Mr. LAWRENCE, of Ohio. I would not consume the time of the House upon a subject to which our attention has been invited by the President in his message but for the fact that as yet it has received no consideration at our hands. Whatever of law may be necessary to enable the courts to perform their appropriate functions in civil and ) criminal cases, and whatever of Congressional action may be requisite to bring mihtary offenders to justice, it is the duty of Congress in the constitutional forms to provide. I propose now, as briefly as I can, to vindicate the policy of the Government in relation to the trio and punishment oftraitors, so that “ with malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, ” thenation, in the exercise of clemency, may yet demonstrate its power and its purpose to do justice. Thatpolioy wasindorsed yresolutions I had the honor tointmdnce on the 20th of December, and is in brief this: that some of the great cons iirators who inaugurated the rebellion, and oi those most conspicuous in conducting hostilities, should be tried in the civil courts for treason and be punished; but that military offenders, as those who assassinated military Officers on duty, and those guilty of the murder and starvation of Union prisoners of war, should be tried and punished by military tribunals. (AttyGens Letter, Jan uary 4.) I had not proposed to discuss this policy until I foundit assailedin a dignified law llook, and by traitors and their sympathizorl everywhere. THE NATION DEMANDS JUSTICE. Governor linirchild, of Wisconsin, uttered the loyal sentiment of the nation when, in his inaugural of January 1, he said: “The verdict of the American people is that any attempt to right fanciedor real grievances arms is lorecof trcu. mn. lh c ask, as they have n right to ask, that the highest mdicial tnbunalin the land shall give expression to that verdict. by atnnl upon therhurgeof that high crime. in accordanceWith law, of the chief representativeof the rebellion thinman who stood before the world “the acknowledgedlendoroftrnlters. “l ot untll JeffersonDavis shall have beenlllcll, convicted, and banned for treason, and the fact that treasonis acrime which cannot be committed with impunitv shull havethus beentulldemonstruted. will the Americnn people becontent.” lhA mi erican people have demonstrated that the Union is one and indivrsible: thatits people, of whatever race or color shall be forever free.” 4 OBJECTIONS TO TBYING TRAITORS conSIDERED. The right to try, condemn, and execute the great conspirators has been denied, on the al eged authority of international and constitutional law, on these grounds: 1. That State secession is constitution al, and therefore the “levying of war” in its support is not treason. 2. That the rebellion was supported at least by ndefaclo government, to which i we conceded belligerent rights, and therefore traitors are exompt from punishment. 8. That t 10 constitution declares that trear son shall be tried “ in the State where the crime shall have been committed, ” and there is not now any “ State” legally existin in any of the country lately in rebellion, an therefore no civil court can be held and finally, it is said: 4. That it is impracticable to procure a cometent jur for 9. civil trial, but that Davis at cost should be tried and sentenced by a rail itary tribunal. The allotted time will not permit a full discussion of all these topics, nor is it necessary SECESSION UNCONSTITUTIONAL. I will not argue the constitutional right of secession, for it is denied by all loyal men. If such right exist, the war on our part has been a stupendous crime against the constitution and against humanity. Our whole history is full of the evidence and argument which disproves it, and to that I appeal. The verdict of war, ” sanctified with the blood ofhalfa million slain, ” has forever settled the question that there is no such constitutional right, and no other earthly tribunal can reverse or impair it. SOVEREIGN and BELLIGEREKT RIGHTSREBELlion PUNIBHADLE AB TREASON. But can this nation exercise sovereign as well as belligerent rights over rebels? In other words, do the belligerent rights conceded to rebels protect them from punishment in the civil courts? The Gentfrom Illinois, [Mr. Fanss wouru] during the discussion on the 2la of December, made the inquiry: “I wouldlikc to ask the Gentfrom NewYork whether he is entirely sure we have the right to try JeffersonDavis for treason, inasmuch as our Government hiis given to them belligerent right", has recognizedand respected the commissionsthat he has issued?" This question must he answered in the affirm ative upon 2 grounds: 1st, that treason was committed before belligerent rights had been acquired; and, 2nd, that subsequent acts of treason are not by the law of nations exempt from civil punishment. The voluntary “levying of war against the U.S. by one owing them allegiance, either perpetno or temporary is treason. (Unitct tntoson. Wiltbeiyur. 5 Wheaten. 107.) That traitors did thus "levy war" is not denied. That they, citizens. did own allegiance at the inception of the war and before any belligerent rights had been conceded is equally certain, and for that original “levying war” there is no shadow of defense. An act crim inal when committed cannot become innocent by additional crime, (23 Law Register, Boston, 697; 2 Bishops Criminal Law, 1204.) I may admit that belligerent rights were conceded to the soealled “confederate States, ” (2 Black, 635) and that the constitution recognizes the law of nations as a part of the law of the land, (AttyGens opinion, July, 1865.) But as secession was unauthorized, the rebellion was not supported by a Government de fare. I might admit, what our nation denies, that the rebellion was supported by a de facto confederate Government; that insurrection had risen into rebellion, and this into civilWar, yet all this does not, upo n reason or authority, remove the penalties of treason. This is allirmed by the elementary writers on international and criminal law and the highest judicial decisions. Belle, whose work is cited with approval in the recent edition of Wheaton on International Law, says: "Whenasoveroign hascongueredtheparty opposed to him [in a civilWar] an oblised it to demand peace, it is customaryto concede to it a general am nesiy, exceptinufrom it the authorsand c hemay icfs. whom finish according to the laws. "Prmcipuu do Derec Internacionw, cup. x, page237. Vattel says: “When the sovereign has subdued the opposite party and reduced them to submit, and to sue for peace, he may exceptfrom the amnestythe authors of the disturbancesthoheadsof the party; he may brinK them to a legal trial and punish them if they be frigid guilty.” Vallel, Droit da Gm, liv. 3, ch. 18; soc. In Lawrences Wheaten on International Law, it is said in a note to page 622. “A civilWar is whcnapiirty arisesin astate, which no longer obeys the sovereign, and is suflicicntly strong to makc head againsthim or when in are public the notion is divided into 2 opposite factions and both sidestake up arms.” “CivilWar breaks the bondsof society and of the Government; it xives rise in a nation to 2 in dependent parties who acknowledge no common judge.” "When the sovereign conquers the opposite party and obliges it to demandpeacc. hcmayoxccpttroin the amnesty, the authors of tbe troubles, the chiefs of the party cause them to be judgedaccording to the laws, and punish them if found guilty.” Bishop, in one of the ablest of all the works on criminal law, says:.” It is competent for the President, who is military both head and chief Execntiveof the civilDept, to order n rebelcaptured in war to be tried by the Judiciary. either during tcprogress of active hostilities or alter they have terminated in the subinflation of the rebel power.”Sec. 1222. On the trial of the Savannah irates in the southern district of NewYork, Ne son, J., with Shipman, J. concurring, said: “It is claimed that the confederate States is a government at least defacto, and entitled to the rights and privileges that belong to asovereiqn and independentnation. " [his defense invdlves considerations that do not belong to the courts, questionswhich belong to the legislative and executive Depts; and when decided by them the courtsfollow the decision; and until these depts. have recognized the pxistencoof the new government. the courts aroplgliired to regard thomicient state of things as remaining unchanged. "WarburtonaTrial, 37 In the prize cases, Mr. Justice Grier says: “When the party in rebellion occupy and hold in t: hostile manner nce rtain portion of territory, the sovereignparty treats them as insurgents, and rebelswho owe allegiance and should be punished with death for their treason. "2 Black. 667. U.S. SupremeCourt and again the court say: “Now it is approposition never doubtedthat the belilizerent party who claims to be ciseboth sovereignmay exer belligerent and sovereiizn rights. "4 Crunch, 272ConqrcuwnalGlobe, Thir!beucn"lmh onumen mt! reunion. part 3. p. 2189bitty 19, 1862: Rose vs. llmmlv. 4 Ornvwh2. 72. Man I, J., (7. J., and Limsion, Zifis Chemo“vs. Foul0t, 3131mm IL, 252 plona irlileanI)iIuICnIeN, lliybi. N are and Prize 212;Groliiu, ds.)urebelli 1, cap. 3. IN. I: Ra: vs. Gordon 1, P. (I 70; Ifcnpublicnvs. Mount”. 2 Do”. as u“. M (b. 1564; l urine. 0r. L. 50. 1 1 I am Cr. L. 627673. In England “the statute of 11 Henry VH, A. D. 1494, cap. 1, in effect declared that allegiance to a kin defacto in exclusive possession protects the subject from future question. (2 English Statutes at Luge, 82; Hale, P. C., 104; 4 Stephens Blackstone, 221; Rowland, Manual English Const., 162; Lawrences Wheaten, 525, note.) But the belligerent and defacto rights of Cromwell s Government did not protect his officers from punishment for treason against the ral Government. eCharles I was executed on the 30th of January 1648, for treason under a judicial sentence and warrant of Cromwells judges. When Crom wellls Government, in the person of his succes sor, was overthrown and harles H succeeded to the throne, Thomas Harrison and others of the judges who had signed the deathwarrant of Charles I were indicted, tried, and executed by the sentence of a civil tribunal. Harrison interused as a defense the authority of Crom wel)s Parliament, of a defacto Government, of belligerent rights. On the 11th of October, 1660, on trial he said “I say what wasdonewasdoneby the authority of the Parliament which was then thesuprciuoauthority, and that those that have acted under themare not to bequestionedby any powerless than thoui. hat, therefore, any did in obedience to that power and authority they are not to be ques tinned for it; otherwise we are in a most miserable condition. bound to obey theinetiiiht are in authority, and yet to be punished if obey. The Lord Chief Baron, overruling the defense, said: “For the House of Commons to dosuch an act. it was void in itself: nay, any authority Without House of Lords and King is void.” Lords, "ling and commons is the Groundof theEnglishlaw; without that no act of Parliament binds. "Trml of theReuictda, 5055; 5 Humes11slow England. This subject did not escape the wise scrutiny of the framers of our own Constitution. Anx ious as they were to define and limit treason, they were unwilling that the plea of “ belligerent rights” or 0t “adefacto Government” should remove its penalties. My colleague, [Mr. SPALDING] distiu uished as a statesman and jurist; has reminde us that in the Convention which framed the constitution n proviso was offered to the 3rd section of the 3rd article in these words: “Provided. That no not or actsdone by oneormeroof the States againsttheU. S or by any citizen of anyone of the U. S. mnderthenut tiority of oncormorcof the said States shall bedeemertrca sonor punished assuch; butinciiso of warbein evied byone or more ot the States againstthe U.S. the conduct oteach rlin toward the other. one hoii" ndherents respective y, shall bercgulated by the laws of war and c nations. But Luther Martin, in his report to the Maryland Legislature, said: “This provision was not adopted, and the consequence is, that the State and everyone of its citizens who actsunder its authority (in makingwsr upon the Government of the nation) are guilty of a direct not of treason. ”ElltotaDebates, vol. 1. Page 382. All who voluntarily engage, then, in a civilWar, and who may not be included in amnesty or pardon, are liable to suffer the penalties of treason by ClVll sentence. NATIONAL COURTSMAY BE HELD IN REBEL STATES. I pass on to consider the objection that there is no legally exrstin “State” in which civil trials can be had. e have high authority for saying that Davis may be trie in Ohio, Kentuck, Maryland, and Pennsylvania, in all which he levied war. An able elementary writer has summed up, as the result of the authorities, the law in these words: “That when war is actually levied by an assemblage of men, in a posture of war for n tronsonable object, anyone who, boingleaguedin the General conspiracy. performs any overt act constitutin apart in such fact of loving war. however remote rain the scene of action or however minute that art is guilty as a principal traitor.”Burra Trial a: (bombs. 357; and see Senator Howards Speech, February 1, 1866. But if it be assumed that he can only be tried in Virginia, and that this State is without a legal State government, and that a de facto government is not to be recognized, all of which admits of discussion, the national courts may still exercise jurisdiction, for the geographical State alone is necessary for that purpose: They have been exercising unquestionc Jurisdiction in more than one of the rebel States. It is monstrous to assert that traitors can escape the penalty of treason by overturning a o State government, by prefacing one crime with another. Trials for treason may be had in Virginia, because it is the eogra ical State only which the constitution deman sa question of venue merely. “Its object, says Judge Story, Is to securethe party accused from being dragged to a trial in somedistant State awayfrom his friends and witnesses. "2 Story. Conatilution, 1799; 2 Elliots ebates. 399. As it is the duty of Congress to provide all necessary laws, we must inquire whether trea son may be tried by civil or military tribunals, or all go unpunished. NOT TRIABLE BY MILITATY TRIBUNAL MILITARY OFFENSES MAY HE. Mr. Bishop very strangely demands what the law does not permit after flagrant war has ceased, and after a surrender of all the rebel for“ces. He says: If. their. a leading rebelis to be pxecuted, [merely as a conspirntOr] the highest expediency, even almost the law itself, demands thn the should not be sent to the judicial tribunals for his sentence. but that this shall be pronounced amiliturytribunal. "2 Grim mal Law, note, sec. edition 1865. The AttyGen states the law differ ently: “That the laws of wnr, "says he.” authorized commander stop restoand establish iniliturycommissions, courts, or tribunals for the trial ofoilenders against tho laws of wnr. whether they be active or secret artiei pants in thohostilitics. cannot be(ltllltil.” pimo July. 1865. See Ereculice DocumentNo. 5. Send!, 3A nth congressfi, rst scutou and he adds: “It must be constantlyborncin mind that such tribunals cannot csist exceptin time of W11r, iln(clannot then take cognizance ct oficndors or alienseswhere the civil courtsareopen. except offenderasndoffenses agains the laws of war;” which conspiracy and treason are not. But the war, in legal contemplation, begins and does not end until so declared by one or both of the political (not the judicial) Depts of the Government, The distinguished Gentfrom NewYork [Mr. Itsvuosn] in describing the “period when war is not raging but is not yet ended" has deScribed it as the period recognized by courts as “non flagrante sod nondum cessa e hello.” (Cross vs. Harrison, 16 How. 194; Block, Mr. 667; 25 Wend. 483; Letter of AttyGen to President, January 4, It 1866.) was upon the authority of this opinion, of July, 1865, that the assassins of president Lincoln, and the infamous Wirz, were tried by military tribunal; the latter for the starvation and murder of Union prisoners of war; and the pirate Semmes, and others are now under arrest for trial; in like manner all offenders against the laws of warhostes humani generis. The military jurisdiction is clear. Referring to Mary, Queen of Scots, Ward, in his Law of Nations, says: "In the caseof a prisoner of war detained always in prison and nssentingto an act against the life of his conqueror, the true manner of proceedinizazaiiist him would be in the summary way of martial law. without having recourseto the municipal courts of the country. ”Vol. 2. p. 35"); 25Wand. 433;lllill. 377. The President in his proclamation of May 2, 1865, informs us that " It apears from evidence in the Bureau of Military Jus ice that the atrocious murder of the late President Lincoln was incited and procured by JeffersonDavis, Clement C. Clay, and other rebels and traitors.” That some of the eat rebels did know of and sanction the deli crate murder and starvation of Union prisoners of war cannot be doubted. If these shall not be hung for treason, for one I would say let them receive justice at the hands of a military tribunal for these offenses against the laws o war. But treason cannot be tried in a military tribunal it must be tried in the civil courts, or escape all judicial condemnation and punishment. The AttyGen says: “Ihave ever thought that trials for high treason cannot be had beforea military tribunal. The civil courts have alone jurisdiction of that crimo. "Opin ton. January 4. Nor can a military tribunal try and condemn a great traitor more y as the leader of a great 1866. rebellion. That would be to take military jurisdiction of treason under another name, unwar ranted by enlightened precedent, contrary to the laws of nations, and revolting to the judicial and legal mind of the world. POSITION on TRAITORS. For one Iindorse what the President says in his message on the subject of treason, that “Persons who are charged with its commission should have fair and impartial trials in the highest civil tribunals of the country.” and I am prepared to sanction all just legislation to accomplish it. Whoever repudiates this policy consents that treason shall escape all punishment. This Wlll find a ready sanction and resonse in the sentiments and sympathies of rebe s and of our enemies abroad; but of suIch I am not. indorse instead the AttyGen, who says: "I think that it is the plain duty of the President to cause criminal prosecutionsto be instituted beloro the proper[ClvllL tribunals and at all proper times againstsome oft osewho were mainly instrumental in inaugurating, and most conspicuous in conducting, the late hostilities. I should regard itas adiro fu calamity ifmany whom the sword has s ared the lawshouldsparealso. ”Lclicrlo President, ammry 4. The resolutions under consideration assign these reasons in favor of a civil trial: “In order that the constitution and the laws may be fully vindicated, the truth clearly established and amrmed that treasonis a crime, that traitors should be punished, and the oflonsemade infamous, and at the same time. that the question may be Judiciully settled, finally and forever, that no State of its own will has the right to renounceits placein the Union.” These are the words of the President. They are his reasons, not mine. Gentlemen who repudiate them condemn him and not me. Their surpassing Wisdom overshadows the President, not me. But certainly it is desirable to have a judicial condemnation of secession and treason. HAVE CONFIDENCE IN COURTS. The profound learning and loyalty and purity of the august judicial tribunals ot the nation command the admiration and respect, not only of this but of every land, and no lawyer can doubt but that they will truly interpret the constitution and laws. A failure to invoke their judgment will inspire with new life and vi or the heresy of secession, not yet extinct, but iving among the disloyal of the South and their sympathizers North. Even President Buchanan, in his last annual message, denied the power of Congress “to make war against a State.” He is a bad citizen who contemns all judicial opinion, for when rightly settled it becomes a part of the constitution and laws, and carries conviction to the minds of the people when force operating on fears alone may not. A judicial condemnationof secession does sanctity in histor with additional weight, not only the irreversible verdict of war, but the justice of our struggle to achieve it. He who asserts thatan adverse judicial decis iona conceded impossibility can change or impair the verdict of the war, fails to compreend the magnitude of its results, and distrusts the loyalty of the people. No, no, the national life does not, cannot deend on the fate of a traitor or the judgment o acourt; but the national justice will be shocked if all treason shall o unpunished, or if the nation is imbecile, judicially to declare it a crime. Those who oppose civil trials lest failure may result must oppose military trials for the same reason; they would shield traitors from all punishment. "The President deems it expedient that Davis should 1st be put upon trial belore acivil court.” Secrotoruqf War, Januaru4. He knows the evidence of treason is undoubted; he may know the proof for a military offense, and tribunal is less am lo. I might prefer the military trial 1st, but we cannot. control or dictate the order of proceed in. ihe President demands a civil, not a military trial, and this is better than none. The fort rebellions in the last 8 centuries of English history furnish abundant examples of civil trials, but not one of a military trial for treason or conspiracy merely. Mr. Bishop declares that a competent jury cannot be procured, but I affirm it can. Chief Justice Marshall, in Barrs trial, refer ring to a case where there might be an “obvi ous impossibility of obtaining a jury whose minds were not already made up, ” as in a cat rebellion, and speaking of the ordinary ru e as to jurors, declared that in such case, “when this necessity exists, the rule perhaps must bend to it.” and so jurors would be compe tent who could impartially try cases notwithstanding their opinions of general guilt against conspirators. urors generally Wlll have no opinions as to the particular acts of treason which may be charged in an indictment, and a bill is now pending in the other end of this Cap itol making jurors competent who can “impar tially try the accused.” The marshal loyal, at least, under this administration, may, by act of Congress of Sep tember 24, 1789, select ajury “ from such parts of the district, [the whole State] from time to time, as the court shall direct.” (l Stat. 88.) By the act of Congress of June 17, 1862, the court may exclude all who have “adhered to any rebellion, ” sincejustice demands that treason should not be tried by traitors. In the whole State of Virginia there are 1,000s of competent jurors, men who fled from rebellion and have since returned, besides northern citizens now there. THE PRESIDENT WILL PUNISH TRAITOKS. Any citizen may volunteer advice to the President in relation to the execution of a civil sentence, and surely Congress may do as much. Enlightened history gives the precedent for this: (1 Howells State Trials, 1190; 2 Strypes Annals, 134; 2 Wards Law of Nations, 345; 11 State Trials, 807.) Butwe tender no advice; we merely indorse the Presidents olic as declared by himself. In the Sciiate, are 2, 1861, the now president, then Senator, said: “Show me who hasbeen engagedin these conspiracies, who hasfired upon our ting, who has given instructions to take our forts and customhouses, and arsenalsand dockyards and Iwill show on a traitor. Wore I POTUS would do as Thomas Jefferson did in 1806with Aaron Burr. would have them arrested; and, if convicted within the meaning and scope of the constitution. by the Eternal God I would executethem. "Androw Johnson, in the U.S. Scriale, March 2. 1861 Congressional Globe, vol. 44, part 2, pages13511354 and this is but a repetition of what the great Commoner, Henry Clay, in the Senate in 1850, in speaking of Mr. Rhett, now infamously notorious, declared, when he said: “Ifhe pronounced a sentiment, attributed to him. of raising the standard of disnnion and resistanceto the common Government, whatever he has been, if he follows up the declaration by correspondingovert acts, he will be a traitor and I ope he will meetthe fate of a traitor. "16 Benton Abridgment, 594. Conventions and people in rebel States, and rebel sympathizing. ngland, by her press and otherwise, have all been clamorous for pardon. THE AMNESTY PBOCIAMATION WISE. The amnesty proclamation, in due time to he still more enlarged, presents an example of rare but wise magnanimity. But traitors alone should not dictate a policy that might restore JeffersonDavis to the Senate and to power. Let England be reminded of her own tra itional policy, and be silent. THE PRESIDEXT INVITES the aCTION OF CONERESS AS TO TREASON. But why should Congress resolve upon these questions? I answer, because the resident invites our action on “the whole subject.” His message tell us: “That the circuit court of the U.S. would not be held in Virginia until Congress should have an opportunily to considerand act on the whole subject. o your deliberations the restoration of this ranch of the civil authority of the U.S. is therefore necessarily referred.” and this he recommends, that civil trials may be had. When we make laws we must entertain if we do not express opinions on the purpose for which they are made. the pumshment of treason is a great national question not to be measured by ordinary rules in time o eace. The President and almost every loya Governor by message, and many of the courts in charges to grand juries, have declared that treason has been committed and should be punished, and these resolutions declare the same. They express no opinion as to individual guilt save only as to JeffersonDavis, and whoever would affect scruples of his crime must ignore all history, doubt the existence of the war, leap over the sublime to the ridiculous, and become himself a traitor, or lack the capacity to comprehend treason. We only affirm what Govern ors and courts and people and all history have declared. Mr. Bishop says: ha"sI, nduaricnagse like that of Mr. Davis, the Government 4 whole years, in everyvariety of form, pronounced, not that there was a violent suspicion against him. but that. absolutely, he was guilty; and, on this declaration the Government has pledged its credit to lenderso money to an enormous extent, and cemented the declaration in the blood of 1,000 sluin. ”2 OinunalLaw. see. 1222. We have a rightto prescribe terms of reconstruction, and make punishment one of them. (3 Howard, U.S., 589; 16Howard, 369; 1 Black, 436474; 5 Elliots Debates, 492, August 29, 1787.) CONCILIATION. Gentlemen may talk of conciliation. I, too, am in favor of speedily inaugurating the era of “peace on earth and good will to all men” an era of universal brotherhood and universal justice. Ml inasvnasiaLn GUARANTEES. When by irreversible guarantees secession shall be repudiated; the supremacy of national allegiance and national adjudications affirmed a just basis of representation in Congress and the Electoral Co] ege secured; the rebel debt repudiated, the impudent claim of compensation for slaves made free shall be rejected; our national debt and obligations to Union soldiers placed beyond repudiation; with the personal rights of every citizen secured; with every State pledged to provide common schools for all its youth, then, with unqualified loyalty restored, the era of fraternity will be secured. I do not say that all these are indispensable prerequisites of reconstruction, but unconditional loy alty is. Each State must be judged on its own merits, since some may be prepared for reconstruction before others. THE cansr cams or assumes. "2.” and now let us contemplate the magnitude of the crime whichis to be dignified into respect ability by exemption from punishment. It was against a Government which Alexander H. Stephens in January, 1861, declared W88 "The best and freest Government, the most equal in its rights, the moatjust in its decisions. the most lenient in its measures, and the most aspiring in its principles to elevatethe race of man that the sun of heaven ever shone upon.” and further: “That no man could name one governmental act of wrong deliberately and purposely done by the Government of Washington of which the South has a right to complain.” Nor was this rebellion the work only of the misguided and unpretending masses, over whose erring but repentant steps, the mantle of charity is gently laid, with amnesty and pardon, by essing ali e the donor and recipients. But it was the work of men, some of whom, like Davis and Lee, had been educated at the public excnse in the nations Military Academy fort e purpose of vindicating the Government against all its enemies, but who when warmed into life in its bosom, sought to inflict the sting of death in its heart by employing the military skill which was the nation 5 property to accomplish its overthrow. It was the work of men, some of whom held seats in Buchanans Cabinet, and there aided in disarming, plundering, and reducing to the verge of bankruptcy the Government they were bound by honor and by oath to protect. It was the work of men, some of whom were intrusted with the power of legislation in both branches of Congress, who betrayed alike their trusts and their oaths to destroy the Constitution they had sworn to support. It was the work of men, some of whom were high otheers Of the Army and Navy, nurtured with the nations treasure, and intrusted with its power, who sundered the obligations of gratitude to their country, substituted perjury tor iatriotism, dishonor or duty, treachery for tideity, and led the rebellion against the nation they had betrayed and then how great the crime in magnitude and character! A gigantic rebellion waged for 4 years, carrying 11 States into the great revolt, supported by 6 millions of poulation, with immense armies incurring unto d millions of debt, with the sacrifice of 100s of 1,000s of lives, carrying devastation over more than half the Republic, disturbing the social fabric, jeopardizing the once of nations, imperiling our national eXistence, and threatening to sweep free government from among men. ATROCIOUS VIOLATIONS OF THE LAWS OF WAR. But treason, infamous and odious as is the crime, is no name for the atrocities perpetrated under its authority. The rebellion opened with meditated but averted assassination and culmi nated in its execution. Its progress has been marked with savage barbarities which set at defiance the laws of nations, and the usages of civilized warfare. Its history is replete with the evidence of this. The deliberate plot to assas sinate Mr. Lincoln, the Presidentelect, in Feb ruary, 1861; the “ massacre of the soldiers of the Massachusetts 6th in Baltimore on the lilth of April, ” of the same year; the inhuman “biitchery and wanton slaughternt Fort Pil low;H the revolting murder and “deliberate smrvation of Union prisoners ofwar in the prisons and rison ens of the rebel States, ” at Libby an Belle sle, Saulsbnry and Columbia, Charleston and andersonville, in all which more than 50,000 were tortured to death by exposure and starvation or consigned to LINGoring and hopeless disease;” the burnin of the city of Lawrence and the slaughter o its inhabitants; the murderous St.Albans raid and robbory; the plot to burn northern cities and spread pestilence through the land, with emis saries p oitin conspiracy in the Norththese are some oft is crimes of the rebellion. Finally, the crowning infamy of all this stu pendous treason, planned by rebels in Canada, and approved in Richmond, culminated in that last great stab at the nations life, the assas sination of the late but now martyred President Lincoln at n time when his own sublime utterance had scarcely died away ii on his li s, “With malice toward none, with charity Ifor all.” These have passed to the darkest and bloodiest page of historv. The monuments of this treason are every where apparentin 3000 millions of debt to tax the energies of a generation; in half a million graves, with the wailof the widow and the orphan all over the land. mrnasrrr, WITH MYALTY and IUTUBI SECURITY. But, for one, I will be content that all this shall slumber undisturbed in the quiet repose of history, and I will open no bleeding wound of the melancholy past, if with guarantees for peace and restored loyalty we can furnish an admenition to all future conspirators against the nations life that infamy and death await them, so that when the ancient concord of our fathers shall be resumed it shall remain unroken for our children and their posterity ferever. Sir Matthew Halemho was justl styled “that solidphilosopher;" that pillar and basis of justice, who would not have done an unjust. act for any worldly price or motive; that practical Christian, the highest foeult of the soul of Westininster Hall, declared that " In criminals of blood. if the fact beevident. saver, Wifiiuslict! "that in business capital, though my tm: appriotvmpdtomneetompoitym, ymctyto"cJonsider that there am This nation does not demand severity, but justice on a smaller scale. Booth and Mary E. Suiratt and Wire, mere subordinates of Davis. have paid the ennlty. If the “great leader of the rebellion” limself, “the colossal traitor of the age, ” if he, JeffersonDavis, can escape all nnishment, then is this age and nation and p humanity itself loaded with infamy, dishonor, injustice, and disgrace forever. (xenerol Grant, in his report of December 18, to the President, declares that the people of the South are not in a condition “To yield ready obedience to civil authority. “This would render the presence of small aarrisons throughont those States necessary.” The patriot soldier, General Schurz, in his report more than confirms this by declaring “their loyalty consists in submission to necessity, ” and so does the President by holding military ossesion of those States. The reel population have construed clem ency intocownrdice. The punishment of trea son will aid in securing obedience to law and hasten reconstruction. CapiTAL PUNISHMEXT. Many intelligent and philanthropic men are Opposed to all capital punishment. One among the most eminent of this class has fo"rcibly said: For more than 30 venrs I have been an advo eatoof the abolition of the death penalty, and yet I am free to say that. measuring the Government not by my standardbut its own [its] dut to the country, requires that JeffersonDavis should be hung by the neck till he is dead. If he is not to be hon. thenin the nameof humanity and of god, lotus abolish the gallowsforever, for noother man can becrim innl enoughto deservehanging.” Let the nation, then, be generous yet just. Let us inscribe on the constitution justice for all men. Let us “ bind up the nations wounds and do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.” RECONSTRUCTION.