Yale University Library 39002031979082 Tdi l^ECn^^TRTJCTIGlSr AMERICA. A MEMBER OF THE NEW YORK BAR, ^„„. NEW YORK: W. I. POOLEY, PUBLISHER, HARPERS' BUILDING. 1865. M C/ RECON8TEUCTION nr AMERICA. By A MEMBER OF THE NEW YORK BAR. ^i/)ML W. Aaa\^, ' NEW YORK: W. I. POOLEY, PUBLISHER, HARPERS' BUILDING. 1866. Entered according to Act of Congress, In the year 1865, By W. I. POOLEY, In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New Torli. 1\ \00 PREFACE. This juncture brings up afresh, debate upon the structure of the American system of Government ; and the occasion for the appearance of this pamphlet, is the belief that we have reached the point of constitutional settlement, whether we area Nation or a; mere _pac^ between Sovereign States. The proposed Reconstruction of the States will necessarily unsettle the nature of the Government, both theoretically and practi cally. So believing, the policy of Restoration, rather than that of Reconstruction, finds advocacy in these pages. New Yoke, September, 1865. RECONSTRUCTION IN AMERICA. I. SECTIONAL CONTENTION. Sectional contention, under many phases, has been going on for an entire generation. It finally broke forth in this ter rible civil war, which drenched the land in fraternal blood, and exhausted the resources of this hitherto happy and proud Republic. How to save our nationality, is the primal question with statesmen ; for this involves alike the question of conciha- tion and reconstruction. Early in our history the question of the exact limitation of local and Federal authority became prominent, and has never since dropped entirely out of our politics. State Rights was the base of the Virginia school from 1Y98, and Mr. Calhoun professed, in a later day, to draw an argument of nullification from the Yirginia Resolutions of 1Y98. In 1830, the great Senatorial debate took place. Mr. Hayne and Calhoun led off for nullification, and Mr. Webster for the supremacy of federal power. Nullification hardly found any support, ex cept in Southern States. At the same time this new construc tion was resisted by the Administration of General Jackson, and set at defiance by him. The State of South Carolina claimed the right to make null the tariff laws of the United States, which she deemed oppressive and injurious to the in terests of the South. The nullification contention passed away in the modification of the tariff laws, in 1833. This sectional contention reappeared in 1844, in the pro posed scheme for the acquisition of Texas. The main ques tion discussed was that of slavery. The South favored acquisition, the North opposed. This question of slavery did not disturb the organization of political parties in 1844, and the "Whig party in the Southern States sustained Mr. Clay in that Presidential contest, and the Northern Democ racy sustained Polk and Texas. The annexation of Texas followed the election of Mr. Polk as a natural consequence. The Polk Administration unjustly involved us in a war with Mexico. This led to further acquisition of territory, which renewed the contest concerning the extension of slavery m this country. The North brought forward, to be attached to war bills, an ordinance of freedom, which was to render for ever free any further acquisition of territory. Mr. Calhoun opposed the Mexican war, and charged its inception upon Mr. Polk, in sending forward the forces of the United States, under General Taylor, to the Rio Grande, while the negotia tion was then open for the settlement of the boundary of Texas. New Mexico, Utah, and California were annexed to the United States, in 1848, under a treaty of peace. The whole nation was thus involved in a renewal of the contro versy of slave extension into these Territories. The North insisted that these Territories were free, and should remain forever free. The South claimed the right to go into these Territories with slavery. This special issue was settled by the compromises of 1850, brought forward by Mr. Clay. Extreme men of each section resisted that settlement, allowing the people of these Territories the full power, when formed into States, to choose their own institutions. Mr. Seward and Jef ferson Davis opposed the peace measures of 1850, and both threatened repeal and further agitation. But the country ratified and affirmed these peace measures in the Presidential election of 1852, and sustained the Fillmore policy. After four years' reprieve, the slave agitation broke forth in 1854, under the lead of Mr. Douglas, in the organization of Kansas and Nebraska, and the rppeal of the Missouri Com promise of 1820, v/hich extended over these Territories. During this controversy, concerning the extension of slavery, the South had again and again proposed to extend the Missouri line to the Pacific, as a settlement in full of the con troversy. The North would not accede to this disposition of the question. At last, in 1854, this Compromise was repealed, and the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska were organized, allowing the people of each full power to adopt its own insti tutions. These territories were left completely free by that repeal, for it was expressly provided that no slave laws should be revived by that repeal ; and thus, in the understanding of non-extensionists, slavery was made wholly dependent upon the action of the inhabitants of these Territories. This doc trine of Popular Sovereignty gave occasion to further conten tion in the troubles of Kansas. New England organized societies to resist the slave power, and the propagandists of the South determined to occupy and make Kansas a Slave State. Civil strife was the result, from 1855 up to 1859. This civil broil embittered the sections, and finally resulted in the John Brown raid upon the State of Virginia, which caused a greater shock than any event which had occurred. During this renewal of the slave agitation, political organ izations had broken and given wa}''. The American and Re publican parties came forth, in 1855, upon the ruins of the Whig party. The Democratic party was somewhat shattered, and lost its hold on the Free States. The slavery agitation became, in 1856, more than ever the absorbing element in American politics, and caused the crumbling of parties and the rupture of religious societies. The extreme and ultra ele ments of society in the North assimilated and organized the Republican party. Its organization was confined to the Free States alone. In New York, where it was first organized, in the fall of 1855, it resolved to call a Convention of representa tives from the free States alone, for the avowed purpose of nominating candidates for President and Vice-President, in 1856 ; and in pursuance of this organization, thus effected, the Republican party disavowed all past compromises, and set the ball in motion. A farious crusade opened in 1856 against slavery, in which every shade of Northem fanaticism and intolerance joined. It became a war of religious intolerance and farious and fiery denunciation of the institution of slavery, in a large portion of the pulpits of the North. Those who professed the gospel of peace became the most fierce champions of civil strife. Had the succeeding Administration acted wisely and justly, the troubles in Kansas might have been averted, and the success of the Republican party in 1860 not made certam. But Mr. Buchanan allowed matters to drift on, in an unfortu nate manner for the country and himself. The same causes which proved so disturbing an element^ m the Northern mind were equally effectual in arousing the spirit of the South. All the earnest and fiery elements of the South were thrown into the Democratic organization in the Slave States, and the opposition was powerless, except in some three or four of the Slave States. Extreme doctrines and measures obtained in each section, as the consequence of these sectional contentions. Each section became more and more, intolerant, and less able to concihate the other. The Supreme Court pronounced an opinion in favor of the rights of the South in the Territories ; and this met with denunciation at the North, as well as the court itself. The South was quite content with this decision. From this decision an appeal was taken to the people of the Free States, and it resulted in the election of candidates hostile to the decision. In the North, the Dred Scott case was declared an obiter dictum in the election of Mr. Lincoln in 1860, and the Territorial agitation was again tom open. The secession element, which had been long active in the South, had achieved the rupture of the Democratic party at the Charleston Convention, and thus designedly opened the way to the success of the Republican party in 1860. The Democratic party, united, could have been successful in de feating the Republicans. But that was not desired, and for this reason the leaders of the Democratic party in the South repudiated popular sovereignty in the Territories, and induced the Buchanan Administration to repudiate the party platform of 1856, on which Buchanan was elected, and thenceforth made inglorious war upon Mr. Douglas. This secession scheme was said to have been organized at Charleston, long prior to the election in 1860, by leading men of the Demo cratic party South. It was believed that the people of the South would not submit to an election of a Republican Presi dent ; and thus these men were long preparing the way for the rupture of the Democracy, and for the triumph of the Republicans of the North. It is quite evident to the calm inquirer that the slave agitation was infuriated and kept up, from 1854 to 1860, with a view to partisan and sectional suc cess, by the extremes of each section of the country. Ambi tious men created and thought to direct the storm which now carries them along in the whirlwind. The election of 1860 was carried on in the same violent spirit in each section of the country. At the South there were three candidates for President — the Democracy having split up — while the Republican candidate was elected by the Free States alone. The secession and controlling element in Southern politics openly avowed, during the election, that the South would never submit to a Northem President thus elected ; and this threat was met by a taunt that the South would be made to submit. Thus each extreme acted and reacted upon the other, and prepared the way for an open rupture upon the election of Mr. Lincoln. So far had the controversy advanced, that South Carolina hailed the election of Mr. Lincoln with rap tures and rejoicing. In most of the Slave States, it was the occasion of melancholy and misgiving. That was a period of apprehension too full of moment for solemn trifling. Distrust seized upon the Southern mind, and men of moderation then, for the first, discovered that an actual crisis had come iipon the nation, demanding immediate and imperative solution. A peaceable solution would have obtained in the Congress of 1860, had not the Republican party followed him who said : "Inaugurate first, and adjust afterward." Salmon P. Chase was taken at the word, and that policy left us no longer peace — left us nothing but this war, with all its woe and sad disaster. In the year 1860, we were told by the leading men of this party that no war would come to the Nation in case there was no peaceable solution of the question before our National Con gress. States began to secede as early as December, 1860, and every Slave State was agitated with the movement of secession upon the very close of the Presidential election. Six States had withdrawn and established a temporary federation by readopt- ing the Constitution- of the United States as early as the 4th. of February, 1861. Mr. Davis was inaugurated President as early as the 15th of February thereafter. In full view of the revolutionary action of the South, the Border States, at the instance of the State of Virginia, called upon the Free^ States to meet them in a Peace Conference at the City of Washington, early in February, for the purpose of considering how the Union could be preserved. This Convention assembled on the same day, at Washington, as did the seceded Congress at Montgomery. Some of the Northern States were tardy in sending delegates to this Peace Conference, and those repre senting the Eepublican party in that Convention opposed every peaceable solution of the question, which was then carrying the South out of the Union. Finally, the Peace Congress adopted certain measures which received no favor from the Republicans, and these measures were submitted to the Con gress of the United States, where they were effectually buried. This was a momentous juncture in the affairs of the nation. Every statesman not in rebellion, nor connected with the party which was so sonn to administer the Government, sought con ciliation aud adjustment. The Republican party said, no further legislative measures to save the nation. We inaugu rate first, but will give nothing to appease discontent, except tlie Constitution and the enforcement of the laws. The Re publican party will not be intimidated. In ordinary times, this would have been dignified and com mendable policy ; but, how inadequate to save the Republic, events soon proved. The day Mr. Lincoln was inaugurated there was a strong-setting current for disunion in every Slave State then remaining in the Union. These Border States would have remained with us had Mr. Lincoln and his friends com prehended the dangers to the Republic, and had they been willing to adopt measures with reference to the slave question. Mr. Crittenden's policy, as well as the Border State plan, would have averted further disruption. This was the time for a statesman, a time in which Henry Clay would have saved the nation. But our Websters and our Clays were no more ; their suns had gone down, never to rise again, and the nation was lost — lost to peace, lost in national feeling, and we then drifted into disruption and war. The cotton States made war, 9 which caused North Carolina, Tennessee, Arkansas, and Vir ginia to join the South, and take sides with the cotton States. The rebel seat of Government was thereupon transferred to Richmond, and Virginia became the seat of the war, and was thus made to receive the shock of arms. It is a principle of nations that disputes must be settled by an appeal to force, when there is no longer to be had a peace able solution. This is the same, when a nation is torn by fac tions which will no longer submit to the organic forms of society. We may write against the iniquity of wars, but it does not prevent their occurrence in every nation. So long as man has rights and interests on this earth, he will contend for them. The means of his conservation he regards as measured by mere expediency. And so, when these questions upon which men will and must dispute are carried to a violent rup ture, the end is war. And this result is never reached at any time without dis pute and final rupture, which invariably precede in civil and national war ; and the peculiarity is, that each side charges the wrong upon the other ; the one is quite blameless and acts on the defensive. Each appeals to the judgment of man kind and to the living God for the rectitude of its cause, and it is a truth to be remembered that men seldom appeal to the Ruler of the Universe in their political contentions except when the awful juncture of war has come upon them. Then the earnest element and the devout unite to call down destruc tion upon their adversary. We have gone through these phases of national struggle, and have witnessed a four years' war for the salvation of the Republic. We now comprehend that our contest was a mighty one, and terribly earnest and deadly. We realize that there were great interests at stake which carried it forward on this 'magnitude. The North meant preservation of the Repub lic, and the States in rebellion meant self-preservation and com plete separation from the United States. But in carrying on a war for restoration we could not disregard the causes leading to this disruption and contention. Tn 1776 we revolted in consequence of the assertion by Parliament of the right to tax the colonies in all cases whatso- 10 ever. Our revolution was not based on actual grievances ; tor, most of the grievances complained of occurred after we become rebellious. It was a principle for which we fought, and a principle which England could not sustain and hold us longer as colonies. We denied the right of Great Britain to levy taxes internal or external. Actual grievances did not cause the war. Taxation did not cause it. It was the dispute about the principle of taxation which caused the American revolution. Canada had been taken from the French by Eng land and her colonies, after a five years' war. A large national debt had been created in carrying on this war, mostly for our benefit ; and England thought we should contribute to the pay ment of that debt ; and this gave occasion to a dispute between the colonies and the mother country, which lasted from 1762 tiU the commencement of hostilities in 1775. Did Burke and Fox, or even Lord North, propose to abolish the colonies, whose stubbornness caused the war ? Did these great statesmen propose to abolish taxation as a principle, because it had led the colonies to revolt ? Did they study to abolish property and rights, because mankind would stand for them ? Certainly not. Their remedies were not so penetra ting as the men of this age. The Whigs of that age sought conciliation and adjustment. They sought to maintain British empire and British authority by conciliation, and the history of that age should be written in our memories with a pen of iron. It should teach us that a just principle, seized upon, will give victory to the weak ; it should admonish us that the hour for conciliation may pass by and a great nation be broken up ; it should teach us that conciliation must be based upon right alone ; it should teach us to be statesmen and uot enthu siasts. And we are told that slavery alone caused the war. We have it, then, that all the consequences of the hour point to this most impassive agent for their cause. Subh is the phil osophy of Northern agitators. They make the subject the cause, and not the active principal — man himself. The South had not actual grievances. It was the principle of excluding the South from territory, and which made war upon the histi- tutions of the South, that caused this rebeUion. Tlie South 11 believed that the party in power would seek the overthrow of her institutions, notwithstanding existing and ample constitu tional guarantees. This apprehension had all the force of con viction, and the process of disintegration began the moment the Republican party had attained the control of executive power ; and there seemed only one mode of arresting this catastrophe, and that was by pacifying and healing discontent. But whom the gods would destroy they first make mad, and we, as a people, through passion, allowed ourselves to drift on into war and disruption. And now we are to determine whether the policy of extermination or that of adjustment and conciliation shall longer sway the councils of this nation. We must shortly determine this question ; for the people will pass upon these questions upon the final and grand in quest of this nation. And to fully understand the past, let us go back to the Thirty-sixth Congress, and bring up this review. The House, on motion of Mr. Boteler, of Virginia, on the 4th of December, 1860 : Resolved, That so mucli of the President's Message as relates to the present perilous condition of the country be referred to a Special Commit tee of one from each State. Thereupon the Speaker appointed one from each State upon -what is Icnown as the Committee of Thirty-three, of -which Mr. Cor-win, of Ohio, was Chairman. Most of the gentlemen attended, but Mr. Boyce, from South Carolina, would seem to have been present but once. The Committee was first called together on the 11th December, and met for the last time on the 14th January, 1861. The Committee of Thirty-three, on the 18th December, agreed to the resolution of Henry Winter Davis, of Maryland, which provided — That the States be respectfully requested to cause their statutes to be revised, with a view to ascertain if any of them are in conflict with or tend to embarrass or hinder the execution of the laws of the United States, made ircpursuance of the second section of the fourth article of the Con stitution of the United States, for the delivering up of persons held to labor by the laws of any State and escaping therefrom ; and it was requested that all enactments having snch tendency be forthwith repealed, as required by a just sense of constitutional obligations, and by a due regard for the peace of the Eepublic ; and the President was requested to commu nicate these resolutions to the Governors of the several States, with a re quest that they would lay the same before the Legislatures thereof. 12 This led many of the States to overhaul and undertake to revise their laws in that regard. The Committee adopted, by a vote of twenty in the affirmative, a joint resolution to amend the Constitution so as to prevent any amendment thereafter of the Constitution having for its object any interference withm the States with the relation between citizens and those de scribed in the Constitution as " aU other persons," without the assent of every one of the States composing the Union. As to the great question of the Territories, the Committee recommended the admission of New Mexico as a State, and then their action ended. The Committee were unable to conclude any thing satisfac tory on this question. Northern members voted down all the propositions of the Southern members having for a settlement this question. Southern members submitted many proposi tions covering the questions of the Territories, fugitive slaves and their rendition, and rights of the States over slave prop erty. The Committee provided for an amendment of the Fugi tive Slave law, not rendering it any more effectual. Mr. Nelson, of Tennessee, proposed to have all these ques tions settled by amendments of the" Constitution, and dividing all Territories on the line of 36° 30' north latitude. This was to cover all future acquired territory. It was struck out of the proposed amendment ; and thereupon Mr. Taylor, of Louisi ana, remarked that the decision thus reached made it clear to his mind that there would be no agreement by the Committee upon propositions to amend the Constitution so as to settle the pending issue between the two great sections of the country growing out of the slavery question, and, in consequence, it was his purpose to take no further part in the deliberations of the Committee, nor to vote upon any other propositions before it. Soon after,' Mr. Adams, our Minister to England, proposed a resolution " that peaceful acquiescence in the election of a Chief Magistrate, accomplished in accordance with every legal and Constitutional requirement, is the paramount duty of every good citizen of the United States." Twenty-two of the Com mittee agreed to the resolution as amended, by striking out " paramount," and inserting " high and imperative." Before taking the vote on the above, Mr. Taylor and six 13 others were allowed time to have it inserted in the journal that the proposition of the gentleman from Massachusetts does not tend in any way toward the adjustment of the difficulties in which the American people are now involved, and it does not contemplate any action which can result in any loyal en actment by Congress, or of the amendment of the Constitution of the United States by the people of the several States ; and these seven gentlemen from the Southern States declined to vote upon it or any of the amendments which had been offered. This ended all effort to harmonize and adjust these questions of State, in the Committee of Thirty-three. They finally adopted some general resolution about faithful observance of constitu tional obligations ; the duty of the Federal Government to en force the laws and preserve the Union ; that each State be re quested to revise its statutes and protect traveling and sojourn ing in other States against violence and summary punishment, and to punish any lawless invasion of other States or Territory. And thus end the famous Committee of Thirty-three appointed by the House to adjust these great questions and pacify the grow ing discontent of the nation. The proceedings of this Committee are embraced in a report of 40 pages ; and its persual fully shows that the rights of the South upon the question of slavery were mainly before it. No other question is touched upon by the pro positions submitted bythe men, of the South and of the North, and there was much more disposition manifested by the men of the Slave States to have a full and complete settlement of this question by Congress or by the States, than by the men of the North. Read the proceedings before the Committee of Thirty-three and of the Thirty-sixth Congress, and judge whose was the fault in not arriving at a peaceful solution of our troubles. The North, under the control of Republicans, refused adjustment — refused a peaceful solution. The Republican party said no compromise, and the proof of this is ample. The Crittenden resolutions were voted down by every Republican Senator and defeated in the House. And here we may state that the Legislatures of Virginia and Kentucky implored Congress to pass these measures and save the Union. And Mr. Douglas declared that "a two-third vote in the Senate at any time before 14 1st of January, 1861, would have saved every State in the Union but South Carolina, and he added that Jefferson Davis was ready to accept the Crittenden resolutions. But North ern men, not embraced in this party of moral ideas, sought m earnest words a settlement in full of all our difficulties ; and Thurlow Weed was the only leading Republican that foresaw the coming danger, and sought to bring the House up to the acceptance of the Crittenden Compromise, as a final settleraent of the slavery agitation ; but the party, flushed with recent suc cess, through the distractions of the Democracy, would heed no admonition, and resisted all settlement, except upon a Re pubhcan basis. The Peace Conference proved powerless, ber cause of Northern Radicalism. And the main difficulty to all settlement was, the clashing views and policy applicable to the Territories. The Republicans demanded the absolute freedom of the Territories, and the South demanded all lying south of 36° 30'. The Republicans would not consent even to the policy of non-intervention. Had this party offered then this princi ple, embraced in the compromises of 1850, of non-interference in the Teritories, it might have done much to allay the discon tent and bad feeling of the South ; and, a few weeks later, the Republicans organized these separate Territories upon this principle of the compromises of 1850 ; but it was too late. The Southern States had gone — had left us ; and we found that this party could act after no good could come from it. And then we see this party's consistency with itself, in a few months after, enacting that all Territory is and shall be forever free. So matters stood. Now as to the question of right of the dispute. The Re- publicans profess to be followers of the fathers in this regard. But as to the fact, let us see. Republicans adopted the prin ciple of slave exclusion from every Territory existing or to be hereafter acquired. Mr. Jefferson, in 1784, proposed to exclude slavery from aU the Territories after 1800, and not before. The fathers in the Confederate Congress voted that proposition down, and estab lished the ordinance of '87, which excluded slavery from the Territory lying to the north and, west of the River Ohio, which was known as the Northwest Territory. 15 But from 1790, and up to 1820, it was the practice of the fathers, under our Constitution, to apply the ordinance of '87 to every Territory organized by Congress, and with this distinction : — the Territories lying north of the Ohio River were made entirely free by the sixth section of that ordinance ; and Territories lying south of the Ohio River were made and kept slave Territory by the application of that ordinance, excepting and excluding the sixth section tliereof. And, under this pacific policy of division and accommodation, the Slave States were allowed new territory up to 1820, when the North forced upon the South the policy of exclusion, in the application of the Missouri Compromise. Slavery had been permitted and regulated by Congress in all the Territories, except that only which was covered by the original ordinance of 1787 — indeed, the Missouri Compromise is the only instance since the adop tion of the Constitution that slave territory has been made free. During this period, some eight territorial organizations took place recognizing and permitting slavery in Southern territory. And the significant fact is, that the line of divi sion between Free and Slave States was made the Ohio River by the fathers, for more than thirty years after the establish ment of our federal system under the Constitution. The first disturbance of this policy of accommodation was in 1820, when the North sought to exclude Missouri because she sought admission into the Union as a Slave State. That was a Northern agitation and an attack upon the South. It was without warrant, except in the fanaticism of the day, which pushed it on under the lead of New England men, and of Rufus King, of the State of New York. Mr. Clay triumphed, through the compromise of 1820, by the South giving up terri tory to get the rights of a State admitted. This compromise was the sacrifice made upon the altar of State Rights. By it a large slave Territory was made free, and it was the first original exclusion under the Constitution. Now, will it be said that the practice of the fathers sustained the Republicans in their policy of excluding the South from all territory? The policy of the fathers was that of terri torial division, and accommodation to the wants of each section of this great country. No narrow, sectional policy 16 controlled the nation. It was for a later day to impose and seek exclusion. Such in brief is our legislative history as a nation. An ordinance in 1787, over the Northwest Territory excluding slavery, and an ordinance of exclusion in 1820. bo there was one act only to form a precedent of exclusion under the Constitution, and frequent acts of recognition of slavery during a period of thirty years in which we had acquired new slave Territory in the purchase of Louisiana, Florida, and Texas. Such was legislative precedent, and such the history of the nation. And such the end. But from 1848 up to 1861, Mr. Seward said there had gone into the existing Territories some eighteen or twenty slaves ; and this great convulsion must ensue, because the two sections will pursue an abstraction, and not practical reality. Slavery could not exist in much of this Territory, if let entirely alone ; and yet, fully reahzing the truth of this matter, the agitators of the times would give nothing for conciliation and national harmony. The North demanded free Terj-itory in the election of Mr. Lincoln ; and yet it is quite certain that this party would never have been able, had the South remained, to have enacted any laws against slavery in the Territories. So it must be said that the nation was disrupted by mere abstractions pertaining to the question of slavery. The South at last sought her rights in State secession and war ; and now it is for us to seek truth and justice, and apply adequate remedies to bring back these States- to their ancient harmony. We now live in momentous times. Small remedies will not avail ; Ave must have radical and healing remedies ; remedies adequate to heal the wounds of a great nation ; adequate to bring back the fragments of a broken State to their allotted place. 17 II. NATIONAL ALLEGIANCE. Necessfty forced the American Colonies to establish a National Govemment. Delegates from seven Colonies as sembled at Philadelphia, as early as 1774, and estabhshed the first Continental Congress. In 1775, Dr. Franklin submitted to the Continental Congress articles of Confederation. These articles contemplated a union until a reconciliation with Great Britain, and, on failure thereof, the Confederation was to be perpetual. Congress Avas long engaged in preparing articles of Confederation, and which were submitted to the States in 1777, and finally adopted in 1781, by all the thirteen original States. The Colonies were settled under Charters derived from the British Crown. All the State papers of that day claimed the rights' of British subjects, and acknoAvledged their depend ence upon the British Government. They had no power of independent States, no control over external commerce or trade. Their condition was tridy colonial. Their trade was carried on exclusively by England, and restrictions were pat upon foreign exchanges. The act of independence was that of the " United Colonies." The Revolutionary Government gave way to the Confederacy, and that was succeeded by the pre sent Federal Constitution, which went into operation in 1789. Under the Confederation, every jjower, not expressly dele gated to the United States, was retained by the States. Most of the powers granted required for their exercise the assent of the States. The United States possessed no power to raise revenue, to levy taxes, to enforce the laws or secure any rights, or the power to discharge debts and redeem the pubhc faith. There was no power to carry into effect its constitu tional measures, and therefore it possessed none of the essen tial attributes of successful government. It exhausted its power in recommending measures to the States, and could give no sanction to its laws. It was said by a writer of that time that Congress could, in short, declare every thing, but do nothing. The vital defect of the system was in requiring the 2 18 sanction of State authority, and in the fact that federal laws operated upon the States in their corporate capacity, mstead of operating upon the individuals who constitute the State. There was no express power given to execute the laws. Congress could ascertain the sums necessary to be raised for the United States, and apportion the quota on each State ; but the power to lay the taxes was in the States. The evils resulting from the delinquency of the States, in responding to the call of Congress for these sums, were serious, and attended with dis astrous results. The dependency of the Confederation upon the good will and action of thirteen separate States eviscer ated the Govemment of efficiency and necessary power. Not withstanding this, the Confederacy provided that every State should abide by the determinations of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this Confedera tion is submitted to them ; and the articles of this Confedera tion shall be invariably observed by every State and the Union shall be perpetual. It was provided, that all differ ences which should arise between the States should in the last resort be adjusted and determined by the United States. The articles were ratified by the' Legislatures, while the Con stitution was established by the people in State Convention. It appears by the instrument itself, that the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, ordained and established this Constitution for the United States of America. Here we have a Government created by the people, and known as the United States. The act of preparation and or ganization was that of the people, and the Constitution was ordained to secure certain great national results. It purposed to secure liberty to ourselves and to our posterity. This Con stitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and aU treaties which shall be made by the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land ; and the judges of every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. Hence the Federal Government is supreme and paramount over every State with in the limit of its action. The powers not delegated to 19 the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people. The enumeration of certain rights in this Constitution shall not be construed to deny or disparage those retained by the people. Congress has power lo make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution all powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department thereof. " The Government of the United States" is Constitutional language, it being so ex pressed and declared in the Constitution itself. Therefore, this Constitution is the body of the fundamental laws of the nation. States exist within and are subordinated to the Con stitutional action of the General Govemment. These States exist for local, while the General Govemment exists for na tional purposes. The States were organized and constituted by the people of the States, while the National Government was organized and constituted by the people of the United States. The people of all the States united in the establish ment of a National Government, known and declared to be the United States of America, and vested in it the necessary powers to carry on the Government : and they pronounced that the State and local government should not interfere with the supreme law of the nation. States, in a comprehensive sense, are bodies politic, or societies of men united for mutual advantages under one government. Every State or society thus constituted possesses the power of self-government. It must rest upon the organization of its own laws. Such States have equal rights and are under the obligations which exist between nations. The law of nations teaches their rights and obligations. Each becomes the arbiter of the law and determines its rights, as there is no interna tional court. These laws are divided into the natural and positive laws of nations. This code of nations modifies the intercourse of independent States in peace, and prescribes limits to their hostilities in war. It prescribes that, in peace, nations should do each other as much good, and in time of war as little harm, as may be possible, without in-juring their own real interests. The law of nations forbids the abuse of power, or that the strong should injure the weak, and enjoins 20 that conduct which shall conduce to the welfare of mankind. There is no moral international code framed by the joint action of the separate nations, but there is this code of tbe law of nations which springs up among the nations of Jiu- rope, now recognized by every civihzed power. The States existmg under the Federal Constitution are bound not only by the law of nations when applied to themselves, but by the solemn obligations of tbe Constitution and of nationality. There should be but one interest, one destiny, one Constitu tion, and one Government, regulating and supervising the in terests of all. Such a system, well organized and applied, does not intrench upon the rights of the States. The people of the United States have devised this complex and peculiar system to answer the purposes of local and general govern ment. Each State acts within its jm-isdiction, and has nothing but internal power. The General Government carries on all foreign and extemal afl'airs, and operates alike within the States. The States have no power to form alliances between themselves or foreign nations. They cannot do with foreign nations any one act which independent States may of right do. The people have ordained that the nationality of the Government shall vest in the Federal system and under one head, and not in the States. If the State Constitutions are worthy of respect because they emanate from the people of one State, how much more obligatory should be the Constitu tion of the United States, as the act of the American people constituting the Great Eepublic. The rights of sovereignty are understood. There is an unquestioned authority in every civil society to determine the rights and enforce the obligations of citizenship. Men form political societies, and call them States. This author ity which regulates is sacred and inviolable. The safety of the nation requires that this should be so. Good citizens who make this power will respect it. Elective States will not dis regard this authority, because solus ¦populi sitprema lex ; and this law is agreeable to the strictest justice— the people having come together for their advantage. Hence those who compose the Government will abide by the Constitutional action so long as it shall endure. A government may be dissolved. It 21 can be done in the way pointed out. It may be done also by revolution and the overthroAV of the political fabric. It may be destroyed by a foreign power. It can only cease in one of these ways. Hence the State is made to be perpetual. If the United States is such an organization, then it must follow that the States have a subordinate existence, and cannot intercept the action of the Federal power. They cannot come in between a citizen of the United States and dissolve his allegiance to the Federal Government. It is said that we owe obedience to the Constitution, but no alleo-iance to the GoA'ernment of the United States — a heresy worthy of its origin. How can that well be? The Federal system was created and exists under and by virtue of the Constitution. Take away "or annul the Constitution, and you have no Federal Govemment. It commenced operation under the Constitution, and if you annihilate the one, you annihilate the other also. How can it be said that Federal power exists, except by virtue of the Constitution ? There is no Federal power, except as derived through the Constitution itself, and allegiance is not due to this parchment, but to the Govern ment for which it stands. We owe nothing to mere parch ment ; but upon that page is written the fundamental laws which imply a State. No act of man can nullify this Consti tution ; nothing can destroy it but revolution. It makes void every thing else and keeps the Government in check. The Constitution is the supreme and inviolable laAV, express ing the sovereign Avill of the nation. If any theorist can show how he is bound to support the Constitution of the United States, and yet not yield allegiance to the Government of the United States, he will have accomplished v/liat seems incom prehensible. Suppose the State of Virginia sets up her interpretation of this Constitution, and the State of New York her interpreta tion likewise. Suppose they do not understand alike ; Vir ginia gives a strict, and Ncav York a liberal construction. Do these States thereby bind us to their opinion and absolve us : from the requirements of the Constitution ? Surely there can be but one just and proper meaning to every provision ; for if i each State could put upon it its own meaning, then Ave might 22 have, perchance, thirty-five interpretations, binding the citi zens of each State to make war upon each other, and upon the Federal Government itself. Such is the absurdity of those who hold that it is within the power of a State to absolve us from all allegiance to the National Government. Amazing audacity, that American statesmen should thus declare them selves 1 Look into the writings of the elder Mason, of Madison, of Marshall and of Washington, and behold how changed were the men of Yirginia. John Marshall, who presided over the Supreme Court of the nation for thirty-five years, what would he have thought had the lawyers of Virginia interposed the plea, on the trial of Aaron Burr, at Richmond, that Aaron Burr was a citizen of the State of Ncav York, and, therefore, could not commit treason against the Government of the United States ? But aliens became citizens of the United States under the Confederacy; this power of naturalization was retained by the States, and hence there was no uniformity of naturalization until the adoption of the Constitution. The articles of Con federation secured the citizens of different States equal privi leges in all. This caused much confusion and disagreement among the States in reference to aliens. Finally, the new Govemment adjusted the naturalization laws upon the laws of uniformity, and the States have no constitutional power to establish any laws of naturahzation of foreigners. The power is exclusively vested in the Federal Government. Thus the naturalized citizen assumes the obligations imposed by the Constitution of the United States ; and the question recurs, does the native born American owe allegiance to a different Govemment than that to Avhich the alien ssvears allegiance ? If so, then there is a divided allegiance, and the alien and the natiA'e are bound to opposing Governments. Hov/ is it that we established a Federal Government and are not bound to it, and if it is supreme over all, how can the subordinate dissolve our allegiance to it ? But it is said that the citizens of the State owe allegiance to the State ; and when the State com mands, the citizen must obey. That is undoubtedly true, Avhen the State exercises its lawful poAver, but not otherwise. If the State infringes upon the Federal law, in so far the act is uot 23 obligatory upon the citizen of said State, and the arbiter of this infringement is the Federal Government itself. The American people have said that this Constitution and the Federal laws which are made under its authority shall be the supreme law of the land, any thing in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding ; and the judicial power of the United States shall extend to all cases in law and equity, arising under that Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties which shall be made under authority, to controversies to which the United States shall be a party, to controversies between tAvo or more States — ^be tween a State and citizens of another State — betAveen citizens of different States — between a State and citizens thereof, and foreign States, citizens or subjects. Thus it is that the Consti tution devolves upon the Supreme Court these conflicting sove reign claims between the States, and between the States and the General Government ; and in that view, there is no power in the States to sap the foundations of the Federal Govern ment, or dissolve their allegiance to it by State constructions. The eitizen of a State owes allegiance to the State within its sphere of local authority. Each State being a body politic, and sovereign within the powers retained by the States, so there is allegiance to them subordinated to the Federal poAvers. Al legiance arises Y^here the party is bom within the jurisdiction of the Government, or where it is assumed by the acts of the party. All persons thus domiciled Avithin the jurisdiction of a State owe it allegiance ; and as they are hkeAvise under the jurisdiction of the United States, so they are equally under al legiance to that Government. The old doctrine of allegiance is inherent and pei-petual, and cannot be divested by any act of the person. It has been gravely argued by theoretical writers whether the doctrine of perpetual allegiance applies to its full extent to this country. The writers on public law have generally spoken in faA^or of the right of a subject to emi grate and abandon his native country, unless he be under the restraint of some positive law, or unless the country be in dis tress or at Avar, and need his services. Cicero regarded this one of the firmest foundations of Roman liberty that the citizen was at liberty to stay or renounce the State at pleasure 24 The right of expatiiation is admitted by publicists, but it must be accompanied by fitness in point of time, fairr.ess of intent, and publicity of the act. The jurisprudence of the United States does not recognize the right of a citizen to re nounce his allegiance to the United States without the permis sion of the Government, and, as there is no act providing for this, the rule of the Enghsh common law remains unaltered —once a subject always a subject. The naturalization laws of the United States are inconsistent with this doctnne, and proceed on the principle that every individual has a right to change his allegiance, and such is the language of our diplo matic communications, which accord with the more liberal doctrines of the pubhcists. The Supreme Court has, in com mon with the Enghsh Courts, recognized the right to change the domicile. Allegiance arises from domiciliation. Foreign ers owe temporary allegiance to the country where they re side. If they assume citizenship, then the allegiance is perpet ual, and not dependent upon domicile. The Government owes them protection, and they owe it obedience. The resident foreigner may commit treason, beause he owes the State alle giance during the period of his domicile. Allegiance is not a matter of choice, it arises from domicile, and because the Government is bound to protect those within its allegiance. The alien is under allegiance to his own country, and may claim its protection, and, in case of war, he is not under obli gations to bear arms against it. His temporary allegiance is not in conflict with that which he owes his own nation. Again, the transfer of territory from one to another nation changes the allegiance of the people. That act operates upon those within the territory. The allegiance is collectively transferred by the political laAV. This principle is recognized by all nations. Thus the people of the United States Avho created the Govemment may themselves, in the Avay pre scribed in the Federal Constitution, change the Federal Gov ernment. The power that makes can unmake, and none other. This implies the full and ample power of the people to destroy the Government, either peaceably or forcibly, either by the pen or by the SAVord. That a great nation should even think of self-destruction is amazing ! But this destruc- 25 tion must proceed constitutionally, or it is revolution. If we agree as a nation to annihilate the Federal system, then the allegiance to it ceases, as a matter of necessity. Hence it fol- loAvs, that the successful withdrawal of one or more States from the Union for any long time absoh-es allegiance to the United States. This act shoAvs that the people themselves consent to the dissolution of the Government. Successful re volt and the establishment of a new and permanent govern ment change allegiance. It was thus that the American Colo nies absolved and renounced all allegiance to the British Crown. England was forced to acknowledge our independ ence after a long and sanguinary Avar for supremacy. Such is the consequence of successful revolution. It is not to be denied that a successful revolution within the limits of the United States will work the same result. If the people of any State renounce allegiance to the United States, and adhere to that Government in direct antago'nism thereto, and sustain that position, they are so far forth absolved from the allegiance due to the United States. The Federal Gov emment holds them under the obligations of citizens so long as it can maintain its authority, and war decides the issue. No citizen can make war on the Govemment Avithout a justi fiable cause — and all defection should receive an adequate re medy. Each State is as open to attack as the Federal Gov ernment, and may be subverted for the same reasons, and upon the like principles. Revolutionary doctrines are applic able to States ; they are created by the people, and rest upon like foundations. The local authority of States can claim no greater security than Federal power ; and they, in turn, may be subverted. The Federal power can control the citizen just as completely as the State, and wherefore may it not destroy allegiance to the State, as well as the State to the Federal Government ? Where is the difference ? But it is said, there can be no double allegiance — there cannot be allegiance to the United States and to a State also. Why not, provided the political duties owing to each ai'e not inconsistent % This is no anomaly of situation, as has been shown in the case of the alien domiciled in a foreign country. That is a divided alle giance, and that foreigner becomes a citizen, and unites both 26 relations. The local and temporary allegiance of the ahen is not in conflict with that Avhich he owes to the State of his na tivity. The obligation to Government is proportionate to the right it has upon the citizen, and hence the observance of the laws is all that is claimed of an alien. But the obligations to society rest upon other bases than mere rule. Society is based upon justice, upon the good of man, and the civil compact is its highest expression — its organized form. Hence, the Constitution of that State embraces the in terests of men. This welfare of all depends upon the per manence and durability of the State, because sudden changes are attended with anarchy and insecurity. Society is the out- groAvth of many ages, and its organization is the product of conflicting elements in the State. Crude and fluctuating, it incrustates and assumes organized form. Break through and disturb this settled form, and society is in fragments — like atoms driven along with the current of revolution. It becomes then the prey and sport of every wind of doctrine and freak of nature. All is uncertain and chaotic when this sea of so ciety overleaps this stable foundation. The elements that were seemingly placid, once disturbed, constitute the discords of society, and oftentimes lay the basis of revolution. Indeed, these upheavings create precedents which repeat themselves in every State ; but there is philosophy in revolutions which teaches men the dangers of continuous conflict. The seeds of discord may be sown in a manner so insidious, that the conse quential results seem far off in the distance, if not entirely un natural. Step by step the work goes on in the name of hu manity, or in the furtherance of some great principle. Men demand complete justice or their undoubted rights at the forum of justice, or at the cannon's mouth, and so right and might contend, and finally are enveloped in all the fury of fierce- war. Moderation and forbearance are put aside in the stern contention of the hour. Conciliation and adjustment cannot take place. The issues have too far advanced, and neither party can recede. They were in a condition to adjust the dis pute, but it is now too late. Tremendous war breaks out it may be by the happening of an accident. It terminates and society then attempts to discover the causes, and to learn' how 27 it might have been prevented. Negotiation or subjugation ends the victories upon the battle-field. Such is the nature of man that he yields when he must, and not Avhen he can. This commotion clarifies the surface, and men study and seek peace. In the midst of defeat, exhaustion and disgrace, the contest ends, and the right is not always the victor. These Avars be come instructive, and admonish manldnd of the danger of pressing a difference to extremity where it can be adjusted without it. Not that war is ever to be avoided, not that man should be a submissionist of every occasion or of every tyrant — far otherwise. There are causes too sacred to be settled in any half-way manner — to be fought for to the last, in order that the world shall see and know the value of inviolable prin ciple. These contests become the eras of nations — their glory, their pride, and their povrer ; and, more than all, their solid foundations. Nations destitute of the spirit of honorable defense are not long secure in their cherished and undoubted rights. Examples become teachers of men. Heroic and val orous nations stand on points of honor, and vindicate their equality of rights. There is a lesson of history not to be disregarded, not to be overlooked, which teaches how revolutions and wars can be prevented. They are not commenced while the spirit of conciliation obtains — while the policy of adjustment and concession controls men. But Avhen concessions are no longer possible, Avhen the opposing forces press their points with a determination to carry them to their full extent and yield nothing Avhatever, then men are not far distant from an open rupture. Above all, the true philosophy of govemment which must impress itself upon statesmen is, that affairs should be so conducted as to save the State from this extreme remedy. The State may be saved without the sword, but it is by a wise and harmonious adjustment of interests in the administration of the Govemment. Discontent arises because the people do not see that their interests are protected and secured. Hence the art of governing is comprised in the wisdom to allay discontent. The disease has its causes, and there are proper remedies Avhicli may cure and heal. Adaptive statesmanship seeks to remove the cause of discontent, and will not persist in 28 one method of treatment only. Great States are not preserved in this manner. Ultra and extreme remedies have their place; for, in the philosophy of pohtics, the remedies should correspond with the nature of the disease. The wisdom of statesmanship consists in knowing how and where certain remedies are to be used. The State rests upon the wisdom of the application. In ordinary times, ordinary prudence will regulate ; but disjointed and mixed afiairs dem?.nd foresight and actual statesmanship. In disregarding the causes of discontent, you enhance it and make it dangerous. Adapt the means to the real evils of government, and these evils are allayed or destroyed. Seldom does it happen that great issues are formed except on questions of interest or of right— quite often it is a clash of right and interest. The pressure then becomes extreme and violent, and interest seldom yields its demands. In such a contest there are millions for defense, and not one cent for tribute. Again, the important and unquestioned rights of men demand no compromise. Wars and revolutions follow this collision of opinion, this issue of right and of interest. The epochs of nations show us the tendency of tliese conflicts, when carried forward to a certain point, to precipitate revolu tion and war. There is a time in all nations Avhen revolutions become unavoidable — when they alone can settle the issue by power of the sword. Hence it follows, that wars themselves, though great calamities, and attendant with great evils, are necessary to preserve order and government, and the funda mental principles of the State. Plenary discipline is part of every society, and, when disaffection assumes a political character, it must be met by war itself. Punic faith and disaffection can be checked by extreme necessities, Avhen they assume a chronic form. Heroism deals justly, but firmly and resolutely ; a tame compliance increases the danger it would avoid. A firm determination to stand by the right will often avoid further demands, further concessions, and future rup tures. The page of history proves the salutary result of all just and defensive wars. 29 III. SCHEME OF CONFISCATION. The grave question of how far the people in rebellion have forfeited their right of person and property is to be considered. If forfeiture and disability have come to the South by this act of war, who is to determine their extent ? As the Avar is ended, these disabilities are to be determined under laAvs in being at the time the offense, for which they are pronounced, was committed. These disabilities must be determined by the judiciary alone. There are no crimes so heinous as to disfranchise a people by Avholesale. There is no indictment that will lie against a whole people ; and they cannot be disfranchised in that Avholesale manner. Treason is a crime against the state, but proscription cannot be inflicted except by due legal procedure, and by trial and conviction in open court. Our American systenl of govemment exists under consti tutions. State and National, and which secure individual rights until they are forfeited by crime of v/hich individuals must be duly convicted. Our Federal Constitution defines in Avliat Avay persons shall be convicted of the high crime of treason and other offenses, and thereby excludes by necessary implication every other mode of conviction and punishment ; and, until conviction takes place in the manner prescribed, there can be no penalty inflicted for this crime against any offender. The Constitution defines treason to consist in levying war against the United States, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. And it is provided that no person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act or on confession in open court. The Constitution provides that no person shall be held to answer for any crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury ; except cases arisiug in the land or naval 30 forces of the United States ; nor shall be deprived of life, lib erty, or property, without due process of laAv, nor shall private property be taken for pubhc use without just compensation. The framers of the Constitution well understood the danger of leaving to Congress unrestricted power in declaring the punishment of treason. The States had abused this power prior to the adoption of the Constitution ; and, during the revolution, bills of attainder and ex post facto laws of confis cation were passed to a wide extent; and now under the Constitution neither the States nor Congress can pass any bills of attainder or ex post facto laws. So our system restrains the punishinent of treason to laws in being at the time of the commission of the offense. But Congress may declare the punishment of treason, and the section investing Congress with this power prohibits any forfeiture except for the life of the person attainted, and all corruption of blood for the same period. This clause must restrict the penalties at common law, as well as all acts of Congress. And so there is, under our Constitution, no Avay to attaint the blood for treason, or to work the forfeiture of estates, except for the hfe of the person attainted. All modes of criminal prosecution, except for bill of attainder and of pains and penalties, are in vindication of laws in being on Avhich they are founded. But the annals of most countries record the sanguinary enactments of legislative bodies, for the punishment of treason, dangerous to society and the rights of men. These acts of supreme poAver are technically called bills of attainder, and infiict capital punish ment upon those supposed to be guilty of high offenses of treason and felony, and are without any conviction in the ordinary course of judicial proceedings. If any act infiicts a milder degree of punishment than death, it is called a bill of pains and penalties, and this, under the Constitution, is beheved to be included under attainder. These bills are enforced in a summary mode. These ex post facto laws in England were special acts and attainders by Pariiament after the act • and even Lord Coke went so far as to say that a man could be attainted after death. Such is the high power of Pariiament to punish high crimes of state. 31 But Congress is deprived of all power to pass any ex post y^c/o laws; and this prohibits the enactment of laAvs which act retrostrictive in any manner, and embraces necessarily bills of attainder and pains and penalties. When sentence of death at common law is pronounced against any person, the immediate, inseparable consequence is attainder. He is then called attinctus — stained, blackened. The consequences of attainder are, perpetual forfeiture and corruption of blood. Forfeiture is twofold — of real and personal estates. By attainder in high treason a man forfeits all his lands and tene ments at the time the offense Avas eommited, or at any time afterward, to be forever vested in the Crown. This forfeiture relates backward to the time when the treason Avas committed, so as to avoid all intermediate sales, but not those before the fact. Lands are forfeited upon attainder, and not before ; goods and chattels are forfeited by conviction; because, in many cases where goods are forfeited, there never i? any attainder, Avhich happens only where judgment of death or outlawry is given, and therefore tbe forfeiture must be upon conviction, or not at all ; and being necessarily upon conviction in those, it is so ordered in all other cases, as the law likes uniformity. The forfeiture of goods and chattels has no relation backv/ard, so that those only which a man has at the time of conviction are forfeited. Therefore, at common law, a traitor or felon could dispose of his goods and chattels up to that time. Another immediate consequence of attainder is the cor ruption of blood both upward and downward, so that no title can be transmitted through a person attainted, in any manner whatsoever. His estates escheat iii perpetuity to the lord, subject to the king's superior right of forfeiture. This attainder obstructs all descents to his posterity. Attainder is one of the features of the Norman conquest ; although the Saxons had laws forfeiting lands to the king, yet by them no corruption of blood took place — no impediment to descent ensued ; and, on judgment of men for felony, no escheat accrued to the lord. Blackstone says, therefore, as every other oppressiA^e mark of feodal tenure is now happily worn away in these kingdoms, it is to be hoped that this corruption of hlood, with all its con- 32 nected consequences, not only of present escheat, but of future incapacities of inheritance even to the twentieth generation, may in process of time be abohshed by act of Pariiament, as it stands upon a very different footing from the forfeiture of lands for high treason affecting the king's person or govemment. Chancellor Kent says, forfeiture of property, in cases of treason and felony, was a part of the common law, and must exist at this day in the jurisprudence of those States where it has not been abolished by their constitutions or by statutes. Now Ave reach the power of Congress to punish treason and other high offenses. I. The Constitution prohibits the enactment of all ex post facto laws and bills of attainder. II. It prohibits any forfeiture or corruption of blood beyond tlie life of the person attainted. These are constitutional limitations, and let us inquire briefly into their extent and force. I. The Supreme Court has said, " an ex post facto laAv is one Avhich renders an act punishable in a manner in which it was not punishable when it was committed." So, then, treason must be punished in the manner prescribed by the laic at the time of its commission. Under the law of 1790, it Avas declared that no conviction or judgment for treason " slicoll work corruption of Vaaw., or any forfeiture