Now, this enables me to repeat, with a clearer view derived from history, the proposition that the Confederate States are--_under the law of nations_, and the principles embodied in the Declaration of Independence, sustained in the Revolution, and recognized by our people--in a condition not distinguishable from that of the Colonies in '76, except that, if there be a difference, the position of the Confederates, _in reference to legality, as a judicial question_, is more justifiable, as it is certainly more formidable. This word "secession" is, after all, only a word; a word, as MR. WEBSTER said in one of his great speeches, answering Mr. Calhoun, of fearful import; a word for which he could not according to his views, too strongly express condemnation. But whether you use the word "secession," or the familiar expression, "going out of the Union," or, "not consenting to remain in the Union," the idea is one and the same. Much ac.u.men and ingenuity have been displayed, even by a mind profound as that of Mr.

Calhoun--a most acute man and a pure man, as Mr. Webster eloquently attested in the Senate chamber, after the decease of that South Carolina statesman--I say a good deal of ac.u.men has been spent on the question whether a State, or any number of States, have _a_ RIGHT UNDER THE CONSt.i.tUTION _to secede from the Union_. It is a quarrel about phrases. It is not necessary in any point of view, political, philological or moral, to use the word "secession" as either excusing or justifying the act of the Confederate States. Suppose I grant, as a distinct proposition, in accordance with what I admit to be the opinion of the great majority of jurists, and orators, and statesmen at the North, that there is no right in a State, under the Const.i.tution, to recede from the Union--what then? I shall not stop to give you the argument with which the South presents a view of the question entirely different from that of the North. Of what consequence is it, practically, whether the right of the State to go out be found in any part of the compact called the Const.i.tution, or be derived from a source extrinsic of it? You (let me suppose) are twelve States, and I am the thirteenth. There is the original Confederacy of States, pure and simple, under the agreement with each other; and there, according to the views of Mr. Webster and the prosecution here, we became const.i.tuted in a general Government, or, as Wheaton says, in a "composite Government," giving great power to the general center. Now, what difference does it make, if you twelve States conclude to leave me, whether you do it by virtue of anything contained in the Const.i.tution, or inferable from the Const.i.tution, or in virtue of some right or claim of right that resides out of the Const.i.tution? It is not of the least consequence. I do not care for the word "secession." It would be, at the worst, revolution. In that same great speech of Mr.

Webster's against Calhoun, in which I think I am justified in saying he exhausts the subject and makes the most formidable argument against the theory of secession that was ever uttered in the United States, all the conclusion he comes to is this:--"_'Peaceable_ secession!' I cannot agree to such a name. I cannot think it possible. _It would be_ REVOLUTION." Very well. Of what consequence is the designation? Who cares for the baptism or the sponsors? It is the _thing_ you look to.

And if they have either the _right_ or the _power_ to secede or revolutionize, they _may do it_, and there is no tribunal on earth to sit in judgment upon them; though we have the right and the power, on the other hand, to battle for the maintenance of the whole Union. Our friend, _Mr. Justice Grier_, says: "_No band of_ CONSPIRATORS _can overcome the Government_ MERELY _because they are dissatisfied with the result of an election_." Now, gentlemen, with the deference he deserves, I would ask the learned Justice Grier, or any other Justice, or my learned friend, Mr. Evarts, how he will proceed to dispose of the case which I am about to put? Suppose that all but one of our States meet in their Legislatures, and, by the universal acclaim, and with the entire approval of all the people, resolve that they will remain no longer in a.s.sociation with the others--what will you do with them? That solitary State, which may be Rhode Island, says: "I have in me the sovereignty; I have in me all the attributes that belong to empire or national existence; but I think I will have to let you go. Whether you call it secession, or rebellion, or revolution, you may go, because _you have the power to go_, if there be no better reason." And power and right become, in reference to this subject, the same thing in the end. Do they not? Is there any relation on earth that has a higher sanction than marriage? So long as two parties, who have contracted that holy obligation, have, in truth, no fault to find with each other, is there any _right_ in either to go away from the other? There is no such right, either by the law of G.o.d or of man. But there is a _power_ to do it, is there not? And if the wife flee from her husband, instead of towards him, or if a husband go from his wife, is there any law of society that can compel them to unite? And why not? Because mankind, though they have perpetrated many follies, have, at least, recognized that this was a remedy utterly impossible. In the relation of partnership between two individuals, does not the same state of things exist? and do not the same arguments suggest themselves? I ask my learned brother what he can do in reference to the ten States that have claimed to secede from the Union, and have organized themselves into a Government? I will give him all the army he demands, and will let him retain in the chair of State this honest, pleasant Mr. Lincoln, who is not the greatest man in the world--n.o.body will pretend that--but is as good and honest a person as there is in the world. There is not the slightest question but that, in all his movements, he only proposes what he deems consistent with the welfare and honor of the country. I will give my learned brother the army now on the banks of the Potomac, doing nothing, and millions of money, and then I desire him to tell us how, with all these aids, he can coerce those ten States to remain in the Confederacy. What was said by MR. BUCHANAN on the subject, in his Message of December last? "_I do not propose_" said he, "_to attempt any coercion of the States. I believe that it would be utterly impossible. You cannot compel a State to remain in the Union. They may refuse to send Senators to the Senate of the United States. They may refuse to choose electors, and the Government stops._" Well, I grant you that this is not the view of other men quite as eminent as Mr.

Buchanan. I grant you that the great CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL--a man to whom it would be bad taste to apply any other word than great, because that includes everything which characterized him--I grant you that brilliant son of Virginia met an argument like this with the great power that distinguished all his judgments, when a question arose in the Supreme Court of the United States, affecting the State of Virginia and a citizen. But of what importance is it what any man thinks about it? What is your theory as compared with your practice? Now, I will give my friend all the power he wants, and ask him to deal with these ten States. Do you believe it to be within the compa.s.s of a possibility to compel them to remain in the Union, as States, if they do not wish it?

Thus I reach the conclusion, on even the weakest view of the case for us, that the POWER to secede, and the POWER to organize a Government existing, there is no power on earth which, on any rule of law, can interfere with it, except that of war, conducted on the principles of civilized war.

Now, then, let us look at those Confederate States a little more closely. What says Vattel, in the pa.s.sage referred to by my learned friend, Mr. Larocque, and which it is of the utmost importance, in this connection, to keep in mind?

[Here Mr. Brady read an extract, which will be found in the argument of Mr. Larocque.[5]]

[5] See pages 105, 106, and 107.

Is not that clearly expressed, and easy to understand? All of us comprehend and can readily apply it in this case. That resolves the question, if indeed this be the law of the land, into this: _Have the Confederate States, on any show of reason, or without it--for that does not affect the inquiry--attained sufficient_ STRENGTH, _and_ BECOME SUFFICIENTLY FORMIDABLE, _to ent.i.tle them to be treated, under that law of nations, as in a condition of_ CIVIL WAR, _even if they have not const.i.tuted a separate, sovereign_, and _independent nation?_ Really, it seems to me, too clear for doubt, that they have. We had, in the Revolution, thirteen Colonies, with a limited treasury, almost dest.i.tute of means, and with some of our soldiers so behaving themselves, in the early part of the struggle, that General Washington, on one memorable occasion, threw down his hat on the ground and asked, "Are these the men with whom I am to defend the liberties of America?"

And those of you, gentlemen, who have read his correspondence, know how constantly he was complaining to Congress about the inefficiency of the troops, and their liability to desertion. I remember that he says something like this: "There is no doubt that patriotism may accomplish much. It has already effected a good deal. But he who relies on it as the means of carrying him through a long war will find himself, in the end, grievously mistaken. It is not to be disguised that the great majority of those who enter the service do so with a view to the pay which they are to receive; and, unless they are satisfied, desertions may be expected." He also remarked, at another period, in regard to the troops of a certain portion of our country, which I will not name, that they would have their own way; that when their term of enlistment expired they would go home; and that they would sometimes go before that period arrived. That, I am mortified to say, has been imitated in the present struggle.

Such was the early condition of the Colonies.

Now, the Southern Confederacy have ten States--they had seven when this commission was issued--with about eight millions of people. They have separate State governments, which have existed ever since the Union was formed, and which would exist if this revolution were entirely put down. They have excluded us from every part of their territory, except a little foothold in the Eastern part of Virginia, and "debateable ground" in Western Virginia. We have not yet been able to penetrate farther into the Confederate States. We cannot send even food to the hungry or medicine to the afflicted there. We cannot interchange the commonest acts of humanity with those of our friends who are shut up in the South. I do think, with the conceded fact looking directly into the face of the American people that, with all the millions at the command of the Administration, there is yet found sufficient force and power in the Confederate States to maintain their territory, their Government, their legislature, their judiciary, their executive, and their army and navy, it is vain and idle to say that they are not now in a state of civil war, and that they ought to be excluded from the humanities incident to that condition. Such an idea should not, I think, find sanction in either the heart, the conscience, or intelligence of any right-minded man.

Not only are the facts already stated true, but the Confederate States have been RECOGNIZED AS A BELLIGERENT POWER by FRANCE and ENGLAND, as we have proved by the proclamations placed before you; and _they have been recognized_ by OUR _Government as belligerents, at least_. That I submit, as _a distinct question of fact, to the Jury_, unless the Court conceive that it is a pure question of law,--in which case I am perfectly content that the Court shall dispose of it.

And where do I find this? I find it in the _admission of Mr. Lincoln, in his Inaugural Address, that there is to be no attempt at any physical coercion of these States_--a concession that it is a thing not called for, not consistent with the views of the Administration, or with the general course of policy of the American people. According to his view, there was to be no war. I find it in the _correspondence of General Anderson with Governor Pickens_, which has been read in the course of the trial--which of course has been communicated to the Government, will be found among its archives, and of which no disapprobation has been expressed. And here I borrow a doctrine from the District Attorney, who said, when I declared that the legislative branch of the Government had not given their declaration as to what was the true condition of the South, that their silence indicated what it was; and so, the silence of the Government, in not protesting against this correspondence, is good enough for my purpose.

The _proclamation of the President, calling for 75,000 troops_, and then calling _for a greater number_, would, in any Court in Christendom, outside of the United States, be regarded, under international law, as conclusive evidence that those troops were to be used against _a belligerent power_. Who ever heard of EIGHT MILLIONS of people, or of ONE MILLION of people, being ALL TRAITORS, and being ALL LIABLE TO PROSECUTION FOR TREASON AT ONCE. I find this recognition in the _exchange of prisoners_, which we know, as a matter of history, has occurred. I find it in the _capitulation at Hatteras_, at which, and by which, GENERAL BUTLER, of his own accord, when he refused the terms of surrender proposed by Commodore Barron, declared that the garrison should be taken as PRISONERS OF WAR; and that has been communicated to the Government, and no dissatisfaction expressed about it.

And, gentlemen, I rest it, also, as to the recognition by our Government, on the fact to which MR. SULLIVAN so appropriately alluded--_the exchange of flags of truce_ between the two contending forces, as proved by one of the officers of the navy. A flag of truce sent to rebels--to men engaged in lawless insurrection, in treasonable hostility to the Government, with a view to its overthrow! Why, gentlemen, it is the grandest, as it is the most characteristic, device by which humanity protects men against atrocities which they might otherwise perpetrate upon each other--that little white flag, showing itself like a speck of divine snow on the red and b.l.o.o.d.y field of battle; coming covered all over with divinity; coming in the hand of peace, who rejoices to see another place where her foot may rest; welcome as the dove which returned to the ark; coming, I say, in the hand of peace, who is the great conqueror, and before whom the power of armies and the bad ambitions and great struggles of men must ultimately be extinguished. This, of itself, will be regarded by mankind, when they reflect wisely, as sufficient to show that our Government must not be brutal; and we seek to rescue the Administration from any imputation that it wants to deny to the South the common humanities which belong to warfare, by your refusing to let men be executed as pirates, or to make a distinction between him who wars on the deep and him who wars upon the land.

It is very strange if the poor fellows who had no means of earning a meal of victuals in the city of Charleston, like some of those who composed the crew of this vessel, shut up as if in a trap, should be hanged as pirates for being on board a privateer, under a commission from the Confederate States, and that those who have slain your brothers in battle should be taken as prisoners of war, carefully provided for, and treated with the benevolence which we extend to all prisoners who fall into our hands--the same humanities that, as you perceive, are provided for in the instructions from Jefferson Davis, found on board the privateer, directing that the prisoners taken should be dealt with gently and leniently, and to give them the same rations as were supplied to persons in the Confederate service.

But it seems to be suggested in Vattel, and certainly is promulgated in the opinion of Mr. Justice Grier, that, although the Confederate States have obtained any proportions however large, any power however great, there must be some _sound cause_, some _reasonable pretext_, for this revolt. Well, who is to judge of that? We do not, says the Government, admit that the cause is sufficient. The United States Government says there is none. Now, I propose to show you _what the South says on that subject_--to lay before you matters of history with which you are all acquainted--to show you what is supposed by men as able as any of us, as well acquainted with the history of the country, and as pure--what is supposed by them to have created this state of things, ent.i.tling the Confederate States to leave us and be a community by themselves. I will hereafter appeal to the late Daniel Webster as a witness that one of the causes a.s.signed by the Southern States for their act is at least the expression and proof of a great wrong done them.

In the first place, a large proportion of our people at the North claim _the right to abolish slavery in places ceded to the United States, or formed by contributions from the States, such as the District of Columbia_. I do not know what my learned friends' views on that subject are, but I know that the two great political parties of the country have had distinct opinions on that subject. By one, it has been steadily maintained, and with great energy, that, so far as the nation has power over the subject of slavery, it shall exercise it to abolish slavery. And the South says: "If you undertake to abolish slavery in any fort, any ceded place, any territory that we have given you for the purposes of the National Government, we will regard that as a breach of faith; for, whether you abhor slavery, or only pretend to abhor it, it is the means of our life. I, a Southerner, whose mother was virtuous as yours--whom I loved as you loved your mother--received from her at her death, as my inheritance, the slaves whom my father purchased--whom I am taught, under my religious belief, to regard as property, and whom I will so continue to regard as long as I live." That is the argument of the South; and if men at the South conscientiously believe that, from their knowledge of the sentiments, factions, or agitations at the North, such as these, there is an intention to make a raid and foray on the inst.i.tution of slavery, deprive them of all the property they have in the world, and condemn them to any stigma--is it any wonder that they should express and act upon such an opinion?

Next, gentlemen, in the category of their complaints, is the _agitation for the prohibition of what is called the inter-State slave trade_.

Next is _the exclusion of slavery from new territory_, which, says the South, "we helped to acquire by our blood and treasure--towards which we contributed as you did. If you had a gallant regiment in the field in Mexico, had we not the Palmetto and other regiments, which came back--such of them as survived--covered with glory?"

This has been the great subject that has recently divided our political parties--the Republican party, so-called, proclaiming with great earnestness and great decency its sincere conviction that it was a moral and political right to prevent slavery from being carried into new territory, and insisting that the slave-owner, if he went there with his slaves, must bring them to a state of freedom.

There is another party of intelligent and upright men, claiming that the South has the same right to go into the Territories with their slaves as the North has to go with their implements of agriculture; and these irreconcilable differences of opinion are only to be settled at the polls, by determining the question which shall have sway either in the executive councils or in the legislation of the Government. A grand subject of debate, for some time, was the endeavor to acquire Texas; and I need not tell you that the great reason why the acquisition of Texas was opposed by the Whig party was, that they thought it might induce to the extension of slavery. When MR. CHOATE made his great speech against it in New York, he confessed that that was the point, and said: "You may be told that this is a new garden of the Hesperides; but do not receive any of its fruits: touch not, taste not, handle not, for in the hour that you eat thereof you shall surely die."

Next, gentlemen, is _the nullification of the Fugitive-Slave Law by several of the States of New England_, which say: "True it is that the Const.i.tution of the United States declares that the fugitive shall be delivered up to his master; true it is that Congress has made provision for his restoration; true it is that the Supreme Court of the United States has declared that he must be given up; but we say--we, a sovereign State--that if any officer of our Government lends any aid or sanction for such purpose he shall be guilty of a crime. If you want any slave delivered to his master, you must do it exclusively by the authority of the Federal Government, by its power and officers." And because, in the city of Boston, MR. LORING, a virtuous citizen, a respectable lawyer, performed, in his official capacity, an official act toward the restoration of a slave to his master, he was removed from his judicial station by the Executive of Ma.s.sachusetts.

_The District Attorney_: (To Mr. Evarts) He was not removed for that reason.

_Mr. Brady_: The District Attorney says he was not removed for that reason. Well, he was removed just about that time. (Laughter.) It was a remarkable coincidence; it was like the caution given to the elder Weller, when he was transferring a number of voters to the Eatonsville election, not to upset them in a certain ditch, and, as he said, by a very extraordinary coincidence, he got them into that very place.

But, gentlemen, this is a solemn subject, and is not to be dealt with lightly. And here it is that I will refer to the great speech of Mr.

Webster, in the Senate of the United States, on the _7th of March, 1850_--to be found in the fifth volume of his works, _page_ 353. Mr.

Webster was a great man, gentlemen, like John Marshall, and he could stand that test of a great man--to be looked at closely. Our country produces an abundance of so-called great men. The very paving-stones are prolific with them. Every village, and hamlet, and blind alley has one, at least. And when we catch a foreigner, just arrived, we first ask him what he thinks of our country, and then, pointing to some person, say, "He is one of the most remarkable men in the country;"

until, finally, the foreigner begins to conclude that we are all remarkable men; that, like children, we are all prodigies until we grow up, when we give up the business of being prodigies very soon, as most of us have had occasion to ill.u.s.trate.

Mr. Webster, I say, was a great man, because he could stand the test of being looked at very near, and he grew greater all the time. There is no incident in my life of which I cherish a more pleasant or more vivid recollection than being once in a small room, with some other counsel, a.s.sociated with Mr. Webster, about the time he made his last professional effort, when, in a moment of melancholy, one night about twelve o'clock, he came up, and, sitting down on the corner of a very old-fashioned bedstead, put his arm around the post, and proceeded to enlighten and fascinate us with a familiar, and sometimes playful, account of his early life; his first arguments in the Supreme Court of the United States; and the course, in its inner developments, of that life which, in its public features, has been so interesting to the country, and is to be always so interesting to mankind.

"Mr. President," said he, "in the excited times in which we live there is found to exist a state of crimination and recrimination between the North and South. There are lists of grievances produced by each, and those grievances, real or supposed, alienate the minds of one portion of the country from the other, exasperate the feelings, and subdue the sense of fraternal affection, patriotic love, and mutual regard. I shall bestow a little attention, sir, upon these various grievances existing on the one side and on the other. I begin with _complaints of the South_. I will not answer further than I have the general statements of the honorable Senator from South Carolina, that the North has prospered at the expense of the South, in consequence of the manner of administering this Government, in the collecting of its revenues, and so forth. These are disputed topics, and I have no inclination to enter into them.

But I will allude to other complaints of the South, and _especially to one which has, in my opinion, just foundation_; and that is, that there has been found at the North, among individuals and among legislators, a disinclination to perform fully their const.i.tutional duties in regard to the return of persons bound to service who have escaped into the Free States. In that respect the South, in my judgment, is right, and the North is wrong. Every member of any Northern Legislature is bound by oath, like every other officer in the country, to support the Const.i.tution of the United States; and the article of the Const.i.tution (Art. iv., sec. 2, subd. 2) which says to these States that they shall deliver up fugitives from service, is as binding in honor and conscience as any other article. No man fulfills his duty in any Legislature who sets himself to find excuses, evasions, escapes, from this const.i.tutional obligation. I have always thought that the Const.i.tution addressed itself to the Legislatures of the States, or to the States themselves. It says that those persons escaping to other States 'shall be delivered up;' and I confess I have always been of the opinion that it was an injunction upon the States themselves. When it is said that a person escaping into another State, and coming, therefore, within the jurisdiction of that State, shall be delivered up, it seems to me the import of the clause is, that the State itself, in obedience to the Const.i.tution, shall cause him to be delivered up. That is my judgment. I have always entertained that opinion, and I entertain it now. But when the subject, some years ago, was before the Supreme Court of the United States, the majority of the Judges held that the power to cause fugitives from service to be delivered up was a power to be exercised under the authority of this Government. I do not know, on the whole, that it may not have been a fortunate decision. My habit is to respect the result of judicial deliberations and the solemnity of judicial decisions. As it now stands, the business of seeing that these fugitives are delivered up resides in the power of Congress and the national judicature; and my friend at the head of the Judiciary Committee (Mr. Mason) has a bill on the subject now before the Senate, which, with some amendments to it, I propose to support, with all its provisions, to the fullest extent. And I desire to call the attention of all sober-minded men at the North, of all conscientious men, of all men who are not carried away by some fanatical idea or some false impression, to their const.i.tutional obligations. I put it to all the sober and sound minds at the North, as a question of morals and a question of conscience: What right have they, in their legislative capacity or any other capacity, to endeavor to get around this Const.i.tution, or to embarra.s.s the free exercise of the rights secured by the Const.i.tution to the persons whose slaves escape from them? None at all--none at all. Neither in the forum of conscience, nor before the face of this Const.i.tution, are they, in my opinion, justified in such an attempt. Of course, it is a matter for their consideration. They, probably, in the excitement of the times, have not stopped to consider of this. They followed what seemed to be the current of thought and of motives, as the occasion arose; and they have neglected to investigate fully the real question, and to consider their const.i.tutional obligations; which I am sure, if they did consider, they would fulfill with alacrity. I repeat, therefore, sir, that here is a well-founded ground of complaint against the North, which ought to be removed; which it is now in the power of the different departments of this Government to remove; which calls for the enactment of proper laws authorizing the judicature of this Government in the several States to do all that is necessary for the recapture of fugitive slaves, and for their restoration to those who claim them. Wherever I go, and whenever I speak on the subject,--and when I speak here I desire to speak to the whole North,--I say that the South has been injured in this respect, and has a right to complain; and the North has been too careless of what I think the Const.i.tution peremptorily and emphatically enjoins upon her as a duty."

Now, gentlemen, this may not accord with the sentiments of some of you; but what right have you--if you should differ entirely with Mr.

Webster--if you should believe that there is a great law of our Maker, a higher law than any created on earth, which requires you to refuse obedience to that Fugitive-Slave Law, and makes it a high duty to resist its execution--what right, I say, have you to _force_ that opinion upon me? What right have you to require that I shall yield an allegiance to all parts of the Const.i.tution which _you_ approve, while _you_ refuse it allegiance whenever you please?

They have a.s.signed, as another cause, the notorious fact of _the establishment of what is known as "the Underground Railroad," aiding in the escape and running off of slaves_, and the clandestine removal of property which belongs to the people of the South. They a.s.sign, as another, the _rescue of persons claimed as fugitive slaves_, as in the case of the _Jerry rescue_, in or near Syracuse. Pa.s.sing once through that city, I saw a placard announcing a grand demonstration to come off in honor of that achievement--the forcible rescue of a man from the hands of the Government who was claimed under the provisions of the Const.i.tution and an act of Congress which the Federal Courts had declared to be const.i.tutional!

They refer, also, to the _Creole case, in which, according to the Southern view of the subject, it was virtually and practically decided that no protection was to be afforded to slaves, as property of Southern men, on the high seas_. That is their view of it, and it has been expressed by able men with a great deal of force.

They also refer to the _John Brown raid_, which we have not forgotten--to the invasion of Virginia by that man, who furnished the negroes with implements of slaughter. With the results of that outrage you are all familiar.

They refer to _the general a.s.sault on the inst.i.tution of slavery_ which many men at the North have felt it on their conscience to make, including such distinguished orators as LLOYD GARRISON, GERRIT SMITH, the fascinating and silver-tongued PHILLIPS--to whom I have listened with pleasure, much as I detested his sentiments--and THEODORE PARKER, the greatest of them all.

They refer to the declarations of cultivated men at the North, that there were no means to which men might not resort to extirpate slavery; and who, when against them were cited certain pa.s.sages of Scripture that were supposed to sanction the inst.i.tution of slavery, fell back on the position that our Const.i.tution was _an "infidel Const.i.tution,"_ and that even the Bible was not to be regarded as any authority for such a monstrous error as that.

They refer to _the declaration of Mr. Lincoln_, in one of his addresses to the public, _that Government could not endure half slave and half free_.

But, gentlemen, it was not strange to the American people to know that there was danger of such a secession as has occurred. Some years ago it would have been esteemed the most impossible thing in the world. It has come to happen in your time and mine. It has been predicted. I know a very remarkable instance in which that prediction was stated so clearly that the author of it would seem to have been invested with the spirit and power of prophecy. We cherished the abiding hope that this would not occur; but we now see that the causes moving toward it were irresistible, and that it has become an event of history.

Now, if these seceded States, on any reasoning, good or bad, on sufficient cause, or on a belief that they had sufficient cause, determined that it was not their interest to remain in the Union, they only subscribed to those doctrines promulgated by the Hartford Convention, and agreed with Blackstone, and with all the writers on civil law, that a state of things having happened in which they could have no redress, except by their own act, what course were they to adopt? It is not for you or for me to say, at this time, whether they were right or wrong in their opinions or reasons. I ask you, what course were they to adopt? and what has been the argument heretofore?

Why, the argument that, when such a collision of interest took place--when the States supposed that the General Government was trespa.s.sing on them and usurping powers, making war upon their inst.i.tutions, oppressing them, or failing to accomplish the ends for which the Government was established--they should appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States as common arbiter, and that its decision should be final. My friend, Mr. Larocque, has called attention to cases that might happen, of collision between executives of States and of the United States, which could not possibly be submitted to the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, and I shall not mar his argument or his examples by repeating them or saying anything in addition.

But, suppose that the next Congress should pa.s.s a law providing that the State of New York should pay all the expenses of this war for ten years to come, if it last so long; and that every boy of eighteen years, in the State of New York, should be mustered into the service, and coerced to march to Washington within ten days; and that no man in the State of New York should be permitted to go into another State without permission from the Executive; or should do anything of a similar character,--what course would the State of New York have under such circ.u.mstances? What course, but disobedience to the law, or insurrection, or revolution? Will my learned friends say that, in a case like that, you could appeal to the arbitrament of the Supreme Court of the United States? Is that so? Has the Supreme Court of the United States, under such circ.u.mstances, any way of redressing this wrong? But, suppose I concede that it has: what said the Republican party in reference to that Court? I instance that party, because it has the administration of the General Government.

I remember distinctly that MR. CHASE, now one of the Cabinet officers, in a public speech, shortly before the Presidential election, and MR.

WADE, of Ohio, a Senator of the United States--both able men, grave men, honorable men--insisted, before the people, that the Supreme Court of the United States was a mere organization of a certain number of respectable gentlemen, whose opinions were entirely conclusive, no doubt, as between parties litigant, but had no control over the political sentiments, rights, or actions of the people; that their adjudications would be a rule and a precedent in future cases of just the same character; but, beyond that, should have no efficacy whatever.

Gentlemen, I will tell you what, in confirmation of these views, Mr.

Lincoln says. In the Message that has been read to you he states exactly the same thing, with the addition that, if we were to submit to the Supreme Court of the United States to decide for us what is right in our Government, and what principles should be maintained, and what course the Administration should adopt, we would be surrendering to the Supreme Court the political power of the nation, and would become a species of serfs and slaves.

When _nullification_ reared its head within our territory, and the people of South Carolina claimed that an Act of the General Government was an aggression upon them, against which they had a right to make physical resistance, if necessary, the parties of this country were divided into Whigs and Democrats. They were two formidable parties.

There had not then grown up any of these little schismatic organizations, which are, in these latter days, numerous as the eddies on the biggest stream. They were not the days for certain clubs of professional politicians, with very imperfect wardrobes and more imperfect consciences, who sit in judgment on the qualifications of judicial officers, and measure their fitness for office by their capacity to pay money to strikers.

"Now," said that great party claiming to be conservative, "South Carolina has no right to resist. If she has suffered any wrong--if the General Government has attempted any aggression on her--let her submit the whole matter to the Supreme Court of the United States, and let its arbitration be final." Yes; and so the cry continued, till it was supposed that the Supreme Court of the United States was said to have decided that the owner of slave property might carry it into the Territories. Then the note was changed. Instantly the doctrine was reversed, and the Supreme Court was no longer the great, solemn, majestic, and omnipotent arbiter to dispose of this question. Then that Court became "a convention of very respectable gentlemen," who took their seats with black robes, and who were very competent to decide the right of a controversy between John Doe and Richard Roe, but must not lay their hands on politics. Why, they talk about the Earl of Warwick being a King-maker; but your man who seats himself on the head of a whisky barrel, in a corner grocery store, is a greater King-maker than ever Warwick was; and such a man as that, in his prerogatives, is not to be displaced by the Supreme Court of the United States! He may get up a town meeting, at which it will be declared that the doctrine laid down by the Supreme Court of the United States is all preposterous and absurd, and that the people are not going to submit to that tribunal.

There is no recognition, therefore, by this Administration, of the idea that the Supreme Court of the United States is capable of affording any relief in such a case as that which has led to the action of the seceded States. And so, that argument being out of the way, I ask you, I ask the learned Court, and I ask our opponents, whether, under the law of nations, as expounded, there was any other course left except that which the seceding States have adopted, a.s.suming that any action whatever was to be taken?

Adjourned till Tuesday, 29th October, at 11 o'clock A.M.

SIXTH DAY.