestic in
surrection; none of these apear, and
none of these in fact exist.
Although it 0 not even recited that any
sort of war or insurrection is threatened.
Let us pause here to consider upon this
question of constitutional law and the
power of Congress, a recent decision of
the Supreme Coart of the United States
in ex parte Milligan. I will first quote
front the opinion of the majority of the
Court : " Martial law cannot arise from a
threatened invasion. :The necessity must
be actual and present, the invasion real,
such as effectually closes the courts and
deposes the civil authority." But this
bill, in time of peace,- makes martial law
operate as though we were in actual war,
and become the cause instead of the con
sequence of the abrOgation of civil author
ity. One more quotation :
"It follows from what has-been said on
this subject that there are occasions when
martial law can be properly applied. If
in foreign invasion or civil war the courts
are actually closed, and it is impossible to
adniinister criminal justice, according to
law, then on the theatre of active military
operations, where war really prevails,
there is a necessity to furnish a substitute
for the civil authority thus overthrown,
to preserve the safety of the army and
society ; and as no power is left but the
military, it is allowed to govern by mar
tial rule until the laws can have their free
course."
I now quote from the opinion of the
minority of the Court, delivered by Chief
Justice Chase :
" We by no means assert that Congress
can assert and apply the laws of war 1 1
where no , war has been declared, or ex
ists. Where peauk exists, the laws of..
peace mast prevail."
This is sufficiently explieit.• 'Peso ex
isteinell the:territory Lo whieb this bill
tlppliim. It asserts a power In Congress
In tires of pone set sable the Ivry of
peace, and to substitute the laws of war.
The mipority concurring with the major
ity declares that Congress does not pos.
seas that power. Again, and if possible,
more emphatic, the Chief Justice with re-
markable clearness and condensation,surns
up the whole matter as follows :..
"There are, under the Constitution,
three kinds of military jurisdiction, one to
be exercised both in peace and war, an•
other to be exercised in lime of foreign
war, without the boundaries of the Uni-
ted States, or in time of rebellion,or civil
war within States or districts occupied by
rebels treated as beligerants, and a third
to be exercised in time of invasion or in-
surreotion within the limits of tho United
States, or during rebellion within the lim
its of the States maintaining adhesion to
the national government, when the public
danger requires its exercise. The first of
these may be called jurisdiction under
military law, and is found in acts of Con-
gress prescribing rules and articles of war
or otherwise providing for the govern.
ment of the national forces. The second
may be distinguished_ as military govern
ment, superceding as far as may be deem.
ed expedient the local law, and exercised
by the military commander, under the di
rection of the President, with the express
or implied sanction of Congress. While
the third may be denominated martial
law proper, and is called into action by
Congress, or temprarily, when the ac
tion of Congress cannot be invited, and in
the case of justifying or excusing peril,
by the President; in times of insurrection
or invasion ; or of civil or foreign war
within districts or localities where ordin-
ary law no longer adequately secures pub
lic safety and private rights."
It will be observed that of the three
kinds of military jurisdiction which can
be exercised or created under our Consti-
tution, there is but one that can prevail
in time of peace, and that is the code of
laws enacted by Congress for the govern.
meat of the national forces. That body
of military law has no application to the
citizen, nor oven to the citizen soldier en-
rolled in the militia in time of peace. But
this bill is not a part of that sort of mili
tary law, for that applies only to the sol
dier and not to the wizen, while contrari
wise the military law provided by this bill
applies only to the citizen and not to the
soldier.
I need not say to the renresientatiees of
non forbids the exercise of judicial power
in any way but one, that is, by the or
dained and established courts. It is equal
ly well known that in criminal cases a tri
al by jury is made indispensable by the
express words of that instrument. I will
not enlarge on the inestimable value of
the right thus secured to every free man,
or speak of the danger to public liberty
in all parts of the country, which must en
sue from a denial of it anywhere or upon
any pretense. A very recent decision of
the Supreme Court has traced the history,
vindicated the dignity, and made known
the value of this great privilege, so clear
ly that nothing more is needed. To what
extent a violation of it might be excused
in time of war or public danger, may ad
mit of discussion. But we are providing
, now for a time of profound peace, when
there is not an armed soldier within our
borders, except those who are in the ser
vice of the g overnment . It is in such a
condition of things that an act of Con
gress is proposed, which, if carried out,
would deny a trial by the lawful courts
and juries to nine millions of American
citizens and to their posterity for an inde
finite period. It seems to be impossible
that. auy one should seriously believe this
consistent with a Constitution which de
clares in simple, plain, and unambiguous
language, that all persons shall have that
right, and that no person shall ever, in any
case, be deprived of it.
The Constitution also forbids the ar
rest of the citizen, without judicial war
rant founded on probable cause. This
bill authorizes an arrest without warrant,
at the pleasure of a military commander.
The Constitution declares that "no per
' son shall be held to answer for a capital
or otherwise infamous crime, unless on
1 presentment by a grand jury." This bill
holds every person not a soldier answera
ble for all crimes and all charges without
1 any presentment.
1 The Constitution declares that "no
Iperson shall be deprived of life, liberty or
I property, without duo process of law. '—
I, This bill sets aside all process of law, and
makes the citizen answerable, in his per
! son and property, to the will of one man,
I and as to his life, to the will of two.
Finally, the Constitution declares that
" The privilege of the writ of habeas cor
pus shall not be suspended unless when in
case of rebellion or invasion, the public
safety may require it ;" whereas this bill
requires martial law, which of itself sus
pends this great writ in time of peace,and
authorizee militaTy to make the ar
rest, and give o the prisoner only one
1 privilege, and th t; is a trial without un
necessary delay. He has no hope of re
lease from oust ° y, except the hope, snob
as it is, of release by acquittal before a
military commission. The United Ste l e
are bound to "guarantee to each State a
republican %rye of govemixtent. ,
' Can it be, pfetenclact thabibis Wigs:
tion io DO palpably britken, if we carry
out ix metts. , ire axe tote,' Link wipes rzray
tYOLUME XXIV, NUMBER 12.
every vestige - cif Republican government
in ten States, and puts the life, property,
liberty and honor of - the:people, in each of
them, under the 'domination of a idi j ila
person clothed with unlintited authority.
The Parliament of England, exercising
the omnipotent power which it claimed.
was accustomed to pass bills of attainder
—that is, it would convict men of treason
and other crimes by legislative enact
ment. The person accused, had a hear
ing, sometimes a patient, and a fair one,
but generally party prejudice prevailed
instead of justice. It, often became ne
cessary for Parliament to acknowledge its
error, and reverse its own action. The
fathers of our country determined that no
such thing should occur here. They with.
held the power from Congress, and thas
forbade its exercise by tile and
they provided in the Constitution that no
State should pass any bill of attainder.—
It, is therefore impossible for any, person
in this country to be constitutionally pun
ished for any crime by a legislative pro-
ceeding of any sort. Nevertheless, here
is a bill of attainder against nine millions
of people at once. It is based upon an so-
cusation so vague as_to be scarcely intel
ligible, and found to be true upon no
credible evidence; not one of the nine
millions was heard in his own defense.—
The representatives of the doomed par.
ties were excluded from all participation
in the trial. The conviction is to be fol.
lowed by the most ignominious punish
ment ever inflicted on large masses of
men. It disfranchises them by hundreds
of thousands, and degrades them all, even
those who are admitted to be guiltless,
from the rank of free men to the condi-
tion of slaves. The purpose and object
of the bill, the general intent which 'per.
vades_ it from beginning to end, is to
change the entire structure and character
of the State governments, and to compel
them by force to the adoption of organio
aws and regulations which they are un•
willing to accept, if left to themselves.=
The Degrees have not asked for the priv
ilege of voting; the vast =jerky of them
have no idea what it means. This bill not
only thrusts it into their hands, but com
pels them as well as the whites to %mitt
in a particular way.
If they do not form a Constitution with
prescribed articles in it, and afterwards
elect a Legislature which will act upon
certain measuresjn rtres,crihea ata v _nal.
the slavery which the bill imposes upon
them. Without stopping to consider the
policy or impolicy of Africanizing the
Southern part •of our territory, I would•
simply ask the attention of Congress to
that manifest, well known and universally
acknowledged rule of Constitutional-law,
which declares that the Federal govern
ment has no jurisdiction, authority or
power to regulate such subjects for any
State. To force the right of auffiage out
of the bands of the white people, and into
the hands of the negroes, is an arbitrary
violation of this prin6pie.
The bill imposes martial law at once,
and its operations will begin as soon
as tho_ general ' and his troops caniiit
put in place. The dread alternative - be
tween its harsh rule, and compliance with
the terms of this measure, is not suspend
ed, nor the people afforded time for de
liberation- The bill says to them—Take
martial law first ; then deliberate. And
when they have done all that this meas
ure requires them to do, other conditions
and contingencies, over which they have
no control, yet remain to be fulfilled; be
fore they can be relieved from martial
law, another Congress must first approve
the Constitutions made in conformity
with the will of this Congress, and must
declare these States entitled to represen
tation in both houses.
The whole question thus remains open
and unsettled, and must again occupy the
attention of Congress ; and in the mean
time the agitation which now previiils
will continue to disturb all portions of
the people.
The bill also denies the legality of the
governments of ten of the States which
participated in the ratification of the
amendments to the Federal Constitution
abolishing slavery forever within the ju
risdiction of the llnited States, and prim
ticallrexcludes them from the Union.. If
this assumption of the bill be correct,
their concurrence cannot be considered
as having been legally given; and the int
cortant fact is made to appear that the
onsent of three•foarths of the States, the
requisitd number, has not been constitu.
tionally obtained to the ratification of
that amendment, thus leaving the ques-
tion of slavery where it. stood before the
amendment was officially declared to have
become a part of the Constitution. That
the measure proposed by this bill doe's vi
olate the Constitution in the particulars
mentioned, and in many . other ways that
I tbrbeatto 'enumerate, is too clear to ad
mit of the least doubt.
It only remains to consider ,whethei.
the injunctions of that. instrument ought
to be obeyed or not. I think thorough
to be obeyed, for reasons which I will
proceed to give as briefly as possible..ln
the:first place, it is the only syetem or
free . government which lietnirfloTteAo
havetai a nation ; wheat if ceases tole
the rule of-our coridunt, lie msy,pnrjtao,
take oat deice betiteeu coinplstii~ an
Chlo e al cansulidated deepothitione *al
MMEMBI