Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, we seem to have fallen upon an age of theories. We are told from day to day with much seeming sincerity and an air of the most profound political sagacifiy that the Union when restored must be restore upon a basis which will make it as permanent as the everlasting hills and as in vulnerable as the throne of the Eternal and with such safeguards that even treason will no longer be possible within its jurisdiction. I need not refer to particulars or quote authorities or precedents upon this point to show that I state the case fairly. To attempt to do so speeches made upon this floor during the present session, and the daily editorials of1,000 newspapers, made and published throughout the length and breadth of the land during the same period, and would be only an insi did reiteration of what everybody knows. be people have heard so much upon this subject; they have heard such declarations so often and so confidently made, and by those whom they have confidence will do what they themselves say ought to be done and must be done, that those of them who r love. their country and are devoted to th verulnentare almost ready to believe that the long looked for millennium will be ushered in with the reconstruction of the Union. The only question with them is, how is it to be done? Tenation has been in labor upon this subject for 6 months, until recently relieved by the delivery of the congressional ComReconstruction. All now, except a few copperheads and their sympathizers in the country, throw up their hats and exclaim, “It is done! Eureka!” Now, sir, my mind is not so constituted and has not been so edu cated as to enable me to weave fine spun theo ries or to comprehend the metaphysical affinity between principles which seem to have no connection with each other; and it is for the purpose of stating as briefly and candidly as possible the difficulties under which I am la lioring with reference to the series of measures now under consideration, with a view to havin those difficulties removed by the Gamuliels of the House, at whose feet I so willingly sit, that I have sought this opportunity of addressing you. And as I desire to be as brief as possible, I will enter at once upon a statement of my case. With reference to the disqualifying bill reported by the committee, but which is not now under immediate consideration, I have no dif ficulty; and you may extend the disqualification of the enemies of my country to any extent you please without doing any violence to m feelings. All I ask with reference to this hi 1 is an opportunity to vote upon it. I confess, however, that I do not see that the bill adds anything to the disqualifications which now exist, or disqualifies anyone who is not disqualified by existing laws. No one who ever gave voluntar aid to the rebellion is now permitted to qua ify in any position of trust under the Federal Government without taking the test oath; and of course no one would be permitted to take the test oath and enter upon the discharge of official duties under the Government i it was known at the time that he was committing erjury. Further, should it be objected that the test oath may be decided unconstitutional or that it may be repealed by a majority vote, I reply that the test.oath and this bill stand constitutionally upon exactly similar foundations. But I pass to the consideration of the measure under immediate consideration. Now, air, the prominent idea with me, and with gentlemen who advocate this measure, is to restore the Union upon a basis which will secure the future peace of the country. This idea is inseparably connected in my mind with whatever is denominated a plan of reconstruction or restoration. Now, propose to examine the provisions of this bil and test them severall and as a whole by this rule. This bill reci es an amendment to the Constitution of the U.S. as having been submitted by Congress to the several States for their final action, and provides, in substance at least, that the ratification of this amendment shall be a condition precedent to the right of representation in the 11 States lately constituting the socalled confederate States of America. This amendment contains 4 distinct propositions. The 1st provides that no State shall make any discrimination in civil rights of citizens of the U.S. on account of race, color, or previous condition of slavery. If the term ClVll rights” be construed not to include what is properly understood as “ political rights, " I think this provision just with iin itself, and that it probably includes nothing more than the Constitution originally intended to include. But, sir, we are not called upon to consider this proposition as connected with this bill on its individual merits. That was done when it was under consideration by this House as a constitutional amendment. We are now called upon to consider its bearing upon reconstruction how, under its operation. rebellion and treason will be rendered impossible, or the Government will be made stronger to resist and overcome them. This sir, is the point which is beyond my comprehension, and upon which I desire information. In what way would constitutional equality of “civil rights” prevent the manufacturers of Massachusetts, the distillers of Pennsylvania or elsewhere, or the cotton growers of the South from resisting forcibly the execution of unjust and op ressive laws, or from attempting to estabhsli an independent government, ifin their opinion such government would be more conducive to their best interests than the Federal Government? In a word, what additional security for future peace would be given by this provision, or what additional power would it give to the Government to crush rebellion or punishtreason? Besides, sir, the “civilrights liill, ” which is now a law, and is enforce in Tennessee by Tennessee State officers, covers exactly the same ground 5 this amendment; and yet the Congress which passed this bill refuses to recognize the right of representation in a State which 1 enforces it by its own officers, until the Constitution can be amended in a particular which when accomplished will give to Congress no power which it has not exercised without the amendment. The 2nd proposition in this bill is to base representation upon suffrage instead of gate numbers, as at present. aggre I confess am more doubtful of the merits of this as a distinct proposition than of the other. Taxation and representation are principles the separation 0 which has never licfore been attempted or for a moment cOunteuanced by the American people. Their attempted se oration by the British Parliament recipitate the Amer ican Revolution, and heir union was the one principle upon which our forefathers were unite throughout the bloodiest conflicts and darkest hours of that ever memorable struggle. It is the principle which was submitted to “wager of battle, ” vindicated by the sword, and baptized with the best of patriots blood. Shall we now abandon it on the plea of part expediency only, and for an experiment which 1 has so far been discarded by the wisdom of the world? Suffrage has never in the history of the world been made the basis of representation, at least by any Government which does not itself prescribe the qualifications of elect ors. And, for one, I should hesitate before throwing what I believe would, prove so cor rupting an influence upon the po itloal morals of the country. I am willing, however, that this proposition too should go to the people i for their consideration as an amendment to I the Constitution of the U.S., This proposition, however, and the 1st of which I have s oken, are not of the issues which were invo ved in and decided by the late war. They were as germane, as fundamental principles upon which to erect our political fabric when the Constitution was framed, and [ at any time prior to the war, as now. If they [ are right in our form of government now, they were right then; if they were wrong then, they are wrong now; and there is, in my humble opinion, no propriety in attempting to connect them with the question of the restoration of the Union. How would this provision, if in corporated into the Constitution, deprive the people of any portion of the country of the power to rebel against it, or give to the government any power to crush such rebellion which it does not now possess? The history of the world does not prove that depriving any portion of the people of political rights or of political power ever made them better citizens or more loyal subjects. With reference to the 3rd or disfranchising proposition, I have only to say that I regard it as wholly impracticable, and as calculated, if not intended, to defeat the whole plan for the restoration of the States lately overrun by the rebellion until after the next presidential election. Its effect, whatever its purpose may be, is purely partisan, because in the nature of things it can iiever be ratified, and its ratification is made a condition precedent to resto ration. On this account oulyI voted against the entire proposition as a constitutional amend meat. I am in favor of restoration, and this proposition is opposed to it. That is the simple issue. Gentlemen pretend, and the country, credulous and not given to thorough investigation, but disposed to take things as they appear on their face, believethat this House has voted, by voting for this proposition, to disfranchise rebels. The issue is deceptive, is false. Those occupying the position to which the responsibility attaches have voted to shift that responsibility by submit ting the question of disfranchisoment to the rebels themselves. Sir, what would you think of thcjudge, who, upon the trial of a prisoner for murder, when the jury brought int cir ver dict of “guilty, ” should say to the criminal, “You are convicted by the evidence; the finding of the jury is guilty; the penalty of the law is that you hang 1 by the neck until you are dead; you deserve to hang, but I propose to submit the question of hanging to yourself?” This House, sir, has done as much. If the ComReconstruction found, upon this 6 months investigation, that the governments of the “States lately constitutin the socalled confederate States of America are in the hands of or controlled by the ene mies of the U.S., why did they not say so, and bring in a bill providing for wresting those State governments from the hands of our enemies, and placing them in the hands of our friends, that we might act upon something practical, and that the country might understand what we meant? The committee was organized with instructions to inquire into the condition of those States, and to report the result. of such inquiry to Congress. If this is all they intend to report, they have not discharged the duty which was imposed upon them. My impression is that the troubles by which we find the subject of reconstruction now surrounded do not of necessity result from the appointment of a committee or from the in vestigation. Ordinarily the report of the President, the sworn executive olhcer of the government, should be conclusive upon questions i. involvmg the harmonious relations of the several parts of the Union, the execution of and obedience to the law; but I do not regard such report as necessarily conclusive, and conse qluently the appointment of a committee with this instructions given this one was not, in my opinion, unwise. The present weakly, sickly, puny condition of the c ild is not the necessary consequence of having given it cut to nurse, but of giving it to those who cared not for its life. Upon the merits of the 4th as a distinct proposition I presume we are all agreed, but 10wits adoption is to prevent another rebellion is the point upon which I desire information. I now ask indulgence for a few moments while I explain as briefias possible the difficulties which stand in the way of my support to this bill as a whole. Before, however, entering directly upon this discussion I Wlll just here remark that I do not comprehend how or why the reconstruction or restoration of the States lately overrun by the rebellion involves the necessity of reconstructing the Constittion and Government of the U.S. as the Government of the U.S. overthrown, or were an of its parts or functions destroyed by the rebellion? If not, where or why the necessity of its reconstruction? Did the rebellion expose imperfection or weakness in any of its parts? Or did we, during its existence, feel the need of the exercise of any power which we did not at the same time feel we had the right to exercise? Did we experience during the rebellion that an change in the Constitution, or even in the form of our Government, could make us stronger than we were? Sir, we had the right to use, and did use, all the means which God and nature had given us to preserve the life of the Republic. More men and more money were the on] agencies which could have given us additionai strength, and constitutional ain cuts could not supply these demands, even the success of the rebellon would have proved nothing against the wisdom of the revisions of our constitution, the success of republican institutions, or the strength and permanence of our form of government which it would not have proved equally against that system called the laws of nations, and which we are informed supplanted the Constitution during the war. h uch less does the mere fact of rebellion prove anything againt either, for all the systems of whichwe have any information, from the most arbitrary and unjust on earth to that which was establilshed by eternal wisdom for the government of angels in heaven, have been assailed by organized rebellion. Irreversible guarantees against rebellion ” are a myth a farce, a deception mere clap trap, coined for party purposes the device of demagoguery, and not the dictate of states manship. Security against rebellion is in the administration rather than in the form of government. Place all political power securely in the hands of its friends, andlthen make it, by the manner of its administration, what the Almighty intended civil government to be“a terror to evil doors, and a praise to them that do well” by making the punishment of crime and the reward of virtue swift and certain, and you have the guarantees, and all the guarantees, against the renewal of the conflict ere that the Almighty has in heaven against its renewal there. There are 2 principles involved in the provisions of this bill which I desire to notice. irst, that the approval of 3/4ths of the States now represented in Congress is sufficient to ratify the constitutional amendment. And 2nd, that the ratification of the constitutional amendment recited in this bill shall be a condition recedent to the right of representation in the States now unrepresented in congress. These principles are necessarily based upon the presumption that these are not now States of the American Union. If this presumption be true, I ask gentlemen when and by what not the ceased to be States? Was it by the act of rebellion? That I admit was the design of the rebellion; but the rebellion failed in its purposes. Was it by the formal act or ordinance of secession? To state this proposition is now to answer it. Am I told that the recognition of belligerent rights b the law of nations severed the connection That the law of nations prevailed during the war and must prevail during the settlement growin out of it? I admit that the U.S. ad the right to, and did, exercise and accord belligerent rights during the war to any extent justified either by policy or the dictates of humanity; but in so doing they never for a moment surrendered the rights of the sovereign; and that upon the submission of those in rebellion to toConstitution and laws the right to the exercise of belligerent powers under the law of nations ceased. sovereignty alone prevailed had trium hed; the constitution and municipal law of the land attached, and the treatment to be accorded the offenders must be under the provisions of and in accordance with these. instead of the law of nations, administered by the U.S. as sovereign and not as bel ligerent. Who, until at the present time, ever heard of a sovereign Power governing in time of peace any portion of its subjects as belligerents under the law of nations? Oh, what tools the wise men of past generations have been! How they must have desired to see the things that we see, to hear the things that we hear, to know the things that we know! How hard to die without sceing, hearing, and knowing them! Sir, I assert, without fear of overreaching the principles of law governing the case, that loya citizens, by being for a time overpowered by the rebellion, have lost none of the rights which attach or ever attached to them by Virtue of the Constitution of the U.S.; and that consequently when they restore their State governments in harmony with that of the U.S., they are entitled to exercise all the functions of a State, and to all the rights of a State in the Union. I say the “loyal citizens, ” for I believe the disloyal are entitled under the Constitution to no right except the right to he hung. When, however, an amnesty or pardon for past offenses is granted, the party having received it may then appeal for protection, and as of right in all matters affected or reached by such amnesty or pardon, to that law which, had it been enforced against him, might have demanded even his life. The law against which he had offended and by which he was condemned, which, while under condcmnation, only thundered its anatheinas against him, has, upon pardon and reconciliation, be come. his friend and the advocate of his rights which attach by virtue of such pardon. Now, in what do these rights consist? Do they consist solely of what we term “civil rights, ” or do they include “political rights” also? My own impression is that they include just what the sovereign granting the pardon may elect to have them include, nothing more, nothing less. And that if it is not yet safe to trust political power in the hands of the reconstructed, it should simply be withheld from them, and that those only who have been continuously loyal should be permitted to exercise it. The committee, however, has failed to give us any information as to whether those State organizations are in the hands of the friends or the enemies of the Federal Government, or whether those recently in rebellion, but who have been pardoned, may yet be safelyinvested with “political rights." Where is the protection or encouragement they prouse for the Union men of the South? Where, where are the recommendations of this committee upon the most vital question of the day, or invo ved in all the issues new upon us the reward and encouragement of loyalt in the section lately OVerrun by rebellion i cho answers, where! Gentlemen have labored hard to prove that, the loyal arcvin like condemnation with the disloyal, because they were within rebel lines during the war that all are “ alien enemies " together; that the law of nations justifies us in treating them as such, and that we can make no discrimination between them. Let us see how this is. Allegiance and protection are reciprocal duties, binding. the one upon the citizen, the other upon the Government; and in separably connected with the faithful observance of all the obligations of allegiance are all therights which attach by virtue of Citizenship. Now, when do these mutual obligations cease? Vattel, page 06, says: fThenaturul subjectsofa prince arehound to him Withoutan other reservethan the fundauiental laws; it is their my to remain faithful to him, as it is his, on the other hand to take careto govern themwell. Both partieshavebut one common interest; the people and the prince to other constitute but one complate whole, oneand the same society. It is, then.an essentialand necessary condition of political society that the subjectsremain united to their prince asfar asin their power." Am I told that the late civilWar dissevered all these bonds and relieved both parties from the observance of those reciproca obligations and duties? Chitty, in his note to Viittel, page 97, says: “No individual can shake off his natural allegiance luuntetilly the part of country where he residesis abso conqueredand the parent State has acknowledged the severance.” And in his Treatise on Commercial Law, page 129, he elaborates the same doctrine; and I assert, without fear of successful contradiction, that all the authorities on public law, where they touch upon this doctrine, confirm it. The questions, how the subjects of a government who have been envaged in an unsuccessful rebellion may be Treated, and how loyal citizens residing within the rebellious districts should be regarded, have never been considered questions egitimately belonging to the Dept of international law; because, as subjects and citizens they are the objects of 1 the local municipal regulations and laws of the country; the law of nations ceases to operate so soon as the state of war ceases to exist; and when we look to works of international law for authorities or precedents upon these points, we become bewddered because we are traveling out of the record. I have, however, some authorities which, though not hearing directlyupou these points, go beyond and cover them. These authorities presuppose necessarily, because wise men who have written upon these subjccts never dreamed of the application of the principles of international law to a country subsequent to the overthrow of an unsuccessful rebellion. These authorities, then, presuppose the success of the rebellion and the permanent partition of the country“ In the case of Respublica as. Samuel Chap man, 1 Dallas, page 56, the court held that“ None aresubjectsof the adopted government who have not freely assented thereto." And in the case of Kelly rs. Harrison, 2 Johnsons Cases, page 29, the court held that " The division of an empireworks no forfeiture of a right previouslyacquired, and as a consequenceof it all the citizens oft 0 prior U.S.whowereborn to our independence, and under the allegiance of the King of GreatBritain, would bestill entitled in GreatBritain to the rights of British subjects.” This very language has been reaflirmed by the SCOTUS; and all these principles here contended for are as old as the law and areof universal acceptance, except with the new school of authorities, who have not yet published their works. Does, then, the obligation of impartial jus tice on the part of the Government toward the subject or citizen ccasc, while that of fcalty on his part remains; or does the obligation of fealty attach without carrying with it all the rights and privileges of citizenship? No, they both cease at one and the same time, the same instant, when the Government acknowledges. its inability to extend its protection to him, and not until then. exercise and according of belligerent rights during the late civilWar actually amounted, in contemplation of public law, to an acknowl edgment of the severance by the U.S.? If so, then all, loyal and disloyal, “without distinction of race, color, or previous conditionof slavery, ” within the limits of the late rebellion, are now aliens, foreigners, not citizens of the U.S.; and you have no more right, except as might makes right, to extend over them the provisions of your municipal law for the collection of taxes, and for ot or purposes, than you have to extend them over the people of Mexico, China, or the Russian But am I told that the empire. And why is Jeff. Davis today a state prisoner if you can deal with him only in accordance with the law of nations? The U.S., sir, by the result of the late war, have acquired no right by conquest which does not legitimately belong to them as sovereign. It was simply a reassertion and triumphant vindication of their disputed sovereignty. The application of the law of nations works an extension or enlargement rather than a forfeiture or limitation of the rights of revolted subjects during the revolt, but all the rights and reme dies of the sovereign, and all the pains and penalties which the law denounces against the offenders, an enlargement of power in the Government, and an abridgment of the rights of the offender, attach immediately upon the vindication of the national integrity. I know that I am now trenching upon the doctrines of the distinguished Gentfrom Pennsylvania, [Mr. STEVEXS] and I desire information from him upon the point I now make. Admit, for sake of argument, that all within the lines of the late rebellion were and, are “alien enemies.” B whatprinciple or upon what authority would you do nc the lim its of the late rebellion with sufficient certainty to ascertain who are “alien enemies?” When and by whom were they so defined? Was it by the President in his proclamation of August 16, 1861? The Government of GreatBritain accorded “belligerent rights” to the rebels, by pfoclamation of the Queen, on the 13th day of ay, 1861. The right to the exercise of “ bel ligerent rights” by teU.S. has been recognized by the Supreme Court from the 15th day of Ma, 1861, an the President frequently changed the limits by proclamations of different dates, and on April 2, 1866, declared it without form and void without “ a local habitation or a name.” As I remarked in this House, on the 8th day of January last, “the rebellion was never bounded by State lines, but its authority was extended wherever its ower could carry it.” The Supreme Court of the U.S., upon this pomt, (2 Black, page 673, the decision bein made during the existence of the rebellious say: “It has a boundary marked by lines of bayonets and which can becrossedonly byforce: south of this line is encmysterritory, beenuscitiscluimedandheld in possession by an organized, hostile, and belligerent power. Now, who can define any fixed limits to the rebellion? Today that “ line of bayonctsH is at Gettysburg, and all “south of that line is enemys territory, because it is held by an organized hostile and belligerent power, ” tomorrow that line is at Richmond, and then all between Gettysburg and Richmond is not enemys territory, because it is not held by the enemy. Today that “line of bayonets” bears hard upon Louisville, and “ all south is enemys territory, " tomorrow that line is at Chatta nooga, Atlanta, Savannah, Columbia, Raleigh! To ay that line is at Jefferson City; tomor morrow at Little Rock, at Shreve ort, at Gal veston, at the Rio Grands now ere! Now, who, I ask, ever has defined or ever shall or can define the limits of the rebellion, so as to determine that all were enemies within certain fixed geographical limits? How long occupancy by the enemy and peaceable acquies cence by the inhabitants, does it require to convert the citizen into a “ public enemy” a day, a month, or a year? trust the Gentfrom Pennsylvania never got south of that “ line of bayonets, ” and thus became an “alien enemy, ” though it strikes nicI have heard that the "line of bayonets” was at some time extended north of some of his property, which must now be liable to seizure by the Government as “ enemys property, ” because it was within “ enemys territory, " “claimed and held in possession by an organized, hostile, and belligerent power.” What, air, is the legitimate bearing of this doctrine upon the fundamental principles of our Government? This bill, sir, contains on its face, though somewhat veiled, and is so interpreted by its author, thpm strous doctrine the enormity of which I ha been eu deavoring to expose. Recognize this doctrine as a principle in our Government and rebellion will ccase to be an individual crime and treason will be impossible, because the instant you engage in them you become an “alien enemy, ” entitled to “belligerent rights, ” and can be dealt with only in accordance with the law of nations as a “public enemy.” In this way, sir, I admit that the committee has found the great panacea for all our troubles the rent and “ irreversible guarantee against rebellion and treason” by legalizing them. Wonderful discovery! Yet how plain, how simple I How is Columbus outstripped in teaching his "wondering admirers how to set an egg on endl The invention all admire and each, how He to be the inventor missed; so easy it seems. Onctchfoouugnhdt, which, yet unfound, mostwould have Impossible.” What, think you, would our revolutionary fathers, who said that levying war against the U.S. was treason to be punished by the municipal law, think if they should rise from their graves to find what fools they are discovered to have been? “Angels and ministers of gracc, ” spirits of Washington, Jefferson, Madison, an Hamilton, “ defcnd us” from such heresy! I, sir, am neither misrepresenting the principles of this bill nor placing a false construction upon this doctrine. It is the one leading idea which has been persistently pressed by the Gentfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. STEVENS] in cennection with every measure which has been introduced looking to a restoration of the Union. It is the construction which he gives to this bill, of which he himself is the author. It is the principle further presented by him in the following section of the bill offered by him to the House on yesterday: SEC. 6. All personswho held officc. either civil or military. under the governmentealled the “confed crate States of America, " or who swore allegiance i to sn idgovernment, are hereby declared to have forfeited their cilizenship and to have renounced their allegiance to the U.S.s, and shall not be entitled to exercise the elective franchise until 5 yearsafter theyshall have filed their intention or desire to be reinvestedyvith the richtpf citizen; ship, and shall swearallegianceto the U.S. renounce allegianceto all other governmentsor pretended governments, the said application to be filed and oath taken in the same courts that are authorized by law to naturalize forciguers. “Forfeited their citizenship, ” not citizens, then aliens. Citizens only can be punished for treason. Jeff. Davis “ hold office under and swore allegiance to the socalled confederate States of America, ” hence Jeff. Davis is an alien, and hence he cannot be tried and punished for treason against the U.S. ctDus ausc, sir, before we make this leap. Sir, this is a subject which deserves the most careful and serious consideration of this congress and of the country. It is a subject which should be approached and considered by all in no party spirit, but in the spirit of true and unbiased statesmanship and patriotism, and with a view to its bearing upon generations millions of American citizens yet unborn, and upon the future prosperity, security, and l happiness of our entire common country. I have examined the plan (if lan it may be, called) of reconstruction sulgmitted by the committee, with a mind, I think, divested of prejudice and with the permanent welfare of my country only in view, and I am unable to, give the plan m an port, believing, for the ireasons stated, that if adopted it would be productive of more evil than good. It is probably not my place to suggest or offer any plan further than has been indicated in the remarks I have made in opposition to the one proposed. I am prepared, however, to support an plan | which promises a restoration of the nion, upon prnici lcs which promise security to the l country an do justice to the downtrodden and long overrun loyalists of the South, and which do not render treason impossible by simply legalizing it. I could even support this bill, not, however, as an ultimatum, if this monstrous doctrine was expunged from it; for though I would not make the reconstruction of the Government of the U.S. a condition for the restoration of the Union, I would be willing for restoration to take place either with or without the other conditions contained in this bill, the essentials of loyalty, properly orglanized constituency, &c., being complied wit. If the State governments, organized under the auspices of the President, are to be accepted as legitimate and which is necessarily to be inferred from the action of the committee, because they do not, after 6 months investigation, propose any change then let us say so, and ct the country so understand it. If they are not to be accepted as legitimate, then let the committee recommend what changes shall be made and how, and I venture it will be done. A stroke of his pen and a crack of his whip by the honorable Gentfrom Pennsylvania, the chairman of the committee, are all that would be needed. If political power is in the hands of those who should not be its custodiansflet us wrest it from them. If disloyalty to the U.S. is made honorable and loyalt made odious, let us reverse the order of tings, and let us meet the issue fairly, and do it without any indirection, that the country and the world may know what we intend and why we intend it. If we have to appeal to the law of necessity to accomplish our purposes, let us do it. If those purposes are egitimate, are necessary for our present peace and future security and happiness, the country and the world will approve and justify it. I need not tell you, sir, that it is time congress had a practicable policy before the country. The eyes of the world are on us, and the historian pauses with ink dipped en. What shall he write that the virtue, intelligence, and patriotism of the American people have triumphed, or that a great people, powerful in war, united by disaster, have failed in the hour of triumph, have proved themselves incapable of securing the blessings and reaping the fruits of victory. Heaven save my country!