Mr. SUMNER. Mr. President, in opening this great question, I begin by expressing a bearfelt aspiration that the day may soon come, when the States lately in rebellion may be received again into the co artnership of political power and the full fellowship otpthe nion. at I see too well thatit is vain to expect this day, which is so much longed for, until we have obtained that security for the future, which is found only in the Equal Rights of All, whether in the courtroom or at the ballotbox. This is the Great Guarantee, without which all other guarantees will fail. This is the sole solution of our present troubles and anxieties. This is the only suiiicient assurance of peace and reconciliation. To the establishment of this Great Guarantee, as a measure of safety and of justice, I now ask your best at tention. The powers of Congress over this subject are as amp o as they are beneficent. From 4 specific fountains they floweach one sufficient for the purposeall 4 swelling into an irre sistible current, and tending to one conclusion: 1st, the necessity of the case, by which, accordingto the analogies of the“Territories, ” disloyal States, having no local government, lapse under the authority of Congress; 2ndly, the Rights of War, which do not expire or lose their gras, except with the establishment of all needlul guarantees; 3rdly, the constitutional injunction to guaranty a RFG; and, 4thly, the constitutional amendment by which Congress, in words of peculiar energy, is empowered “to enforce” the abolition of slavery “by appropriate legislation.” According to the proverb of Catholic Europe, all roads lead to Rome, and so do all these powers lead to the jurisdiction of Congress over this whole subject. No matter which road you take, you arrive at the same point. 2 of these powers have already been discussed exhaustively. The latter have been less considered and it is on those that I shall speak especially today. I propose, with the permission of the Senate, to show the necessity and duty of exercising the jurisdiction of Congress so as to secure that essential condition o a Republican Government, the Equal Rights of All and I put aside, at the outset, the metaphysical question, worthy of the schoolmen in the dark ages, whether certain States are in the Union or out of the Union. This is a question of form and not of substance, of words only and not offacts; for the substance is clear and the facts are unanswerable. All are agreed, according to the authority of President Lincoln, in his latest utterance before his lamented death, that these States have ceased to be “in practical relations with the Union 5” and this is enough to sustain the jurisdiction of Congress, even without the plain words of the constitution in 2 separate texts. Necessity and duty commingle. If what is necessary is not always accordin to duty, surely duty is always a necessity. (In the present occasion the unite in one voice for the Great Guarantee. this at once aneccssity and adiity. Glancing at the promises of the fathers, I shall exhibit: 1st, teoverruling necessity of the times; and 2ndly, the positive mandate of the constitution, comps ling us to guaranty “a RFG, ” and thus to determine what is meant by this requirement; all of which has been ortified by the constitutional amendment authorizing Congress to enforce the abolition of slavery. PROMISES OF THE FATHERS. In the life of a nation. as in that of an individual, there are special moments when out standing promises must be performed under peril of rum and dishonor. such is the present moment in the life of our Republic. There are sacred promises beginning with our history et unperformed, and now the hour has soun edwhen continued failure on our part will open the door to along train of woes and there are yet other promises recently made for the national defense against a wicked rebellion, which, like those of an earlier date, are unperformed also. But the latter are allincluded in the former so that our whole duty now centers in the performance of those sacred promises which are coeval with the national life. Our fathers solemn] announced the equal Rights of all men, and that Government ha no just foundation except in the consent of the governed; and to the support of the Declaration, heralding these selfevident truths, they pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor. Looking atthis Declaration now, it is chiefl memorable for the promises it then made. It igl. ty wordsl Fit utterance for the giant infantthen born. Fitdevice for the great republic telringits place in the family of kings. Fit lesson for mankind and now the moment has come when these vows must be fulfilled to the letter. In securing the Equal Rights of the freedman, and his participation in the Government, which heis taxed to an port, we shall perform those early promisesof the Fathers, and at the same time the supplementary promises only recently made to. the freedman as the condition of alliance and aillagainst the Rebellion. A failure to perform these promises is moral and political ankru tcy. ltis repudiation of moral and political dhties, ending in the repudiation of the financial obligations of the country. So are your duties to the national freedman linked With your obligations to the national creditor, that you cannot repudiate the former without impairing the value of the latter. Who ever disowns any of the promises of the Republic leads the way in repudiation. But you cannot be thus guilty. Even, if indifferent to the vows of the Fathers, necessity, in harmony with the plain injunction of the constitution, will constrain you. On this there can be no doubt. You must perform these promises, and this brings me to teover ruling necessity of the times. OVEREULING NECESSITY OF THE TIMES. I. Necessity is a peremptory instructor. It gives the law which no man can disregard. It will not hearken to apology or postponement. With a voice of command it insists that its be hests shall be obeyed and now this very necessity speaks to us with familiar tones. Twicealready, since rebel Slavery rose against the Republic, it has spoken to us, insisting; 1st, that the slaves should be declared free; and 2ndly, that muskets should be put into their hands for the common defense. Yielding to necessity, these 2 things were done. Reason, humanity, justice were powerless in this behalf; but necessity was irresistible and the result testifies how wisely the Republic acted. Without emancipation, followed by the arming of the slaves, rebel Slavery wouli not have been overcome. With these the victory was easy. At lastthe same necessity, which insisted 1st upon emancipation and then upon the arming of the slaves, insists with the same unanswer nble force upon the admission of the freedman to complete Equality before the law, so that there shall be no ban of color in courtroom, or at the ballotbox, and government shall be fixed on its only rightful foundation the consent of the governed. Reason, humanity and justice, all of which are clear for this admission of the freedman, may fail to move you; but on must yield to necessity, which now requires that these premises shall be performed. The demand which I now make stands on necessity. You must grantit, or you will peril the peace of this Republic, and postpone indef initely the great day of security and reconciliation. Therefore, in the name of that national safety which is the supreme law, I begin my appeal. Whatever is required for the national safety is constitution al. Not only it may be done, but it must be done. Not to do it is to fail in duty. This Republic must be saved. When I speak of necessity, I mean that over fillingCOmplllBlOn which cannot be disobeyed. In the present case it is compounded of moral duty and the instinct of selfpreservation. The moral duty to perform these promises is as plain as the deealogue. The instinct of selfpreseivation, impelling us to save the Republic, is in harmony with the requirements of moral duty. In denying justice now, you will not only be guilty of grievous wrong, but you will expose your country to incalculable calamity. The case is too clear for debate. The irresistible argument for Emancipation was always twofold: 1st, its intrinsic justice, and 2ndly, its necessity for the safety of the Republic; all of which was expressed by president Lincoln in the closing words of his great Proclamation, when he said: “And upon this act. sincerelybelieved to he anact djmhm vmrrantrrlI)” the constitution upon military Mccuili I invoke the considerate judgnient of man kind and the gracious favor of Almighty God.” Butthe argument for Enfranchisement, which is nothing but the complement of Emancipation is the same. Eufranchisement is notonly intrinsicallyjust, but it is necessary to the safety of the Republic. There is no reason, point, or suggestion once ur edfor Emancipation which may not be urge now for Enfranchisement. I shall not err if I say that Emancipation itself will fail without Enfranchisement., By Enfranchisement I mean the establishment of the Equal Rights of All, so that there shall be no exclusion of any kind, civil or political, founded on color, and the promises of the Fathers shall be fulfilled. Suc an act will be, in the words of President Lincoln, “an act of justice warranted by the constitution upon military necessity.” As an act of justice, Enfranchisement has a necessity of its own. No individual and no people can afford to be unjust. such an offense will carry with it a curse, which, sooner or later, must drag its perpetrator to the earth. But here the necessity from considerations of justice is completed and intensified by the positive requirements of the national safety, plainly involved in the performance of these promises. Look at the unhappy freedman blasted by the ban of exclusion. He has always been loyal, and now it is he and not the rebel mast r who pays the penalty. From the nature of the case, he must be discontented, restless, anxious, smarting with a sense of wrong and a consciousness of rights denied. He will not work as iftaken by the hand and made to feel the grasp offriend shi. He will be idle, thriftless, unproductive. industry will suffer. Cotton will not grow. Commerce will not thrive. Credit will fail; nay, it will die before it is born. 0n the other hand. his rebel master, with hands still red with the blood of his fellow countrymen, will be encouraged in that assumptionof superiority which is a part of the Barbarisrn of Slavery; he will redoniinate as in times past; he will be exacting as of old; he will be harsh, cruel, and vindictive; he will make the unprotected and trem bling freedman suffer for the losses and disappointments of the Rebellion; he will continue to insult and prostitute the wife and children who, in ceasing to be chattels, have not ceased to be dependents; he will follow the freedman to byways and to obscure places, where he will once again pla the master and assert his ancient title as lor of the lash. Scenesof sav age brutality and blood must ensue. All this, which reason foretells, the short experience of a few months already confirms and all this you sanction, when you leave the freedman despoiled of his rights. But the freedman, though forbearing and slow to anger, will not submit to outrage always. He will resist. Resistance will be organized and here will begin the terrible war of races foreseen by Jefferson, where God, in all His attributes, has none which can take art with the oppressor. The tragedy of Stomingo will be renewed on a wider theater, with bloodier incidents. Be warned, I entreat you, by this historic example. It was the denial of rights to colored people, after successive promises, which caused that fearful insurrection. After various vicissitudes, during which the rights of citizenship were conferred on free people of color and then resumed, the slaves at ast rose, and here the soul sickens at the recital. Then came Toussaint LOuverture, a black of an mixed blood, who placed himself at the head of his race, showing the genius of war and the genius of statesmanship also. Under his mag nanimous rule the beautiful island began to smile once more; agriculture revived; commerce took a new start; the whites were protected in person and property; and a constitution was adopted acknowledging the authority of France, but making no distinction on account of color or race. In an evil hour this policy was reversed by a decree of Napoleon ona parto. War revived, and the French army was compelled to succumb. The connection of StDomingo with France was broken, and this island became a black republic. All this dreary catalogue of murder, battle, sorrow, and woe began in the denial of justice to the colored race and only recent y we have listened to a similar tragedy from Jamaica, thus swelling the terrible testimony. Like causes produce like effects; therefore, all this will be ours if we madly persist in the same denial of justice. The freedmen among us are not unlike the freedmen of StDomingo or Jamaica; they have the same “organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions, ” and above all, the same sense of wrong, and the same revenge. To avoid insurrection and servile war, big with measureless calamity, and even to obtain that security which is essential to industry, ag riculture, commerce, and the national credit, ou must perform the promises of the Republic, originally made by our fathers, and recently renewed by ourselves. But duty done will not only save you from calamity, and give you so curity; it will also prepare the way for all the triumphs of the future, when through assured peace there shall be tranquillity, prosperity, and reconciliation, all of which it is vain to expect without justice. The freedman must be protected. To this you are specially pledged by the Proclamation of presient Lincoln, which, after declaring him “free, ” promises to maintain this freedom, not for any limited period, but for all time. But this cannot be one so long as ou denyhim the shieldofimpartial laws. Let iim be heard in court and let him vote. Let these rights be guarded sacredly. Beyond even the shield of impartial laws, he will then have that protection which comes from the consciousness of manhood. Clad in the full panoply of citizenship he will feel at last that he is a man. At present he is only a recent chattel, awaiting your justice to be transmuted into manhood. If you would have him respected in his rights. you must begin by respecting him in your laws. If you would maintain him in his freedom, you must begin by maintaining him in the equal rights of citizenship and now tenational safety is staked on this act of justice. You cannot sacrifice the freedman without endangering the peace of the country, and the stability of our institutions. Every thing will be kept in jeopardy. The national credit will suffer. Business of all kinds will feel the insecurity. The whole land will pe with volcanic fire, read toburst forth ina atal flood. The irre ressible conflict will be relonged. The House will continue divided against itself. From all these things, Good Lord, deliver usl But under God, there is but one deliverance, and this is thorough justice. I have said that the national credit will suffer; but this does not disclose the whole, liuancial calamity. It is idle to suppose thatccent rebels, restored to the privileges of citizenship, will give their votes cordially for that national debt which has been incurred in the supression of their rebellion, or that they will willingly tax themselves for the interest on those ilclnormous outlays by which their darling Slavery has been overthrown. The evidence shows that i they are already set against an such contribution. As time advances, an their power is assured, in conjunction with northern sympathizers, they will openly oppose it; or if they consent to iecoflnize it, they will impose the condition that the rebel debt shall be recognized also. All this is inevitable, if you give them the power; it is madness to tempt them. But they will not have the power if the promises to the freedmen are performed. Here again justice to the freedman becomes a necessity. It is sometimes said that we must not require justice to the freedman in the rebel States, because justice is still denied to the colored citizen in Connecticut and NewYork. Idle words of inconceivable utterance; as if the 2 cases bore any ima inable resemblance. There are rivers in the orth and rivers in the South, but who says that on this account the 2 regions are alike? The denial of justice to the colored citizens in Connecticut an NewYork, is wrong and mean; but it is on so small a scale that it is not perilous to the Republic, nor is it vital to the protection of the colored citizen and the protection of the national creditor. on are moved to Enfranchisement in Connecticut and NewYork, simply in order to dojustice to a few individuals; but you are moved to itin the rebel States, in order to do justice to multitudes, also to save the Republic, which is imperiled by in justice on such a gigantic scale, and to supply needfal protection to the national freedman and the national creditor. From failure on our part there is in one case little more than shame, while in the other case there is positive danger to the Republic, involving the late of the national freedman and the national creditor, to whom we are bound by the most solemn ties. To a good man inustice, even on a small scale, cannot be tolerable. He will feel the necessity of resisting it; but where the victims are counted by millions, this necessity becomes a transcendent duty, uickened and invigorated by all the instincts of selfpreservation. Therefore, I again say, for the national safety, do not fail to keep these promises. It is sometimes said that the constitution of the U.S. expressly reserves to the States, the power of determining who shall vote, because it declares, that “the electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State Legislature.” But this assumption proceeds on the fatal error that, at any time under the constitution, which makes no distinction of color, there can be any such oligarchical distinction as a “ qualification.” founded on color. But even assuming that this might be done in a period of peace, yet, beyond all doubt, at the present moment, from the necessity of the casefrom the Rights of War from the constitutional clause of guarantee and from the constitutional Amendment, congress, by its quadruple powers, is completely authorized to do all that it thinks best for the national security and the national faith in the rebel States. As well question Farra t in the maintop of his steamerSherman in is march across Georgiaor Grant in the field before Richmond, as question the authority of congress “on this occasion. But if the authority exists it must be exercised. GUARANTEE OF A RFG and this brings me to the next form of this necessit and duty, as they appear in the guarantee cause of the constitution. It is expressly declared that “the U.S shall guaranty to every State in this Union a RFG.” These words, when properly understood, leave no alternative. They speak to us with no uncertain voice. The magnitude of the question now before us may be seen in the postulate with which I begin. Assuming that there has been a lapse of government in any State so as to impose upon the U.S. the at of executing this gnarantee, then do I insist that it is the bounden duty of the U.S. to see that such State has a “Republican government, ” and, in the discharge of this bounden duty, they must declare that a State, which in the foundation of its government, sets aside “the consent of the governed” which imposes taxation Without Representation which discards the principle of Equal Rights, and which lodges power exclusively with an Oligarchy, Aristocracy, (386ti o! Monopoly, cannot be recognized as a Republican government, ” according to the requirement of American Institutions. Even if itmay Satisfy some definition handed down from an. tiquity or invented in monurchical Europe, it cannot satisfy the solemn injunction of our constitution. For this question I now ask a hearing. Nothing in the present debate can equal it in importance. Its correct determination will be an epoch for our country and for mankind. Believe me, sir, this is no question of or abstraction. Itisa rnctical question twhehoicrg you are summoned to ecide. ere is the positive text of the constitution, and you must now affix its meaning. You cannotevade it; you cannot forget it, without an abandonment of duty. others in vision or aspiration have dwelt on the idea of a Republic, and they have been lifted in soul. You must consider it, not merely in vision or aspiration, but practically as legislators, in order to settle its precise definition, to the end that the constitutional “ guarantee” may be performed. Your powers and duties are involved in this defipition. The character of the Government founded by our fathers is also involved in it. There is another consideration, which must not be forgotten. In affixing the propermeaning to the text, and determining what is a “Republican government, ” you act as a court in the last resort from which there is no appeal. You are sole and exclusive judges. You may decide as you please. Rarely in history has such an opportunity been offered to the statesman. You may raise the name of Republic to majestic heights of justice and truth, or you may let it drag low down in the depths ofwrong and falsehood. You may make it fulfill the idea ofJohn Milton, when he said that “ a commonwealth oughtto be butasonehuge Chris tian personage, one mighty growth or stature of an honest man, as big and compactin virtue as in body;” or you may let it shrink into the ignoble form of a pretender, with the name of Republic, but without its soul. ORIGIN OF THE GUARANTEE. Before considering this vital question, it will be proper to look at the origin of this “ guar anion, ” and see how it obtained a place in the constitution. Perhaps there is no clause which was more cordially welcomed; nor does it appear that it was subjected to any serious criticism in the National Convention, or in any State Convention. It is not found in the Articles of Confederation. But we learn from the Feder alist (No. 21) “that the want of this provision was felt as a capital defect in the plan of the Confederation. Mr. Madison, in a private record made in advance of the National convention, and which has only recently seen the light, enumerates among the defects of the confederation what he calls want of guaranty to the States of their constitutions an laws against internal violence, ” and he then proceeds to anticipate danger from slavery, which could be counteracted only by such a “guarantee.” In showing why this was needed he says that, ” according to republican theory, right and power being both vested in the majority, are held to be synonymous; according to fact and exerience, a miiiorit may, in an appeal to force, e an over match or the majority, ” and he then adds, in words which furnish a key to the “ guarantee” afterwards adopted, ” where slaver exists the republican theory becomes still more allacious; ” (Madisons Writings, vol. i, 322)thus showing that, at its very origin, il) was regarded as a check upon slavery. Hamilton was not less positive than Madison. In his sketch of a constitution, submitted to the National Convention at an early stage of its proceedin s, this“ aranlee”willbefound, an in the e abomte rief of his ament on the constitution, Hamiltons Wor, vol. ii, p. 463) it is speci ied as one of its “miscellaneous advantages.” The last words of this remarkable paperare “guarantee of republican Governments.” Ran olph, of Virginia, in his sketch of a constitution proposed the “guarantee, "v and, in a speech setting forth the evils of the old system, he said that “the remedy must be in the republican princabk” (Elliots Debates, vol. v, pp. 127, 128.) Colonel Mason of Virginia, taking u the same strain, sai that, though the people might be unsettled on some points, they were settled as to others, among which he put foremost “ an attachment to republican governments.” (Ibid, 217.) The proposition in its earliest form was “that a republican government, and the territory of each State, ought to be guarantied by the L U.S. to each State.” (Ibid, 128.) This was afterward altered so as to read, “that a republican constitution and its existin laws ought to be guarantied to each State the U.S.s.” GouverneurMorrismade iaste to say that the proposition in this form was “very objectionable, ” and he added that he should be very unwilling that such laws as exist in l RhdIsland should be guarantied. (Ibid, 332.) After discussion, it was amended on the motion of Mr. Wilson the learned and philosophical delegate from fennsylvania, af terwar of the SCOTUS, so as to read, ” that a RFG shall be guarantie to each State, and that each State shall be protected against foreign and domestic violence, ” (Ibid 333;) and, in this form, it was unanimously adopted. (Journal of Convention, 113189.) Afterward it underwent modifications in the Committee of Detail and the Committee on Style, (Ibid, 381) until it received the final form which it now has in the constitution, as follows: The lhihflSlalon shall guarantee ven Slrilein this Union" RFG and shall protcct eachof them against invasion: and on application of the Legislature, oroftho Executive. when the L c islntuge cannot be convened, against domestic YIOence. Thus stands the guarantee. If any further reason be required for its introduction into the constitution it will be found in the prophetic language of the Federalist: It may possibly be asked. whatnced therecould beof such a precaution and whether it maynot become a pretext for alterations in the State governments without the concurrence of the States themselves. These questions admit of rendy answers. If the interposition of the General Government should not be needed, the provision for such an event will be a harmless superfluity only in the constitution. But whocan my what c crime may be produced by the caprice of parliculflr gfllcl. By the ambition of entcmns inn lenders, or by(he intrjiaucand influenceoffarnmt PowersI "The Federalist. No. xxi; see also Slorys Commentarieosn the constitution, vol. ii, see. 1811.” The very crisis herein anticipated has arrived. The caprice of particular States, ” and “ the ambition of enterprisin leaders” have done their worst and now te“ guarantee” must be performed, not only for the sake of individual States, but for the sake of the Union to which they all belon, and to advance the declared objects of the constitution, specified in its preamble. The text of this great undertaking is worthy of study. No stronger or more comprehensive words could be employed, whether we regard the object, the party guarantying, or the party gnarantied. ie express objectis a “ RFG. This is plain enough. The party gunrantying is not merel the Executive or some specified branch of the National Government, but “the U.S., ” or in other words, the Nation. The Republic, which is the impersonation of all, guaranties a “ RFG, ” and every branch of the National Government must sustain the “ guarantee, ” including especially congress, where is the collected will of the people. he obligation is not less broad when we con; ider the party guarantied. Here there can be no evasion. The “guarantee” is not merelyfor the advan c of individual States, but for the common de ease and the general welfare. It is a “guarantee” to each in the interest of all; and, therefore a “guarantee” to all and such is the solidarity of States in the Union, that the good of all is involved in the good of each or each and all, then, this “guarantee” must be performed when the casusfordens arrives. As a guarantor, the republic, accordin to a familiar principle, is calfld to act on the efault of the party araiitied; but when the default has occurre, then the duty is fixed in all its amplitude WHAT IS A REPUBLICAN GOVERNMEST? The question then returns, what is “a RFG, ” accordin to the requirement of the constitution of the U.S.? Mark, if you please, that it is not the meaning of this term, accordi to Plato and Cicero; not even accordin tot e examples of history; nor accordin to the definitions of monarchical writers or exicographers; but what is “a RFG" according to the requirements of the constitution of the U.S.? Of course these important words were not introduced and unanimously adopted without a purpose. They must be interpreted so as to have a real meaning. Any interpretation which renders them insignificant is on this account to be discarded as irrational and valueless, if not. dishonest. They cannot; be treated asa phrase only; nor nsa dead letter; nor as an empty figurehead. N or can they be treated as a mere profession and nothing more, so that the constitution shall merely seem to be republican; reversing the old injunction “ to be rather than to seem "Lsse quam viden. They must be treated as real. Thus interpreted they become at once a support of Human Rights and a balancewheel to our whole political system. REJECTED DEFINITIONS. In determining their signification I begin by utting aside what is vague, unsatisfactory, and map heable, in order to bring the inquiry direct y to American Institutions. I put aside all illustration derived from the speculations of ancient philosophers, because, on careful examination, it appears that the term “Republic, ” as used by them, was so absolutely different from any idea among us as to exclude their definition from the debate. This captivating term is of Roman Origin. It is the same as Commonwealth and means the public interests. As orginally employed, it was not a specific term, describing a particular form of government, but a genera torm, embracin all Governments, whether kingly, aristocratic democratic, or rnixed. Its equivalent in Greece was “Polity, ” which was the general term for all Governments. Therefore, the definition of a Republic, according to these ancient masters, is simply the definition of an organized Government, whether kingly, aristocratic, democratic, or mixed. Following this definition the words of the constitution are only the “guarantee” of an organized Government, without determining its character. This, of course, leaves open the very question now under consideration. While e nomenclature of ancient hilose pliers cannot be cited in determining e definition of a Republic, we may, nevertheless, he encouraged by them in demanding that all government, under whatever name it may be called, shall be to establish justice and secure the general welfare. Thus Plato, who commenced these interesting speculations, is leased to liken government to a just man, d ighting in justice always, however he may be treated by other s; and the philosopher insists that every man is a government to himself, as every comr munity is a government to itself. According to him, every wellordered man, like every well, ordered community, is a reuhlic. Aristotle, in a different vein, and with more precision, says, in most suggestive words, that “ every political society is asort of communit or partnership, ” (Aristotles Politics, boo i, cap. i) that “the object of all good government is the common good, ” (boofi iii, cap. iv) that “it is the best plan to admit to a particiation in the governing power as many as can o admitted with safety; for where large numbers are excluded, there will be discontent and danger, ” Ibid, book iii, cap. vhgl and that “when the ne, the Few, or the any govern well and for the common good, theirs must be called a good Government.” (1b.) Cicero gives to the same ideas new fervor and expansion, when he says, “A Republic is for the good of the whole people. But by the people do not mean every assemblage of men, anyhow gathered together but an assemblage united by a common accord respecting rights, and a common enjoyment of 1866. 677 the public weal.” (De Republica, cap. xxv.) An then again, in another place. the Roman philosopher says, ” Liberty can have no certain dwelling in any state ercept where the laws are equal and the power of public opinion is supreme.” (Ibirl, cap. xxxi.) Butallt eserequirements or aspirations are applicable to any Government, ofwhatever form; and it is well knowa that Cicero recorded his preference for a Government tem ered by an admixture of the 3 different kin s; so that we are not advanced in our definition, unless we insist that our republic should have all those virtues which are accorded to the ideal Commonwealth and yet there are 2 principles which all these philosophers teach us: the 1st is justice, and the 2nd is the duty of seeking the general Welfare. 1 next put aside the examples of history, as absolutely fallacious and inapplicable. Governments in all ages have been called republics, which can be no example to us. In eed, there is hardly a government, from that of the great hunter, Nimrod, down to insulted and partitioned Poland, which has not been called a“Republic.” In 1772. only a few years before the adoption of the Nationa constitution, Rus sia, Austria, and Prussia, after dividing Poland, undertook to establish certain fundamental laWs for this conquered country, one of which was as follows: "The government of Poland shall be forever free, independentand republican inform. The true principle of said governmentconsistingin the strict exc cution of its laws and the equilibrium of the 3 estates. namely. the king. the senate, and the eques trian order. "John Adams Worka, vol. iv, v. 370 But a government thus composed cannot be recognized in this debate as “republican in form.” At the adoption of the constitution, the most competent persons. who disagreed on other things, agreed in discardin these examples. Alexander Hamilton and Jo n Adams met here on common ground. The former, in the brief of his argument on the constitution, thus exhibits the various forms of government to which the term “Republic” has conapplied: “A republic, a word used in various senses. Has been applied to aristocracics and monarchics. (1.)To ome under kings. (2.) To Sparta. though a Senate for life. (3.) To Carthage, though the same. (4.) To United Netherlands. Though Stadtholder and bored itary nobles. (5.) To Poland. though aristocracy and monarch. (6.) To GreatBritain. though a monarchy.” ainilton, War u, vol. ii. p. 403. John Adams. in his Defense of the constitution of the U.S., written immediately anterior to the adoption of the National constitution, thus concurs with Hamilton: “But of all the wordsin all languages. perhapsthere has been none ao much abused in this wa us the words Republic, Commonwcalth, and Popular tatc. In the Rerumfuhlwarum COIZECHOof, which there are 50 and 0d volumes, and many of them very incorrect, Franco. Spain and Portugal. the 4 great empires, the Bubylonmn. Persian. Grcck and ltoinun and even the German. are all denominated Republics. " John Adanul Works, vol. v. p. 453. In his old age. the patriarch expressed himself in the same sense and with equal force: “The customary meaning of the words rrpuhlfe and commonwealth have been infinite. They have been a plied to overy government under heaven that of urkcy and that of Spain, as well as that of Athens and of Rome. of GenevaandSan Marine. ”1bid, vol. 1, p. 378; Letter of 31“ rlfarch, 1819 and then again he said: "In somewriting or another of mine, I happened “r renlccalamo. To dropthophruso. The word republic, as it is used. may signify anything. everything or nothing. For this escape I have been pelted, for 20 or 30 cars. with as many stonesas ever were thrown at i t. Stephen. when StPaul hcld the clothes of the stoners. But the a horism is literal, strict, solemn truth. To speak tec nically or scien tintally. ifyouwill, there are rnonarchioal aristocratical and deine cruticul republican. Tho goverament of GreatBritain undthat o Poland arens strictly republics as that of RhdIsland or Connecticut. "Ibid, X. 379; Letter of 30th April, 1819. In this latter remark, Mr. Adams simply regents what he says in his treatise, when he calls England and Poland “ monarchical or regal republics.” (Ivbid, vol. iv, p. 359. It is plain that our fathers, when they adopted the “guarantee” of “a RFG” intended somct in Y certain, or which at least, if not certain on the face, could be made certain. But this excludes the authorit of incongruous and inconsistent examples. They did not use words to si if “anythin, everything, or nothing;” nordiilt cy usewor s which were as applicable to England and 1o land as to the U.S. Therefore, lean not err when I put aside all these examples, which, however they may illustrate the definition of Republican Government in times past, are utterly out of place as aguide to the interpretation of our constitution. Something better must be found for this purpose; nor is it wanting. I put aside also the definitions of European writers and lexicographers anterior to the constitution; for all of these have the vagueness and uncertainty of political truth at that time in Europe. Among these none is of higher authority than Montesquicu, who brought to political science study, genius, and a liberal spirit. But even this great writer, who profited by all his predecessors, quickens and elevates without furnishing a satisfactory guide. He taught that “ virtue" was the inspiring principle ofa. ite public, and by “ virtue, he says thathe meantt is love of co intry, which, he says, is the love of Equality. This is beautiful; but, with curious inconsistency, he proceeds to include “democracy” and “aristocracy” under the term “ Republic, ” the former being where the people in mass have the sovereign power and the atter “ where the sovereign rower is in the hands ofapart of the people.” Vhen defining “democracy” he expresses the importance of the suffrage as one of the fundamentals of government, saying, among other things, that it was as important to regulate by whom the suffrage should be given, as ina monarchy to know who is the monarch. (Esprit des Lois, liv. ii, chap. 2 and 8.) But among all these glimpses of truth there is no definition of “aRFG” which can help us essen tially in interpretin" the constitution. Surely an aristocracy, “where the sovereign power is in the hands of a part of the people, ” cannot find a just place in our political system. It may. be a “ RFG, ” according to Montesquieu, but it cannot be according to American institutions. One of the ablest of the predecessors of Montesquieu, in modern times, was the Frenchman, John Bodin, who wrote nearly 2 centuries earlier. He uses the term “ Republic” as it is used by the ancient writers, to embrace Monarchy, Aristoerac, and Democracy, which he calls “ 3 kinds of republics” trium. remimpublicarum genera. f the Republic is in the power ofonc, panes unum, it is a monarchy; ifin the power of a few, panes aucos, it is an aristocracy; if in the power o all, penes Universes, it is a democracy. Proceeding further he says, that a Democracy is “where all or the major part of all citizens, major pars om mum civium, collected together, have the supreme power.” (Bodin e Republish, lib. ii. cap. 1.) Here the philosopher plainly follows the rule of jurispruence in the case of corpo rations; but this definition seems to sanction the exclusion of a part of the citizens, less than a majority, while it is inadequate in other respects. It says nothing of crpliality of rights or o that great touchstone of the republican idea, the dependence of taxation upon representation. There are other definitions which may be at aside. Thus, for instance, it has been ofibn said, that a Republic is “a government of laws and not of men, ” and this saying found favor with some among our fathers. (John Adamss Works, vol. iv, 106.) Long before them Aristotle had declined, that such a government “would be the kingdom of God.” But this condition, though marking an advanced degree of civilization and of course essential to a republic. cannot be recognized as decisive. On its face it is vague from its comprehensiveness. It is enough to say that it would embrace England, whose government our fathers renounced in order to build a republic and still further, it would throw its shield over a government which had “framed iniquity into law.” This will not do. Thereis also a plausible definition by Miller, the learned author of the work on the British constitution, who states, hypothetically. that by, Republic may he meant a government in which there is no king or hereditary chief mu gistrate.” (Millers View, vol. iii, 326.) But this again must be rejected as caving aris tocracies and oligarchies in the category of republics. Sometimes it has been said, that a Government with an elective Chief Magistrate is a Republic. Here again nothing is said of aristocracy oroligarchy, which obviously may coexist with an elective Chief Magistrate, as in the case of Venice, where the elected Doge was surrounded by an oligarchy of nobles: and in the case of Holland, where the elected Stadt holder was a prince surrounded by princes. But there are other instances which make this definition unsatisfactory, if not absurd. The Pope of Rome is an elective Chief Magistrate; so also is the Grand Lama; but. surely the States of the Church are not republican, nor is Thibet. Rejecting the definition founded on the elective character of the Chief Magistrate, we must also reject another, founded on “the sovereignty of more than one man.” It. has been said positively, by one who has written much on this subject, that “ the strict definition of a lie public is that in which the sovereignty resides in more than one man.” (John Adamss War rs. vol. x, p. 378.) But this strict definition will embrace aristocracies and oligarchies. I conclude these rejected definitions with that of Dr. Johnson in his Dictionary, which appeared before American Independence: “Rrpiihlich; (1) Commonwealth t. atein which the powerHI lodgedin morethanom. (2) common interest, Ihe publick.” All these definitions are as little to the purpose as the “vulgar error, ” chronicled by Sir Thomas Browne, that storks lived only in republics, or the snyin of Rousseau, at a later day, that a society o gods would govern themselves democratically, or the remark of John Adams, that “ all good government is, and must. be republican.” It is evident. that we must turn e sewhere for the illumination which we need. If others thus far have failed, it is because they have looked across the sea instead oflooking at home and have searched foreign history and example. instead of simply recognizing the history and example of their own country. They have imported inap licahle and uncertain definitions. forgettinv that the Fathers, by positive conduct, by solemn declarations ydeclared opinions, and by public acts. all in harmony and constituting one over whelming testimony, have exhibited their idea of a Republican Government in a way which is at once applicable and certain. They are the natural interpreters of their own constitution. Mr. Fox, the eminent English statesman. exclaimed on one occasion in debate that, if by some interposition of Divine Providence all the wise men who ever lived in the world were assembled together, they could not invent even a tolerable constitution; meaning, of course, that a constitution must be derived from habits and convictions, and not from any invent ion. There is sound sense in the remark; and it is in this spiritthat I turn from a discussion which has only this value, that it shows how little there is in the past to interpret the meaning of the Fathers. TRUE SOURCE OF DEFINITION. Every constitution embodies the principles of its framers. It is a transcript of t icir minds. lfits meaning in any place is open to doubt, or if words are used which seem to have no fixed signification, we cannot err if we turn to the framers; and their authority increases in proportion to the evidence which they have 10 t on the question. By a “RFG” our fathers plainly intended that government which embodied the principles for which they had struggled. Now. itit appears, that, through years o controversy they had in sisted on certain principles“ vital totree government even to the extent of encountering the mother country in war; that afterward, on solemn occasions they had heralded these principles to the world as “ selfevident trut s;” that also, in declared opinions, they had sustained these principles; and that, in public acts, they had embodied these principles then is it beyond dispute, that these principles must have entered into the idea of that government which they took pains to place under the “ guarantee of the U.S. But all these things can be shown unanswerably. In these words of hypothesis, I have already foreshadowed the 4 different heads under which these principles may be seen: 1st, as asserted by the Fathers throughout the long revolutionary controversy which culminated in war; 2ndly, as announced in solemn decla rations; 3rdly, as sustained in declared opinions; and 4thly, as embodied in public acts. PRINCIPLES ASSERTED BY OUR FATHERS PBXICED ING THE REVOLUTION. (1.) I begin with they principles asserted by our fathers throughout the protracted controversy that receded the Revolution. If Senators ask why our fathers struggled so lo in controversy with the mother country, and t on went forth to battle, they will find that it was to establish the very principles for which I now contend. To secure the natural rights of men, and especiall to vindicate the controlling maxim that ere can be no taxation without representation, they fought with argument and then with arms. Had these been conceded at that time there would have been no Lexington or Bunker Hill, and the Colonies would have continued yet longer under transatlantic rule. The 1st object proposedwas not independence but the establishment of these principles; and when at last independence was proposed, it was because it became a parent that these principles could be securerr in no other way. hercforc, the triumph of independence was the triumph of these principles, which necessarily entered into and became the animating soul of the Republic which was then and there born. The evidence is complete, and if I dwell on itwith some minuteness, it is because of its decisive character on the present occasion. The great controversey opened with the pretension on the part of Parliament to tax the colonies. This pretension was 1st disclosed to Benjamin Franklin as early as 1754. It was at the time a profound secret; but this patriot philosopher, whose rare intelligence embraced the natural laws of government not less than those of science, in a few masterly sentences exposed the inustice of taxation without represcutution. Flor a moment the ministry shrank back; but at last, when the power of France had been humbled, and the colonies were no longer needed as allies in war, George Gren ville, blind to principle and only seein an increase of revenue, renewed the irrationu claim. The colonies were to be taxed by the Parliament in which the had no representation. 2 million and a half of peoplefor such was the colonial population thenwere to pay taxes without any voice in determinin them. The men of that day listened to the tiings with dismay. They saw in this ministerial outrage the overthrow of their liberties, whether founded on natural rights or on the rights of British subjects. In their conclusions they were confirmed by 2 names of authority in ritish history Algernorl Sidney and John Locke, each of whom hail solemnly asserted those liberties which were now in danger. One had borne his testimony on the sea old; the other in exile. Sidney, in his Discourses on Government, did not hesitate to say “that God has left to nations the liberty of setting up such Governments as best pleased themselves, ” and then again, ” thatal just magistratical power is from the people.” (Discourses, p. 36, 14.) such wor s were calculated to strengthen the sentiment of human freedom; but it was Locke who gave formal expression to the very principles which were now assailed. In a famous passage of hiswork on Civil Govarnment, written during his exile in Holland, this eminent English man here his testimony thus: “It is true government pannot besupportedwithout front charge and it is fit every one who onioys his s rareof the protectiorr should pay out of hisestate his proportion or the maintenance it. But still it must bewith his own consent: i. o. the consent of the majority. Mai 18either by themselves or their representatives for, if anyone shall claim a power to lay and lev trues on the people by his own authority and with at such convent of the people, he thereby invades the fundamental law of property and subverts the end of government; for what property have I in that which another mayby right take, when he pleases, to himself I”locke (jail Government, boo ii, ch. 7: ch. 14. Here is a plain enunciation of twocapital truths: 1st, that all political society stands only on the consent of the Governed; and, sec on ly, that taxation Without representation i an invasion of fundamental right. It was these truths that our fathers embraced in the controversy before them, and these same truths, happily characterized by Hallarn as “fertile of great revolutions and perhaps pregnant with more, ” are as fertile and as pregnant now as en. Unquestionably, Sidney and Locke exercised more influence over the popular mind, preceding the revolution, than any other writers. They were constantly quoted, and their names were held in reverence. But their authority has not ceased. As they spoke to our fathers, they now speak to us. bilcul palribus, sic nobis. The cause of human liberty, in this great controversy, found a voice in James Otis, a young lower of eloquence, learning, and courage, whose early words, like the notes of the morning bugle mingling with the dawn, awakened the whole country. Asked by the merchants of Bos ton to speak at the bar against writs of assist ance, which had beenissued to enforce ancient Acts of parliament, he s oke, not only as a law yer, bnt as a patriot is speech was the most important, that, down to that occasion, had ever been made On this side of the ocean. An eminent contemporary), ” who was present, says, No harangne of emosthenes or Cicero ever had such eflcet upon the globe as this speech.” (John Adamss Varies, vol. x, page 233.) It was the harbinger of a new era. For 5 hours the brilliant orator unfolded the character of these Acts of Parliament; for 5 hours he held the courtroom in attentive and astonished admiration; but his effort ascended into states manship when, after showing that the colonists were Without representation in Parliament, he cried out, that, notwithstanding this exclusion, Parliament had undertaken “to impose taxes and enormous taxes, burdensome, oppressive taxes, ruine us, intolerable taxes, ” and, then, lowing with a generous indignation at this in Justiee, he launched that thunderbolt of political truth, ” Taxation without representation is Tyranny. From the narrow courtroom where he spoke, the thunderbolt passed, smiting and blasting the intolerable pretension. It was the idea of John Locke; but the fervid orator, with tongue of flame, had given to it the intensity of his own enius. HeTiad found it in a book of philosop y;but he sent it forth as a winged messenger, blazing in the sky. John Adams, who, as a young man just admitted to the bar, was present at this scene, dwells on it often with sympathetic power. There, in the old Town House of Boston, sat the 5 judges of the province, with Hutchinson as Chief Justice, in robes of scarlet, with cambric bands and judicial wigs; and there too in owns, bands, and tiewigs were the barristers. onspicuous on the wall were fulllength por traits of 2 British Monarchs, Charles H and James H; while in the corners were the like nesses of Massachusetts Governors. In this presence the great oration was delivered. The patriot lawyer had refused compensation. “In such a cause, ” said he, “I despise all fees.” He s oke for his country and for mankind. Firm y he planted himself on the rights of man, which he insisted were by the everlasting law of nature, inherent and inalienable; and these rights he uobly proclaimed, were common to all, without distinction of color. To suppose them surrendered in any other way than by equal rules and general consent was to suppose men idiots or madmen whose acts are not binding. But he especially flew at 2 arguments of tyranny: 1st, that the colonists were “vire tual y7 represented; and 2ndly, that there was such a difference between direct and in direct taxation, that while the former might be questionable, the latter was not. To these 2 apologies he replied: 1st, that no such phrase as “virtual representation” was known in law or constitution that it is altogether a subtlet and an illusion, wholly unfounded and absurd and that we must not be cheated by any such phantom or any other fiction of law or politics, or an monkis trick of deceit and hypocris; and, en, in the 2nd place, he said with the same crushing force, that, in the absence of representation, all taxation, whether direct or in irect, whether internal or external, whether on land or on trade, was equally obnoxious to the same unhesitating condemnation. The effect of this effort was electric. The judges were stunned into silence, and postponed their judgment. The people were arouse to a frenzy of patriotism.” merican Independence, ” says John Adams, in the record of his impressions, ” was then and there born; the seeds of patriots and heroes were then and there sown, to defend the vigorous youth. Every man of a crowded audience appeared to go away as I did, read to take arms against writs of assist ance. hen and there was the 1st scene of the 1st act of opposition to the arbitrary claims of GreatBritain. Then and there the child Independence was born.” (J. Adamss Works, vol. x, p. 247; see also pp. 293376; Tudors Life of Otis, pp. 7177.) But this great birth is inseparably associated with the principle, then and there declared, that “Taxation Without representation is Tyranny.” From this time forward Otis dedicated himself singly to the cause he had so bravely u held, and the popular heart clove to him. lie became the favorite of his fellowcountrymen. His arguments were reeated; his words were gratefully adopted, an the saying, “Taxation without representation is tyranny, ” became a maxim of patriotism. In May 1761, only afew weeks afler this utterance, he was chosen a Representative of Boston, in the Legislature, by an almost unanimous vote. The Crown Officers were dismayed by this most significant election, and one of them, speaking with prophetic lam entation, said that “ It would shake the prov ince to its foundation, ” on which John Adams remarked, many years later when some of its results were already visible, ” That election he. shaken 2 continents and will shake four.” (Ibid, p. 248.) Of course this was simply because itaffirmed and invigorated a practical truth of government, by which allthe people are lifted to political power. At hisnew ost of duty, Otis became the acknowledged lea er, constant, fer vid, eloquent, and according to his own language “daring to speak plain English.” While still declaring an unhesitating loyalty to the Crown, and even pledgin “the last perin and the last drop of blood, rafiierthan, by any ack wardness, his Majestys measures should be cin barrassed, ” he made haste to announcein words where humor blends with truth, ” that God made all men naturally equal; that theideas of earthly superiority are educational and not in nate; that no government has a right to make hobbyhorses, asses, and slaves of the subject, nature having made sulfieient of the 2 former for all the lawful purposes of man, from the harmless peasant in the field to the most refined politician in the cabinet but none of the last, which infallibly proves they are unnecessary. But the case wou d have been imperfectly stated, if the patriot representative ha not once more cried on t against taxation without representation and warned against the calamities which must follow from this unquestionable tyranny. This early debateis preserved in a pamphlet, printed in 1762, and entitled “A indication of the HoRep of Massachusetts Bay, by James Otis, Esq., ” which we are told, by an eminent authority contains, in solid substance, all thatia to be found in the Declaration Oi 1866. 679 Rights and Wrongs, issued by Congress in 1774 the DeclarIndep in 1776, and the subsequent writings of those political phil osophers who upheld the national cause. (J. Adamss Works, vol. 1:, pp. 300312.) pardon me if I dwell too minutely on this history. I do it only to illustrate the issue of principle actually made in the controversy with the mot or country. The controvers still continued, when in 1764, the orator, who adalready by voice and pen maintained the cause of his country, at forth another publication, entitled, ” The ights of the Colonists asserted and proved.” ark, if you please, the vigor of the title. The rights “of the colonists are not only “asserted, ” but proved.” reriuted in London, this am phlet was read y Lord Mansfield, Chie Justice of England, and was answered by Soame Jenyns, a partisan writer of the Crown. The copy I now hold in my hand has the imprint of London, and is marked 3rd edition. crhaps all things considered. it is the most remarkable pamphlet of our country and one of the most remarkable ever written. Recent events, verityin the truths it so early announced, elevate its place in history. Here will be found the same vital principles, enforced with learning and eloquence, whiich Otis had announced at the bar in the case of writs of assistance, and then again in the debates of the legislature; and here may be seen, not only the truths asserted by our fathers, but the unanswerable arguments by which they were vindicated. Even an abstract would e too long for this occasion; but the character of this Defense of the American People, not unlike Miltons famous Defensio proIopulo Anglicano, will appear in a few passages, where, as in gleams, may be discerned the I ca of a Republic. I do not pause on the assertion, “that every man of sound mind should have his vote, ” or the authority which he invokes, when he says, “Lord Coke declares that it is against Magna Carts and against the franchises of the land for free men to be taxed but by their own consent.” Nor do I dwell on that admirable statement of much in little, where he says, “the 1st and simple principle is Equality and the Power of the Whole.” (Page 14.) The Equality of All 7and the Power of All! The 2 buttresses of a just government. I come at once to the plain statement of fundamental right. Here are 2 sentences: "The Supreme Power cannot take from any man any part of his property without concert i!n peacon or by“representation.” Iaxes are not to be laid on the people, but bu their corneal in person, or by represetation. "Paae37. such, he says, are “ the 1st principles of law and justice and the great barriers of a free state, ” and then he adds, “I ask, I Want no more.” and these principles he claims for all, without distinction of color. “The colonists are by the law of nature freeborn. As indeed are white an black. Doesit follow that it is right to enslave a man becausehe is black? Will short, curled hair, like wool. insteadofChristian hair, as it is called by thosewhose heart is as hard as the nether millstone. help the argument? Can any logical inferencein favor of slavery be drawn from a flat nose, inlong or a short faco?"Page 29. Assuming that these rights are common to all, whether white or black, he then insists that any taxation, whether direct or indirect, without representation, is only another form of slavery: "I can seeno reasonto doubt but that the imposition of taxes, whether on trade, or on land, or houses, or ships, or real or personal. fixed or floating property in the colonies is absolutely irreconcilable with the rights of the colonists, as British subjects and anmm. for in a state of nature no man can take any (ltpprrow puert my from myleibweirtthyoauntdm myacltonumseenat(. laUnhe.: (Tihone 1 very act of taxing. Exercised over those who are not represented, appearsto me to deprive them of one of their most essential rights as free men: and if Continued leems to be in effect an entire disenfranchisement of envry civil right. For what one civil right is worth Ii rush after a mans property hil subjectto be takenfrom him at pleasure, without his consentl”Page37. such was the voice of James Otis, who was our John the Baptist. It was he who went before in this great controversy. He 1st stated the case between the colonies and the mother country, and 1st developed the principles in issue. But though 1st, he was not long alone. Conspicuous among his followers was Samuel Adams, that austere patriot, always faithful and true, who desired to make Puritan Boston “a Christian Sparta.” He was remarkable for the simplicit, accuracy, and harmony of his style, and on this account often held the pen for the Legislature or for the Town meeting. In obe dience to the latter, he drew up instructions to the representatives of Boston, which were afterward adopted in Faneuil Hall, where repeating the very arguments of Otis, he says, “If our trade may be taxed, why not our lands? Why not the produce of our lands and everything we possess or make use of?” and then, advancing in the subject, he asks, ” If taxes are laid upon us in any shape, without our having a legal representation where they are laid, are we not reduced from the character of free subjects to the miserable state of tributary slaves?” (John Adamss Works, x, p. 294.) In asking this question he leaves no room to doubt the answer it deserved. Meanwhile Franklin, as the general agent of the colonies, had been maintaining the same principles in England. But the ministry, hurried on by that fatal folly which leads to destruction, persevered in their pretension. The stamp act was passed, and for the 1st time in our history papers were to bear stamps, in order to swell the revenue of the Crown. Massachusetts remonstgated against the tyranny, informal resolutions, adopted unanimously, wherein it is declared, ” that by the law of nature no man has a right to impose laws more than to levy taxes upon another; thatthb freemon pays no tax. as the freemon submits to no law, but such as emanates from the body in which he is Represented; that the Parliament possessed no right of enacting laws binding upon the colo nies, and that whatever legislative power to that effect had been exercised by the Parliament had been abusive and unlawful.” (John Adamss Works, vol. i, p. 78. In an address to the royal Governor, the legislature, after forth the injustice of the stain act, procseeetdtieng to say: “We must beg your Excellency to excuse us from doing anything to assist in the execution of it.” [he people in town meetings took up the strain and all united against the act. But Massachusetts was not alone. A writer in Virginia, catching the spirit of Otis, declared, in an elaborate fpamphlet, that it was an “essential principle of the English constitution that the subject shall not be taxed without his consentf and then, a sin, quoting the words of another, said: “h on have natural and free men legal rights which they may justly maintain, and no legislative authority can deprive them of.” considerations on the prorieh of Taxes in the British Colonies, 5.) The Legislature of Virginia, even before hilassachusetts, adopted resolutions kindred in spirit, which were moved by Patrick Henry an be roically carried by is eloquent voice, even against the menacing er of “treason.” Thus spoke Virginia in one of these resolutions, exposing the true issue in question, and insisting thp): taxation and representation were insepa ra" e: Renolvrd, Th at the taxation of the people by themselvesor byper mmcharm to reprenen!them, who can only know what taxes the people are able to bear, or the cuiest methodof raising them, and must themselvesbo affectedby every tax laid on the people, 1:. The only necurilu against burdensomelaxalion and the distin uishing characteristicofBritish freedom. without which the ancient constitution cannot exist.” Wirls Life of Patrick Henry. p. 57. Pennsylvania, by her House of Assembly, spoke also to the same effect as follows: “Ifuolrrrl, Nem. Con. That this Houso think ittheir duty thus firmly to assert with modesty and decency. their inherrntriahtl, that their posterity may learn and know that it was not with their consent and acquiescence, that any la. relshould belevied on them by any personbut their own representatives. “. The controversy still proceeded. At the in vitation of Massachusetts o. Congress assembled at NewYork in October 1765, where were del ggates from Massachusetts, Connecticut, NewYork, Pennsylvania, Delawaie, and SCarolina, which, after a session of 3 weeks, adopted a declaration of colonial rights, where, among other things, it is declared: "That it is insepiirably essential to the freedomof a people and the undoubted right of English mem that . Ngoivetanxpebresoimnaplolysoerd boyn the eimr rrbpur!rwwitrhnlln miivrmo. w"nCOIMLM “That the people of the colonies are not and from their local circumstances cannot be represented in the House of Commons of GreatBritain.” At last the stamp act was repealed, but the pretension of taxation was suspended rather than abandoned. A ministerial artisan continued to urge the scheme in the following bare faced words:,” All countries. unaccustomed to taxes, are at 1st violently prepossessed against them. though the price which they give for their liberty, like an ox untamed to the yoke, they show at 1st o. very stubborn nook, but by degrees becomedocile an yield a willing obedience. Auiericai nustbo taxed.” iuticcand Itcrcanm of hiring the american Colonies Demmtraled. London. 1766. As time advanced the old audacity was revived; and, under the lead of the eccentric Charles Townsend, taxes were imposed by parliament on tea, lass, lead, paperand painters colors. The 01 opposition in the colonies was revived also, and taxation without representation was again denounced. Committees ot correspondence were established and the work of organization began. The whole country was in a fever. Massachusetts, as in times past, did not hesitate to proclaim the true principle. At a Town meeting of Boston in 1772, there was a declaration otrights, “which no man or body of men, consistently with their own rights as men and citizens or members of society, can for themselves give up or take away fromothers;” and here we meet again familiar words: "The supremepower cannot instly take from any man any part of as property without his consent in personor by his representatives.”Paqc10. Against all Parliamentary taxation, as often as it showed itself, this was the impenetrable buckler that was raised. But the mother country was perverse. Shiloads of tea arrived. At Boston the tea was t rown into the harbor. The colonies entered into an agreement of nonimportation. Then came. troops, and the Boston Port Bill, by which this harbor was vindictively closed against commerce. The whole country, including even SCarolina, made common cause with Massachusetts. Gadsden exclaimed, ” Massachusetts sounded the trum pet, but to Carolina is it owing that it was at tended to.” and Virginia exclaimed, ” We will necer be taxed but I our representatives. This is the great badge of freedom. Whether the people in Boston were warranted by justice when they destroyed the tea, we know not; but this we know, that the Parliament, by their proceedings, have made us and all North America, parties in the present dispute.” (wirts Life of Patrick Henry, 90.) Meanwhile more troops arrived. All) things portended strife; and yet the colonists did not ask for independence. They only asked for their rights, insisting always that there should be no taxation without rerescutation.” The patriots of this province, said John Adams in 1774, “desire nothing new they wish only to keep their old privileges. They were for 150 years allowed to tax themselves. This plan they wish may continue forever.” (John Adamss llorks, vol. iv, p. 131.) and thus stood the 2 parties face to face. Then came the Continental Congress, which at once put forth resolutions, where, after claiming the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property as natural rights, it was insiste that the colonists could be bound by no law to which they had not consented by their representatives. Here was the original programme of Jame Otis: 1st the rights of men, according to natural laws; and 2ndly, the principle that government, including of course taxation, depended on the consent of the governed.” The foun dalion of English Liberty and of all free government, ” said these resolutions, “is a right in the people to participate in their legislative council.” American Archives, 4th series, vol. i, p. 822.) n harmon with these resolutions were addresses of the continental Congress to the people of GreatBritain, to the people of the Province of Quebec, and to the king himself, each of which pleads for Human Rights in the largest sense. The address to the people of England begins by an apeal for “the rits of men and the blessings o Libert, ” an then insists “ that no power on earth as a right to take our property from us without our consent.” (Ibid, p. 918.) The address to the people of t“he Province of Quebec, in similar spirit says, the 1st great right is that of the people having a share in their own government y their representatives, chosen by themselves, and in consequence of being ruled by law, which they themselves approve; not by edicts of men over whom they have no contro. This is a bulwark surrounding and defending their property.” (Ibid, p. 931.) and the address to the king has the same keynote when it says, ” Duty to your Majesty and regard for the preservation of ourselves and our posterity, the primary obligations of nature and of society command us to entreat your royal attention.” (Ibid.) Thus constantly, down to the last moment, did our fathers set forth the principles which they sought to establish as essential to free government. Thus constantly did they testify to the cause for which I now plead. Answering voices came back from England, all showing the principles in issue. The right of taxationv was asserted; butthere were many who disguised the tyranny by assumin that the colonies were “virtually represen.” Sir James Marriott, the Admiralty Judge, insisted boldly. that, since the lands of the colonies, according to their charters, were held in socage tenure, ” as of the royal manor of East Green wich in Kent.” and since East Greenwich was represented in Parliament, therefore our fathers were represented in Parliament. Perhaps that spirit o legal technicality, which is satisfied by mere form at the expense of reason, was never more strikingly illustrated than in this sense less argument. The whole retension was scouted by Mr. Pitt, afterward ord Chatham, in terms of indignant eloquence.” The idea, said he, “of a virtual representation of America in this House is the most contem tihle that ever entered into the head of a man. t does not deserve a serious refutation.” As the controversy continued, and especially as those mns terly state papers the addresses of the continental congressreached England, the ministers of the Gliing were put on the defensive. They retained as their advocate none other than Dr. Johnson who, for a sum of mono lent the pen which had written Rasselas, the Vanity of Human Wishes, and the English Diction ary, to a rancorous attack on the principles of our fathers. Its concentrated spirit was all expressed in its title, “Taxation no Tyranny.” Another pamphlet appeared in reply, with the epigraph, ” Resistance no Rebellion, ” embodying the idea that, where there is taxation without represention, resistance is justifiable; and thus was issue joined even at ondon. This wasin 1775. Already the “ embattled fanners" had gathered at Lexington and Bunker Hill; already Washington had drawn his sword at Cambridge, as CommanderinChief and Generalissimo of the newborn armies; already war had begun. At last to the defiant watchword “Taxation no Tyranny, ” sent from across the sea, our fathers returned that other defiant watchword “Independence.” But in seeking Independence, they did not turn their backs upon the principles asserted throughout the longeontrovarsy. Independence was the means to an end, and that en was nothing less than a Republic, with Liberty and Equality as the animating principles, where the government should stand on the consent of the governed or, which is the same thing, where there should be no taxation without representation 1 for here was the distinctive feature of American Institutions. SOLEMN DECLARATIONS OF THE FATHERS (2.) The principles, heralded through 15 years of controvers, were not forgotten when ndependence was cclared; and here I come to the lecond head of these illustrations It sometimes happens that men fail in support of the cause to which they are pledged, or content themselves with something less than the truth. But it was not so with our fathers. In declaring Independence they continued loyal to their constant vows. The natural rights of all men and the just foundation of government, which James Otis had 1st announced; which Samuel Adams had maintained with s lendid simplicity; which Patrick Henry had ving icated, even against the cry of “treason, ” and which had been affirmed by legislative bodies and public mectin s, were embodied in the opening words of e Declaration. There they stand, like a mighty overture to the new Republic, interpreting, inspiring, and filling it with their transforming power. These are the words: "We hold thesetruths to be MUemdentthat all menare created equal; that the are endowedby their Creator with certain inaliennb o rights; that among theseare life liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that. losocurcthesorights. governments areinstituted amongen. rterunny the srjlut powersfrom the consent of the Governed.” Foremost is the Equality of all men. Of course, in a declaration of rights, no such supreme folly was intended as that all men are created equal in form or capacity, bodily, ormental; but simply that they are created in rights. This is the 1st of the selfevieq, ucanlt truths that are announced, leading and governing all the rest. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are among inalienable rights; but the are all held in subordination to that primay truth. Here is the startingpoint of the whole, and the end is like the startingpoint. In announcing that Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, the declaration repeats again the same rocla vmation of Equal Rights. Thus is Equa ty the Alpha and the Omega, in which allother rights are embraced. Men may not have a natural right to certain things, but most clearly the have a natural right to impartial laws, by which they shall be secured inequal rights. Lquality in rights is the 1st of rights. t was because these truths had been set at naught by GreatBritain, in her relations with our fathers, that Independence was declared. To these truths, therefore was the new Government solemnly dedicate, as it assumed its separate and equal station among the Powers of the earth. Do on ask for the definition of “ Republic?" ere it is by patriot lexico phers, whose authority cannot be questione by us. As the war of Independence began with a declaration of principles, so it ended with a like declaration. At its successful close the continental Congress, in an address to the people by the pen of James Madison thus announced the objects for which it had been waged, and thus supplied another definition of the new government: Letit be remembered that it has been the ride and the boast of America that the rights or Ivflll. she contend. dwerelherighlaohfnmnn nature. By the blessing of the Author of 1buse Rights, they have prevailed over all opposition and :onn the bruu of 13 In dependent states. lo instance has heretofore occu. nor can anyinstance beex ccted hereafter to occur, in which the unadulterated dornu of It hean Government can pretend to so fair an opportunity of justifying theinsclves by their fruits. n this view the citisens of the U.S. are responsible for the greatest truth ever confided to a politienl society. o)i4malof(bnlmmtal (b1wrul, pnl, 1783 vol. viii, such was the sublime declaration. It was for the “rights of human nature ” that our fathers went forth to battle, and these rights are proclaimed to “form the basis of 13 independent States.” But foremost among these rightsisE quality, including of course the equal right ofal to a voice in the Government. nd this is the Republic which our fathers, with pride and boast, then gave as an example to I mankind. The same spirit appears in the National constitution, which, by its preamble, asserts prac tically the same sentiments. Here it “ is: We, the people of the U.S. in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice insure domestic tranquility mrovide for the common defense, promotethe generalwelfare, and secure the blessings oflibertyfo ourselvesand to our posterily. do ordain and est: lish this constitution for the U.S.A. ” Thus, according to this proclamation, the constitution was ordained, not to create an oli garchy or aristocracy, not to exclude certain persons from the pale of its privileges, not to organize inequality o rights in any form, but “to establish justice, which is Equality; “ to insure domestic tranquillity, ” whiich is vain without justice; “to provide for the common defense, ” which is the defense of all; “ to promote the general welfare, ” which is the welfare of all g and “ to secure the blessings of Liberty” to all the people and their posterity, which is to give to all the comlcte enjoyment of rights, foremost among wtheliis Equality. Here, then, is another aut oritative definition of the republic which was formed. Thus has our country testified to its idea of a Republic, not only throughout its long days of controversy, but in these solemn decla rations, which are in themselves monumental acts. OPINIONS or run “mass. (3.) am nowbrought to consider how these same principles have been sustained by eminent characters, whose names are historic, all testifying to them as essential to good government, which is only the synopym o republican government. In their weighty words you will find a definition, constantly repeated, which is in harmony with all the promises of the Fathers, whether in controversy or in these solemn in struments which are among the very titledeeds of the Republic. I begin with Benjamin Franklin, who saw allquestions of government with a surer instinct than any other person in our history. As early as 1736, while still a young man, he wrote an article on government, which was nblished in the Pennsylvania Gazelle, where will be found these words: “Popular Governmentshavenotboen framedwithout the wisestreasons. It seemedhighly fitting that the conduct of magistrates, crrnmt by and or the Good qf the whole shoal be made liable to the inspection and animadvorsionqllhc whole.”Franklin Works, vol. ii, p, 9. It is for the good of the whole, and not for an odious oligare y or an aristocratic class that our patriot speaks, and in these words we find foreshadowe the idea of a republican government; but it was in the discussions on the stamp act, after Otis lind fulmined his flaming bolt, that we find a fuller and more precise definition. Here it is, as adopted, if not writ ten, by Frauklin in 1769: “That every man of the oommonalty, exceptinfants, insane persons, and criminals, is of common right, arid by the laws of God. A free mnn and entitled to the free enjoyment of liberty. That libertv or frrulem confine in having an actual char: in the a poinlment those irhoframe the(am, and who are to)Cthe uard ians of every man; life, property, and peace: or the all ofoneman is as dear to iim as the all of another and the poor man has an equalright but moreneed to have representatives in the Legislature than the in one. 9 That they who have no voioo norvqte in the electing of representatives do not enjoy ltbelfll, are absolutely enslaved to than whohavevote, and to their representatives; for to be enslaved is to have govern ors whom other men. have Iel 017Ofm and be subject to laws made by the representative of others, without having had representatives of our mm to give consent in our behalf. ”FranlclmcWarlu, vol. ii, p. 372 In these emphatic words will be found a complete vindication of the equal right of representation, as essential to free government, so much so, that where this does not exist, Liberty does not exist. Jefferson has followed Franklin in the same vein, expressing himself with greater fervor. The author of the DeclarIndep could not do otherwise. Constantl be testifies to his idea of a Republic. Thus e wrote to Alexander von Humboldt, under date of June 13, 1817, affirming the rights of the majority as “the 1st principle of republicanism, ” and assuming the principle of Equal Rights: “The 1st principle of republicanism is, that the unions:15: is the fundamental law of over! Society of individuals ufeonal nahtl. To cqnsidor the will of the society constrained by the majority of a single vote as sacred as ifnnanimous is the 1st of allcssons in importance votthelwt which is thoroughly learned. This law unceiiisri uarded. nootlrerrcmainl 1 int thpt of force. which ends neccssarilly in military despotism. ". Iw orwn Works, vol. vii. p. 75. In another letter to John Taylor, of Caroline, dated May 28, 1816, he thus defines a Republic: “Indeed. it must be acknowledged. that the term republic is of very1 vague application in every language Witness the self –styled republics of Holland, glivitserland, Genoa, Venice, Poland. Were I to as sign to this term a precise and definite idea. I would say. purely and simply. it means a Government by its citizens in mau, aetin directly and porsonallv, accord in to rules ulnblinhct by [hem qinriru; and that every other Government is more or lossrepublican. in proportion us it hasin its compositionmore or lessof this ingredient of the direct action of the citizens. "Jd fernona Works;vol. vii. p. 600. Here again, while confessing the uriquestion able vagueness of the term according to old examples, he assumes that in a Republic all the citizens must have a voice and in another place he thus indignantly condemns denial of representation: Q"And also that 1/2 of our brethren who fight. rnd pay taxes are excluded. like llclots, troni the lghts of representation as ifsociety were instituted for the soil and notfnr the men inhiibitin it, or one Uzi 1hr": roulil disposenfllic righlqumll inwill of the other huh without their consent.”Iliid, p. 607. Thus did he scout the whole wretched pretension of oligarchy and monopoly by which citizens are deprived of equal rights. Madison was colder in nat ure than Json, but eller they were associates in opinion, as in political life. The former in the debates on the constitution thus condemned the denial of rights on account of color: “We have seen the meredistinction of color. made in the most enlightened period of time. nground of the most oppressive dominion over exercised by man over man.ElliolDebut“, vol. iv. p. 162. Speaking directly of the right of suffrage, he uses the following language: The right of mffranris certainlyone of the fundamentalarticlesof republican government and oughtnot to be left tobe regulatedby the legislature. A gradual abridsment of this right has been the mode in which nrialocraciu have been built on the ruins of popular forms. ”Elliula Debates. vol. v, p. 338. Thus declaring himself against “aristocra cies, ” he naturally recognize the true idea, and here he was perplexedb the question of a prope“rty qualification, which he says in one place, does not satisfy the fundameplal principle that men cannot be justly bound by laws in which they have no art.” (Ibid, p. 680 making then again in anot or place, “It violates the vital principle of free government, that those who are to e bound by laws, ought to have a veice in making them, and the violation would become more strikingly unjust as the lawmakers become the minorit. (Ibid, p. 682.) Thus completely recognizing the great American principle that Just government can stand only on the consent of the governed, ” he is brought to this conclusion: “Under every view of the subject, it seemsindispensablo that the massof citizens should not bewithout a Voice lrimaking the lairswliirh they aretoobey and in choosing the inagistrates who areto administer them. ”Ibid. p. 583. In one of the most remarkable chapters in the Federalist, Madison gives expansion to this idea in“hIfis formal definition of a Republic: we resort for a criterion to the different principle licsdon, wwheimchadyildfeerfeinnet afor rempusobfl icztoovbeer. nonrieantatlereasetsitnaiib bestow that name on, a aovemmmt. which rlrrium all. on pmosradircgtluor indircolll from tlwweal bodyof the people and is administered by pfficers holding their offices (lliilli, pleasure. for a limited time or during good. behavior. I! is ruentidl for. each a government thatu (IEIdeIlvfll from the Great body of the wcielu, not from an inconnderable proportion, on A FAVORHDeanss o P ii otherwise abandtu of tyrannical nobles. exercising their oppressions by a delegation of their powers, might aspiretotho rank of republicans and elaim fpr their government the honorable title of republic. ”Federalist No. 39, by Madison. Thus, in these few significant words, does this authority teach that a Republic is a government “ derived from the eat body of t ie peogle, ” and not from “a avored class of it.” etter words could not be found for the American definition. Hpmilton follows With, perhaps, equal authority. Though approaching political questions from opposite pomtsof view, we fin him on this occasion uniting With Franklin, Jefferson, and Madison. Here is a glimpse of the definition he would supply: “As long as offices are open for all and no condituhoml rank is established, it is pure republic flll lsm. "Hamilton Works. vol. ii, p. 47. p Not for an oligarchy, but for all isa republic created. Then again he testifies for equal Rights and against partial distilwliona: “There can be no truer principle than this, that every individual of the communityin; an equalright In the protection of goorrnment. proposeafree government, Can it be so. if partial du tuwtion care made?"1bid, p. 415 and then again he says in positive words: "A share in the sovereigntyof the State. which is exercised by the citizens at large in votin at elections, is one of the most imioriunt rights of the subject and in" ICPPHHHH(“mud to ntrinr foremost in the estimationof the low. It is that ril it by which we exist as a free people. "Hamilton. orks. vol. ii. p. 315. He then portrays the principles of the Revolution as follows: “They tiiuirlit the inhabitants of this country to risk their lives and fortunesin asscrting their liberty, or, in other words, their right mu sharein the Gowrnmmit. That portion of the sovereigntyto which each individual is entitled, can never betoo highly prized. It is that for which we have fought and bled. ”1ln(l. More could not be said in the few words employed. But it is when Hamilton comes to consider the constitution of the U.S and to expound its provisions, that, while recognizing the anoma ous condition of Slavery, and exposing what he calls “ the comrompnag expedient of the constitution, ” by which the slave is divested of 2/5ths of t ie man, ” be yet declares “ the equal level of free inhabitants, ” and announces “ that if the laws are to restore the rights which have been taken away the negroes could no longer be refused an equal share o reiesentalion with the other inhab itants. ere are the important words: “It is only under t –he pretext that the laws have transferred the negroes into subJectsof property. that a place is disputed them in the computation of nuini bers; and ir is smurrsn run I? THE LAWSwuss ro rinsronn run moms WHICH HAVE anus nuns AWAY, run NEGROES counn no nonsense: asrvsnn ANsoon. sums or asriissnsrxijiowwnu run ornpii INHAB inxrs. "THE Federalist, No. 54. by Hamilton. Thus, according to Hamilton, if the slaves are restored to the rights which have been taken awayin other words, if they become free nienthey will be on the same equal level, and will be entitled to the some equal share of Representation With the other inhabitants. The 2 ideas of Equality and of a right to representation, which were so early and so constantly avowed by the Fathers, are here again recognized as essential conditions of government; and this is the true definition of a Republic. With these great representative names to illustrate the American idea of a Republic, 1 might close this catalogue. Surely this is enough. But there are yet others, whose authority cannot be disregarded. Here is the testimony of that inflexible spirit, who had thought and acted much, Samuel Adams, in a letter to his kinsman, John Adams: “That the sovereignty rmdeain the people is a political doctrine which l have never board an American politicians criously deny. “ l e, the prov11. s the style of the Federal constitution. They optedjt: and couformably to it, they dele gate the exercise of the powersof governmentto r ticulnr persons, who. After short intervals. resign their powers to flupmplw and they will recleotthem or appoint othors. Iis they seefit. "JaImAda1ma Works. vol. vi. 1). 21. Here also is the testimony of another republican, who signed the DeclarIndep, Roger Sherman, in a letter to John Adams: “What especially denominates it a republic is its dependence on the public or people at large, without any hereditary powers. But it is not of so much importanceby what appellation the government is distinguished. Disustohaveit constitutci (oaemire therinhls, advance the happiness of a the oomuaitu. "lbid, p. There also was John Adams himself, who was the least distinct of all the fathers on this question; but we find in the introduction to his defense of the American constitution a passage which is full of prophetic meaning. Here it is; “ 13 governments. thus founded on the natural authority qf the people alone, without a pretenseof miracle or mystery and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe. nre a great point gained in favor of the rights of mimkiml. “J. tlamaaWorks, vol. iv. [1. 2. Here is a lain assertion that our 13 States were ounded “ on the natural authority of the people alone, ” and that they were destined to spread over all North America. Here also is a voice from SCarolina, in a speech of Charles Pinekney, on the adoption of the constitution: “The doctrine ofropresentation is the fundamental of a Republic. As to the United Netherlands. it is such a confusion of states and assemblies, that I have always been at a loss mwhyiit species of government to term it. AGCOXLllltlgo idea of the word it is not it Republic: for I conciic yivschiotiuisld indispensable in a Republic that all author flow from the people. l“eActi Republic is where the propleat large. either color by representation, form the legislature. "Ellio t llcbatca, vol. iv, pp. 326328. Colonel Mason, of Virginia, who always spoke With so much point, said in the National Convention: “The true idea was that common having evidence of attachment to and permanent common interest with the society, ouirht to share in all its rights and dutics. "Elliolu Debates, vol. v, p. 397. Here again was a lain recognition of the revolutionary idea. ere. also, is another voice from Virginia. I quote the words of a Virginia writer on government John Taylor, of Caroline: “The end of this guarantee is a RFG. The meaning of this expression is notso unsettled here as ine ther countries. because we agreein one descriptive character as essential to the cristence of a RFG. This 18representation. We do not admit a (lovem mrnrlnliecent in its origin republic mi. ttfll88 it is indi, filled by reprfaenlglion;nor do we allow it to be so, unless its legislation is alsofounded upon representation.” Cona!ructzon Comtrued, by 01in aulor, d Caroline. p. 312. I close this array illustrative of opinion, by the words of Danie Webster, in harmony with the rest: "Now. fellow citizens. I will venture to statein a few words what I take these American principle in substance to be. They consist, as I thin. in the place, 1st in the establishment of popular governments on the basisot representation. " “ u is represInlalion in tobemarlcas equal as circumstances will allow. cbaterl llorlot, vol. ii. p. 601. Thus, at ever stage, from the opening, when Otis announce the master principle, ” Taxation without representation is Tyranuy, ” all along to Daniel Webster, we fin “representation ” an essential element in the American definition of a republican Government. PUBLIC ACTS OF THE STATES. (4.) From authoritative opinions I now pass to public acts, which testify to the true idea of Republican Government. Thesepublic acts are of 2 different classes: 1st, by the U.S., in their collective character; and 2ndly, by the States individually. Looking at the States, in their collective character, we shall find that at the adoption of the National constitution they had resed to recognize any exclusion from the elective franchise on account of color or race. The Fathers knew too well the requirements of a Republican Government to sanction any such exclusion. Recognizin Slavery as a transitory condition; which would soon cease, they threw over it a careful oblivion; but they were none the less jealous of the rights of all free men. The slave did not pay taxes, and, so far as he wasa person and not property, he was a part of the family of his master, by whom he was represented, so that the commanding principle of the Revolution was not disturbed in his case. But, on becoming a free men, the slave stepped at once within the pale of taxation, and therefore necessarily of representation, since the 2 were inseparable and this consideration was the guide to our fathers. The Congress of the Confederation refused point blank to insert the word “white” in the Articles of Confederation. The question came up 25th June, 1778, on these words: “Tun runs INHABITANTS of each of these States (paupers, vagabonds and fugitives from justice excepted) shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of runs owners in the several States.” The delegates from SCarolina moved, in behalf cigarheir State, to limit this guarantee to “free white inhabitants.” n the question of inserting the word “white, 11 States Voted; 2 in favor of the insertion; one was divided; and 8 were against it. SCarolina, not disheartened, made another attempt, by moving to add, after the words “the several States, ” the further clause, ” according to the law of such States respectively for the government of their own rues WHITE inhabitants, thus seeking again to limit the operation of this guarantee. This proposition was also voted down by the same decisive majority of 8 to 3 and thus did our fathers testify to the right of representation without distinction of color. On other occasions, for successive years, they constantly gave the same testimony. By 2 different acts of the Confederation, one in April, 1783, and another in April, 1784, the war expenses were apportioned among the several States, according to “the number of white and other free citizens and inhabitants ” thus positively embracing colored persons. n the Act for the temporary government of the territory “ceded or to be ceded” to the U.S., dated April 23, 1784, and drawn by Jefferson, the voters are declared to be the “free males of full age, ” without distinction of color. In the famous Ordinance for the government of the Northwestern Territory, drawn by Nathan Dane, of Massachusetts, adopted by the confederation July 13, 1787, an then retinacted by our Congress, after the adoption of the constitution the voters are declared to be “ free male inhabitants of full age”again without distinction of color. Then came successive acts of congress for the government of Territories, where the rule in the Ordinance for the north western Territories was followed, and there was no distinction of color. If thisrule was changed, it was only when the partakers in the Itcvolution and the authors of the constitution had ceased to exercise their influence over public affairs. The testimon of the Fathers was constant, and it is only of this that I speak on this occasion. Turning from the States collectively, and looking at them individually, we shall find the same testimony. By the constitution of NewHampshire, at the time of the adoption of the National constitution, the suffrage was vested in “every male inhabitant of each town and parish” with certain qualifications, but without any exclusion on account of color. By the constitution of Massachusetts, the suffrage was vested in “every male person" with certain specific qualifications, but without distinction of color. RhdIsland, at the adoption of the constitution, was under her original colonial charter, which provided for elections by “the major part of the free men of the respective towns or places, ” without distinction o color. Connecticut was likewise under her original colonial charter, which required that the voters should have “ maturity in years, quiet and peaceahle behavior, a civil conversation and 40 shillin s freehold or 40 ounds personal estate, ” without distinction of peolor. By the constitution of NewYork, the suffrage was vested in “every male inhabitant of ful age, ” with certain specified qualifications, but without distinction of color. By the constitution of NewJersey it was vested in “ all inhabitants of this colony of fulla e, ” with certain specified qualifications, hut without distinction of color. y the constitution of Pennsylvania it was vested in “every freeman of the full age of 21 years ” with certain specified qualifications, but without distinction of color. By the Declaration of Rights prefixed to the constitution of Delaware, it was announced that “every freeman, having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest, with an attachment to the community, bath the right of suffrage.: without distinction of color. By the constitution of Maryland the suffrage was vested in “ all free men above 21 years of age, ” with certain specified qualifications, but without distinction of color. By the Declaration of Rights prefixed to the Constitution of Virginia it was announced that “ALL MEN having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest, with an attachment to the community, have the right of the suffrage, ” without distinction of color and It is added 1to color, claimed and exercised the franchise.” that “ they cannot betaxed or deprived of their propgrty for public use, without their own consent or that of their representatives so elected, not bound by any law to which they have not in like manner assented for the public good.” By the constitution of NCarolina the suffrage was vested in “all free men of the age of 21 years, ” with certain specified qualifications, and without distinction of color; and this rule continued down to 1835 when the constitution was amended or rather let me say perverted. That eminent citizen, Chief Justice Gaston, of NCarolina, in givingjudgment at a later day, said: “It is a matter of univer sal notoriety that free persons, without regard (4 Dev and Battle, Rep. 35. The State vs. Manual.) By the constitution of Georgia the suffrage was vested in “citizens and inhab itants, ” with certain specified qualifications, but without distinction of color. 10 these States I may add Tennessee, which was carved out of NCarolina, and followed her beni n example. Her constitution, which was adopted in 1796, vested the suffrage in “ every fceman of 21 years, ” with certain qualifications, but without distinction of color; and this rule continued down to the erversion of the constitution in 1834. Mr. have Johnson, of Tennessee, once PostMGenl, is reported to have said thathe was originally elected to Congress by the votes of colored persons, i and I have heard Mr. John Bell make the same confession with regard to himself. It only remains to speak of SCarolina, v the early and constant marplot of republican, institutions, where, by the constitution, the suffrage was vested “in every free white man, and, no other person, ” with certain specified qualifications. This was the only State, among the; original 13, which at that time allowed av discrimination, founded on color, to find a place in its constitution. It was the only State which, atter uniting in a National Declaration, that “all men are created equal, ” o enly and auda ciously commenced the examp e of a “white man s Government.” This apostate idea, which has since played such a art as a disturber ot the national peace, wast en and there born, as the opposite idea was born in Massachusetts under the ins iring words of James Otis. An every other State followed this early voice. Their constitutions spoke of “persons,” “in habitants,” “free man,” or better still “men, ” without any prefix of “white.” Color was notmentioned. But even in SCarolina, which introduced the discreditable tyranny into her constitution this exclusion was more aparent than real. In point of fact, even as ate as 1790, when the 1st census was taken, there were in this State only 1801 free colored citizens. Of course their exclusion was wrong, mean, and unrepublican; but I do not assert that it was on such a scale as to justify the interference of the Nation toreform it, especially where there was no lapse of the State Government. On the other hand its sufferance cannot be interpreted into a waiver of the principles for which the Revolution was fou ht. such are the public acts of the States collectively and individually at the time of the adoption of the National constitution, illustrating with rare harmony the American idea of a republic, and testifying against any exclusion ounded on color. Add to these that the National constitution, which carefully excepts “Indians not taxed” from the basis of representation, pays an open homage to the principle that there can be no taxation without representation. Add then, that it expressly founds the Government upon “the people, ” not only in the preamble, which begins “we, the people, but also in providing that the HoRep shall be “chosen by the people of the several States.” Add also the crowning fact, that it recognizes no distinction of colorthat it treats all with the same imartial justice and who are you, sir, who will are to foist into this MagnaCarta an oligarchical idea which can find no sanction in its republican text? mamas nsrmiriox or A REPUBLICAN oovnatr new and here I bring this part of the argument to a close. We have seen the origin of the controversy which led to the Revolution, when Otis, With such wise hardihood, insisted upon Equal Rights, and then giving practical effect to the lofty demand, sounded the battlecry that “Taxation without representation is Tyr anny.” We have lbllowe this controversy in its anxious stages, where these principles were constantly asserted and constantly denied. until it broke forth in battle; we have seen these principles adOpted as the very frontlet of the republic, when it assumed its place in the family of nations, and then again when it ordained its constitution; we have seen them avowed and illustrated in memorable words by the greatest authorities of the time; lastly, we have seen them embodied in public acts of the States collectively and individually; and now, out of this, concurring, cumulative, and unimpeachable testimon, constituting a speaking aggregation absolute y without precedent, I offer you the American definition of a RFG. It is in vain that you cite phi ose hers or publicists, or the examples of for merhistory. Against these . but the early and constant postulates of the Fathers, the corporate declarations of the Fathers, the avowed opinions of the Fathers, and the public acts of the Fathers, all with one voice reclaiming: 1st, that all men are Equal in rigiits; and 2ndly, that Governmentsderive their just powers from the consent of the governed; and ere is the American idea of a epublic, which must be adopted in the interpretation of the National constitution. You cannot reject it. As well reject the decalogue in determining moral du ties, or as well reject the multi lication table in determining a question of arit metic. Counter to this irresistible conclusion there can be only one suggestion having any seeming plausibility, and this is founded on the contem orary recognition of slavery. On this point it is enough if I remind you, 1st, that our fathers did not recognize slavery as a permanent part of our system, but treated it as exceptional and transitory, while they concealed it from view by words which might mean something else; 2ndly, that the slave was always regarded, legally and politically, as a part of the family of his master, according to the nomenclature of Blackstones Commentaries, which were much read at the time, where master and servant were grouped with husband and wife, parent and child, and, as in the case of wife and child, the slave was represented by the head of the family, who also paid the taxes on his account, so that, in his case, the cardinal principle of the Revolution, associating representation and taxation to ether, was not in any respect violated; and 3rdly, that by the acts of the Continental Congress, and by all the State constitution s, except that of SCarolina, all distinction of color was discarded in determining the elective franchise, and that one of the authorized expounders of the National constitution at the time Alexander Hamilton announced in the Federalist, as if anticipating the very question now before us, IF THE LAWS wsnn prounsroas rnn alenrs wmen nave nuns “any AWAY, rnn seasons counn so LONGER BE unrestm AX EQUAL sums or REPRESENTATION wrrn ornsa INHABITANTS. such was the understanding, and such was the promise at the adoptionof the constitution. such was the declare meaning of our fathers, according to the contempo rary testimony of Alexander Hamilton. Therefore, while confessing sorrowfully their inconsistency in recognizing slavery and throwin over their shame the mantle which the son o Noah threw over his father, we must reject every argument or inference on this account against the true idea of a Remibhc, which is none other than where all the citizens have an equal roiccin the Governmeht. As Washington, bhis august example. gave to mankind a new idea of political greatness, so did the Fathers, by their great example, give to mankind a new idea of government. Do you ask again for varngammm. authority? I offer it to you. It is an early Dictionary of James Otis, Samuel Adams, Pat rick Henry, and Benjamin Franklin. It is in the Lexicon of the Revolution. It is in the Thesaurus of our national history. It is in the Collection of Public Acts. This new idea was the great discovery of our fathers. Rob them of this, and you take from them their highest title to gratitude. Columbus, venturing into an unknown sea, discovered a New World of space but our fathers, venturing likewise, discovere a New World of public duty. It is for us, their children, not to orgct their discovery. RECENT FRENCH DEFINITIONS. After our own country, there is one other only which can help in determining what is a RFG, and this is France. There, as in the U.S., a Republic has been declared. If in the former country it failed to be maintained; still the generous ef fort has been made, and we have its testimony. This is explicit. As the Provisional Government in 1848 proclaimed the Republic, it was careful, after properdeliberation to proclaim at the same time “universal suffrage, ” which Lamartine, standing on the steps of the Hotel deVille, and speaking in the name of the government, said was “the 1st truth and only basis of every National Republic.” (Garnier Pages, Histoire de la Revolution, tom. i, p. 328.) The proclamation of the republic was itself submitted to the vote of “al the citizens;” and on the terms of this submission another member of the Government, of solid sense and perfect fidelity, thus expresses himself: “By these wordsall the citizem the Provisional Government intended to consoern to definitively the fundamental principle of democracy; it intended to proclaim openly and forever the inalienable, imprescriptiblu right, inherent in each member of society, to participate directlyin the government of his country: it intended to put in practice offoctually and loyally the great principles pnhlthen shut up in the domain of the abstracttheonesof philosophy. Ibid. tom. v. p. 348, The same person, M. Garnier Pages, who was at once an eminent actor in these scenes and their most authentic historian,thus again dwells on the true idea of a Republic: “The Republic, that government of all by all where each has his plaeo, his duty and his right; the Republic. that is Liberty itself. the liberty to do every act and to put forth every thought not injurious to an other;, the Republic, that fraternal ground whereare admitted all parties. the representatives of the past as wcllas those of the future, where every intelli igteyn. "ce, Iabnud1, every association can developits author tom. Vii, p. 407. To this authentic testimony of modern France, in harmony with our own country, I add the definition of a very recent foreign publicist, who, after dwellingon Equality as the idol sentiment of a Republic, says: “This shows us the nature and the end of republican government. It is aGovernment foundedon the general interestsand eqpality. "Block, Dictionnaire doIn Polmque. article, 9ublique. Admirable words! in themselves a definition and here, before closing this testimony, let me call attention to 2 authorities, contemporary with our fathers, which stand apart, one English and the other German. The 1st is that of Dr. Richard Price, the friend of John Adams, who very early appreciated the American Revolution, and vindicated it. before the world. Here is his idea of good government, compendiously expressed: I “ Legitimate government consists only in tho dominion of eEdqoumnliLnaiown: omf aadneywmi than comvemroonctehmeremntc. aun. d"noJt. ArlnmqaWorka, vol. iv, p. 401. The German was none other than that great thinker, Emanuel Kant, who, in his speciilations on Perpetual Peace, says, that to this end every State should be a Republic, which he defines as follows:.” That form of government where every citizen ar lteicgiipsalatetisveby his representative in the exerciseo the power and especially in that of deciding on the propositions of peace and war.” Wheaten. Hic lory of we of Nations, p. 751. The statement of Kant is as simple as Pure Reason, which is the title of his great work. It claims plainly for “every citizen” ashare in the Governmept; and such is the definition furnished by this eminent philosopher, whose name, rarely quoted in politics, is an unim peachable authority. REBEL STATES ARE nor REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT. such is the definition of a RFG. It remains now that we should brin these la sed States to this standard, and see their smal title to reco nition. Authentic fi res are not wanting. he census of 1860 discloses the po ulntion of the States in question. Here is the table: WI“ Colored lpopulae i o pop ion, s sum aveanulation. free, including ndians. Alabama. SCarolina. Tonnessee. exas. Virginia. A glance at this table is enough. Taking the sum total of the population in the 11 States We find 6,447,222 whites to 3,666,110 colored person s; and you are now to decide, whether in the discharge of our duties under the constitution, and boun to guaranty a RFG, you will disfranc ise this mighty mass, shuttin them out from those equal Rights promise by our fathers, and from alll voice in the government of their country. They surpass in numbers, by at least a million, the whole population of the colonies at the time our fathers raised the cry, ” Taxation without Representation is Tyranny;” and now you are. to decide whether you will strip them of Representation while you subject them to a grinding taxation by tarilf and excise, acting directly and indirectly, which dwarfs into insignificance everything attemted by the British Parliament. Our fathers ooul not bear a stamp act, in the making of which they had no voice, and they went forth to battle with the most formidable Power of the globe, rather than pay a tax of 3 pence on tea imposed by a Parliament. in which they were not represented. Are you ready, sir, in disreard of this great precedent and in disregard a so of all the promises an examples of our past history, to t rust a single citizen out of all representation in the Government while on consume his substance with taxation, subject him tostamp acts, compel him to pay a duty of 25cents a pound on tea, and then follow him with your imposts in all the business of life? Clearly if you do not recognize his title to rercsentation, ou must at least by careful legisation relieve imfrom this intolerable taxation. Some of these millions whom you thrust out, already contribute largely to the public revenue. How, then, can on deny them representation? Their money is notrejected. Vhy reject their votes? But if you reject their votes, you cannot take their money. As you can detect no color in their money, you ought to detect no color in their votes. If looking at these States together the duty of Congress seems clear, it becomes clearer even when we look at them separately. Begin with Tennessee, which disfraiichises 283, 079 citizens, being more than a quarter of its whole “people.” lhiis violating a distinctive principle of republican government, how can this State be recognized as republican? Thisquestion is easier asked than answered. But Tennessee is the least offensive on the list. There is Virginia, which disfranchises 549. 019 citizens, being more than a 3rd of its whole “people.” There, is Alabama, which disfranchises 436, 030 citizens, being nearly 1/2 of its whole “people.” There is Louisiana, which disfranchises 350, 546 citizens, being 1/2 of its whole “ people.” There is Mississippi, which disfranchises 437, 404 citizens, being much more than 1/2 of its whole “people.” and there is SCarolina, which isfranchises 412, 408 citizens, being nearly 2/3rds of its whole “people.” A Republic is a pyramid standing on the broad mass of the people as a base; but here is a pyramid balance on its point. To call such a government “repub icau” is a mockery of sense and decency. A monarch, “surrounded by republican institutions, ” which at one time was the boast of France, would be less offensive to correct principles, and give more security to Human Rights. It is not difficult to classify these States. They are aristocracies or oligarchics. An ar istocracy, according to the etymology of the word, is the government of the best. An oli garchy is the government of the few, and is not even an aristocracy, but an abuse ofaristocracy, as despotism is the abuse of monarchy. Perhaps these States may be characterized in either way; and yet the term aristocracy, especiall in its origin, has something respectab ewthe cannot be attributed to a combination, whose single distinctive element is the color of the s in. The eminent publicist, Bodin, in his definition of an aristocracy, says that it exists where a smaller body of citizens governs the greater, and this definition has been adopted by others, especially by Montesquieu. But this is not satisfactory. Hallam, whose judgment is of the highest value, after discussin the merits of this definition, proposes the following most sugge“stive substitute: We might buttorsay. that the distinguishing characteristic of an aristocracy is the enjoyment of privileges which are not communicable to at or citizensnim plu by anything they can themselves do to obtainthem.”. Hallam LiteratureqfEuropa. vol. ii, cap. 4. sec. 52. These words completely characterize the aristocracy of color; for such an aristocracy is plainly in the enjoyment of privileges, which are not communicable to other citizens, by anything they can themselves do to obtain them. To show that our rebel States are aristocra cies or oligarchies is enough for the present occasion. But we must not forget that, born of Slavery, they have the spirit of that iniquity, so that they are essentially of a low type. Founded on the color of the skin, they are, beyond all question, the most senseless and disgusting of a lhistory. Would you know to what they might incline? Listen to the frank words of the greateSTEVENetian writer, the famous Father Paul, while he counsels the privileged class, in a state refined by art and elevated by glory, how to use their powers.” Ifa noble, ” says he, “injure a plebeian, justify him by all possible means; but should that be found quite impossible, punish more in appearance than in reality. Ifa plebeian insult a noble, punish him with the greatest severity, that the commonalty may know how perilous it is to insult a noble.” (Sarpi, Opinione peril perpeluo Dominia divenezia, p. 13.), such is the terrible rule laid down in a document, which taught how to make the power of Venice perpetual. But this same spirit predominates still in the rebel States. It rages there with more revolting cruelty than it ever raged in Venice and such is the government which now claims recognition as " republican.” The pretension thus organized is hateful on another ground. It is nothing less than a Caste, which is at once irreligious and unrepublican. A Caste cannot exist except in defiance of the 1st principles of Christianity and the 1st principles of a Republic. It is Heathenism in religion and tyranny in government. The Brahmins and the Sudras in India, from generation to generation, have been separated, as the 2 races are now separated in these States. If a Sudra presumed to sit on a Brahmins carpet he was punished with banishment. But our recent rebels undertake to play the part of Bramhins, and exclude citizens, with better title than themselves, from essential rights. simply on the ground of Caste, which, according to its Portuguese origin, caste, is only another term for race. But this pretension is in yet other respects hostile to good government. It is essentially a Monopoly in a country which sets its face against all monopolies as unequal and immoral. If any monopoly deserves unliesitating judgment it must e that which absorbs the rights of others and engrosses political power. How vain it is to condemn the petty monopolies of commerce and then allow this vast, aembracing monopoly of Human Rights. Clearly, most clearly, and beyond all question, such a government cannot be considered “republican in form.” Call it an Oligarehy, call it an Aristocracy, call it a Caste, call it a Monopoly; but do not call it a Republic. DUTY OF CONGRESS. Of course such a government can exist only in defiance of the constitution, and it is the duty of Congress to interfere against it. president Johnson, in his annual message, says: “In caseof the usurpation of the government of a State by oiic man or an Oligurchy, it ccoiiics the duty of the U.S. to make good the guaranteeto that State of a RFG.” The President forgets tomention an Aristocracy, and does not add, what is true, that the authority which must make good the guarantee is the sole judge of the exigency. To this end everything centers in Congress whose powers are commensurate with the occasion. In aid of the “guarantee” clause are those other words in the constitution, providing that congress “ shall have power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the powers vested in the Government of the U.S. ” Under this ample provision there is a duty to be performed, by any means which may seem best. The jurisietion is complete and it is in congress. If any authority for this proposition were needed it would be found in the words of Chief Justice Tanc, speaking for the SCOTUS: “The 4th section of the 4th article of the constitution of the U.S. provides that the U.S shall guaranty to every State in the Union a RFG and shall protect each of them against nvasion: and, on the application of the Legislature or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic "M9m5:5v2j}othis article of m Constituton, r: 11cm with decide who !cocciumenint the edubluhe done in a State. For, an the U.S. guaranty to each Smtnatlue ad Republican government inMartenl bnljuiu heeld "Inetheees Sale beforeit can determinewhlher it is Republican or not. ”IHoward Rep. 42. Luther vs. Borden. In the exercise of this power 2 courses at least are Open. One is to impose an irrepeal able condition upon the unrepublican States, requiring them, before recognition, to reform their governments to the satisfaction of congress. The other, and more direct course, is “y Act of Congress, in performance of the guarantee, ” and according to the plenary authority “ for carrying into execution the powers veste in the Government of the U.S., ” to provide all needful safeguards and especially to place the equal Rights of All under the guardianship of National Law. Against the exercise of this power there are but 2 arguments. 1st, that the Constitution, by providin that “the electors in each State a all have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State Legislature, ” has reserved to each State the power of excluding citizens merely on account of color, even though constituting more than a majorit of the population. The other argument is t at, since certain States at the North have disfranchised the few colored persons within their borders, the U.S. are so for constrained by this example that they cannot protect the millions of freedmen in the rebel States from disfranchisement, and cannot save the republic from the peril of such a crying injustice. know not which of these 2 arguments is the least reasonable or rather, which is the most reprehensible. They are both nu reasonable and both reprehensible. They both do violence to the true principles of the constitution, if not to common sense. It is true that, according to the text of the Constitution, each State may determine the qualifications” of electors, but this can have no application to an exigeney like the present, where, at the close of a rolonged and designate rebellion, the U.S. are oblige to guaranty to certain States a RFG. In the performance of this “guarantee, ” the U.S. can look only at the essential elements of such a government; nor more nor less; without regard to State laws. But I am not willing to rest the argument here. Even assuming that there has been no lapse of State governments, so as to bring the “guarantee” into operation assumiu that we are in a condition of assuredencet enI utterl deny that the power to determine the “qualifications” of electors can ive any power to disfranchise actual citizens. this “qualifications” only which the States can determine, meaning, by this limited term, those requirements of personal condition which are regarded as essential to the security of the franchise. These “qualifications” cannot be in their na ture permanent or insurmountable. Color cannot be a “ qualification, ” any more than size or the quality of the hair. Apermanent orinsur mountable “qualification” is equivalent to a deprivation of the suffragein other words, it is the tyranny of taxation without representation, and this tyranny I insist, is not intrusted to any State of this nion. This is the ver ound taken by Mr. Madison, when, defending the Nationa constitution in the Virginia convention, he said: “Some States might regulate the elections on the principle OfEqrdlllll, opd othersmight regulate them otherwise.” “Should the peopleof an State, by any means. be deprived of the right of an rage, il imajudped properthat it shouldberenmhed buthe General Government. “If the elections be regulated properly by the State tures. the congressional control will very pLreoizmisblaly never be exercised. This power appears to hesats factory and unlikely to beabused asany port of the constitution. ”Elliot Debates, vol. iii. 9. 347. With these decisive words from one of the chief framers of the Constitutiou, backed by the reason of the case, I dismiss this objection to the little consideration it deserves and I dismiss to the same indifference that other objection, that our hands are tied because certain Northern States have done a wrong and mean thing. Pray, sir, how can the fiiilure of these States atfect the wer of Congress in a great exigency under e constitution of the U.S.? But duty on the present occasion is identical with power. No matter if this power has been long ormaut, it is none the less vital. [t is like that slumbering statutc, which Cicero describes as a sword in the scabbard, tanquam gladius in vagina. It only remains that it should be drawn forth. This duty has been fortified by the Constitutional Amendment, which, after providing for the abolition of slavery, empowers Congress to “enforce” it by “a propriate legislation, ” thus heapin Osaa upon elion. Clearly under these words congress may do what, in its discretion, seems “appropriate” to this end, and there is no power to ca lits action in question. On this point, the authority of the Supreme Court, in the masterly judgment of Chief Justice marshall, is most explicit: " The government. which has aright to do an act and has imposed on it the duty of psrtormiusthat no must. accordingto the dictatesof reason, be allow to select the means, and those who contendthutit may not selectany gippro e meagiat. hat one particular mode of elTeetin the cbject is excepted take upon themselves the nrden of establishing that excep on. “Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scopeof the constitution, and allmcmw which are appropriate. whichareplainly adapted to thnt end. which arenot prohibited, buteon sist with the letter and spirit oft o constitution are constitution al. "4 WheatenR. 409421McoulMflah vs. I} of Maryland. These words of the Chief Justice are reinforced by a kindred declaration from another great authority, Mr. Justice Story, speaking also for the Supreme Court, on an important occasion: "The constitution unavoidably dealt in general language. It was not intendedmerelyto provide for the exigencies of a few years, but was to ondure throu hu longllapseofuiies; the eventsof which were lockc ii int einscrutable purposes of Providence. Hence the constitution leaves it to the legislative power from time to time. to ado in own nlcum to RvMlllflfIflmitimutcobjecl8. "1W nli. 325; ar tmvs. unter. aply these words to the present nestion, and e conclusion is irresistible. lghatcver legislation shall seem to Congress “ upropriate” to “enforce” the abolition of sliivery; whatever “ means” shall seem “proper” to this end, must be within the pervers of Congress under the constitutional Amendment. You cannot deny this principle without setting aside those most remarkable judgments which stand as landmarks of constitutional history. But who can doubt that the abolition of the whole Black Code, in all its oligarchical pretensions, civil and political, is “ appropriate” to “enforce” the abolition of Slavery? Mark, ifyou please, the language of this grant. Congress may “enforce” abolition, and nobody can question the “means” which it thinks best to employ. Let it not hesitate to adopt the " means” which promise to be the most effective. As the occasion is extraordinary, so the “ means" employed must be extraordinary. but the Senate has alreadyb solemn vote asserted this very jurisdiction. You have, sir, decreed that colored persons shall enjoy the same civil rights as white persons; in other words, that, with regard to civil rights, there shall be no Oligarchy, Aristocracy, Caste, or Monopoly, but that all shall be equal before the law without distinction of color and this great decree you have made as “ap propriate cgislation" under the Constitutiona amendment “to enforce" the abolition of slavery. Surely you have not erred in thisact. Beyond all question the protection of colored rsous in civil rights is essential to complete the abolition of slavery; but the protection of colored persons in political rights is not less essential; and the power is as ample in one case as in the other. u each case you legislate for the maintenance of colored persons in that Liberty which has been so tardily accorded, and the legislation is just as “appropriate” in one case as in the other. The irotection of colored persons in their civil rights by Act of Congress will be a rent event. It will be great in itself. It will Be greater still, because it establishes the power of Congress, without any further amendment of the constitution, to protect colored persons in all their rights, including of course teelective franchise. There are precedents of Congress as well as of courts, which are landmarks; an this is one of them. Therefore, as authority for Congress you have 2 sources in the constitution itself, 1st, the guarantee clause, and, 2ndly, the Constitutional Amendment; each sufficient the 2 together a twofold sufficiene. To establish the Equal Rights of All, no further amendment is needed. he actual text is exuberant. Instead of adding new words, it will be enough if you ive to those which exist the natural force which belongs to them. Instead of neglecting them, use them. Instead of supplementing them, interpret them. An illustrious magistrate once retorted upon an advocate, who, dissatisfied with a ruling of the court, threatened to burn his books, “You had better read them;" and so would I say now to all who think the constitution needs amendment, you had better read it. Yes, sir, read it in the principles proclaimed by the Fathers before the Revolution; read it in the declarations of the Fathers when they took their place as a Republic; read it in the avowed opinions of the Fathers read it in the Public Acts of the Fathers; and in all this beaming lightyou will discern its true meaning. Then again read it in that other light which, as from another sun, newly risen at midday, streams from the obligation of Congress to “enforce” the abolition of slavery and then again read it in the glowing illumination of the war. But, in whichever light you read it, you will find always the same irresistible meaning. Even if the text were doubtful, the war makes it clear. The victo which overthrew slavery has carried with ital those glosses and constructions by which this wrong was originally fIistenedupon the constitution. For generations the constitution has been interpreted for Slavery. From this time forward it must be interpreted, in harmony with the DeclarIndep so that Human Rights shallal ways prevail. [he promises of the Fathers must be sacredly fulfilled. This is the commanding rule, superseding all other rules. This is one of the great victories of the war perhaps the greatest. It is nothing le, ssthan the Emancipation of the constitution itself. THE BALLOT, THE ONLY SUFFICIENT GUMTEE. Mr. President, such is the testimony of history. authority, and constitution, which binds the judgment on this occasion, leaving noal ternative. Thus far, I have done little but bring the diversified testimony together and weave it into one body. It is notI who speak. I am nothing. It is the cause, whose voice I am, which speaks to you. But there are yet other things which even at this late hour, crave to be said and here, alter this long review, 1 am brought back tomore general consideraitions, and end as I began, by showing the necessity of Enfranchisement for the sakeof Public Security and Public Faith. I plead now for the ballot, as the Great Guarantee; and the only Sugleient Guaranteebeing in itself peace may er, reconciler, schoolmaster, and protectorto which we are bound byevery necessity and eve reason; and I speak also for the good of the totes lately in rebellion as well as for the glory and safety of the Republic, that it may be an example to mankind. Let me be understood. What I especially ask is impartial suffrage, which is, of course, embraced in universal suffrage. What is Universal is necessarily impartial. For the present, I simply insist that all shall be equal before the law, so that, in the enjoyment of this right, there. hall be no restriction which is not equally applicable to all. Any further question, in the nature of “qualification, ” belongs to another stage of the debate and yet I have no hesitation in sayingthat Universal suffrage is auniversal right, subject only to such regulations as the safety of society may require. These may concern (1) age, (2) character, (3) registration, (4) residence. No body doubts that mine rsmay be excluded, and so, also, persons of infamous life. Registration and residence are both prudential requirements for the safcmard of the ballotbox against the Nomads and Bohemians of politics, and to compel the exercise of this franchise where a person is known among his neighbors and friends. Education also, may, under certain circumstances, be a requirement of ru dence. cs cciallyvaluable in a Republic, where so much epends on the intelligence of the people. These temporary restrictions do not in any way interfere with the right of suffrace, for they leave it absolutely accessible to all. Tlven if impediments, they are such as may be easily over come. At all events, they are not in any sense insurmountable, and this is the essential requirement of republican institutions. No matter under what depression of poverty, in what depth of obscurity, or with what diversity of complexion you may have been born, you are, nevertheless, a citizen the peer of every other citizen, and the ballot is your inalienable right. The ballot is a peacemaker, and, are We not told, Blessed are the peaccmnkers? High among the Beatitudes let it be placed, for there it belongs. Deny it, and the freedman will be the victim of a perpetual warfare. In ceasing to be a slave he only becomes a sacrifice. Grant it, and he is admitted to those Equal Rights which allow no sacrifice. Plntarch records that the wise man of Athens charmed the people by saying that Equality comes no vWar“, and “both the rich and poor repeated it.” and so master and slave will yetenjoy the transforming power of this principle. The master will recognize the new citizen. The slave will stand with tranquil selfrespect in the presence of the master. Brute force disappears. Distrust is at an end. The master is no longer a tyrant. The freedmen is no longera dependent. The ballot comes to him in his depression, and says, ” Use me and be elevated.” It comes to him in his assion, nndsays, “Use me and do not fig t.” It comes to him in his daily thoughts, filling him with the strength and glory of manhood. The ballot is a reconciler. Next after peace is reconciliation. But reconciliation is more than peace. It is concord. Parties that have been estranged are brought into harmony. They learn to live together. They learn to work together. They are kind to each other, even if it be only as the Arab and his horse; and this mutual kindness is alnutual advantage. Unquestionably, the ballot promotes this great been, because it brings allinto natural relations of justice, without which reconciliation is a vain thing. Do you wish to see harmonytruly prevail, so that industry, society, government, civilization, may all prosper, and the Republic may wear a crown of true greatness? Then do not neglect the ballot. The ballot is a schoolmaster. Readin and writing are of inestimable value, but the allot teaches what these cannot teach. It teaches manhood. Es eciull is it important to a race whose manhood has sendenied. The work of redemption cannot be complete if the ballot is left in doubt. The freedmen already knows his friends by the unerrin instinct of the heart. Give him the ballot, an be will be educated into the principles of government. Deny him the ballot, on he will continue an alien in knowledge as in rights. His claim is exceptional, as your inustice is exceptional. For generations you have shut him out from all education, making it a crime to teach him to read for himself the Book of Life. Let not the tyranny of the past he an apology for any further exclusion. Prisoners for a long time immured in dungeons are sometimes blinded as they come forth into the light of day; but this is no reason for continue imprisonment. e o every freedmen the ballot is the light of ay. The ballot is a elector. Perhaps, at the present moment, this is its highest function. Slavery has ceased in name; but this is all. The old masters still assert an inhuman power, and new by positive statutes seek to bind the freedman in new chains. v Let this conspiracy proceed unchecked, and the freedmen will be more unhappy than the early Puritan, who, seeking liberty of conscience, escaped from the “lords bishops” only to fall under the “lords elders.” The master will still be master under another name, as according to Milton, ” New presbyter is but old priest writ large.” Serfdom or apprenticeship is slavery in another guise. To save the freedmen from this tyranny, with all its accumulated outrage, is your solemn duty. For this we are now devi sing guarantees; but, believe me, the only sufficient guarantee is the ballot. Let the freedman vote, and he will have in himself underthe law a constant, everpresent, self protecting power. The armor of citizenship will lie his best security. The ballot will be to him sword and buckler a sword withwhich to pierce his encmics, and a buckler on which to receive their assault. Its possession alone will be a terror and a defense. The law, which is the highest reason, boasts that every mans house is his castle; but the freedmen can have no castle without the ballot. When the master knows that he may be voted down, he will know that he must be ust, and eve thing is contained in justice. The ballot is l sechurity, which never faileth, and without which man is only as sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal. The ballot is the one thing needful, without which rights of testimony and all other rights will be no better than cobwebs which the master will break through with imunity. To him who has the ballot all other tings shall be given protection, opportunity, education, a homestead. The ballot is like the Horn of Abundance, out of which overflow rights of every kind, with corn, cotton, rice, and all the fruits of the earth. Or better still, it is like the hand of the bod, without which man, who is now only a litt o lower than the angels, must have continued only n little above the brutes. We are fearfully and won derfully made; but as is the hand iuthe work of civilization, so is the ballot in the work of government.” Give me the ballot and I can move the world, ” may be the exclamation of the race still despoiled of this right. There is nothing which it cannbt open with almost fab ulous power, like that golden mistletoe, offshoot of the sturdy oak, which, in the hands of the classical adventure unclosed the regions of another world, and h e that golden bough, it is renewed as it is used: “One plucked away, a 2ndbranch you see Shoot forth in gold and glitter from the tree.” If I press these illustrations, it is only that I may bring home to your minds that supreme cflicncy, which cannot be exaggerated. T rough simple in character, there is nothing the ballot cannot accomplish; like that homely house hold lamp in rubian story, which, at the call of its possessor, evoked a spirit, who did all things, from the building of a palace to the rocking of a cradle, and filled the air with an invis ible presence. But it is as a protector that it is o immeasurable powerh rea 15inch Columbiad pointed from a Monitor. Ay, sir, the ballot is the Columbiad of our political life and every citizen who has it is a fullarmed Monitor. Having pleaded for the freedmen, I now lead for the Republic; for to each alike the linllot is a necessit. It is idle to expect any true peace while the freedman is robbed of this transcendent light and left a prey to that vengeance which is read to wreak upon him the disappointment of cfeat. The country, sympathetic with him, will be in a condition of perEetual unrest. With him it will sutfer und with imalone can it cease to suffer. Only through him can you redress the balance of our politiy cal system and assure the safety of patriot citizens. national debt from the inevitable repudiation which awaits it when recent rebels in conjunction with Northern allies once more bear sway, He is our best guarantee. Use him. He was once your fellowsoldier; he has always been your fellowman. If he was willing to die for the Republic he is surely good enouvh to vote and now that he is ready to uphold the Republic, it will be madness to reject him. Had he voted originally, the acts of secession must have failed. reason would have been voted down. You owe this tragical war and the debt now fastened upon the country to the denial of this right. Vacant chairs in once happy homes, innumerable graves, saddened hearts, mothers, fathers, wives, sisters, brothers, all mourning lost ones, the poor now ground by a taxation they had never known before, all testify a inst that injustice by which the present free man was not allowe to vote. Had he voted there would have beenence. If he votes new there will be peace. ithout this you must have a standing army, which is a so substitute for justice. Before you is the lam alternative of the ballot box or the cartrige box; choose yo between them. Reason too in every way and with every voice cries out in unison with necessity. Alpoli cies, all exedicncies, all economics take up the cry. othing so impolitic as wrong; nothing so inexpedicut as tyranny; nothing so little economics as the s hit of Caste. justice is the highest polic, the truest expedicnce, and the most compre ensive economy. In this in spiration act. Do you wish to save the national credit, now imperiled by fatal injustice, and cspeciall to secure gold as the national currency? Then do not let the question of Equal Rights disturb the country with its volcanic throes. You complain that labor is unorganized and that the cotton crop has failed. Do you wish labor to smile and cotton to grow? Then sow the land with Human Rights and encircle it round about with justice. The freedman will not, cannot work, while you deny his rights. Cotton will not, cannot grow in such an atmosphere. It is absurd to expecto it. In using the freedman as you now do you imitate those barbarous Irish who insisted uponplOWing by the horses tail, until an leto Parliament interfered to require plowmg by har Only through him can you save the ness. The infinite folly must be corrected among us, if for no higher reason than because it is unprofitable. Butit is contrary to nature, and on this account renders the whole social system insecure. Where Human Rights are set at naught there can be no tranquillity except that of force, which is despotism. This most reasonable conclusion is sustained by the phi losophy of history, which, s caking by one of its oracles, the great Italian ico tells us most sententiously that “nothing out of its natural state can either easily subsist or last long. n Truer words were never uttered as a statement of philose by or as a warning to injustice enacted into aw. GOODAND GLORY OF THE REPUBLIC. Mr. President, already I have taken too much time, and still the great theme, in its various and multitndine us relations, continues to open before us. At each step it rises in some new aspect assumin every shape of interest and of dutynow with voice of command and then with voice of persuasion. The national security, the national faith, the good of the freedman, the concerns of business, agriculture, jus tice, pence, reconciliation, obedience to God such are some of the forms it takes. In the name of all these, I speak today, hoping to do something for my country, and especially for that unhappy portion which has been arrayed in arms against us. The people there are my fellowcitizens, and gladly would I hail them, if they would permit it, as nolonger a “ section, ” no longer “the South, ” but an integral art of the republicunder a constitution whiich knows no orth and no South and cannot tol crate any “ sectional” pretensions. Gladly do I offer my best efforts in all sincerity for their welfare. But I see clearly that there is nothing in the compass of mortal power so important to them in every respect, morally, politi cally, and economicallythat there is nothing with such certain promise to them of beneficent resultsdhat there is nothing so sure to make their land smile with industry and fertility as the decree of Equal Rights which I now invoke. Let the decree o forth to cover them with blessings, sure to cscend upon their children in successive generations. The have given us war; we give them peace. They have raged against us in the name of Slavery. We send them back the benediction of Justice for all. They menace hate; we offer in return all the sacred charities of country together with oblivion of the ast. This is our “ Measure for Measure.” This is our retaliation. This is our only revenge and here, I hope to be pardoned if I sto for one moment to express my unfailin condence in the triumph of the cause. Timid or perverse counsels may postpone the gladsome consummation; but the contest now begun can end only when slave is completely transformed by a metamorp osis which shall substitute Justice for Inusticc, Riches for Poverty, and Beauty for deormit. From history we learn, not only the Past, at the Future. By the study of what has been we know what must be, according to unerring law. Call it, if you lease, the logic of events, and infer the inev itable CONCLUSION. Or call it, if you please, the Rule of 3, and from the results of certain forces determine the proportionate results of increased forces. There can be no mistake in the answer and so it is plain that the Equal Rights of All will be established. Amid all seeming vicissitudes the work goes on. Soon or late the final victory will be won. I believe soon. Speeches cannot sto it; crafty machinations cannot change it. gainst its irresistiblemovement politicians are as impotent as those old conjurors, who imagined that, "B rh mesth Fiom lofty skgythzuvlvi; iunld (313:):5?““on. These verses, which shine on the blackletter page of the great lawyer, Sir Edward Coke, aptly describe the incantations of our day to pull down Justice from her lofty sky. It cannot be done. In this conviction I can observe what comes to pass without losing faith. I can listen with composure to arguments which ought not to be made, and I can see with equal composure how individual opinions hesitate between Congress and the President. It is not to the oscillations of the pendulum that we look for the measure of time, but to the face of the inb lic clock and the strikin of the church bell. The indications of that c ock and the striking of that bell leave no room for doubt. In the fearful tragedy now drawing to a close there is a destiny, stern and irresistible as that of the Greek Drama, which seems to master all that is done, hurrying on the death of slave and its whole breed of sin. There is also a C ristian Providence which watches this but tle for right, carin especially for the oor and downtrodden whoTiave no helper is freedman still writhing under cruel oppression now lifts his voice to God the avenger. It is for us to save ourselves from righteous judment. Never with impunity can you outrage inman nature. Our country, which is guilty still, is paying still the grievous penalty. Therefore y every motive of selfpreservation we are summoned to be just and thus is the cause associated indissolubly with the national life. But in saving the Republic we elevate it. In overthrowingan oppressive injustice we give full scope to the principles of our government and fulfill that “ Idea of a perfect Commonwealth, ” which has entered into the visions of philosophy and oetry. “I am all that has been, that is, and that shall be, and none among mortals has hitherto lifted my veil;” such was the enigma cut on the pavement of the temple of Minerva. For ages it remained unanswered; but the answer is now at hand. The republic is all that has been, that is, and that sha I be; and it is your dut to lift the veil. To do less than this were a ailure, for such was the aspi ration and promise of the Fathers when they as sumed their 1st vows in the family of nations. To do this will fix the example of American Institutions. So long as slavery endured, it was impossible; so long as a Black Code, the wretched counterpart of slavery, endures in any form, it is impossible. To attain this idea we must proclaim the rule of Justice. Slavery thus far has been the very pivot, round which the Republic has revolved, while all its policy at home and abroad has radiated from this terrible center. Hereafter the Equal Rights of All will take the place of Slavery, and the republic will revolve on this glorious pivot, whose infinite, farreaching radiations will be the happiness of the Human Family. There is nothing that the imagination can picture which will not be ours. Where justice is supreme nothing can be wanting. There will be room for every business and for every charity. The fields will nod with increase; industr will be uickcned to unimagined success, an life itse f will be raised to a higher service. There will be that repose which comes from harmony, and also that sim licity which comes from one prevailing law, 0th of which are essential to the idea of the Republic. Our country will cease to be a patchwork where different States vary in the rights they accord, and will become a Plural Unit with one constitution, one Liberty, and one Universal Franchise. With all these things the Republic will be a synonym for justice and peace, for these things will be inseparable from its name. In our longings we need not repair to philosophy or poetry. Nor need we o back to the memorable sage, who declared t iat the best government was where every citizen rushed to the defense of the liumblest as if he were the State, for all this will be ours. Nor need we go back to that patriot king, in ancient tragedy, who, inspired by the Republican idea, exclaimed: “The people I madeso and on this reme. city with an equn right For all to vote, its freedom have bestowed.” Here at last, among us, all this will be assured and the Republic will be of such renown and virtue that all at home or abroad who bear the American name may exclaim with more than Roman pride, “I am an American citizen, ” and if danger approaches, they may repeat the same cry with more than Roman confidence, knowing well that this title will be a sufficient protection. EQUALments or ALL. Sir, it is for you now to determine if all this shall be fulfilled. The whole case is before you in its grandeur and in its humanity, infinite as human aspirations, beautiful as the vision of a Republic. Do not turn away from it. Vindicate the great cause, I intreat you, by the supression of all oligarchical pretensions and the establishment of those Equal Rights, without which Republican Government is a name only, and nothing more. Strike at the Black Code, as you have already, struck at the Slave Code. There is nothing to choose between them. Strike at once; strike hard. You have already proclaimed Emancipation; proclaim Enfranchisenient also. An do not stultify yourselves by setting at naught the practical principle of the Fathers, that alljust government stands only on the consent of the governed, and its insep arable corollary, that taxation without representation is tyranny. What was once true is true forever, although we may for a time lose sight Of it, and this is the case with those imperishable truths to which you have been, alas! so indifferent. Thus far the work is only done. See that halif it is finished. Save the free man from the outrage which is his daily life. As a slave he was " a tool without a soul.” I. you have ceased to treat him according to this ancient definition, it is only because you treat him even as something less. In your cruel philosophy he is only a “cipher, ” without the protection which the slave sometimes found in the selfinterest of the master, or, rather let me say he is only a“ cipher” where rights are concerned, but a numeral counted by millions where taxes are to be paid. The freedman is compelled not only to pay taxes; he must fight also, and he must obey the laws; 3 things which he cannot escape. But, according to the rimal principle of Republican Government, he has an in e feasible right to a voice in determining how to be taxe, when to fight, and what laws to obey, all of which can be secured only through the ballot. Thus again, do I return to the same conclusion, which meets us at every point and every stage, as a commandment which cannot be disobeyed. Would you secure all the just fruits of this terrible war and trample out the Rebellion in its pernicious assumptions, as in its arms? Then do not hesitate; and this is the last stage of the argument. The Rebellion be an in 2 assumptions, both proceeding from SCarolina: 1st, the sovereignty of the States, with the pretended right of secession; and, 2ndly, the superiority of the white race, with the pretended right of Caste, Oligarchy, and Monopoly, on account of color. lhe 1st was often announced in every way. The 2nd showed itself at the beginning, when SCarolina alone, among the 13 States, allowed her constitution to be degraded by an exclusion on account of color; but it did not receive an authoritative statement until a later day, when that wicked evangelist, Mr. Calhoun, taking issue with the DeclarIndep, audaciously announced in the Senate that to declare all were born free and equal was the most dangerous of all politica errors; and that it had one more to retard the cause of civilization, and is doing more at present than all other causes combined; that we now begin to experience the danger of admitting so great an error to have a place in the DeclarIndep.” (Calhouns Speeches, vol. iv, 54.) These 2 assumptions are kindred in effrontery. All agree that the dogma of State sovereignty must be repelled; but this is less offensive than that other dogma, having the same origin that the Declaration of lndependenee is “the most dangerous of all political errors.” To reel such an cffrontery is not enough; it must e scorned. The gospel, according to Calhoun, is only another statement of the imposture, that this august Republic, founded to sustain the rights of Human Nature, is nothing but “a white man s Government.” The whole assumption is ignoble, utterl unsupported by history, and insulting to the others, while it is offensively illogical and irreligious. It is illogical, inas much as our fathers, when they declared that all men are created equal, gave exression to a truth of political science, which, tom the nature of the case, admits no exception. As an axiom it is without exception; for it is the essence of an axiom, whether in geometry or morals, to be universal. As an abstract truth it is also without exception, according to the requirement of such truth and finally, as a selfevident truth, so announced in the great Declaration, it is without exception; for only such truth can be selfevident. 1bus, whether axiom, abstract truth, or selfevident truth, it is always universal. But the assumption is not only illogical, it is irreligious, inasmuch as it flies in the face of that living truth which appears twice at the Creation: 1st, when God said, “Let us make man in our image;” and, 2ndly, in the Unity of the race, then divinely appointed, and which appears again in the gospel, when it said, ” God that made the world, and all things therein, hath made of. 0ue blood all nations of men.” According to the best testimony now, the population of the earth embracing Caucasians, Mongolians, Malays, Africans, and Americans is about 1300 millions, of whom only 375 millions are “white men, ” or little less than one 4th, so that, in claiming exclusive rights for “white men, ” you degrade nearly 3 uarters of the Human Family, made in the image of God” and declared to be of “ one blood, ” while you sanction a Caste offensive to religion, an Oligarchy inconsistent with republican Government, and a Monopoly which has the whole world as its footstool. Against this assumption I protest with mind, soul, and heart. It is false in religion, false in statesmanship, and false in economy. It is an extravagance, which, if enforced, is foolish tyranny. how mea creature, with erect countenance looking to heaven, made in the image of God, and I show you a MAN, who, of whatever country or race, whether darkened by equatorial sun or blanched by northern cold, is With you a child of the Heavenly Father, and equal with you in title to all the rights of Human Nature. You cannot deny these rights without imiety and so has God linked the national we fare with national duty, you cannot deny these rights without peril to the Republic. It is not enough that you have given Liberty. By the same title that we claim liberty do we claim Equality also. One cannot be denied without the other. What is Liherty without Equality? What is Equality without Liberty? One is the complement of the other. The 2 are necessary to round and complete the circle of American citizenship. They are the 2 lobes of the mighty lungs through which the people breathe the breath of life. They are the 2 vital principles of a Republican Government, without which a Government, although republican in name, cannot be republican in fact. These 2 vital principles belong to those divine statutes which are graven on the heart of Universal Man, even upon the heart of the slave who forgets them, and upon the heart of the master who denies them; and whether forgotten or denied, they are more enduring than marble or brass, for they share the perpetuity of the Human Family. 7 The Roman Cato, after declarin his belief in the immortality of the soul, aded, that if this were an error, it was an error which he loved and now, declaring my belief in liberty and E nality as the Godgiven birthright of all men, et me say, in the same spirit, ift is be an error, it is an error which I love; if this be a fault, it is a fault which I shall be slow to renounce; if this be an illusion, it is an allusion which I pray may wrap the world in its angelic rm.