France justified confiscation for certain political crimes during the last half of the eighteenth century, but it was a punishment rarely inflicted, except during the Reign of Terror. Bven a century ago it was abolished as odious and cruel. In several French charters promulgated during the present century, its abrogation is confirmed. In that of 1814, Article 66, it is declared that "the punishment of confiscation of property (confiscation des biens) is abolished, and shall never be established. Even an attempt on the life of the emperor does not render the property of the guilty party liable to confiscation, it being held that humanity requires that the family or friends of the assassin should not suffer for his crime any further than they may render themselves personally guilty as accomplices.+

How well it becomes our "reformers" to attempt to engraft on the jurisprudence of the United States a system expressly prohibited not only by the Constitution of the Republic, but by the laws of every enlightened monarchical country! But confiscation requires martial law; and martial law the suspension of the habeas corpus act. Now, what have we been wont to set a higher value upon, as a safeguard of liberty, than the latter? What has given the Magna Charta the prestige it so justly possesses? Is it not the principle that a man's house is his castle, and that no one shall be deprived of his liberty in time of peace without due process of law? Is the American republic to reject those principles, while monarchies carefully guarantee their exercise?

We turn, first, to Spain, because our reformers have often denounced her as a despotism. It is very generally supposed in this country that the king or the queen can at any time suspend the habeas corpus act, or the Personal Liberty Act which is same; but such is not the case. Queen Isabella has not half as much power over the liberties of her subjects as the Freedmen's Bureau Bill would have given the president of the United States. According to the Spanish constitution, as modified in 1857, "No Spaniard shall be detained, nor taken, nor removed from his house, nor shall his house be entered except in the cases and in the form which the laws prescribe." Art. 7. The cases alluded to are those in which the party is charged with felony, and in which warrants are issued by

Vide Bouillet, Dict. des Sciences, p. 395.

† See Tripier, Codes François, p. 840. See, also, Code Penal, art. 86.

the courts for his arrest. Even in time of war, the queen, cannot revoke this without the consent of the Cortes. "If the security of the State should require, under extraordinary circumstances," says Art. 8, "the temporary sus pension, in all the monarchy, or in a part of it, of the provisions in the preceding article, the suspension shall be determined by a law."

In France the emperor is empowered, by the twelfth article of the Constitution, "to declare a state of siege (the same as our martial law) in one or more departments, subject to a reference to the senate;" but it is expressly provided that "the citizens continue, notwithstanding the state of siege, to exercise all the rights guaranteed by the Constitution, the enjoyment of which is not suspended by virtue of the preceding articles." Lest this might not be sufficient to protect private citizens against the operation of military law, it is provided that they may appeal to the civil courts against any judgment passed upon them by a military court, on the ground that the latter has no jurisdiction, except over those in the military or naval service (se pouvoir en cassation pour cause d'incompétence, ou d'excès de pouvoir).

Thus, under the imperial régime in France, it is expressly admitted that the military tribunal may exceed its powers even in time of war, and that it actually does exceed it if it condemns a private citizen. Accordingly, its sentence may be appealed from to the Court of Cassation; but our reformers would allow no appeal; nor would they place any restrictions on the power of the military court as long as it acted "with vigor" against the whites and in favor of the blacks!

Who ever heard of more monstrous legislation? It will be remembered by the students of French literature that it is the authors of such legislation Montesquieu designates as "little minds." # But we must make room for one extract morefrom the Veto:

"I cannot but add another very grave objection to this bill. The Con stitution imperatively declares, in connection with taxation, that each state shall have at least one representative, and fixes the rule for the number to which in future time each state shall be entitled. It also provides that the Senate of the United States shall be composed of two senators from each state, and adds, with peculiar force, that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

• Code Politique, p. 389,

+ Cos-Gayon, Deccionario, &c., p. 360.

+ "De petits esprits exagèrent trop l'injustice que l'on fait aux Africains."De l'Esprit des lois, liv. xxv., chap. v.

The original act was necessarily passed in the absence of the states chiefly to be affected, because their people were then contumaciously engaged in the rebellion. Now the case is changed, and some at least of the states are attending Congress by loyal representatives, soliciting the allowance of the constitutional right of representation. At the time, however, of the consideration and passing of the bill, there was no senator or representative in Congress from the eleven states which are to be mainly affected by its provisions. The very fact that reports were and are made against the good disposition of the country is an additional reason why they need and should have representatives of their own in Congress to explain their condition, reply to accusations, and assist by their local knowledge in the perfecting of measures immediately affecting themselves; while the liberty of deliberation would then be free, and Congress would have full power to decide according to its judgment. There could be no objection urged that the states most interested had not been permitted to be heard. The principle is firmly fixed in the minds of the American people that there should be no taxation without representation. Great burdens are now to be borne by all the country, and we may best demand that they shall be borne without murmer when they are voted by a majority of the representatives of all the people."

There is no reason why we should commend all this as just, wise, and statesmanlike if we were not convinced that it really possesses those qualities, since we have no more personal knowledge of Mr. Johnson than we had of Mr. Lincoln. We have never communicated in any form with one more than the other; nor have we any personal feeling against Mr. Sumner, Mr. Stevens, or Mr. Wade; each of whom is as much a stranger to us as if he were a citizen of Timbuctoo or Ashantee. Still less, if possible, are we influenced by partisan feeling. It is not against republican, radical, or democrat as such that we speak, but against what we conceive to be unjust and oppressive to the South and demoralizing and dangerous to the North.

We have never uttered a word against the gentlemen mentioned, or against any others, for their opposition to slavery, or to the rebellion which resulted from it. If we had any feeling against them for these reasons, it was because, in the one case their opposition was intemperate and injudicious, and consequently calculated to defeat its own object, while, in the other, it consisted of mere words. They would talk enough at a safe distance from the rebels, but neither would shoulder his musket, or gird on his sword to save the Republic. It is people of this kind who are most valiant and most patriotic when the danger is over; it is they who shout loudest for vengeance. The brave are never vindictive to those whom they have conquered; but always generous. We do not forget that it is a favorite theory among a certain class at the present day, that only the comparatively

VOL. XII.NO. XXIV.

7

rough and uneducated should expose themselves to the dangers of war; that the lives of luminaries like Messrs. Sumner and Stevens are too precious to be imperilled even to save the nation's life. But let us compare them for a moment with men who have fought and bled for their country, and see how small they will appear beside them. Will they not appear molehills beside mountains, for example, when compared with such men as Pericles, Demosthenes, Eschylus, Xenophon, Cæsar, Cervantes, and Camoens? None of these illustrious thinkers remained at home, while their country was in danger, to deliver after-dinner declamations and scold like women, but proved to the world that genius, far from being incompatible with courage, is the strongest incentive to its exercise in a just and noble cause; and having thus vindicated the influence of superior intellect and culture, they were the first to advocate gentle and humane treatment to those whom the fortune of war had placed in their power.

As already remarked, the champions of the projected military law are those who boast loudest of the benign influence of modern civilization; but they forget that the Turks of more than four centuries ago treated the conquered Franks far more gently than they would treat their own kindred of the South. The conduct of Sultan Mahomet on the capture of Constantinople in 1453, after a desperate and bloody struggle, would put that of our modern reformers to shame, since it is admitted, by the most implacable of his enemies, that "no sooner was the tumult of the conquest quieted, than he invited the Greeks, who had escaped from the city, to return, assuring them their life, liberty, and the unmolested enjoyment of their religion. These promises were faithfully kept by him and his successors for a period of sixty years." In short, it was the invariable policy of the Turks for four centuries-until they commenced to degenerate-to allow the conquered race the full enjoyment of their own political institutions. We prefer to quote American authority in support of the fact that even the tax imposed by the conquerors" was collected in the least oppressive way by their own magistrates, whose duty it was to tax all persons, without distinction, according to their means."*

We trust, that in a moment of reflection, even the gentlemen whose conduct we have thus deemed it our duty to con

• See Goodrich's History of All Nations, vol. 1, p. 365.

demn will recognise the justice and wisdom of the President's arguments against the despotic domination which they would impose on their own kindred. Doubtless they mean well; but if they were allowed to proceed, they would inflict incalculable evil on both white and black; and at the same time make American liberty a byword of scorn all over the world.

ART. VI.-1. G. E. Lessing's Werke. Edited by C. LACHMANN. 13 vols. 8vo. Berlin, 1837-1841.

2. Lessing, sein Leben und seine Werke. Von T. W. DANZEL. Leipzig, 1847-1853.

3. Lessing's Leben, nach seinen hinterlassenen Schriften. Von K. G. LESSING. Leipzig, 1793.

4. Literaturgeschichte des achtzehnten Jahrhunderts. Von H. HETTNER. 3 vols. 8vo. Braunschweig, 1856-1862.

5. Literaturgeschichte der Deutschen.* Von G. G. GERVINUS. 5 vols. Leipzig, 1846-1848.

Gotthold Ephraim Lessing was born at Kamenz, a small town of Upper Lusatia, on January 22, 1729. The son of a Protestant pastor of the old school, he was early destined for the profession of his father, and at the age of seventeen, after having completed his preparation at Meissen, he entered the University of Leipzig as a student of divinity. His restless and inquisitive spirit, however, would not suffer him long to remain content with this study, which he soon abandoned for that of medicine, but only to exchange the latter presently for the far more inviting pursuits of literature and of the new philosophy of Wolff. His society at Leipzig soon became chiefly that of the artists connected with the theatre, and some of the authors of the city, among whom he attached himself more especially to Mylius and Weisse, both men of some note, and whose opinions had no little influence on the formation of young Lessing's character.

It was on this account that, when Mylius went to Berlin,

*For the privilege of examining most German and other foreign works not to be had in our public libraries, which we have to review, or quote, from time to time, we are indebted to the obliging courtesy of Mr. Frederick Leypold, bookseller, Broadway, New York, who is the American agent for several of the leading publishing houses of France and Germany.