E 3is (/ Jt aass_L45:21 ^mtw af ^av. ^fmuouvfi ^csGiigc. SPEECH OF HON. ALEXANDER H. BAILEY, OS* ONE ^ IN SENATE -JANUARY 29, 1863. ALBANY: WEED, PARSONS & COMPANY, PRINTERS. 1863. ^'i^ West. Eesi Hissfe. Soe. SPEECH. Me. Chairman: I have no other purpose to-night than to at- tempt a review of so much of the Governor's Message as relates to National affairs. The time which this will necessarily consume, study brev- ity as I may, will leave me no opportunity for a formal reply to the Honorable Senator from the third. I must confine myself strictly to this pur- pose, or become wearisome beyond endurance. I listened to the reading of this message, sir, with a sincere desire that I might be able to acquiesce in all its statements and conclusions. Divided counsels had already produced their inevitable results upon the country. A loyal people who, eighteen months ago, stood united and therefore invincible, had become discordant, uncertain of purpose and therefore brought to the brink of ruiu. I was prepared 'o follow any leader, Democrat or Republican, who would sink the partizan in the patriot, and unite all loyal men in the great work of putting down thi-i rebellion. I was di.«posed to avoid all irri- tating and useless discussion, to sacrifice my own views where principle was not involved, and adopt any plan which promised success. I hoped to find in this message a clear, distinct policy enunciated. I hoped also to find such appeals as would allay discontent, animate droop- ing courage, and establish public confidence in our cause It is, therefore, with profound sorrow that I am compelled to nay that there is much in this message of an exactly opposite tendency. If I did not think so, I should take no part in this debate. A mere difference of opinion as to the cause of this war and the proper mode of con- doc'ina; it, is inevitable and harmless in itself. But when these differences are so discu'sed as to weaken and i)erhap3 paralyze the Administra- tion, through which al"ne the country can be saved and peace r stored, the effect is only mis- chievous, however patriotic the motive may be. The business of the hour is the salvation of the government. A large section is in arms ior its destruction. This rebellion will succeed un- less put down by force. Force can only be used through the constituted authoritifs at Washing- ton. These authorities are powerless without the support of the people. I think these propositions self-evident. And it follows from them, that unless the people do sustain the Administration in tlie prosecution of the war, the rebellion will succeed and the coun- try be destroyed. It is manifestly then the duty of every loyal citizen, high and low, to be found beneath the standard of his country, aEd to leave the conduct of the war to those whom the the constitution has made our leaders. It is not the part of exalted patriotism to stand afar cfl' and rail at the generalship, while the smoke of battle enshrouds tlie contending hosts, and that standard is being torn and riven by the missiles of the enemy. Nor when we have taken the field is it wise to spend our time in quarreling with our fellow soldiers instead of fighting the common foe. In short, it is madness for us, as a people, to imitate the factions in Jerusalem when the Romans were thundering at its gates, by weakening and dfgtroying each other in every lull of the storm which threatens to overwhelm us. And it is not necessary to ignore the errors and faults of our rulers in order to support the government. I concede the propriety and use- fulness of free discussion of every act of the Ad- ministration. What I condemn is the exercise of this right in a way calculated to distract the people, and lead them, if possible, to believe that it is more important to crush the Adminis- tration than the rebellion The part of the message we are considering contains much that we all approve. His faith that the country may yet be saved — his condem- nation of disobedience to constituted authori- ties — the call he makes for economy and inte- grity in public affairs — his veneration for the constitution — bis declaration that the people of this State will never willinglj assent to disunion — are the sentiments of each one of us. But this is not all he says — indeed it is a very small part of what he says. The greater portion of the message is devoted to the discussion of the causes of the war, and in attacks upon the administration. During the early period of this struggle, the discussion of the causes of the war was dropped by common consent. Every good citizen felt that such a discussion could do no good, but would inevitably lead to strife and bitterness. The unanimity which resulted from this course, proved its wisdom, while the discord now per- vading the North is, to a great extent, attribut- able to the persistent efforts of politicians to revive the contest. I regret, therefore, that the Governor has thought it necessary to renew the discussion of the causes of the war. But since he has done it — since he has forced the question upon us — I cannot consent by silence, to seem to acquiesce in statements which I deem incor- rect in fact, and evil in tendency. I am not willing that the discussion, if there must be one, shall be all on one side. His Excellency commences with the proposi- tion that " there are now no causes for discord that have not always existed in our country, and which were not felt by our fathers in forming the UnioD." His subsequent argument shows that he here refers principally, if not entirely, to slavery. It is true, Sir, tiiatthis institution then existed and that it now exists. But it is not true that it was then the same as now, in position, — in spirit, in ambition or in power, even relatively. It was then a mere industrial institution. It has since usurped a position entirely diti'erent. It has become a great political power overshadowing the land and demanding the control of the Go- vernment as the condition of its loyalty. Our fathers had no such monstrous demands to com- promise and adjust. This imperiiim in imperto did not then exist. The Governor continues — " If the North and the South had understood the power and pur- poses of each other, our contentions would have been adjusted." Had the South understood the power of the loyal States, and their determination to maintain the Union at any cost, it is possible that the re- bellion might have been postponed, but that is all. The Noith could not have prevented the rebellion by any concessions which even Gover- nor Seymour would make. I say by any con- cessions, for it tuust be remembered that when compromise and adjustment is spoken of, it always means demands on the part of the South, and concessions on the part of the North. Tile ollense alleged by the rebels at the time of the outbreak, was ihe election and inaugura- tion of Mr. Lincoln, an event secured by them- selves as certainly as if they had directly voted for him. They determined that he should be elected, and lor the very purpose of precipitating the rebellion. And is tliere a respectable man at the North who would have consented to the violent deposition of Mr. Lincoln, even if it would have prevented the rebellion ? No Sir, this assertion that the war might have been averted, so constantly repeated of late, and which is doing its work of evil amongst us, is a mere gratuitous assumption. It has not a part- icle of proof to rest upon. It utterly ignores the whole rebel programme as stated over and over again by themselves. It refuses to see, what is apparent to the whole world, that this rebellion had been determined for over thirty years — that its plans were forming during that whole period — and that their complaints of Northern aggres- sion was a mere cloak to conceal their actual purpose, and a means employed to drag their own people into the conspiracy. No Sir, it was ambition, a thirst for power that made these men rebels, not any real or imaginary injustice on the part of the North, they them- selves being witnesses Says the Governor again : " Affrighted at the ruin they have wrought, the authors of our ca- lamities at the North and South insist that this war was caused by an unavoidable contest about slavery." This is a remarkable sentence. Let us analyze it. It asserts 1st. That a portion of the people at the North are " authors" of this war. 2d. That they are equally guilty with the actual rebels for the ruin wrought. 3d. That these " authors" North and South alike insist "thut this war was caused by an unavoidable con- test about slavery ." Sir, I affirm that each and every of these pro- positions is untrue as matter of fact, and that the first two are monstrous. First, as to the assertion that a poition of the people at the North are authors of this rebellion. Who are the persons against whom this charge is made 1 He cannot, does not mean that little squad of fanatics heretofore known as abolition- ists 1 They were so insignificant in numbers and so totally without political influence, that his Excellency would not attribute to them such tremendous powers for evil. No, sir, he does not mean them. He brings this accusation against tJie republicans of the North, so recently largely in the majority in the loyal States, and who would now be in the majority, as I verily believe, if our armies were at home. And what is the charge 1 That they are au- thors, not the sole authors, to be sure, but still authors, of this rebellion. In other words, that they did something, or omitted to do something, which not only occasioned the war, but which justified it also. For unless they made the war necessary and right, they cannot be called authors of it. To say that they are, by reason of anything short of this, is to pervert language, contound the most obvious distinctions, and talk nonsense. It is like saying that tlie vic- tims of the St. Bartholomew massacre, becau.se they were hated by the assassins, were the au- thors of that massacre. Or it is like that logic which declares that the majority of the Assembly were the authors of the recent disorders there, because they would not permit the minority to control the House. But waiving all this, what had the re])uhlicaii.s actually douo 1 Was the election of Abraluiin Liu- colu their offence 1 No. Gov. Sejmour tell.s us in this verj' message that Mr. Lincoln was cousti- tutioually eloclod — and he is the last Governor in this country or any other to question a right secured by that instrument. Was it the so-called agilalion of the slavery question 1 I might reply that republicans were only a portion of those engaged in this agita- tion — that slavery was aggressive — that its advo- cates, North and Soulh.made it their constant theme everywhere and upon all occasions — but I cannot stop for this. 1 wisli merely to inquire whether any man will say that the discussion of slavery at the North is just cause for rebellion at the South ! And above all, can Gov. Seymour, who in this same message so emphatically demands free dis- cussion, who so solemnly and almost threaten- ingly declares that " there must be no attempt to put down the full expression of public opinion" — who is so tender in regard to constitutional rights that he declares, in substance and effect, that the general government shall not, in time of war, arrest a traitor in this State without due process of law — will he say that this constitu- tional right of free discussion, when exercised by republicans, is just cause for war on the part of the South ? But perhaps I shall be told that the Governor in this proposition did not refer to the election of Mr Lincoln, nor yet to the agitation of the slavery question. I know that there are no specifications, that this monstrous charge is wrapped in " glittering generalities," but if he did not mean these things, what did he mean ? The only approach to deliniteness is the asser- tion that " we are to look for the causes of this war in a pervading disregard of the obligation of laws and constitutions ; in disrespect for con- stituted authorities ; and above all in the local prejudices which have grown up" in certain quarters which he names. 1 am compelled to guess even here at the meaning. I presume, however, that personal liberty bills and opposi- tion to the fugitive slave law, are referred to in the first part of the sentence. It is no part of my purpose to defend these bills or that opposition. But will any sane man deliberately assert that these things caused the war ? It would be easy, if there were time, to show that the rebellion would just as certainly have come, if no liberty bill had ever beer: en- acted, and if every fugitive slave had been seized, carried back and presented by us on our knees, to his master. I have already shown that this rebellion was caused by the unbridled ambition of the conspirators ancl nothing else. But this subject of liberty bills tempts me to digress a moment and make an inquiry. Was it not the object of these bills to prevent the abduc- tion of citizens and freemen and the " carrymg of them many hundred miles to distant prisons in other states or territories?" i^nd is there net a striking analogy between the purpose of these acts, and the purpose of the Governor of this state, expressed in this message, to prevent the military arrest and abduction of cllizonB of this slftto 1 But I must pa.sH on to the s.'cond propoMJUon of the Governor embcdied in the pariigrni*h I am considering, viz. : that llie nortii.MU auihortt of I his war (rncaniuL' tlio Kepublicuns) an- equally guilty with tiio rebels for the ruin wrought. Sir, I shall not trust myself to rluiracu-rizx this jiropopition as it deserves. As W.-bstiT huid of Massachusetts — there it is, behold it and judge for yourselves. I would not exhibit " dirt- respect for constituted authorities," for that, wh' are told, was one of the causes of this war— but I will ask if there be a man here or elsewhere who will defend this proposition? I will only add, that it is a cruel imputation upon at leas't one-half the people of the northern states who never conceived a treasonable design or spoke a treasonable word — who never found an excuse for standing aloof when their country was in danger, and who have freely devoted their lives and fortunes to the work of putting down this rebellion. And now, sir, a word in regard to the third proposition contained in this paragraph, viz. : that these authors of the war, north and south — meaning the rebels of the south and the Repub- licans of the north — alike insist that this war was caused by an unavoidable contest about slavery. It is not of much consequence, but this pro- position is not true. It is not true as to the posi- tion of the rebels even — but I shall not stop to discuss that. As respects the Republicans, I deny emphatically that they have ever said any such thing. They did say that the subject of slavery was unnecessarily and wantonly forced upon the country by the unceasina and arrogaii' demands of the slave power. But they hav.- never said that this controversy was the cause of the war. On the contrary, they have always in- sisted, and they now insist, that this controversy had nothing to do with the war — that the slave power, uninfluenced by any real or imaginary provocation, but in-tigated solely by ambition and the devil, inaugurated this rebellion. If any man desires to state that an unavoida- ble contest about slavery was the cause of the war, let him do so as an original proposition and ui)on his ownresponsiblity — but no man has a right to state it as a proposition of the Rei>ub- licans, to give himself au opportunity to refute it. If the allegation had been that Repuhjicans insist that slaverj- — not the controversy about it — but that slavery itself was the cause of the war, it would have been substantially correct. We have said that. And what we mean by it is, that this unholy ambition of which I have spoken, and which inauizurated hostilities, is born of and is sustained by slavery — that this institution, of its own inherent corrupljon, breeds traitors to a government and constitution which secure equal rights to all. Again, the Governor says thai '♦ the spirit of dig obedience has sajtped the foumlation of muni- cipal, state and national authority in every part of our land." As is usual in the message, this statement makes no distinction between rebellion in the Soutb and disorderly conduct in the North. The proposition seems to be tliat this spirit of disobedience, uniform in character and develop- ment, exists everywhere in our country. On the Rappahannock and the Hudson — at Vicks- burgh and in New York — in South Carolina and in Massachusetts. That several states have disobeyed the national authority and taken up arms against it, thus causing the war, is very certain ; but why continually mix together, in this bewildering way, the people who are fight- ing the government and the people who are not ? But no matter. This rebuke of the spirit of disobedience to lawful authority, is well- timed. There have been recent exhibitions of law- lessness here in the loyal states, that may well ex- cite the alarm of every good citizen. It is but a few months ago, that an ex-mayor of New York proposed to revolutionize that city and and make it an independent power ! And that man, by the way, has just been elected a mem- ber of Congress. It is but a few weeks since the Legislature of Pennsylvania was suri'ounded by a mob to overawe and control the action of that bod.y. It is only yesterday that a similar mob gathered in your Assembly Chamber for a similar purpose. Upon the floor of your own Legislature threats were made that a certain candidate for speaker should never take his seat, if elected. There are now persons and journals among us, whose ceaseless business it seems to be to stir up a revolution against tlie general government. If this Jacobinical spirit be not put down, and that speedily, we shall not only lose our national government but our state government also. Not only will the Federal Constitution be destroyed, but our state lavvs and institutions will disappear wiib it. I re- joice, tlierefore, to find this condemnation of disobedience and lawlessness in the message, and I pray that His Excellency will crush it out in this State, by all the constitutional means he possesses. But I must hasten on. The Governor next says — that " When the leaders of the insurrec- tion at the extreme South, say that free and slave states catmot exist tognther in the Union, and when this is echoed from the extreme North by the enemies of our constitution, both parties simply say they cannot because they will not respect the laws and the constitution." Tiiis maj^ be good rhetoric, but it surely is bad logic. Admit the premises, still the conclu- sion is a no7i-sequitur. How an abstiact opinion that free and slave states cannot exist together, even when expressed, makes a man declare that he is unable to obey the laws and constitution and that he will violate them, is not apparent. But waiving such criticism, I say that these premises are made up of false assumptions. Put in plain language, the propositions assumed are the.-e : 1. The leaders of the insurrection at the ex- treme south say that free and slave states cannot exist together in the Union. 2. The people of New England say the same thing. That this may have been said at the south is very possible, although I do not remember ever to have seen any such remark in any defence of the rebellion. The rebels have said from the first, and now say that they will not remain in the Union, not that they cannot. They have de- clared that they will not respect the laws and constitution, not that such, obedience is impossi- ble. But however this may be, I deny that tlie people of New England have ever said that free and slave states could not exist together in the Union. Whether this may or may not have been said by that close corporation, the aboli- tionists of New England, I neither know nor care. For it is entirely immaterial for the pur- poses of my argument, whether they have or not. We are looking for the causes of this war. And no one will pretend that the sayings or doings of this small body of men were of the least political consequence. And, as I have before said, Gov. Seymour does not refer to them. He means New England, when he designates the ex- treme North, and when he speaks of the enemies of the Constitution at the extreme North, he means the people of New England, except that very small and select circle of Yankees who agree with him in politics. I repeat, sir, the people of New England have never said that free and slave states could not ex- ist together in the Union. On the contrary, they and the republicans of the whole North have alike insisted that free and slave states could exist together in the Union — nay, that such a connection could and should be entirely harmo- nius, and that this would be so if the slave states would obej' the Constitution and content them- selves with the rights guarantied by that instru- ment. But I shall be asked if republicans have not said that there is an irrepressible confiict be- tween freedom and slavery. Yes. But that is a very diiferent thing from saying that free and slave states cannot exist together in the Union. To illustrate I may say that there is an irrepressi- ble confiict between capital and labor, but will anyone contend that this is equivalent to saying that capital and labor cannot exist together in the same political community '? Labor may strive to procure the largest possi- ble renumeration for the smallest possible amount of service, and capital may strive to obtain the greatest possible amount of service for the least possible amount of compensation, and yet capital and labor always have and always will exist together. And, sir, this irrepressible conflict between freedom and slavery may go on, and never fur- nish a justifiable cause for a pro-slaverj' war, any more than the eternal conflict between capi- tal and labor furnishes cause for an agrarian war. When we say that there is an irrepressible conflict between freedom and slavery, we simply recognize a fact which now exists and which always has existed. We do not say that it should be or that it should not be. There it is, whether we will or not. It springs from the nature of slavery and the constitution of the huraan mind as framed by its creator. And lie who says that it shall be put down, imitates the rojal Canute when he ordered the waves of the ocean not to touch his feet — to borrow an illustration used by the Senator from the Third. And I rei)eat the denial, that the recognition of this fact, says or inipliog, either that free and slave states cannot exist together, or that we cannot, or that we will not obey the laws and constitution. Cut I shall be again asked, if Republicans have not said that the present relation of free and slave states could not always continue, and that tlie states would ultimately become all slave or all free. Yes, some of them have expressed this opinion, or rather made this prediction, for it is simply a {)rediction ; but this also is a veiy dilFe- rent thins from saying that free and slave states caroiot exist toCT^lher in the Union. Nay, this opinion or prediction, call it what you will, nec- essarily supposes the exact contrary, viz.: that they will remain tosetherin the Union until this irrepressible conllict shall have triumphed on the one side or the other, until freedom or slavery shall have overshadowed and absorbed the other, and the whole Union thus become alike in institu- tions and homogeneous in policy. It expresses the opinion that this irrepressible conflict will ultimately produce this result. It does not say or imply that the free and slave states cannnot, in the mean time, exist tooether. Neither does it say or imply, that those who hold this opinion intend to disobey the laws and constitution. Asain, the Governor says that " this war should have been averted." I would not pause over this brief sentence were it not to call attention to the peculiar manner in which Governor Seymour speaks of the War throughout the m ssage. Possessing great powers of denunciation which are freely exercised in this message, he never employs these powers against the rebellion, and he never charges upon it the unu terable woes it has inflicted. He never strikes a rebel unless he can couple a Yankee with him, so that the latter shall receive at least, half the blow. We never • hear a clear ringing appeal to the people to cease their political (quarrels and unite heart and hand to put down this infernal rebellion And yet no man in America could this day arouse tiie North to such a pitch of patriotism fervor as might Horatio Seymour. lie is the leader of a great, patriotic and triumphant party. Every man of that party, whose support is worth having, would hail with enihusiasm a declaration from him, that we would never submit to this rebellion, but that we would crush it out. Alas Sir, this appeal has not been made. We have instead, many patriotic generalities, the most of which I have quoted. We asked for bread and we have received a stone. We are informed ''that defe- rence " is due our rulers provided they keep within the limits of their jurisdiction. It is ever conceded that ■' at this moment, the fortunes of our country are injlucnccd'^ — Heaven save the mark — " are influenced by battles." We are told, in as few words as the idea could be ex- pressed, that " our armies in the field must be 8Ui)ported," and that "all constiluUonal demandd (was it worth while to suppose that Itiero would bo any «)ther !) of the governmeiu, must Ixj promptly respondnd to." Hut h'stlln'se int<'rlo- cutory remarks should bo misunderstood, we have Jtage after page of misrepresentation and denunciation, of at least, one-half the people of the Northern states; asserting among other things, that they are as much authors of ihin war as the rebels thenifseUvs, and that tiiey are jointly responsible with ihem for all thn " ruin wrought." Wo are told that the President of the United Slates, honest to a proverb, atid the least ambitious of men, has usurped more than regal powers, and without the shadow of an ex- cuse, has trampled the federal constitution and the rights of sovereiLtn states beneath his feet. We have also an elaborate argument to show, that one section of the loyal stales should array itself against another; and to cap the climax, we have the positive assurance that we cannot subdue this rebellion, from which results the necessary inference tliat our military defence ought to cease. But ST, I am wandering. The expression is that " the war should have been averted." Let us examine this a little more critically, for it is another peculiarity of the G.)v.-rnor to sometimes insinuate oU'ensive charges raUier than make them, and to cover up a fallacy with plausible words — as a pill is coa'ed with sugar, that it may be swallowed without betraying its nauseous qualities. Observe then, it is not said that the war should never have been inaugurated or commenced, which would have thrown the blame up n the scoundrels who causelessly took up arms, but the carefully conned and deliberately framed expres- sion is : " The war should hive been averted," which casts the blame upon the miserable Yankees. The war s/iould have been averted ; that is, it could have been. There were persons who could have done this. Nobody will under- stand him here to refer to the rebels. Every- body will understand him to say, that the per- sons who could thus have averted the war were the Republicans of the North. He nowhere tells us how they could have doue this, bat he over and over again insinuates the charge. But I shall be told that the Governor means that we could have averted the war by accepting the Crittenden compromise. This is an old sto- ry, and my reply must be very brief. My answer then is — 1st. That this is a mere gratuitom as- sumption without a particle of proof to sustain it. If we are to believe the rebels themselves, they would have spurned the con»'es.sion with scorn. 2d. That this compromise could not have averted«the war unless it was accepUjd be- fore the war, and that the Democrau of the north themselves voted down this identical pro- position in Congress, at least twice before the war. That the responsibility, therefore, of nit averting the war by this measure, rests npon them and not upon the Ilepublcans. That the making of this concession alier the war, would have been a cowardly yielding to violenue wha( had been deliberately and repeatedly denied to argument. We now come to the Governor's treatise on State rights, martial law, and military arrests. To attempt anything like a critical examination of this elaborate argument would consume hours, and I cannot venture to ask such an indulgence from the Senate. I shall, therefore, from neces- sity, merely glance at these subjects. I would not even do that except to point out what I think is a spirit of bitterness against the general gov- ernment, and an unwarrantable perversion of its purposes. I concede, sir, that there is much in this argu- ment which is entirely sound. The general proposition that the Federal and State govern- ments are distinct, and that the rights of each must be respected, no one will dispute. The importance of a strict obedience to the constitu- tion cannot be too strongly expressed. That property and persons shall be secure from un- justitiable seizure and arrest, is a principle we all maintain. There is no difference of opinion between the administration at Washington and the administration at Albany about these things ; and yet the whole of this phillipic against the federal administration is built upon the assump- tion that the officers of the general government deny these fundamental principles. The position of the administration upon these subjects, as I understand it, is briefly and in sub- stance tills : That the constitution amply provides for, its own preservation, and also for the preservation of the government it creates. If it did not, it would be a failure, because inadequate to save even itself. That the destruction of the govern- ment is the destruction also of the constitution — and therefore the constitution confers upon the government every power aecessary for its own self-preservation. It does not, in the language of this message, leave the government to '' as- sume" such powers, but the instrument itself confers them — and consequently that the exer- cise of such powers, in a proper case, cannot be in violation of, but is in obedience to, the con- stitution. At a moment, then, when a gigantic rebellion springs, ready armed, upon the gov- ernment, it is not only authorized, but com- manded, to use every means necessary to put down the insurrection and save itself. And in such an extremity, every means allowed by the laws of war which will strengthen the govern- ment and weaken the enemy in the conflict, may properly be said to be necessary. AVhether a particular means employed be or be not necessary, is not a question of constitu- tional law, therefore, but a question of fact, to be determined like any other question of fact. But to ask whether the government has a right to use a means conceded to be necessary to put down a rebellion, is no question at all — it is simply nonsense. I say, then, that the govern- ment, in proclaiming martial law and arresting persons for treasonable olfences, has designed to act in obedience to the constitution, and not in violation of it. Whether it has misjudged or not in regard to this necessity in particular instances, is entirely another thing. And I insist that the only way to test the constitutionality of any par- ticular act of this kind, is to determine whether or not it was necessary — or in other language, whether it was calculated to aid the government in suppressing the lebellion. If it was thus necessary, then it was constitutional — if it was not, then it was unconstitutional. In my judg- ment, this is the beginning and the end of all legitimate inquiry upon the subject. Disserta- tions, therefore, upon the civil powers of the President, upon the constitutional guaranties o^ life, liberty and property, and upon the rights of the States, have no application to the question. Nobody claims that the President can do these things in his capacity of Chief Magistrate and in time of peace. His powers as civil executive are then limited by the restraints imposed upon him, as such, by the express language of the constitution. But the President is not merely the Chief Magistrate and civil executive of the na- tion, he is also the Commander-in-Chief of the army and navy — and the same constitution which makes him the one, makes him the other also. The same instrument which defines and restrains his powers in time of peace as civil exe- cutive, confers upon him every military power necessary to save the government in time of war, as Commander-in-Chief. The onlj' legitimate question, therefore, as I have before stated, is one of fact — viz : whether there was any necessity for the acts complained of — or in other words, whether these acts would aid the government in putting down the rebel- lion. This is an open question, undoubtedly — in regardl to which men may differ as widely as the poles. As respects military arrests, I think the govern- ment had a constitutional right to make them. And in addition to this, I must differ entirely from the Senator from the Third, by affirming that the people themselves clamorously demanded these arrests. So rapidly have momentous events rolled over us since this war began, that we sometimes forget the situation of atfairs and the state of public opinion, even a few months ago. If we will go back to the outbreak of this rebel- lion, and when our people were making their preparations to resist it, we shall call to mind a small class of persons whose atrocious language and conduct made the blood of every honest man boil with indignation — men who declared in our streets that our armies, composed of our own sons and brothers, ought to perish — who did all they could to prevent enlistments — who said that if they fought at all they would fight for the South — who sneered and taunted when our soldiers were beaten — ani who even threat- ened to inaugurate civil war here at home. In the then temper of the public mind, such language and conduct could not be endured. With almost entire unanimity the people called upon the Government to arrest these traitors and prevent their doing further mischief. In response to this demand, and to stop the spread of treason at a moment of imminent peril, the government did order the arrest of a few of the noisiest and worst of these men. And yet it is this which Governor Seymour pronounces a " high crime." It is by these arrests, made un- der such circumstances, that the general govern- ment " has treated this loyal state, it^ laws, its courts and its olBcers, with marked and public contempt, and violated its social order and sacred rights." according to Gov. Seytuour, and that " a department at Washington insulted our people and invaded our rights" — "and — he as- sures us — against these wrongs and outrages the people of the State of New York at its late election solemnly protested." Sir, this language is extraordinary, to say the least. I have already shewn that the constitu- tion warranted military arrests at a time of such peril, and that the people themselves demanded them. As re.spects the late election, I concede that every man iu the State who had been, or who ought to have been arrested, voted for Go- vernor Seymour, and no doubt, protested with all his might against all these arrests. I concede that many good and patriotic men of both part- ies, doubted the policy of this measure — that some insisted that Government had no right to make them at all, and that no body justitied the abuse of this power which was seen in a few instances. But when all is said, I deny that the majority even of those who voted the democratic ticket considered their rights invaded or them- selves insulted, because the government, iu a lew instances, had exercised the power to make military arrests. Why, Sir, some of these very men had been a short time before as clamorous as any body for these arrest>. This kind of de- duction from the results of the late political campaign is as preposterous as it would be for me to say, that the people of this State, at the late election, declared themselve.s in favor of the rebellion, because every sympathiser with the South in the slate voted the democratic ticket. No doubt instances of improper arresis can be cited. Unfortunately, it is not possible for the most vigilant and conscientious government to perform a duty like this with unerring wisdom, any more than it can carry on <* gigantic war without inflicting misery upon many innocent persons. Tuese errors, mistakes and uninten- tional injuries, are the inevitable consequences of a state of rebellion. 1 know, Sir, that the right of the meanest to the protection of law, has been the theme of some of the noblest eloquence ever uttered by man. I never read or hear a defence of this bacred principle without deep emotion. No man has a profounder conviction of its truth than I have, and no man shall maintain it with greater zeal than myself. But in the name of our com- mon country ready to perish, shall this great truth be dragged from its high eminence, and employed in the work of stirring up the people against the government at an hour like this ? And now, Sir, having said thus much iu defense of the motive.-i and objects of the government in making these arrest-, alh>w me to add, that I now regret, and have always regretted, that arrests were ever made iu New York or in any staie sim- ilarly situated. 1 have never doubted the right, as I have said, but it was apparent from the first that the subjects of it, although temporarily silenced, would afterwards form themselvea into a hand of martyrs and thereby have incn-aHed power of evil, and at some future time, loo, of perhaps greater danger. It was certain, also, that politicians would not hesitate to uwe a mat- ter so easily perverted, and that it would be em- ployed by them as a means of attack upon the administration. In short, I feared that it would be used just as I Und it u.-^ed in thiu meshage. I must {>ass without e.\amiuation a great many assertions and conclusions upon this subject of martial law and military arrests. I cannot stop to consider his assertion, repeated over and over again in various forms of language, that lhePi»- sident has exercLsed more than regal powers — that he has assumed the right to de<.lur" war and then extinguish the state and national constitu- tions — that this is not claimed to be done "bj rea- son of a necessity which overleaps for a time all re- straint and which isjustified by a great exigency," but that it is claimed that his military power ex- alts him above his civil and constitutional rights — that the President and his friends hold that there is no sanctity in the Constitution, and that it haa no authority to keep the executive within its re- straints. There is not one word of truth in all this, from beginning to end. It is bold assump- tion, transparent fallacy and outrageous abuse o the general government. And it is not original at that. These positions were taken months ago by the leaders of the rebellion, and now w«3 tind them '* echoed " at the capitol of the State of New York. But says the Governor, Washington never de- clared martial law, during the revolution, have had no time to re-examine the history of that period — but grant that he did not formally declare martial law, did not his army, through the whole course ofithe war, constantly seize and arrest every active tory that could be found ? Did the cowboys of the Hudson, or spies and in- formers generally, enjoy the immunity here claimed for their lineal descendants ? Were to- ries permitted to hurrah for King George, and publish newspapers denouncing the revolution T Nay, further — in the whole conduct of our fa- thers, which his Excellency so wisely recom- mends us to imitate, can there be found the ex- ample of a party, or of a true man, that made war upon the government for these military ar- rests ? Again, the Governor pronounces the recent proclamation of emancipation to be an unconsti- tutional attempt, on the part of the President, to carry on the war, not for the restoration of the Uiiiou, but for the abolishment of slavery. He does not use this language, but no one will deny that this is just what he means. He says the government has abandoned the policy of Bghting simply for the restoration of the union, and adopted " the views ot the extreme North- ern Stales," by which he means abohtion as an end. ._, .. . Ailer what has already been said on this sub- ject durim: the progress of this deha e, it is uoi necessary for me to make an elaborate argumeni in defence of the proclamation. I must howevet 10 call attention to the wanton perversion of the the objects of the government here displayed. The President in his proclamation of the 22d of September on this subject, solemnly declared : " That hereafter as heretofore, the war will be prosecuted for the object of practically restoring the constitutional relation between the United States and the people thereof, in which States that relation is or may be suspended or dis- turbed." And in his proclamation of January 1st he again declares that he issues it " bv virtue of the power in him vested as Commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebfillion against the authority and government of the United States, and as a Jit and necessary war measure for suppressing the rebellion." On another memorable occasion he said in sub- stance and efiect, that if he could save tlie Union by freeing all the slaves, he would do it. If he could save it without freeing any, he would do it ; and if he could save it by freeing a part and leaving a part, he would do that. That his sole object and effort was to save the Union — that he would do nothing which did not, in his judgment, promote this object ; and that he would do anything warranted by the laws of war which would accomplish it. Is not th'S language clear and unequivocal ? Can any man's purpose be more explicitly or emphatically expressed ? What then is the alternative % We must either concede that he means just what he says, and that he has not and will not wage this war for the abolition of slavery or for any object what- ever except the restoration of the Union, or we must assume that Abraham Lincoln has meanly, hypocritically and cowardly lied in these solemn declarations. Nobody above the grade of a pothouse politi- cian has yet ventured to say that. Why then will anybody, for mere party purpnses, so mis- represent the designs of the Commander-in- chief? And those who are engaged ii? this warfare upon the administration are not aided by quota- tions from the speeches of Wendell Phillips, or any other abolitionist. Wendell Phillips, and men of bis school, have no influence whatever with the government in the conduct of this war, and everybody knows it. The great mass of the people of the north who approve of this procla- mation, do so because, and only because, they agree wi h the President in considering it a necessary war measure. They think it will weaken the enemy land strengthen the govern- ment, and this for reasons which have been f r - quently expressed and are well understood. Nor is the case of these gentlemen bettered by the wild, senseless, inceniiary cry of "Aboli- tion." I have shown that any such charge is as "baseless as the fabric of a vision." When I hear a man, therefore, call the admin- istration and its .supporters abolitionists, I know that he has exhausted his reasoning powers, and is obliged to resort to abuse. He would compel an epithet to do the work of argument. And yet I must concede that it has its effect, for it appeals to the blindest and the lowest passions of human nature. It is as potent as whisky in raising the desired cheer from a certain class of men. As the cry of " infidel " inflames the ignorant and fanatical Moslem, so "abolitionist" is here the shibboleth of degraded politics. I have stated that I should make no special argument in defense of this proclamation. In-* deed, I have already said what was requisite upon the constitutionality of war measures. li this was a necessary war measure, if it would assist the government in putting down the re- bellion, then it is constitutional beyond all ques- tion. For I repeat, the constitution creates him Commander-in-Chief and commands him to "pre- serve, protect and defend the constitution," in war, as well as in peace, and in war, by the use of all necessary means justified by the laws of war. But, says the Governor, " The President had already signed an act of Congress which asserts, that the slaves of those in rebellion are confis- cate, and that the sole efTect of this proclamation, is to declare the emancipation of slaves of those who are not in rebellion, and who are therefore, loyal citizens." And he facetiously adds, that this is an extraordinary wav to uphold the con- stitution and restore the Union. The governor is obliged to pervert the facts, that he may point his sarcasm. One of the allegations here made, is that the " act to suppress insurrection, to punish treason and rebellion, to seize and confiscate the property of rebels and for other purposes," approved July 17, 1862, is the same in substance and effect, as this proclamation, so far as the slaves of rebels are concerned. But this proclamation declares that all slaves in the actually rebellious states, are free, and that the " Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval au- thorities thereof, will recognize and maintain their freedom." Therefore, the statement of the governor is, that the confiscation act declared the slaves of those in rebellion free, and pledged the executive, military and naval power of the government to maintain that freedom. Do I misconstrue this proposition ? I appeal to the context. After saying that the President had already signed this act " which declares the slaves of those in rebellion confiscate," he adds, " the sole effect of this proclamation, therefore, is to declare the emancipation of the slaves of those who are not in rebellion." That is, it pro- duces no effect whatever upon the slaves of reb- els, which was not already produced by the con- fiscation act If we will examine the act referred to, we shall find that it does not " confiscate " slaves at all. It confiscates the property, other than slaves, of certain specified persons, and it also declares that certain slaves of certain rebels shall be free. The only sections of this act which relate to the emancipation of slaves are the first, second and ninth. I will cite enough of these to show their provisions. The first section declares "that every person who shall 11 hereaftftr commit the crime of treason against th« United States, and shall be adjudged gniliy thereof, shall suffer death, and all his slaves, if any, shall be declared and made free. Or, at the discretion of the court, he shall be impri- soned for not less than five years, and fined not less than $1U,000, and all his slaves, if any, shall be declared and made free." The second section makes it a crime to incite rebellion, and declares that any person convicted of this offence shall be punished by fine or im- prisonment, and the liberation of his slaves, if he have any. The ninth section provides : " that all slaves of persons who shall hereafter be engaged in re- bellion against the government of the United States, or who shall, in aiiy way, t;ive aid or V.omfort thereto, escaping from such person or Imlpersons and taking refui:;e within the lines of the army; and all slaves captured from such persons or deserted by them, and coming under the control of the government of tiie United States, and all slaves of such persons found or being within any place occupied by rebel forces, and afterwards occupied by the forces of the United States, shall be deemed captives of war, and shall be forever free of their servitude, and not again held as slaves." It is not true, then, that this act " asserts that the slaves of those in rebellion are confiscate." Neither does it assert " that the slaves of those in rebellion are" free. It declares that the slaves of such rebels and inciters of rebellion as may be tried and convicted in a court of justice shall be free. It also declares that such slaves of rebels as may escape into our lines, or such as we may capture, shall be free, and this is all. But this perversion is so gross and palpable, that I need not pursue it further. Mr. Chairman, in my poor opinion there is no part of this message more incorrect in state- ment, unsound in conclusion and mischievous in tendency, than that portion devoted to the differ- ences of interest, views and purposes alleged to exist between New England and the rest of the loyal states ; but I have left myself no time for its examination. m This new apple of discord grew upon rebel I soil, and was thrown among us by the arch- traitor at the head of the insurrection, and sorry am I to see loyal men here receive it, admire it, furbish it up, and send it through the land to work its unholy and disastrous mission. Sir, he cannot be just who attempts to teach tlie different sections of the country that their interests are antagonistic, for there is not a state or community in the Union whose interest is not promoted by the advancement of the inte- rests of every sister state and community. And to cause one part of the loyal states to believe that another part entertains political views and purposes, in the conduct of this war, diametri- cally opposed to their own, is to precipitate the nation to certain destruction. It is " sowing the wind to reap the whirlwind." And, Sir, this most extraordinary argument is a fresh illustra- tion of the great inconsistency sometimes exhib- ited by the ablest of men. The Governor's message is filled with denun- ciations of the pers