and gaiety. The lettres de cachet had formerly been used to delay the course of justice, but during the reign of this monarch, any person who could find access to court to either the King or his Ministers - could obtain these lettres; and to gratify malice, or serve the ends of mercenary purposes, upon the most trivial pretexts; and by this means thousands of persons were imprisoned for life, or for a term of years. So monstrous was the character of these outrages committed, that the people were intimidated, money extorted, suits founded by injustice, withdrawn dowers, marriages made available, and, in short, the most intolerable slavery and abject servitude which ever disgraced any people, was quietly effected during the reign of this French Prince.

But during the reign of Louis XV, France was almost entirely engaged in war, and gave but little attention to the government of the people at home. She lost the Canadas in a war with Great Britain, and came nigh ruining the army, navy, treasury, and church, and entirely prostrated all that was left of the judiciary.

The ministers of this monarch used these lettres to most singular effect. Indeed, they became a matter of commerce, and were openly and publicly sold by the strumpet of one of the ministers of the king. They were also granted by the king for the purpose of shielding his favorites or their friends from the consequences of their crimes. They were sometimes bought to rid a family of heirs who stood immediately in the way of an expectant inheritance, and for the purpose of gratifying spites in family quarrels. During the contentions of the Mirabeau family, not less than fifty-nine lettres de cachet were issued by one or the other of the family, of course, for monied consideration. But the evils of this extraordinary proceeding did not stop with these.

Independent members of Parliament and of the Magistracy were proscribed and punished by means of these war warrants. This corruption became enormous, and was in the French history what Jeffrey's campaign was to England; and when Louis the XVI. tried to control and remedy it he failed.

Among all of the evils and blessings of the French Revolu

tion, this one thing will be worthy of eternal remembrance— that it swept away this monstrous evil which never had an existence before among civilized people, and which has never been since revived until Wm. H. Seward, of America, inaugurated it as a part of the administration of the General Government, in violation of the Constitution of the United States, every instinct of civil liberty, and the very genius of free gov

ernment.

This is the scandal of the nineteenth century, the opprobrium of the history of North America, and it is most remarkable how nearly in resemblance the use made of this warrant by French tyrants is to that use made of it by the American tyrant, whose villainy promises to Benedict Arnold but secondary claims to supreme infamy in American history.

Judge Taney was threatened with imprisonment for rendering a legitimate judicial decision in a case legitimately before him.

Mayor Barrett, of Washington City, was imprisoned because he would not be the tool of a member of the Cabinet, for purely mercenary purposes. Mr. Barrett needs no higher evidence of his loyalty to the government, than his appointment as a commissioner to value emancipated slaves, and no nobler exhibition of his real manhood than his refusal to accept the appointment. The imprisonment of innocent men all over the country, to gratify private malice, the arrest of whole legislative bodies, the despotism of the central power, in confining men and withholding the charge for which they are confined, makes the analogy complete between the use of these lettres in France and in America.

This, however, must be observed, that in France, the lettres de cachet were always allowed to be a violation of those hereditary and traditional rights of Frenchmen which they had always enjoyed.

But for the exercise of all these extraordinary powers, Mr. Seward says in his letter to Lord Lyons, October 14th, 1861, "That for the purpose of quelling the insurrection, the President has the power to suspend the writ of habeas corpus whenever, wheresoever, and in whatsoever extent * in his judgment it requires." And the tenor of the Secretary's arguments is to prove that this is in accordance with the Constitution of the United States.

* *

The following is perhaps even more extraordinary than anything upon the subject. "For the exercise of that discretion, he, as well as his advisers, among whom are the Secretaries of State and of War, is responsible by law before the highest tribunal of the Republic, and amenable also to the judgment of his countrymen, and the enlightened opinion of the civilized world.

This is the language of Mr. Seward to a Foreign Court. To his countrymen he is scarcely so courteous, but makes the condition of their release depend upon the relinquishment of their right to hold him and his advisers "responsible by law" before the highest tribunal of the Republic.

Whatever may be the judgment of his countrymen, "the enlightened opinion of the civilized world "shudders at the revival in America of the despotism of the 17th and 18th centuries in France.

Nor does the plea of necessity make it better. This plea is as old as crime itself. Cain says the slaughter of Abel was necessary-To what? That he might be the only heir of Adam; the only friend of God-but not to the triumph of right. England pleads necessity for the oppression of Ireland. Austria has the same plea in extenuation of her wrongs to Hungary. So pleads Russia in her treatment of Poland - Necessary to what? The power of the one and the wrongs of the other. But not necessary to the cause of justice, the triumph of right. What necessity for these warrants of Mr. Seward? to put down the war? No; the Constitution can do that amply, easily and fully. Necessary to make men love the institutions of the country? No. Necessary for what? To keep tyrants in power, to overthrow the Government, to crush out the spirit of Liberty, to invert the engine of progress and drive back the car of civilization three centuries, to hold council with and learn at the feet of French tyrants. Oh, Lord, how long shall these things be! Shall not the ballot-box bring "the judgment of our countrymen" to hurl these men from power and welcome back the departed spirit of Liberty; or shall not the repudiated debt teach capital the danger of loaning money to destroy liberty.

CHAPTER V.

THE WAR DEBT IS A BREACH OF Trust.

A DEBT MAY BE CONTRACTED UNDER SUCH SYSTEMATIC BREACHES OF TRUST UPON THE PART OF PUBLIC OFFICERS, as to have no moral binding force upon the people, though ostensibly for the most unquestionable public good. This is especially true where the contractors were privy to the fraud.

The only security that popular governments have for the faithful performance of contracts, that nothing stronger than public opinion is held for the payment of debts, because no suits can be entertained by a sovereign power to coerce itself.

When the questions which originate wars and public debts, largely divide the public mind, then the justice and probabilities of its liquidation become a matter just as doubtful as the vagaries of human opinion and political integrity. But the question may be evenly balanced in the public judgment. Public opinion may be restrained concerning it. It becomes still more uncertain, how far the public conscience may feel bound for the payment; but each succeeding decade with its accumulating responsibilities, will feel less and less bound in honor to meet an obligation which, at the best, holds but a feeble grasp upon the public responsibility.

When it is clear that the majority of a full million and a half of actual voters, not engaged in war, were opposed to the war as a remedy for existing evils, or that the debt and war were both frauds upon the public credulity and destructive of our system of government, then the payment of the debt becomes impossible.

This is precisely the case of our war and war debt. Abraham Lincoln reached the Presidency by a great minority in both the first and second elections. In the second election, the minority

was even greater than in the first, amounting to 1,200,000 less than a majority of the votes of the people, not accounting the fraud and force, applied to divest the election of every attribute of choice.

But the strength of this argument is irresistible. Every vote cast at the election of 1860, was given to candidates pledged in public professions of political faith, including the ablest speeches of Mr. Lincoln himself, against coercion or war. He had, in the most public manner avowed, and in the most solemn oaths sworn before heaven and earth, not to interfere with the existing condition of things in the government. The right of one-half of the States to overrun and destroy the other half, had been denied by all of the leading statesmen, North and South, in every period of our history, and by the courts in the exercise of their plenary powers.