the States respectively of appointing the field and general officers of Militia even in cases where the Constitutions of States reserved this right to the volunteer soldiery.

He has usurped the power of Congress to suspend that great writ of habeas corpus, a prerogative which the Constitution of Great Britian whence it was derived, denies to the British Crown.

He has drawn money from the Treasury in violation of the Constitution which says,

"No money shall be drawn from the treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law." See Article I. Sec. 9, of Constitution. He has created offices in the Army without the authority of Congress and appointed persons to fill these offices, which if created by Congress should be filled in accordance with the Constitutional provision, "reserving to the States respectively," the right to appoint officers of the Militia.

He has violated the provision of the Constitution, which says, Art. 2 of Amendments: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." In Missouri, a body of State Militia were made prisoners and deprived of their arms under a pretext, which, if true, should have been proved, and these militia tried for trea

son.

He has violated the rights of the people reserved by Article 4th of the Amendments to the Constitution, which says; "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, papers, and effects against un reasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated; and no warrants shall issue except upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized."

He has violated the personal rights of the people

reserved by the 5th Article of the Amendments to the Constitution, which says: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless on a presentment or indictment by a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land and naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger." A clause of the Constitution which gives him no power over citizens not in the actual service of the United States in war.

He has, in violation of the same article of the Constitution, deprived persons over whom he had no authority, of their liberty, "without due process of law."

He has involved the Government in debt, without the authority of Congress, the Constitution giving to Congress alone the authority to borrow money, and consequently the authority to give occasion or make it necessary to borrow it.

He has, in violation of the Constitution, which requires that no preference shall be given to any regulation of commerce or revenue in the ports of one State over those of another, blockaded the ports of States which are still constitutionally in the Union, and which he himself regards as still a part of the United States.

He took the following oath at his inauguration:

"I, Abraham Lincoln, do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Within three months after the taking of this solemn oath, he has totally disregarded the Constitution, and instead of preserving, protecting and de fending it, he has in every instance above cited, destroyed, violated and suffered it to be outraged.

We charge it upon the President that in every

case above cited he has usurped powers denied to him by the Constitution, every one of which that it was necessary to exercise should have been done by Congress, or in pursuance of acts of Congress, as prescribed by the Constitution.

The necessity of circumstances placed in extenuation of the President's guilt, is precisely the sam plea put in by tyrants, despots and usurpers, in every age of the world and under every form of government which has ever existed.

The Cæsars in Rome, the Bourbons and Napoleons in France, the Stuarts and other despots in England, all pleaded the "necessity of circumstances" for their arbitrary acts of power and their infringement on the rights and liberties of the people. Louis of France, to go back into historic times no farther, said "I am the State." James of England said to the Duke of Somerset, who told the king that he could not obey him without violating the law, “I will make you fear me as well as the law. Do you not know that I am above the law?" And the same monarch said to his Parliament:

"For matters of privileges, liberties, and customs, be not over curious. We do what is for the best, and as necessity prompts. Let not any one stir you up to law questions, debates, or that sort of thing, for of these cometh evil; but continue yourself in that honest modesty, whereby you may have my prayers to God for you, and procure the love of me, and a happy end to this Parliament."

How doth this language and the sentiment it expresses accord with what we hear at the present day. On the other hand we might cite the reasons in those days for obeying the King. "I have," said a Custom House officer who was reproached for his subserviency, "fourteen reasons for obeying the King's commands; a wife and thirteen children." Does not this reason influence the course

of many in our days to acquiesce in and sustain the usurpation of power?

The same argument of necessity of changing the Constitution of France and for usurping Imperial Power and depriving the people of their rights was made use of by the Elder and the Third Napoleon, and with just as much foundation in right as it is now used.

We have done our duty. We have stated facts as they exist. We have stated analogous circumstances in the history of other peoples to those which exist among us, and we draw the conclusion that as they submitted, they became enslaved; and as they shook off the yoke of tyranny and broke the shackles of despotism, they became free and regenerated.

Let us as a people profit by the example of our ancestors, and of their kindred and neighbors of other Nations. Submission to despotism will make us slaves; resistance to the assumption of arbitrary power will preserve our rights and secure our liberties. Let the rule of our actions be, the Constitution is our rule of Government.

ASSUMPTION OF ARBITRARY POWER-CASE OF

JOHN MERRYMAN-CONFLICT BETWEEN CHIEF JUSTICE TANEY AND THE PRESIDENT AND MILITARY AUTHORITIES.

BEFORE proceeding in the relation of my personal experience, and of that of others of my fellow-victims of despotism, propriety seems to require that some reference be made both to the first aggressions on personal liberty by the Executive branch of the Government, and to the efforts as they were made at the time to resist these aggressions.

The case, so far as it is known to the writer, which brought the Executive into the first flagrant conflict with the Constitution, and with a co-ordinate branch of the Government while attempting to apply the protection of the Constitution to a citizen arbitrarily deprived of his liberty, was that of John Merryman, of Baltimore. It need not be made a part of this reference to facts what the alleged cause was for the arbitrary arrest of Mr. Merryman, and his illegal detention in Fort McHenry. It is necessary to deal with the arbitrary act only, as it is of that alone the victim or the American people have reason to complain. In the case of Mr. Merryman the facts show that he was arrested in his own house, where he was peaceably domiciled, on the 25th of May, 1861, by an armed force professing to act under military orders; that he was compelled to