St. Louis City (part 6 of 11)

The gentleman from St. Louis has a holy horror of martial law, and says as long as we have martial law we can not be freemen. I deplore the condition of the country that makes it necessary to have martial law as much as any man ; but the times render it necessary. It was necessary in the time of Jackson. The gentleman shakes his head. He is one of the men who wants to sit still under all circumces, especially when we can not see what is right. On that principle, we should have all starved to death. The first nourishment we drew might have been poisonous for all we knew ; and if we had waited until we could see clearly, we certainly should have starved. But we did'nt wait, and I grew to be a Union man whom nobody doubts. The gentleman labored hard to show that we did not know what we were doing here. What would have been the effect if we had done nothing, as the gentleman desired ? Jackson and Reynolds had left the State without an executive head ; the Convention had been called together by the State Legislature, and it became our duty to maintain the sovereignty of the State - and I think we have done it despite the gentleman's labors to the contrary.

" When you can't see clearly what to do, don't do any thing." Why ? Because, if you hold still, Jackson and the niggers and the Indians will come here, and sweep you off as with the besom of destruction. Didn't you hear the Southern Confederacy say "let us alone." All they ask is to be let alone, and then they will come to St. Louis and tear the Union men into "Wizards," as I believe the gentleman says. We will not let them alone. I will help the South fight for every right to which she is entitled ; and that Federal officer who attempts to infringe on the rights of the South will have my disapprobation. But it is not their right to go through the country, and take our property, and destroy every right we have, and compel loyal men to flee from their homes, their wives and their children. They have invaded our homes. They came within five miles of my house, and strewed the ground with the bones of their dead men. They have invaded this State, and, so help me God, I am willing to go into their country and help invade it. What more ought we to do ? They common- ced tliis difficulty; they said they wanted a separation ; they said they could not live with the North, and they were determined they would not. We did not commence this difficulty ; they began it, and I think Lincoln did wrong, and is deserving of censure, for allowing the restless and dissatisfied scoundrels to run over the bravest man in the country. He ought to have burned Charleston to ashes - that's what he ought to have done.

"The institution of the Home Guards," the gentleman says, "was illegal." Now, I say, and every gentleman in this Convention knows there was no legal authority for the Home Guards. The Governor of the State refused to call out men to defend the interests of the State, and so the Home Guards were organized for self-preservation, which is the first law of nature ; and if they had not been organized, there would not have been abridge in Missouri to-day - they would have all been burnt ; and although the organization of the Guards was illegal, yet when Congress met they voted to pay them. I do not want to live under a government that has not the power of self-preservation, and it was on this principle that the Home Guards were organized. When I was at home, I remained there and attended to my business until half a thousand ruffians drove me out ; vet, according to the gentleman from St. Louis, I should wait until my case can be laid before a grand jury, or the Judge of the court. The Judge of the court is with the rebels, and we shall not have a grand jury until after the war is over, or until the Convention appoints one. Under these circumstances we are counseled to hold still and wait until the grand jury assembles. That might suit some men, but I think this Convention can see what to do a little more clearly than that.

The gentleman thinks that the various propositions in this Military Bill are unworthy our consideration; that we can not succeed in raising an army under this law, and he is disposed to look discouragingly upon all efforts in that direction. I believe he even contends that the United States Government had no right to send an army here at all. In relation to the financial condition of the country he is right ; we shall have to pay a portion of the taxation when we are in a condition to pay our debts. But, let me tell the gentleman, he can not secure the voters of Missouri in this way. If I were satisfied to-night that such a debt would accumulate that we never could pay it, I would say, Prosecute the war to a successful termination ; and rather than see one solitary foot of this United States Government seized and taken off, and its independence acknowledged as another government, I would say, Go on with the war until the treasury notes will not sell for one dollar a bushel. Talk about the finances of the Government, and thereby endeavor to scare men from their duty, because the Government will be unable to pay its debts ! We will pay our debts if possible ; but at any rate we will prosecute the war to a successful termination. I have no fears at all as to the result, but I have fears that good men will be dragged into secession. I see good men, hundreds and thousands of young men, unthinking men, dragged into it; and hence we have voted to-day to hold out the olive-branch of peace to them, to induce them to lay down their arms and come back to the best Government in the world, where they shall be protected. But if nothing else will do, then as a last resort we will give them a " blizard."

In relation to this Military Bill, I think it necessary that it should pass. If the people have not patriotism enough to fight them, we will make them do it. I do not believe such a necessity will arise ; but we may have to resort to that extreme, and I therefore hope the provision for drafting will not be stricken out.

1 will admit what the gentleman from St. Louis said in regard to U. S. gold. We have too many men fighting for gold and honor ; but, on the other hand, I have no doubt we should have plenty of men to prosecute tho war to a successful termination even though treasury notes were selling to-night at half a dollar a bushel.

In regard to action here, I think we should be in no hurry. What we are doing is of vital importance to every individual in Missouri, and our action should be calm and deliberate. We all admit that we arc above the constitution, and everybody knows the Legislature intended to place us there, otherwise they would never have called us into existence.

The gentleman from St. Louis said the Other day, if I mistake not, that his head and heart were both deceitful. I am not disposed to contradict the assertion, and I would not have disagreed with him even if he had gone the length of the Bible, and said it was "deceitful above all things and desperately wicked." [Laughter.]

have had, and under the color of maturing a military bill, I find myself unexpectedly the object of a fusilade for imaginary offenses committed long ago.

Sir, it is one of the very peculiar circumstances attending my history in this Convention, chat when I rise - (as I always do, without any other preparation than intense thought upon the measures before us) - and speak extemporaneously - days after I have spoken, and after the subjects of the debate have been acted on by this body - and new themes are under consideration - gentlemen rise in reply. Thus, at Jefferson, one of my colleagues - then distinguished, and more distinguished now - found it necessary, after attempting a reply at the moment, to sleep three nights upon a more deliberate answer.

The learned delegate from Clinton CJudge Birch) did indeed, on Saturday last, make a rejoinder on the spot to my speech of that day ; t-ut I congratulate that gentleman upon the improved character of his effort, as it appeared in the columns of the Republican, afterwards - improved in phrase and substance - and espeeia'ly improved in some references personal to me, which were never made in debate.

Thus, also, my worthy colleague (Mr. Hitchcock) heard my speech of Saturday - gained the floor on that day, while yet the subject of debate was pending, and three days after the resolutions of the gentleman from Clinton were disposed of, he rises and delivers an elaborately prepared reply.

And now, to-night, last and least, comes the gentleman from Greene (Judge Orr), to try his hand upon the speech of Saturday. He comes with studied preparation, to hold me up as one having only a pretended love for the fundamental principles of American liberty guarantied by the Constitution, but lost sight of by the Federal administration. Now, sir, be assured, that I shall, after this night, take no pains to modify my principles to suit the gentleman from Greene. He may think of me whatever he pleases to think ; but, as a true lover of constitutional freedom, I will say the gentleman from Greene is not the only instance in history, of a man who has zeal without knowledge, and passion without prudence - who mistakes rashness for vigor, and temerity for decision.

He tells us the story of a hunter, perplexed how so to shoot as to kill the object, if a. deer, and miss it, if a calf. Sir, I can appreciate the dilemma of that sportsman, and as it is really no purpose of mine to kill the latter animal, I shall be careful to point no deadly weapon anywhere in the direction of the gentleman from Greene.

I have another difficulty to night, Mr. President, almost insurmountable. It is the difficulty of conducting a debate with one who can not distinguish between any two ideas that have a remote family resemblance.

On Saturday, in a context which made the inquiry pertinent, " what shall we, as statesmen, in the present distracted condition of the country, do ?" I quoted the maxim of Clay : " In all human affairs, and especially in affairs of government, experience teaches, that unless we can clearly see that our action will result in benefit, it is the highest dictate of wisdom not to act at all."

The gentleman from Greene, in reply, says : " if I had acted on that principle, my mother would never have raised her baby." I am not prepared to deny that proposition. Nor does it become me to object to the rule of action here which the gentleman announces for himself. It is, to say the least of it, intelligible. It furnishes the key by which we can unlock whatever may be obscure in his course as a member of this body. As a child he acted ignorantly well - doing essential deeds without any knowledge of what he was about, and never looking to consequences - and now, as a member of this Convention, he trusts to like happy instincts in the delicate and difficult duties of statesmanship. I trust that while I grant to him the privilege, to follow the blind instincts of a child,

I may, without offence, add, that the great statesman of the West did not frame or utter his maxim for sucklings. It was given for the benefit of those, who, having passed the narrow circle in wh eh Providence limits the range of mere instinct, are subject to the wider sway of reason.

I objected to the organization of the Home Guard of Missouri, as an illegal and unconstitutional body. I denied the power of the President to create that organization, and I denounced the policy as eminently unwise. The gentleman from Greene says, that amounts to ;i denial of the right of the Federal Government to march an army into this State ! Sir, is not all argument thrown away on such an adversary? Whoever heard me deny to the Federal Government such a power ? Did I not emphati- cally, at Jefferson City, concede that power? Did not the gentleman hear me proclaim it on the floor? Is not the admission recorded and published in my reported speeches ? No man in or out of this body ever heard me utter any sentiment, or opinion, which by remote implication could be tortured into a denial of the power. I have never failed upon any appropriate occasion to denounce with emphasis the illegality and impolicy of the Home Guards. That organization was fraught with mischief. It inaugurated the guerrilla Avarfare in this State. It was the first fatal step that led to disorder and civil strife in Missouri - they followed it by natural and logical sequence. That has been my proposition from the beginning, and no member of this Convention up to the present hour has ventured to refute it.

Again, sir, on the proposition to raise an independent army in this State of 40,000 men, to be armed, equipped, and maintained by State revenue, at a period when the treasury is empty - when our credit is at ruinous discount, under the weight of thirty millions of indebtedness - when the people are unable to pay the taxes for ordinary State revenue - when the courts are closed to prevent the collection of do 1m- by legal process - and when the Federal Government has noAv on our State soil 50,000 soldiers in arms, - I said, in opposition to the scheme, that it was impracticable in fact ; and that, if practicable, it Avould rather foment discontents among our people than allay them. And the gentleman from Greene says, " that amounts to the proposition that AVC have no power to do anything against secession !"

While suggesting reasons against the policy foreshadowed in the resolutions offered by the gentleman from Clinton, I cited information I had received as to the state of public sentiment on the north side of the Missouri river, from gentlemen who resided in that portion of our State. I thought the information was significant and important, from the fact that the secession forces had all been driven south of that river. I expressly stated, that my knowledge was not personal, and gave Avhat had been told me, by gentlemen as credible and as indiscriminately Union men as the gentleman from Greene. The report was given with cautious accuracy in the words of my informers. They were words graphic and well matched to thought; and, if true, which I did not doubt, and do not now, were well calculated to impress themselves upon the memory of any public man Avho is solicitous about the deplorable condition of our State and country, and is charged with duties bearing upon that condition. Sir, I need not go outside of this body for my informers - and, through a proper delicacy, I omitted to add the declared effect of such knowledge upon the minds of those who gave me the information. You remember, sir, the substance of that information as declared by me on Saturday. It was to the effect, that the double temptation of gold and honor Avas resisted when offered by the Federal Government - Avhile men would be seen day and night on their horses, armed Avith rifle or shot-gun, making their way across the Missouri river. I deemed it to be the duty of statesmen to look into the causes which produced this state of things, and offered suggestions of what they were. You have just heard the gross and foul perversions made of that passage of my speech by the gentleman from Greene.

Mr. WRIGHT. The statement that " the gentleman from St. Louis knew everything" - "knew that every man who left for Price's army, rode his own horse" - and fouler still, "made the declaration to let the people know* that they did not steal the horses of other men." Sir, I can find no appropriate language to mark the disgust and contempt I feel for such mode of argumentation.

Mr. ORR. So far as your contempt is concerned I disregard that ; and as to the perversions, I ask the gentleman from St. Louis, if he means to say they were willful ; if he does, I say it is a falsehood.

Mr. WRIGHT. The perversions are gross and foul. It is impossible for me to say Avhether they were intentional or not. If they Avere the result of stupidity, they may be forgiven - if of malice, they are contemned, and that is the only answer I can give the gentleman.

Mr. ORR. I object to any such perversion of my remarks, i believe every fair and candid gentleman in this Convention who reads the extract in question, will acknowledge that I did not pervert its meaning in the least. If the gentleman committed a blunder, he ought not to charge me with pervcrt.ng what he said.

What has the gentleman been doing for an hour, but trying to hold me up as one of questionable patriotism? What did he mean by the quotation from the Bible, delivered with so great complacency of tone and manner, if he did not intend it should have a personal application ? Sir, speaking as a mortal conscious of his fallibility, as one who has long since learned the necessity of distrusting the best conclusions of his judgment, speaking with what I thought a becoming modesty, I did not ascribe to my views and opinions the quality of infallible truth. I gave them for what they were worth, as the best deductions I was able to make out of the complications which surround us, conceding that the honest workings of my mind may have deceived me into error. The gentleman from Greene says, in reply, " I will endorse all that ; and the gentleman might have added, in the language of Scripture, that his heart also was deceitful and desperately wicked" As abstract truth, this is unquestionable; but the tone and manner of the gentleman, evinced a purpose wide of the pursuit of general metaphysics. The character of his hour's harangue - if it had any character at all - was malevolence. Yet he talks of the impropriety of casting imputations upon gentlemen !

Mr. President, I thought it our duty - a duty of perfect obligation - to find out, if we could, the causes of our discontents. I thought it especially our duty to discover the reason of the growing disloyalty of the people of this State. But if I am to judge from the combined attack upon me on this floor, this is a mistake. We are to resolve, but not investigate. We are to take action to preserve the peace of the State, but we are to shut our eyes upon the causes of disturbance. We are to furnish a remedy, but are not to know the disease ! What is this but empyricism, as disgraceful in statesmanship as quackery in medicine. Truth even must not be told, exclaims the gentleman from Greene - truth, which lies at the very base of our legislation here, must be smothered ! Why ? Because, says this oracle, it may "give aid and comfort to the enemy." If the General Government starts measures utterly subversive of the Constitution, and wholly incompatible with the liberties of the people, it is not loyal to denounce the violation ; for we learn from the gentleman from Clinton (Judge Kirch) and from my colleague (Mr. Hitchcock) that such conduct would be criminal in any Union man ! Oh, sir, it has come to this - that if the accidental, fanatical and pestilential Republican

Administration at Washington should, to-morrow, abolish, by edict, the trial by jury in America - overthrow the liberty of conscience, and set tip an established religion, to be supported by tithes drawn from the production or money of the people - declare unlawful the right of the people to peaceably assemble, to deliberate and petition the Government for redress of grievances - and charge the Army and Navy of the United States with the execution of the decree - and one, with the love of constitional liberty not yet extinguished in his breast, should rise in this body and denounce the usurpations, - there are those in this body who would also rise, and stigmatize him as an "aider and abettor of the enemy." Who are, sir, the best friends of the Union but those who, at every cost, struggle to keep the Government within the constitutional orbit of its action? The policy of the gentleman from Greene, and that of his associates, in combined attack upon me, must bring the Government to destruction. It will not require the assisting power of gravitation to sink it so low, that nothing but Omnipotence can ever lift it up.

Outside of this body, Mr. President, I find myself the object of attack. One anti-slavery press of this city - there may be others printed in a tongue unknown to me - utters its fulminations against my course in this body. I allude to the Democrat. While the press was free, I never noticed its comments upon my public action here. To canvass the conduct of public servants is the right and duty of a free press. A free press is one of the great agencies of liberty. I have ever battled for its constitutional immunities, at the peril of being called " an aider and abettor of the enemy." I shall continue thus to battle. If I descend to notice tlrs press now, it is because it is enslaved-i-and slavery ought not to be impudent. I was not intoxicated by its praise, for it was too fulsome to be merited. I am not moved by its censure, for it is too indiscriminate to be deserved. If the conductor of this press had lived 3500 years, ago, in the days of the theocracy of Moses, he would have been found with his ear nailed to a door post, to announce to all Israel that he was a slave ; and though his auricular appendages may not now be fastened by iron and wood, the earmarks of his servitude are as manifest as if they were.

Gentlemen may apply epithets to my course, but they have not shaken a position assumed by me in the speech of Saturday. I stated then the proposition, that the suppression of one free press in the land by military power, enslaves all the rest. Who denies that proposition ? It is as clear as any demonstration in mathematics.

Mr. ORR. As the gentleman seems to direct his inquiry touching an enslaved press to the gentleman from Greene, I will say this : Admit that one suppressed press enslaves the press of the land ; the so-called Southern Confederacy suppressed every press in their power which was not in consonance with the views of the secession leaders, and confiscated the property of Union men, long before we did any thing of the kind.

Mr. WRIGHT. Well, Suppose that to be so ; I do not stop to inquire. Let it be so. But, Mr. President, who can fail to be amazed at that logic, which seeks to sustain one enormity perpetrated here, by showing a parallel outrage committed in the South? What is the chance for constitutional freedom if offsets are to justify every outrage upon liberty ? The Southern people claim to be outside of our sphere ; they do not acknowledge the supremacy and binding force of our Constitution. They may be estopped from complaining of any violation of that instrument committed by the Administration at Wellington ; but are those who do not belong to the Southern Confederacy, who are in this Union under the Constitution, to have their protestations against encroachments on their rights stifled by such argument? Is it not paying too high a price for "Union" to say, that because gentlemen in the South have rebelled, therefore we must consent to be made slaves? You say the gentlemen of the South have no right to insist on the constitutional action of this Government. Grant it ; but has not every being within the limits of the Union who acknowledges himself to be a citizen of the United States, the right to be protected by the Government in all his constitutional privileges and immunities, and especially in those which ar^ canonized by the Bill of Eights ? Can you break those rights and expect to still his instinctive and patriotic clamors against the deed, by saying they do the same sort of thing in the South ? Or, do you think to hush his murmurs by calling him an aider and abettor of the enemy ? The enemy ! What does he "aid and abet" but liberty - rational liberty - liberty identified with law - liberty, possible only by restraints upon power - and is that an enemy1? Sir, that man is the best friend of the Union and the Government who insists that Government shall live the law of its life.

I forgive the outside scurrility of the press aimed at me, with all its base ascription of unworthy motives applied to me for my action here, by reason of one immortal truth uttered in the libel. Distinguishing correctly between the Constitution and the Government, the writer says " the Constitution is the Jaw of the life oj the Government." The principle thus laid down is above all price, and was never couched in apter words.

I repeat it, for I would impress it on all who have charge of public affairs - "The Constitution is the law of the life of the Government." By this law it must live. It is dependent upon that law for its existence. Out of this law it has no life. This is true of all organizations, natural or artificial. The plant, the flower, the tree, must live the law of its life, or it dies ; and so it is with that artificial organization which we name a Government. The truth is universal ; it embraces every living thing in the Universe of GOD. If this Government is to live, it can only do so by keeping to the law of its life - the Constitution. NaturaMsts tell us that in the Vegetable kingdom, by change of place and culture plants have been turned into monsters, abhorrent to science and incapable of classification. If this free Government will not live the law of its life, it must perish as a Government of Freedom ; but it may turn into something else - it may become a monster also - capable of classification, but abhorrent to our Fathers, and to all who prize the institutions they left us. Sir, all this is but an enlarged expression of the idea I attempted to convey in saying that liberty has no life save in the supreme and uncontrolled dominion of law. In my poor way, while I have been a member of this body, I have at all times labored to convince men that the Government should be kept to the Constitution. When I first took my seat I could say proudly, the Government has lived the law of its life. I can not say that now. I fear I shall never be able to say it again. I denounced the first departure from this law, and will continue to strike at every new departure it may make in its wicked recklessness while I have the power of expression. The disloyalty of our people will increase upon every violation of their chartered rights. We had a majority of 80,000 votes in favor of the Union under the Constitution, in February. Where is it now, and why ? Sir, I believe this night we are in a minority.

indications are the other way. For one, I am not sanguine of retaining the loyalty of Missourians to a Government that has no respect for constitutional obligations. I judge them by myself. From a people accustomed to freedom we may expect every sacrifice for liberty; but for its opposite none.

The gentleman from Greene (Mr. Orr) seems moved by my reference to members of this body who are refugees from their constituents. The fact is undeniable, and my purpose in alluding to it was to show the changes of opinion among the people of this State since February, which render this body no longer an exponent of their will, and to start inquiry as to the causes that produced these changes. Pursuing the same line of thought, I spoke of the reign of martial law in this State, and now my colleague ( Mr. Hitchcock ) understands me to mean by that, that we - we, the Convention - inaugurated that outrage. This misconception is extraordinary. I thought I was perspicuous in charging that responsibility to a power outside of and above this body. I think this Convention has enough to answer for without being held responsible for the action of others.

The Convention did not inaugurate martial law in this State ; and it will not be responsible for its reign over us, except in so far as it l shall countenance and support it. I have not sought to make it responsible save for its own action. I charged that martial law, established by military power, over every inch of our territory, was one fruitful source of the increasing disloyalty of our people, because its mainte nance overthrew the Constitution, and was incompatible with liberty. I gave this as one of the causes which had wrought, and was still working, a change of sentiment unfavorable to the Union.

I gave as another potent influence tending to the same disastrous result, the extaordinary and alarming claim, set up by the military power of the Federal Government, to try our citizens, in no way connected with the land or naval service, for their lives, by a drum-head court martial, against the express and unequivocal provisions of the Federal Constitution. That instrument declares that no person, unless he be connected with the army or navy, shall ever be tried for any crime, except by a jury of his country, taken from the vicinage. The best blood of England has been shed in the maintenance of that right, and in its defense the blood of our Fathers would have been freely spilt. Yet the gentleman from Greene finds in the expression of these patriotic, liberty-loving sentiments, the evidence of my disloyalty ! " Why," he asks, " did I not talk about the arrest of Union men in the South and the confiscation of property there 1" Because it was not germaine to the propositions before us, and because it was wide of the inquiry I was making of the causes which bred disloyalty here among our own citizens. Inquiring - investigating - to discover how and why Missourians every day become more and more dissatisfied with the Government under which they have been proud to live, and finding measures eminently calculated to produce such a result - because I did not encumber and confuse the argument by introducing the alien ingredient of marauding arrests and expeditions in the South, therefore, says the gentleman, "your loyalty is questionable" !

I had thought, Mr. President, that it was incumbent on every gentleman here, in debate, to preserve at least some continuity of thought in argument, and some visible connection of subjects embraced by it. I shall adhere to a rule which favors perspicuity, without interlarding every sentence with a denunciation of secession and secessionists, even at the cost of having my allegiance to constitutional liberty suspected by the gentleman from Greene. If at any time I shall find it necessary, in debate here, to cover up a conscious lack of ideas upon the subject before us - failing in other resources, I may be driven to the expedient, quite familiar in this Hall, of denouncing the exploded dogma of secession, in phrases stereotyped for common use.

Mr. President, I felt it my duty as a member of this body to say, that, in my opinion, the loyalty and affections of our people for the Federal Government would not be augmented by the restrictive measures adopted by the agents of the Federal administration in this State, and that I feared and believed the action of this body at Jefferson contributed to our discontents. I told you there, that your action would not be sustained by our people ; and I am constrained to say, that what you now propose to do will, in my judgment, multiply our unhappy disorders. For the counsels thus offered, I find myself the object of a joint attack, coming from various parts of this body. Elaborate and studied speeches are now made to suggestions made by me several days ago. I commend the gentlemen to their lamps. They must prepare and deliberate many days and nights before they can overthrow any one of the positions

Which of them has attempted to refute the proposition, that no civilian can he tried hy a drum-head court martial in war or peace ? Who of them will declare that American liberty can survive a successful hlow at that constitutional fortress ?

Then as to martial law, inaugurated by military authority and maintained by it - and administered by the caprice, or will, or discretion, sound or unsound, of a soldier - is that compatible with American constitutional liberty ? Is there any man in Missouri who would make cMier the President of the United States, or any soldier wearing its uniform, the arbiter of his life or liberty ?

Can there be a law highur than the Constitution ? Does war override the Constitution ? If so, whenever this country is engaged in war, the Constitution is gone ! An ambitious President may then, at any moment, rid himself of inconvenient limitations and restraints put upon Executive power by that instrument, and become Dictator by involving the nation in war. He may get us into war without a declaration by Congress. A British King can not destroy the Constitution of England by the expedient of war ; are our liberties less secure than the liberties of our British ancestors? It fills me with alarm and shame to think such thoughts. Liberty cannot live an hour under the rule of martial law.

The speech of my colleague (Mr. Hitchcock) elaborately prepared, seems to have been designed to show that freemen may feel comfortable, when either a Dictator rules over them, or their lives and liberties hang upon the will of a soldier. The speech is able, ingenious, specious, and its rhetoric is unexceptionable. It does credit to his intellect and to his powers of argument. Still, it is a failure in so far as it was intended to justify martial law, or reconcile us to the sway of a Dictator - as every speech directed to such ends must be. The illustrations he furnishes from our own American annals are directly at war with the aim of his argument. He reads an act passed by the Continental Congress, to show that they made Washington Dictator, and that he declared martial law. I deny both propositions. Congress never clothed him with dictatorial powers - and Washington never declared martial law.

martial law established by the military power, originating in the edict of a soldier, and administered by him, or. coming to him by the fiat of the President of the United States, was against the Constitution of "the United States, and incompatible with liberty, among others ; for the reason that, by that Constitution, "the military power is ever, at all limes, and in the worst of times, to be subordinate to the civil authority."

Now the case he cites is an act of the civil authority - a law of Congress conferring certain powers upon Washington, as Commander-in- Chief of the Army and Navy of the States. If the act had authorized Washington to declare martial law, the illustration proves that without the act he had no such power. It establishes that, as the chief military commander, he was not, in virtue of his office, able to declare martial law over the citizens within the limits of his command, and thus supports the position he was struggling to overthrow. But that is not the worst. The act did not authorize Washington to declare martial law. Sir, this is not all. The citation proves that Washington himself is authority against the power claimed for the military. He was the highest military officer of the revolution. He was familiar with military life. Knowing that he did not possess the power he needed, he asked Congress to clothe him with it. He called the powers he invoked "extraordinary powers." And now, sir, on his appeal to Congress for " extraordinary power," based upon the necessities of the times - for the revolution was not a year old - what did Congress grant him ? They gave him power "to raise sixteen battalions of infantry" - "to take property which he needed at a fair price, if he could not buy it" - " to arrest and confine persons ivho should refuse to receive the Continental currency, or were otherwise disaffected to the American cause: and TO RETURN to the States of which such persons were citizens, their names, and the nature of their offenses, together with the witnesses to prove them." These powers were vested by Congress in the Commander-in- Chief for the space of six months, unless sooner revoked by Congress.

I submit, sir, stronger authority against martial law, flowing from the edict of a soldier, could not well be presented : First, he asks for power, because as a military commander he does not possess it ; second, it is given by Congress to him for a limited period ; and it is so given as that a military drum-head court martial should have no authority to try a civilian for actual or supposed offenses. He was to be remanded to the proper State, and the nature of his offense specified, and the witnesses furnished to support the charge. The powers given came, as they ever ought to come, from the " civil authority."

Whatever restraints were, at that period of our history, imposed upon the civil rights of the people, emanated from their Representatives in the Congress. It presents a striking instance of the tenacity with which in that early day - amid the throes of a Revolution in its first year, before the birth of our Constitution, and prior to the written Declarations of Rights, which afterwards constituted the peculiar glory of our American Institutions - they held to the essential principles and safeguards of Liberty, gathered from the bloody experience and wisdom of their British ancestors.

In the case of our present sad history, Congress, a Republican Congress, refused to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, though it had the constitutional power to do so. It wholly failed to give to the military power any authority to restrain the courts in the exercise of their legitimate and constitutional obligations. Congress has never passed such an act since the formation of our present Constitution. It has no power to suspend the writ. All that it can do lawfully is to provide, after the writ issues, what may be a sufficient return, to authorize the court in remanding the prisoner. The suspension of the privilege of the writ does not introduce or establish martial law, nor does it create a Dictatorship. It does confer on the military a larger power over the liberty of the citizen, but it confers neither unlimited nor irresponsible power. It still keeps the military power, as it ever must be, " subordinate to the civil authority." A bill having this scope was before the last Congress, but it failed to become a law.

Again, sir, my colleague has not been able to mend his position by the Rhode Island case, decided by the Supreme Court. Sir, what was that case 1 Was it one involving the question of the legality of martial law emanating from a soldier, high or low, by edict "? There could be no such question, for there was no such law. Rhode Island had no constitution. She was living under a Colonial Charter. The Legislature of that State, acting in virtue of this charter, passed a statute which became the subject of discussion, but not of decision, in the Supreme Court of the United States. The case went off upon the ground, that it presented a conflict of two governments in the same Sta'e, the old government under the charter, and Dorr's government under a Convention of the people. The only decision made by the Supreme Court was, that it had no power or jurisdiction to decide which was the true government. That the political, not the judicial authority of the United States, must determine that question; and that it had been decided by the political power in favor of the old colonial government. As to the discussion of the bar and bench, touching the character or legality of the act of the Legislature, different views were entertained, both as to what the law was, and its conformity to the Constitution. Taney, giving the opinion of the majority of the Court, intimates that it was within the power of the Legislature to pass an act declaring martial law ; at least, that if the Legislature passed an act to that effect, there was no authority in the Supreme Court to pronounce it null and void. It had been sustained by all the Courts of Rhode Island.

Judge Woodbury, in the ablest review of the subject of the military power of this Government which has ever emanated from the Bench, denied that the act of the Legislature did establish martial law, or that such was its purpose. On the contrary, he viewed it as nothing more than the adoption by that body of the general provisions of the code military of the United States, generally known as the Rules and Articles for the Government of the Land Forces of the United States, which, at various times in our history, has been, in the main, adopted by the several States for the regulation of their militia. But, he adds, that if indeed the Legislature of Rhode Island had attempted to establish martial law within the limits of that State, it would be the duty of the United States Supreme Court to pronounce the act null and void, because against the Constitution, and wholly inconsistent with the nature of our American institutions !

I unhesitatingly affirm, that no judicial tribunal in the United States has ever sanctioned the legality or constitutionality of martial law decreed by the military power ; and it will be a dark day for liberty if it shall ever be done.

I regret to find any supporter on this floor of martial law, resting upon the ukase of a soldier, or the fiat of Executive power. It waa said by the gentleman from Clinton (Judge Birch), that Jefferson justified the declaration of martial law at New Orleans, by General Wilkinson, under which, Bollmand and Swartwout were arrested and imprisoned. That is a mistake. Mr. Jefferson never did justify martial law. On the contrary, knowing it to be illegal, in order to cover the transaction, and retain the political offenders in custody, he at once- asked Congress to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. The Senate acthe desired, but the House of Representatives voted down the measure by an overwhelming majority.

Mr. BIRCH. This is what I said : I said that Jefferson either justified or excused it, and I stand on that assertion. I am familiar with the history to which the gentleman refers, and I am alike familiar, and I suppose him to be, with Jefferson's correspondence, in which he excuses or justifies the action of Jackson at New Orleans.

Mr. WRIGHT. I understood the gentleman as quoting Jefferson as authority to justify martial law decreed by military power. There is a wide difference between the justification of an act, and the excuse of it under extenuating circumstances. To justify, is to make lawful; to excuse, is to forgive, and necessarily implies a wrong. If I had been a member of Congress when it was proposed, in 1842, to remit the fine Jackson paid to Judge Hall, I should have voted for refunding money, but no human power could make me justify his acts. He had done a great wrong, under patriotic impulses, and lie had atoned for it, by yielding to the judgment of the Court, whose dignity and constitutional supremacy he had invaded.

Ballman and Swartwout were taken by habeas corpus, before the United States Court, and released by the judgment of that tribunal - John Marshall presiding, on the distinct ground, that their arrest under martial law by order of Wilkinson was unlawful and unconstitutional. It affirmed the doctrine, that, under the Constitution, Congress only could deprive a citizen of the privilege of the great writ of habeas corpus.

In Louallier's case, arrested and court-martialed by Jackson for violating the martial law, lie as a soldier had established - the military court appointed by Jackson, officers of the army, discharged him, on the ground, that martial law could not legally clothe them with the power to try a citizen. The same point was decided by the District Court of the United States, sitting in Louisiana - and the principle was affirmed by the highest judicial tribunal of that State. The same doctrine was announced by Chief Justice Taney, in the Merryman case - so that in every case in which the question has been raised in America, the decisions without exception have denounced the validity of martial law. In South Carolina, forty years ago, the Supreme Court of that State condemned with emphasis martial law as incompatible with constitutional liberty.

It has been said by the gentleman from Clinton (Judge Birch), and perhaps by my colleague (Mr. Hitchcock), that Madison justified the action of Jackson in declaring martial law at New Orleans. This is a strange statement. Have neither of the gentlemen ever read the rebuke given by Madison to Jackson on that occasion ? So soon as the President heard by report of the imprisonment of Hall, and the arrest of Louallier, the former a Judge of the United States, and the latter a member of the Legislature, he caused a letter to be written to Jackson, the most pungent, perhaps, ever issued under his authority, expressing in emphatic terms the astonishment of the President, that such information should ever reach him, touching the conduct of any General in the service of the Government. Madison, like many other good men, from a variety of considerations, the lustre shed upon our arms by the victory, the purity of motive, and the patriotic purpose of Jackson in all he did, pardoned - excused him - but he never gave the weight of his great name, in sanction of martial law decreed by a soldier, as valid, under the Constitution.

An attempt, sir, has been made on this floor to find a sanction of some sort for the martial law now over us, by reference to the act of Congress in 1842, refunding to Jackson the amount of the fine ($1,000) he paid in 1815, assessed by Judge Hall, for contempt. The impression sought to be made here is, that Congress justified the legality of martial law, declared by Jackson at New Orleans. Congress refunded the money paid ; but so far from endorsin r the principle of martial law, thus established - twenty-seven years before - they took special care to do no such thing ; and, hence, I am the more astonished at the statements of my colleague (Mr. Hitchcock), who is painstaking and industrious, and who justly enjoys the reputation of accuracy, presented in a way to give color to the idea, that Congress in that act affirmed his right to declare martial law.

Mr. HITCHCOCK. I beg leave to ask a question, a question of fact - whether the gentleman denies the fact that the bill was introduced and passed in Congress as I stated it ? If he does, I refer him to the 14th Vol. Benton's Abridgment, wherein it is distinctly stated that the friends of the bill refused to have its title changed because they wished it to appear upon its face that the bill was passed, not for the purpose of remunerating General Jackson, but for the purpose of exonerating him from all blame in the declaration of martial law.

Mr. WRIGHT. I do not question the accuracy of your statement so far as you have made it; but my objection is that your statement does not give the history of the transaction, and leaves an erroneous impression in regard to the action of Congress. We know that Congress did not, and could not be induced to sanction his right to declare martial law. While the}r were perfectly willing to return the money from gratitude for distinguished service, and from a just appreciation of the pure and patriotic motives which governed him, they were not ready to sanction a principle subversive of the liberties of the people. Upon the very introduction of the bill, the friends of Jackson were told that the money was nothing, but every caution was necessary in their action to avoid a fatal precedent ; and, to guard their action, the bill was referred to a committee in both Houses.

Mr. HITCHCOCK. I wish to ask the gentleman again, whether my statement of fact is incorrect ; because, if denied, I can convince him to the contrary, and will do so at his earliest convenience.

Mr. WRIGHT. I do not doubt that you state the title of the bill correctly ; but your error lies in the inferential statement and argument, that Congress affirmed and justified the declaration of martial law.

Mr. HITCHCOCK. I do not wish to interrupt the gentleman, but I desire to call to his attention the historical facts. I reaffirm my statement that the bill in question was introduced with the title - "To indemnify Major General Jackson for damages sustained by him in the performance of his official duty"; that the committee reported favorably upon the bill, and Congress adopted it after full debate. It was proposed in the Senate to amend the title, so as to give General Jackson the money simply as an indemnification by way of reward for his services ; but his friends refused all such propositions. They would not, and did not, cont sent that the bill should pass with a differentitle, because, as I said, they did not want him paid for services except upon the ground mentioned in the title of the bill, by a vote of 28 to 20 in the Senate, as I stated in my speech.

Mr. WRIGHT. Again I say, I do not dispute that you have made a literal transcript of the title of the bill ; but you have never given the bill itself. Nor do I dispute that the friends of Jackson refused to put the bill upon the ground of receiving a thousand dollars for services rendered, and preferred the other title. The bill itself contains nothing upon the subject of martial law. No resolution was introduced in either House by the friends of Jackson, asking Congress to declare the validity of martial law, because they knew upon the direct issue the proposition could pass neither body. The whole effort is, by specious and partial statements, to deduce an inferential sanction to a proposition which a full and complete history would refute. While the gentleman endeavors to create the impression that the Congress of 1842 thought martial law in harmony with the Constitution, he has not ventured to say so himself. I ask him whether he, as a lawyer and jurist, will say that martial law, established by military edict, is justifiable.

Mr. WRIGHT. Well, sir, that passes my comprehension. I know of no extraordinary sense in which a thing can be justifiable, which is condemned by all ordinary sense. But, sir, the gentleman says the bill was introduced with the title that constitutes the staple of this preciously specious argument, and referred to a committee, which reported favorably upon it, and in that form it passed. Favorably ! favorable to what? favorable to martial law, or favorable to the refunding of the money ? Does not the gentleman remember the character of the report ? If he does not, let me refresh his memory. Here is the report of the committee, the chairman of which was Senator Pearce of Maryland, which I will read :

" Your committee do not think that the military commander has any rights or duties paramount to the Constitution, from which he derives his commission. If such officers do possess powers above the Constitution and the law of the land, of the extent and application of which they, and they alone, may judge; and if the Constitution and law can not protect the citizen against the exercise of such extraordinary, undefined and undefinable powers, - then is our frame of government a solemn mockery, then are our bills arid declarations of rights idle and unmeaning forms, and the boasted liberty of an American citizen is but an empty sound.

" It would be still more monstrous if, besides suspending the Imbcnn <-ori>nx and detaining a citizen, it should be claimed to try and execute him by martial law, which is not tolerated in En-land, nor in any country except where despotism reigns.

"This doctrine of necessity, which at one time is said to abrogate the Constitution and all law, and at another to justify the invasion of a part of freemen's privileges that the rest may be preserved, has long been known as the tyrant's plea. It is not tolerated in England, no matter what may be the distemper of the times ; and while it is palpably incompatible with the principles of American freedom, it is also directly met and expressly denied by constitutional provisions.

"The country may, in consideration of great services, and upon atonement made, excuse the individual who has violated these principles ; but whenever they yield submissively to the invasion of these rights - whenever they are prepared to admit the tyrant's plea - they are Jit only to be the tyrant's slaves."

Mr. President, that is the mode in which the Congress of 1842 sanctioned and justified the right of a military commander to declare martial law. My colleague says martial law was discussed on the passage of the bill, with its magical title, and after full debate it passed, with the title appended. True ; but how discussed and by whom ? Martial law was discussed and denounced by the discussion. Out of the whole body ot Congress, including both Houses, not five Senators or Representatives ventured to vindicate the right. The report in the other House took similar ground - in favor of refunding the money, but against martial law, Chas J. Ingersoll, then a member of the lower House, was one of the few who rose in justi fication of the right of the General to declare martial law. He is the same gentleman who was afterwards crucified by Webster. Dissatisfied with the action of Congress because it did not justify GeneralJackson, he subsequent ly wrote a pamphlet to supply the vindicatior which Congress refused to make. It is an elaborate essay, in which he assails the Bench of England and America as unreliable enuncia tors of constitutional doctrine upon the subjec of martial law in both countries. To constru* the action of Congress by the ambiguous till of a bill into a justification by them of martia law, in the face of their clear and solemn ac tion to the contrary, would falsify history.

We started, sir, in the Declaration of Inde- >endenec, with a denunciation of martial law, and, until the unhappy inauguration of the >resent Administration, in the whole course of our history no department of our Government executive, legislative, or judicial - has ever

The hammer of the President fell, the hour laving expired, when Mr Wright resumed his seat, expressing the hope that on another occasion he might find an opportunity to continue his reply.

Mr. McFERRAN. I deem this provision, which it is proposed to strike out, important. I hope the Convention will not refuse to give the Governor the power to draft, if it shall be found necessary in order to maintain the Government. It is a matter of the first importance and of the greatest propriety that the Governor should have this power to draft. What is the use of making our Government a plaything in the hands of those who inaugurated this rebellion ?

Mr. McFEHRAN. I hold that if our people refuse to do their duty, they should be compelled to do it j and if the Governor is of opinion that drafting will be necessary, I am willing to give him the authority to draft. I do not expect he will resort to drafting unless it is necessary; and if it is necessary, we shall have no right to know secessionists from Union men. I therefore move the rejection of the amendment.

Mr. FOSTER. There seems to be a difference of opinion in regard to striking out this provision to draft. I look at it in this light : that if we can not get men to enroll in the service voluntarily, it is utterly idle to talk of forcing them to fight against their will. My opinion is, if you want to trammel the action of the people, you can best do it by refusing to adopt this amendment. The people of this State claim to be a loyal people; and I believe they will come out and defend themselves, their wives and children, from Jackson's desperadoes, if an opportunity to do so is offered them. I hope we shall never have to resort to the drafting of secessionists. If the Union men will not take up arms and defend themselves, then I say jet the secessionists rise up and drive them out. GOD save me from all Union men who are willing to keep still and let the contemptible scoundrels under Price and Jackson rise up and shoot them down like dogs ! I do not desire to assist such men. I don't want this resolution to pass, because I don't want the American arms disgraced with drafted secessionists and cowardly Union men. We have got the material in Missouri, and could have brought these trouVes to a close long since, if the Government had only placed arms in the hands of the Union men. Therefore I hope you will not bring dishonor upon our arms by adopting this amendment.

Seventh .D .A. Y.

Mr. ALLEN said, under ordinary circumstances he believed that the bill should contain that provision ; but under the present extraordinary condition of affairs, he was satisfied if the Governor should attempt to draft citizens of this State it would have a bad effect. In addi. tion to this, he was satisfied there was a sufficient number of citizens who would volunteer under the Governor's call, provided they could have the assurance of being armed and equipped.

Mr. LONG said, in explanation of his vote, under ordinary circumstances he was in favor of the policy of drafting, but at present he doubted its efficacy.

Mr. STEWART said he knew the Union sentiment of this State was big enough and earnest enough to volunteer to protect the Constitution of the United States and of this State. He was in the military line himself, and he expected to kill out this heresy of secession. He believed the best way to do it was to put guns in the hands of Union men, and let them cooperate with the General Government. He did not want to have any drafted men under him ; they could not be depended upon.

presumed the Governor might make good selections, yet at the same time he might pick out drunkards and incompetent men ; he was therefore in favor of allowing each regiment to elect its own officers.

Mr. HITCHCOCK said experience had shown that the plan proposed by the gentleman was not a good one. If the gentleman's objection had any force, it was to the effect that the Gov. ernor might select unacceptable officers. He apprehended there was no force in the objection. There was more probability that the Governor would appoint acceptable men than that he would not. This matter had been fully tested at Washington, and it was a fact that the officers who were first chosen by the men were being sifted out, and officers who have been selected appointed in their places. The reason for this was, that the officers selected were more competent. When men select officers, they generally select those who are incompetent for the particular duties of military life ; because those qualifications which recommend a man politically or socially, and render him popular with the masses, are by no means the proper qualifications for a military officer.

Mr. STEWART agreed with the gentleman. They might have drunkards and fools placed in command where the men were allowed to make their own choice. He believed with Bonaparte, that a mistake in war was worse than a crime. He thought drunkards and fools had been placed in responsible positions which they had no right to hold ; and he was for cleaning them out. He would never serve unless he could have a competent man as a commander - a man who had always stood under the old flag.

Mr. WELCH said the loth section, proposed to be stricken out, was the only section which provided for the offices of Major General and Brigadier General. Did the gentleman from Greene propose to have them elected ? and if so, how ?

Mr. ORR said he supposed it would be the duty of the Governor to collect all the forces together, and then they could elect their own officers.

Mr. GANTT said one blow had been stricken at the efficiency of the bill, and if this amendment was passed there would be nothing left for them but to bury it decently. His colleague (Mr. Hitchcock) had spoken truly. Those regiments which enlisted for three months, and were now in for the war, had sought the first thing to get rid of the officers whom they elected. The result of allowing men to elect their officers was to endanger the efficiency and discipline of the soldier.

Mr. SMITH of Linn offered an amendment to the fifteenth section, authorizing the companies of the regiments to elect their Colonel, Lieutenant Colonel and Major, and allowing the Governor to appoint the Major General and Brigadier General. He was in favor of allowing the men to select the three officers named. As a general thing, he thought their selections had been as satisfactory as the appointments.

Mr. PHILLIPS moved to amend the fourth section by inserting the word " lawful," so as to have the provision read "will well and truly execute and obey all lawful orders." Adopted.

Mr. ORR said he did not want to be discourteous, but he was himself cut off yesterday by such a motion. Upon solicitation, however, he withdrew the motion.

Mr. TINDALL offered an amendment to the fifth section, " that any battalion or regiment mustered into the service of the State may, at their option, at any time be mustered into the service of the United States." Adopted.

"And it shall be the duty of the Commander in Chief to authorize some member of the staff department, or some other agent whom he may appoint for the purpose, to proceed to such places in the State as may be necessary, and examine into the expenses incurred in the preliminary assembling and organization of companies, the procurement of arms, the furnishing of supplies, and the necessary expenses incurred in and about the organization of troops under the Governor's proclamation of the 24th of August last. And said agent or officer shall adjust such claims as may be presented to him, allowing such as he may deem just, and rejecting those found to be unjust. He shall report his proceedings to the Governor, who, if he approve the same, shall so certify to the proper officer, who shall cause the claims or accounts so allowed to be paid ; but such preliminary examination shall be unnecessary in any case where the Governor shall have such personal knowledge in respect to any such claim as to justify him in certifying it to the Quartermaster General for payment, as hereinbefore provided."

" A battalion shall consist of not less than two nor more than five companies, and a regiment shall consist of not less than two nor more than three battalions. Each regiment shall have one Colonel, one Lieutenant Colonel, and three Majors."

Mr. MCFERRAN was of the same opinion. The description of service in this State was such that the adoption of this amendment would be of great benefit to it.

Mr. GANTT thought the amendment would only incur an additional expense. He took it for granted that every gentleman must see that the chances of their being able to to defray the expenses out of the State treasury were small; and if they expected to get the expense de frayed by the United States Government, he thought they had best allow the section to stand in its original shape.

Of The State

That in order to facilitate the prompt and regular acknowledgment of such indebtedness as may accrue under the provisions of the ordinance " to provide for the organization and government of the Missouri State Militia," in cases where no money may be at the time available for the payment thereof, the Auditor of Public Accounts shall cause to be prepared warrants in the form hereafter prescribed, with such devices as he may think proper - such warrants to be of the denominations of five, -ten, twenty, fifty, one hundred, and one thousand dollars, making the amount in dollars of each denomination equal, and the whole amount not to exceed one million of dollars - which warrants shall be signed by the Auditor, and countersigned by the Secretary of State, and shall be registered in the offices of the Auditor and Secretary of State. The following shall be the form of said warrants before being filled up: receivable in taxes due the State, and the Bank Stock owned by the State is pledged for its redemption if it shall not be paid in for taxes before the thirty-first day of December, eighteen hundred and sixty-two.

The warrants shall be delivered to such persons as the State may be indebted, whether for services, subsistence, forage, clothing, transportation, or other necessaries furnished according to law to the troops in the service of the State ; and in order that such acknowledgments may be made, the Auditor shall issue to any disbursing officer of the State Militia, upon the order of the Governor, such amounts as may be required for the public service - the warrants so issued having the blank for the name of the payee unfilled, and to be filled by the disbursing officer with the name of the person to whom the State is indebted, and to whom the warrant shall be issued. The officer receiving such warrants from the Auditor shall give his duplicate receipts therefor, one of which shall be filed in the office of the Auditor, and the other in the office of the Secretary of State ; and each disbursing officer shall be charged by the Auditor with the amount of warrants so issued to him, and shall settle with the Auditor therefor by producing legal and valid vouchers for the amount paid out by him, and return the residue to the Auditor - such settlement to be made at the end of each quarter of a year from the first day of January, in the year eighteen hundred and sixty-two. The disbursing officer paying out a warrant to a creditor of the State, shall indorse on such warrant so paid the statement that he issued it, and sign his name with his style of office, as thus - " This

The Treasurer shall receive from each Collector of taxes, upon settlement, such warrants as may have been paid in to him for taxes, and shall give him credit therefor as cash ; and any Sheriff or other Collector of taxes who shall, directly or indirectly, be concerned in the purchase of such warrants at a discount upon their nominal amount shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be fined double the amount of the warrant so purchased.

At the end of each fiscal year, the Secretary of State, Auditor and Treasurer shall together compare the warrants that may have been paid into the treasury for taxes with the register in the offices of the Secretary and Auditor, and if it be found that such warrants are genuine and correspond with the register, and that there is no reason to believe that fraud has been practiced upon the State in relation to such warrants, they shall destroy those thus redeemed ; but if they find that any fraud has been practiced, they shall preserve the warrants which may have been fraudulently issued, altered, counterfeited, or used, to be evidence in any judicial proceeding.

Mr. BRECKINRIDGE here stated that he was informed by the authorities that this Hall would be required for another purpose this evening, and that the Convention would be compelled to vacate it at an early hour.

derstood the reading of the form of the certifi cates, they would be nothing more nor less than bills of credit, and they would override the Constitution of the United States, and would result similarly to the old " loan office ' system, which the gentleman would probably renu'mber.

Mr. BIRCH said it was in no sense a bill of credit - but a mere acknowledgment of indebtedness on the part of the State. He wished to remark tlat this was about the best thing the Committee of Ways and Means could do. They had had several long sessions, and this amendment had been reported by the unanimous concurrence of the committee, with the exception of the gentleman from Cooper, (Mr. Douglass,) who had some constitutional objections to it.

Mr. HENDERSON arose for the purpose of requesting the gentleman to withdraw his amendment. At present, the subject requiring the attention of this body was the passage of the Military Bill, and, at the same time, provide some means for subsisting and equipping an army, which this bill*proposed to raise. He believed it was evident from the remarks made by the gentleman from St. Louis, (Mr. Broadhead,) that if the proposition of the gentleman from Clinton was adopted it would avail nothing. He thought, at any rate, it ought to be withdrawn for the present, as it was out of order. The gentleman could not, as the representative of a committee, offer an amendment. The PRESIDENT decided the amendment out of order.

Mr. FOSTER offered an amendment to section nine, that a battalion shall consist of not less than two nor more than five companies, and shall be entitled to one Major; and a regiment shall consist of not less than eight companies. Rejected.

Mr. HALL of Randolph said he wished to offer an amendment as an additional section. He offered it for the reason that he apprehended the Convention could not retain a quorum long enough to give due consideration to the amendment which Mr. Birch would undoubtedly introduce in the shape of an ordinance. In the event that they found it impossible to act upon the subject, he proposed to offer an amendment which would leave the bill in a shape in which it could be used. The amendment would authorize the Governor to issue certificates to those to whom the State may become indebted, and for the redemption of which certificates the faith and credit of the State should be pledged, and each certificate may be'Ysde'enved oiii'of any funds the Governor in ay reooiv£> /or such purpose, and the ton-il bViit'of such :'cni,: shall not exceed $1,000,000.

Mr. GANTT thought it was not wise for them to encumber the bill with any amendments of this sort. He believed it should be brought up in a separate form.

Mr. HOWELL said he should vote against the bill, because he thought it was a species of legislation into which it was not proper for them to enter.

Mr. SOL. SMITH said he should ask to be excused from voting for the same reason. He remembered that the articles of war attached to Tom Harris' bill met with general condemnation, and he would not take the responsibility of voting for them until he had read them. At the same time he did not wish to raise any captious objection to the measure.

The bill was then passed - ayes 43, noes 8 - Messrs. Howell, Orr, Sayre, Hudgens, Woolfolk, Smith of Linn, Pipkin, and Welch, voting in the negative.

Mr. How, from the Committee on Ways and Means, presented a report to the effect that the committee had been unable to agree upon any measure for postponing the collection of debts and taxes through the State; and asked to be discharged. They also asked to be discharged from the consideration of the resolution concerning the confiscation of property, believing that the act of Congress went far enough on that subject. They also asked to be discharged Tom the consideration of the petition from the 'arious Railroad Companies, as they deemed t inexpedient to enter further into general egislation.

Mr. HOWELL moved that the report be re. committed with instructions to report an ordinance to postpone the collection of the State taxes for the present year.

An Ordinance To Procure Money For The

1. For the purpose of arming and supporting the militia of the State, and Avith a view to protect the lives and property of its citizens, the Governor of the State is hereby authorized and empowered to issue bonds of the State to the amount of one million of dollars, which said bonds shall be dated on the day of their issue, and made payable ten years after the date thereof, bearing interest at the rate of seven per cent, per annum, and with interest coupons attached ; the interest to be paid semiannually, at the Bank of Commerce, in the city of New York, or at such other point as the Governor may deem expedient.

2. Said bonds shall be issued under the seal of the State, in sums of not less than two hundred nor more than five thousand dollars, shall be signed by the Governor, and countersigned by the Secretary of State. The interest coupons shall be signed by the Governor, and attested by the Auditor of Public Accounts, and shall be made payable on the first day of January and the first day of July of each year. The bonds aforesaid shall be made payable to the Auditor of Public Accounts, and by him numbered and registered in his office.

same, upon such terms as he may deem best for the interests of the people of the State. He may hypothecate them, or any amount of them, to individuals, or to the Government of the United States, for moneys advanced, and if the same can not be sold, nor hypothecated upon terms satisfactory to the Governor, he shall solicit the indorsement of said bonds by the proper authorities of the Federal Government previous to their negotiation.

4. All bonds issued under the provisions of this ordinance shall be denominated " UNION DEFENSE BONDS OF MISSOURI;" the faith and credit of the State are hereby pledged to the payment of the principal and interest thereof, and for the purpose of securing the prompt payment of the interest thereon, it is hereby ordained that the Treasurer of the State shall annually set aside the sum of seventy thousand dollars, out of any money coming into the treasury, on account of the revenues of the State.

5. In order to secure the ultimate redemption of the aforesaid bonds, it is hereby ordained and declared that the clerks of the County Courts of the several counties of the State, or the clerks of the tribunals then entrusted with similar duties under the laws of the State at the time, when they prepare a copy of the taxbooks for the years 1870 and 1871, for the use of the collectors of their respective counties, levy, in addition to the tax which shall or may then be levied by the laws of the State, fifteen cents on the hundred dollars of taxable property for each of the years aforesaid, in their respective counties, which said tax shall be kept separate by the Collectors and the Auditor and Treasurer of the State, under the title or head of " Union Defense Fund." During the years 1870-71 there shall be levied and collected upon all licenses granted, a tax of twenty-five per cent, in addition to the amounts prescribed to be collected thereon, by the Legislation of the State at that time, which said license tax shall in like manner be paid into the treasury, to the credit of Sixid fund. And upon the maturity of the bonds, hereinbefore provided for, the Governor and Treasurer of the State shall cause the same to be redeemed out of the fund herein created.

6. The said tax shall be collected in the same manner as may at the time be provided for the collection of the revenue of the State : And the several officers charged with duties in respect to the collection of the general revenue, shall have the same powers and privi-

7. The Governor of the State is hereby authorized to borrow, in addition to the amount named in the first section of this ordinance, and for the purposes aforesaid, the further sum of one million dollars, and to issue bonds to that amount in sums of not less than ten nor more than five hundred dollars, the same to be signed and attested as hereinbefore mentioned, and made payable to the State Auditor, and by him registered and indorsed.

8. Said bonds shall be issued without interest coupons, and shall be divided into four equal divisions of two hundred and fifty thousand dollars each : The first division to become due and payable at the office of the State Treasurer in Jefferson City, on the first day of February, 1863, and to bear interest at the rate of five per cent, per annum from the date thereof; the second division to become due and payable on the first day of February, 1864, at the office of the Treasurer as aforesaid, and to bear interest at the rate of six per cent, per annum from date till paid ; the third division shall become due and payable as aforesaid on the first day of February, 1865, and shall bear interest at seven per cent, per annum from date till paid; ihe fourth division of said bonds shall be made payable as aforesaid on the first day of February, 1866, and shall bear interest at eight per cent, per annum. The first division of said bonds, with the interest thereon, shall be receivable for taxes and other demands due to the State, for the year 1862, or any subsequent year ; the second division shall be receivable in like manner for the year 1863, and thereafter; the third division for the year 1864, and thereafter ; and the fourth division for the year 1865, and thereafter.

9. The several Collectors of the State revenue shall receive the bonds so issued, together with the interest due thereon at the time of receiving the same, for all taxes and revenue due to the State, in the order named in the preceding section. The Collectors shall take receipts on the back of each bond, signed by the party presenting the same, for the amount of the bond and interest due thereon, up to the date of payment; and any Collector who shall be guilty of fraud in stating the amount due as aforesaid on any bond or the date of receipt thereof, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be punished by a fine of not less than one hundred dollars, nor

10. The Treasurer of the State shall»receive from the several Collectors of the State revenue, for the several years herein specified, all bonds so paid by them, and shall credit them with the amount as shown by their receipts. The Treasurer shall keep a separate account of all such bonds so received into the Treasury, and shall report the same to each regular session of the General Assembly.

11. For the purpose of securing the ultimate redemption of the bonds provided to be issued by the 7th section of this ordinance, it is ordained that the stock owned by the State in the Bank of the State of Missouri, is hereby pledged.

Mr. WELCH offered a resolution, that the ordinances changing the time of holding the election and abolishing certain offices, be published in the newspapers throughout the State, under the same rule providing for the publication of the laws passed at Jefferson City in July last.

Mr. MCFERRAN, on leave, changed the title of the bill abolishing certain offices, so as to make it apparent from the title that it offered an amnesty to all those who chose to return to allegiance to the United States.

Mr. MCFERRAN, from the Committee on Civil Offices, reported a bill repealing the bill establishing the St. Louis County Legal Record and Advertiser.

Mr. PHILLIPS said, as one of the committee1 reporting this bill, he wished to say it did not meet with his concurrence. However much he might be opposed to the means by which this paper was brought into existence, however much he might condemn the practice of the Legislature in prostituting the machinery of legislation to the low purpose of propagating treason; he did not think it came within the legitimate object of this Convention to enter into any such special legislation. It would involve'us in interminable difficulties.

AYES - Messrs. Douglass, Gravelly, Hall of Buchanan, Henderson, Hendricks, Howell, Jamison, Johnson, Noell, Pipkin, Pomeroy, Rowland, Sawyer, Shackeiford of St. Louis, Stewart, Tindall, Welch, Woolfolk, Wright, Vanbuskirk, and Mr. President - 22.

Mr. GANTT then offered an amendment to the bill, striking out the second section, which, he remarked, contained the virus of the law. If the second section were stricken out, it would leave parties at liberty to advertise in any paper they chose, and thus destroy the monopoly.

Mr. BIRCH said striking out the second section would abrogate the contract which the State had entered into as much as the repeal of the whole bill.

Mr. GANTT did not think so. There is an agreement in which he proposes to print all sales. Suppose he does ; suppose he says, "I will print whatever anybody else does." But suppose the State declines to give him a monopoly, and leaves him standing exactly upon the same obligation which he does now ?

Mr. WRIGHT said he did not think this a subject worthy the consideration of the Convention. He would suggest this difficultj^ : the bill abrogates a contract which Avas entered into by the Legislature for ten years with Niedner, who proposed to do a certain amount of business for a certain time. If the Legislature had power to make such a contract you cannot get rid of it - the hand of Omnipotence cannot get rid of it. This body has no power to dissolve a contract which you and I have made, and it seems to me when you attempt to strike out the virus of the second section, as the gentleman from St. Louis termed it, you are aiming at an effort to break down a contract which the Legislature had power to make.

Mr. BRECKINRIDGE. I voted against the proposition to lay the bill on the table for two reasons. It occurred to me that if the ordinance were adopted, it needed amendment to give it efficiency; and my rule in such matters as that is, unless I think an ordinance is utterly unworthy a moment's consideration, to give the friends of it, as far as I can, an opportunity to perfect it, and then fairly consider it. I can not, however, vote for this ordinance. I think this bill, which has been made the subject of great discussion in the papers here and throughout the State, and which was passed by the last Legislature, altogether indefensible. I think it should never have been passed. I think it should, at the first proper moment, be repealed. But, sir, after a good deal of careful thought, it seems to me it is not proper for this Convention to undertake to enter the field of legislation any further than the actual condition of affairs, in reference to the vital objects for which it was called into being, requires.

One word as to the report of the committee. Notwithstanding the general distress in the State on account of the present condition of affairs - notwithstanding the difficulty of paying taxes and debts - I think this Convention ought not to interfere ; not because they could not do good by interfering, but because it is not within the province of this Convention. Now, if we were to undertake to repeal one law because it is objectionable, it seems to me I could find half a dozen liable to the same charge - not so odious, perhaps, but very unjust ; and I could make appeals to the Convention, and perhaps convince gentlemen they should be repealed. Let it be understood, however, that I vote against this, not because I think the Convention has no power to pass upon it, for I do ; not because I do not consider this bill a stain upon the statute book, for I do; not because I do not desire to see it repealed, for I do - but because I think, if we adopt this ordinance, we change the rule adopted by this Convention not to enter into special legislation, and in so doing we should be compelled to remain here a long time in legislating upon matters not properly within our province.

Mr. BROADUEAD. I consented reluctantly to the report of this proposition, because I had not had an opportunity to examine it. It was not submitted to the committee for consideration; but when it was presented to me, a few moments ago, as a member of the committee, I consented that it might be reported. Having been brought up so suddenly for the consideration of the Convention, I have only been able to give the law a very hasty examination, and from that examination I doubt whether we have the authority to pass the ordinance, and I can not well see that the amendment remedies the difficulty. The question is whether the act proposed to be abrogated, in addition to being a law, is not also a contract made between the State of Missouri and an individual; if so, we have no power to annul that contract. I know it is an infamous law, and if we are to go into the matter of revising and correcting all the bad laws passed by that most unscrupulous and treasonable Legislature, I should like to see them all blotted from the statute book; but if such action would contravene the provisions of the Constitution of the United States, then we have no power to repeal it. The subject requires a more careful consideration than I have been able to give it.

Mr. FOSTER. In casting my vote, I desire to say this : It is strikingly strange to me to have gentlemen get up on this floor, with whom I have been voting heretofore to abrogate laws passed for the express purpose of taking the State out of the Union, passed for the purpose of promulgating treason through this land. I say it is strikingly strange to me to hear those same gentlemen object to the repeal of the law which my friend has truly designated as a stain upon the statute book - a law that was brought into existence by that same contemptible knownothing Legislature last spring. The Legislature had no right whatever to make any obligation to support a man whose sole object was to spit out his poisonous venom and treasonable language broadcast over the State. And yet men declare they have conscientious scruples about meddling with any such detestable imposition. Now when they attempt to declare that the Legislature had power to pass such a law and make such a contract, I claim that we are a body with more power, and that we have the right to repeal this just as much as we had a right to repeal other laws. I would most cheerfully, and with as clear a conscience as any man coming from North Missouri can have, wipe out all those outrageous measures ; and I think St. Louis should be favored in this respect. When a man publishes treason in the county of St. Louis, and sends it broadcast through the State, I desire to wipe him out ; and I want to meet the traitor, individually or collectively, in .St. Louis or wherever he may be, and visit upon him that condign punishment which he so richly deserves. I have no hesitancy in voting to wipe out this paper which has been publishing treason. I desire to have the paper extinguished, and not to impose upon the loyal citizens of St. Louis the burden of a measure which compels them to support treason, and to support a traitor to his country and to his God.

Mr. GANTT. It is a mistake which I think is excusable, on reading the preamble called the contract, to say that it is made the condition of that proposal that this man shall have the monopoly of the legal publications of this county. I would like any one who assumes this ground to take this preamble and see what obligations it imposes on the State. Whatever these obligations are, we leave them alone. If such obligations are imposed on the State, let Niedner pursue the State and get redress ; but when he imposes on third persons the necessity of giving his sheet alone all these publications, I hold we have the perfect right to repeal such a provision. Now I want to destroy this monopoly which is nowhere hinted at in the proposal ; and in the acceptance of the proposal there is no stipulation that he shall have a monopoly. I do not intend to vote in this Convention for any measure which will impair the obligation of a contract, if I know it; and for that reason I should have voted against the ordinance which my friend from St. Louis introduced respecting deeds of trust. We have no power to do so. The United States Court has decided that no such power exists on the part of the Legislature, and this Convention is no more competent than the Legislature to contravene the principles of the Constitution of the United States ; and nothing of the kind is intended here. The proposal which Niedner makes is accepted ; but when it conies to imposing upon the citizens of St. Louis, by compelling them to publish sales in his paper, it is no part of the contract It is not so declared ; it stands as an independent section ; and I say repeal it.

Mr. HENDERSON. I have not had an opportunity of examining the legal questions presented by the two gentlemen who have preceded me, and therefore, so far as the objection to this proposition is concerned, I cannot speak advisedly. I voted to lay the proposition on the table, not that I did not object to the law - not that I have not said a great deal against the law - not that I did not denounce it upon the floor of this Convention as an iniquity and an outrage, and as part and parcel of the great scheme adopted by the Legislature of Missouri to put the State out of the Union ; I have not only denounced it as such, but shall continue to do so. But if we adopt this measure, it seems to me we ought to adopt a great many others of a local character which I could name. It is unjust and aggressive on the people of this county; but, so far as the object of the Legislature was concerned - that is, of putting the State beyond the power of the Federal Government - that has been fully checkmated. I apprehend that no paper can be published here which will accomplish the view contemplated by the Legislature. If such a thing could be done, I would run the risk of constitutionality, and vote for it.

Mr. MEYER. The people of St. Louis county demand the repeal of this ordinance, because it puts $25,000 or $30,000 in the hands of this publisher, and we are forced to publish our notices in other papers to get them before the public. If we repeal this section, it would enble the people to pay this money into the treasury of St. Louis county.

Mr. GANTT. No ; the idea is that this publication does not inform the public, and the people are subjected to the extra expense of publishing in other papers.

Mr. HENDERSON. I know the bill is an outrage upon the people of this county ; but if we adopt this measure, the people elsewhere may call for the repeal of acts which operate unjustly upon them ; and if we take up this special legislation, we may be compelled to remain here, as a legislative body, for ninety days, to consider acts of this kind. "With this view, opposed as I am to the law, believing it to be an outrage, yet considering that the point made by Mr. Broadhead is a good one, I shall vote no.