teach upon the Charles. If America is to show in what her system is superior, if she is to advocate a government of all the people as equal citizens, England may justly claim to prove that a government of classes is better. And since knowledge is the great peacemaker, the lectures at the Universities would gradually supersede in effective offices the other embassadors at the seats of government. It would be a service in that great work of national fraternity toward which the movements of civilization and the hopes of the most enlightened men tend. "The federation of the world" is not the distempered dream of a rhyming enthusiast; it is the plain goal of the progress of humanity.

those whom it is necessary to affect. The only Thus it fails for the present. But the proposal objection which seems to be urged was contained in will doubtless be renewed. The intelligent, liberal the speech of the Rev. E. Dodd, Fellow of Magda- hand of the two great countries that steadily mainlene College, when the question was discussed. It tain constitutional governments will yet clasp. For was, that it was a project "to Americanize our in- of course such a lectureship will be reciprocal. If stitutions." This objection was answered by Pro-America teaches upon the Cam, England should fessor Lightfoot and Sir George Young, Fellow of Trinity; but it was not met squarely upon its merits. If American institutions are better than the British, why should not the British be Americanized? And how can any Englishman know whether they are truly better or worse until they are known? To say that it is not desirable to modify British institutions is foolish; because it is desirable to improve them if possible. Moreover, to oppose the introduction of accurate knowledge upon any subject is to confess that you fear you are in the wrong. It is the maintenance of the old Tory tradition that to repeal the law which punished theft with death was to overthrow the great beacons and landmarks of the British Constitution. If the British Constitution rested upon such rotten supports it was of the most vital importance that it should be known. If the monarchy could not endure such a harmless internal movement as that, what would become of it under one vigorous foreign blow? There is nothing so ludicrously pitiful as Toryism. It is a nervous old man floundering in petticoats, at once senile and contemptible.

How does the Reverend E. Dodd, Fellow of Magdalene, propose to advance at all without free discussion? He says that "there are millions in America whose opinions are thoroughly detestable." What, then, is of so great importance as that the British youth should have an opportunity of knowing that fact? If they agree that they are thoroughly detestable how can that knowledge help Mr. John Bright? To say that the worse will be made to appear the better reason, that the American lecturer will so gloze and sophisticate as to bewilder and deceive, is to beg the whole question. It is to assume that there are no honorable men in America, or that they would not be nominated as lecturers. It is exactly the assumption of the Romish system, which declares certain opinions heresies and certain men heretics and then issues its anathema before the people are allowed to hear and judge for themselves. Magdalene College at Oxford was changed by James Second into a popish seminary two centuries ago. Does Mr. Dodd wish a Romish reputation for the Cambridge Magdalene of to-day?

The vote upon Mr. Thompson's proposition showed that the Reverend E. Dodd truly represented the monkish spirit still dominant in the old University. He made a final appeal to the "church" fears of the representatives of the different colleges. A great many non-resident members came up to vote. "Fly-sheets" of various argument and representation fluttered through the halls. The speech of Professor Kingsley, although meant to favor the plan, was ill-considered. He represented that the proposal was supported by those in America who were most in love with England and English institutions, and who felt themselves "in increasing danger of being swamped by the lower element of a vast democracy." It was the hand of a drowning man stretched out to grasp terra firma. Such a statement was both untrue and unfair. It was another illustration of Kingsley's misapprehension of this country and its condition. The Senate met, and the proposition was rejected by 107 votes to 81.

SITTING Comfortably in a pleasant box at Wallack's pretty theatre, and looking at a comedy of the life of to-day excellently played by a good company, an Easy Chair naturally wonders why English and French dramas alone are presented. Every evening a dozen theatres in New York are filled with a sympathetic audience. The taste for the drama is evident. It is a popular and agreeable recreation; and yet, although modern human nature is very much the same whether in London or Paris or New York, and although the Yankee genius has never been blamed for want of invention, the Yankee audience is content to be served only with the French and English aspects of the most familiar facts.

The comedy was called "Society." The plot was simple enough. It is a poor man crossed in love in the usual way, as common in America as in England. A scheming old lady of fashion and rank; a dependent niece; a poor younger brother, who is the lover; a rich, burly countryman and his son, a semi-bumpkin, to whom the scheming old lady means to marry the niece-these are the chief characters. The young lover of "a fine old family" runs for Parliament against the rich young countryman, and a misapprehension, added to the resolution of the old lady, persuades the niece to engage herself to the young countryman. But at last the young lover is elected; his brother luckily dies, and leaves him a baronet and rich; the mistake is explained, and he marries the lady. It is thin material, but in plays it is not the material but the work that counts. Yet it was very ineffective, for half of the peculiar humor and movement of the play were English and not American. Now, with the same material in an American setting the play could have been quite amusing and popular. There was nothing peculiarly English in the plot, and yet from the details it was utterly foreign, and therefore so far chilled sympathy.

Of course it must not be forgotten that many of the actors are English, and therefore appreciate and render English character and humor more readily than any other. But it is no less surprising that our American plays are either extravaganzas, like Solon Shingle, or purely moral dramas or spectacles, while the same range of life which furnishes the English playwrights with their material could be made equally productive here.

The explanation lies in the other explanation, whatever it may be, of the comparative paucity and

inferiority of our novels to the English. The Lon- | Indeed many an English author has had his first don publishers are constantly issuing novels. Their hearty recognition in this country. It was so with number and excellence are extraordinary. Every Carlyle and Tennyson; and at this moment Robert magazine has its serial, and it is generally very Browning is doubtless much more widely and truly good. There are many authors who write at least appreciated here than in England, where he happens one, often two novels in a year. The supply is to live. great, but the demand is enormous. The best are republished and sold here; but the original American novels of a year may be almost counted upon the two hands; and of those how many are as good as Miss Mulock's or Anthony Trollope's or Miss Edwards's, who manufacture novels for the British Circulating Library? A few years ago, besides these industrious authors, Dickens and Thackeray, and Bulwer, and Charles Reade, and Wilkie Collins, and Charlotte Brontë, and Mrs. Gaskell, and Miss Evans ( Adam Bede" and "Romola"), were all writing novels. Thackeray, Miss Bronte, and Mrs. Gaskell are gone, but the others remain, and, excepting Miss Evans, who is too long silent, are always busy.

But if we regard the two countries which speak the same language, and which are now brought so nearly into communication as one country, and the audience as virtually one audience, the question still remains why the novels are all written in one part of that country? The answer must probably be sought elsewhere, says another party-possibly in the realm of art. Art requires a certain national culmination for its perfection. It is the ripened fruit. It is the sign of maturity. Is it so? But does not English literature begin with Chaucer, and was England ripe then? Is not the Elizabethan the great literary era of England, and was not that especially the formative and not the ripened period of English history?

One great romancer, more truly a wizard than Or is it that we are too busy with the material Sir Walter Scott, American literature shows in Na- necessities of life in a new country? That will not thaniel Hawthorne; and Brockden Brown, who was explain the problem, for the material struggle is a not a master but a pupil of certain English teach-hundred-fold sharper in England than in America. ers; and Cooper, whose works are even more popu- Nowhere is money made so easily and spent so lavlar in Europe than in this country, are the most con-ishly as by us. Is it, then, a lower reason, a mere spicuous of American novelists. Yet these are the detail of the division of labor enforced by a redunonly very noted names which are distinctively associ-dant population? Obviously not, for the most asated with novel-writing in this country, and they siduous and exclusive devotion to that particular are scattered over more than half a century. We branch of literature does not secure the success of do not forget the capital single novels by "various a novel, but a specific natural gift is the charm. hands," which have been dropped along the way "Uncle Tom's Cabin" and "Dred" are works of creative power. "John Brent" is one of the most characteristic and admirable of modern stories, and they are but illustrations. Yet the truth remains, that our literary tendency is not toward such writing. The magazines complain that a good story is the hardest thing to find; and the chance is that the serial, which is essential to every periodical, is English-not because of the partiality of the editor for English authors, nor of any supposed preference of the reader for English stories, nor because they are "stolen," for they are liberally paid for, but simply because they are better adapted to the taste to which the magazine is addressed.

We wonder at the fact, but it is not easy to explain it. We sit in the box and see how easily the play might succeed with a few changes that seem very easy to make. But nobody makes them; and this play changed is not an American drama, but an English drama adapted. If we shut our eyes and reflect, it is plain that the greatest names in the literature of our language are not American-of the very greatest not one is American. Patience, gentlemen, patience! The world is not in its dotage. Grant that what we say is plain. We may still open our eyes again, look round us, and rejoice!

WHILE Congress and the Legislatures are trying to obtain security upon the railroads, we are still pressed with the agitation for good-manners in the cars, and submit the following to the friends of politeness in traveling:

"DEAR EASY CHAIR,-I see in your Magazine for Feb

ruary, 1866, a communication from A Gentleman of the which he describes the very anti-old-school manners of a certain young woman who appropriated a seat belonging to a genuine gentleman, as his conduct under the exasperating circumstances proclaimed him to be.

Old School' (and I wish there were more of them!), in

"Now, dear Easy Chair, I will not write one extenuat

The great sale of republished novels in this country, and the constant crowds that fill the theatres, show that there is no want of demand for stories and plays; and if the demand creates the supply, we ought certainly to expect a corresponding production. There is an explanation of the matter sometimes urged which is, that, substantially, the English novelists are our novelists also. We speak the same language, it is said, we inherit the same traditions; until two centuries ago English history was our history. Indeed, in his delightful work upon the Life and Genius of Shakespeare, Mr. Richard Grant White refuses to acknowledge anying word for the Miss or Mrs. Waterfall designated. Yet break in the line, and speaks of English literature as "our" literature. Is it not so? Is not Shakespeare ours, and Milton? Are not all the poets and historians who write in our native language ours, as Goethe, and Dante, and Molière are not? Does an English boy read Scott's novels or Robinson Crusoe with more sympathy or intelligence than an American boy? Is Thackeray any more intelligible in London than in New York? If not, is not the distinction we make fallacious? Do not Dickens, and Trollope, and Reade, and Mrs. Gaskell write quite as much for us in America as for us in England?

I would like to ask the 'Old-School Gentleman' why the gentlemen (?) who travel in rail-cars now are so different in their manners from those some fifteen years ago? Then, if a lady entered a car, some gentleman near, without the least hesitation, would offer a seat. But observe the contrast now! Generally you will see the gentlemen (?) looking out of the window, or pretending to be asleep, or engrossed in a newspaper, mindful of every thing but of the fact that there is a lady near them not

seated.

"If I did not see very young and beautiful women, sometimes with babies in their arms, served in this way, I should at once conclude that I could find no seat because I was a few years older. But we all fare alike, young and

old, pretty and plain. Evidently it is the custom. Now, The line of the Canadian border has been bristling Sir, this seems so different from the stories I used to read with volunteers to defend hearth and home; but of chivalric knights of the olden time that I am tempted the enemy, up to the time of this writing, has not to think that men in our day are fast becoming selfish or shown the shape of his hand or the color of his flag, ungallant. Can it be that they are ceasing to be gentle-Up with the green!" has been the vociferous cry

men?

"Dear Gentleman of the Old School,' who is to blame for this apparent want of respect? For my part, I feel quite concerned upon the point. If men's respect for our sex in this country is degenerating I wish to inquire into it; and if our sex is to blame for this degeneracy I for one would like to know it. I think that one of those knights who tilted in a tournament for his lady's smile would have despised himself if he could not stand in a car until he reached the next station, when perhaps he would find a vacant seat with much more ease than a crinolined lady

even if that seat were at the other end of the car.

"Woe is me! that I have lived to see the day when a lady steals a seat! For myself, let other women do as they may, I always reserve my sweetest smile and most fascinating glance for the gentleman who offers me a seat in a crowded rail-car. If he looks weary or ill I do not accept it, but thank him all the same.

"Yours, very kindly,

"A GENTLEWOMAN OF THE OLD SCHOOL."

Ah well! the fault is mutual, good Mrs. Gentlewoman. If you had traveled constantly for weeks in the cars, and had seen how very, very, very few of the sex reserve the "sweetest smile and most fascinating glance" for the courteous gentleman who offers his seat-if you had seen passengers seated for a long and tiresome journey rise pleasantly and stand or take a disagreeable seat to accommodate an unrecognizing lady who was going but to the next station, where some equally disdainful sister entered the car and took the seat without a doubting glance, and this constantly, you would not sharpen your heart or your pen against the man who seemed reluctant to surrender his comfort without so much as a thank you. Of course he is not to be seriously defended. He is bound always to be unselfish-that is to say, gentlemanly-whether any other person is ungentlemanly or ungentlewomanly. He must not make the want of manners justify impoliteness.

Meanwhile, if the railroad companies would understand their duties, and give travelers cars enough for their comfort, these frightful moral struggles would be avoided. If our friend the Gentlewoman would represent to Mr. Vanderbilt, for instance, who is the incarnate Hudson and Harlem, or to Mr. Dean Richmond, the Colossus of the Central, that well-meaning and moral ladies are actually compelled to "steal seats" upon those roads, we are sure the gallantry of those gentlemen would at once relieve the pressure upon the patience and politeness of travelers.

"So you did not take Canada on St. Patrick's Day?" said the Easy Chair to an excellent lady of the "Green Isle," who sits at a windy street-corner and sells apples.

"Oh no, Sir. It's nothing but the wind of a few poor Irish people," she replied, in a brogue so rich that her words were almost unintelligible.

in Jones's Wood; and the fury with which the tyranny of England has been denounced in enthusiastic meetings is savage. But the green has risen-if indeed any bunting has been visible-only among friends, and so persistently and exclusively among friends, and not in the sight of foes, that a Chinese philosopher, intent upon knowing the simple fact of things, might justly ask whether indeed the green had not "gone up" finally?

Yet under all this noise, which inevitably occasions the inquiry whether the money subscribed is used for the good of the cause or merely for the personal comfort and glorification of certain men, there is no doubt that there is a profound injustice in the policy of England toward Ireland. When the bill for suspending the habeas corpus was introduced in Parliament, John Bright said that he would not oppose a measure declared by the Government to be essential for the preservation of the public peace, but he protested most sternly against the traditional misgovernment of the country. Never, he exclaimed, does the Government act with energy and promptness toward Ireland except upon a measure of repression or coercion. I have sat here, he continued, through several administrations. Sir Robert Peel, Lord Aberdeen, Lord Palmerston, Earl Russell, have all sat at the head of the Government, and the conduct of every administration toward Ireland has been utterly devoid of statesnianship. The fervent orator poured out his wrath and pity, and at the close of his speech carried the House with admiration, although not with sympathy or conviction. Mr. Gladstone complimented him in remarkable terms. He said that Mr. Bright's extraordinary powers had never been displayed to more striking advantage; but that the question was not of general policy, but of special measures to meet a crisis.

The position of Mr. Bright in the debate showed the difference between legitimate and factious opposition, and it is one which may wisely be studied by many of our own legislators. He criticised and condemned the conduct of England hitherto, but he did not refuse to sustain the action of the Government. He strove neither to embarrass, nor thwart, nor delay. See, he said, to what dire extremity the old policy has brought us! Let us obviate the peril, and then, in Heaven's name, prevent its recurrence. This is the attitude of a patriot, not of a partisan. They are the words of a man who loves his country no less wisely than well.

John Stuart Mill also spoke a word for Ireland. It is the point upon which England is chronically mad, and upon which Parliament was exasperated; but he did not hesitate to speak of the injustice with which she was treated. The dignity, and force, and fervor of the two men are of incalculable service to Ireland and to national justice. No Fenian And indeed the whole matter of Fenianism, which folly can blind thoughtful men to the danger and has roared and rattled in newspapers and orators' strange impolicy of the rank wrong of the Church mouths for sometime past, seems to be curiously policy in Ireland. John Bull preaches patience, unsubstantial. The panic in Canada and the quasi- and forbearance, and charity, and conciliation, and panic in Ireland and in Parliament remind the read- brotherly love to us in the great work which now er of the "Irish night" of James Second, when Lon-engages all hearts and all hands. Amen and amen! don quaked and shivered lest it should be obliterated And how about justice and conciliation at home? before morning. So far as we can learn there has With many and many excellences, does it occur to been no single Fenian discovered in battle-array. John Bull that he is not a model nation? Most

self-satisfied of all, does it occur to him to ask why | Sheridan must, in the heat of the action, have actof all great nations England excites the most ill-ed from erroneous information in displacing him. will? The reason is that she does not practice what she so persistently preaches. She talks high morality, and palpably acts from the most sordid motives. What Palmerston was to Lord Chatham in his great days, or to George Canning, that is the England of to-day to a truly great nation. If she would recover her relative consideration in the world must she not clearly listen to the voice of such men as her liberal leaders, and show her quality in pacifying Ireland by justice?

It will be remembered that after the battle of Five Forks, April 1, 1865, General G. K. Warren was relieved by General Sheridan from the command of the Fifth Corps; and that in his report of this battle General Sheridan animadverted sharply upon the conduct of General Warren. General Warren, who bore a most honorable and prominent part in the war, has put forth a pamphlet describing and justifying his conduct on this occasion. We think that he shows conclusively that General

We may also infer that this was the opinion of General Grant, since immediately after he selected General Warren for the command of the Department of the Mississippi, then the scene of actual warfare.— In our Monthly Record for May, 1865, some errors occurred, which we correct on the authority of General Warren: On the 29th of March "the Fifth Corps, then under General Meade's direction, had a severe and successful engagement with the enemy." The skirmishing on the 30th was not "unfavorable to the national troops." On the "forenoon of the 31st the advance of the Fifth Corps was attacked by the enemy and driven back to a branch of Gravelly Run; but the enemy were in turn driven, and the engagement terminated with Warren's Corps in possession of the White Oak road. During the afternoon of April 1 Warren was brought up, and his command formed on our right for an attack on the enemy's left. This was made at four P.M., and was completely successful. At the close of this battle General Warren was relieved of his command."

Monthly Record of Current Events.

UNITED STATES.

UR Record closes on the 30th of March. The proceedings of Congress during the month were not of such a character as to demand a detailed mention. The debates in both Houses have turned mainly upon the general systems of policy entertained by the President and his opponents, embracing on the one hand the majority of the Republican members in both Houses, and on the other the Democratic members. They are interesting chiefly as indicating the position of prominent persons, but present no new features. The arguments on both sides had already been exhausted.

The concurrent resolution passed by the House, February 20, providing that members from the eleven seceding States should not be admitted until Congress had declared such States entitled to representation, was passed in the Senate, March 2, by a vote of 29 to 18, the following Republican Senators voting against it: Messrs. Cowan, Dixon, Norton, Stewart, Van Winkle, Doolittle, and Morgan. Various additional amendments to the Constitution have been proposed, but definite action has been reached on none of them.-The bill to admit Colorado as a State was, March 13, defeated in the Senate, by 21 to 14.-The Loan bill passed the House, March 23, by a vote of 83 to 53, with a proviso that of United States notes not more than $10,000,000 strould be canceled within six months, and thereafter not more than $4,000,000 in any one month.

In the Senate the Military bill was passed, March 14, by a vote of 27 to 5. It provides that the military peace establishment of the United States shall consist of 5 regiments of artillery, 12 of cavalry, and 50 of infantry. The infantry regiments to consist of ten companies, each having, besides commissioned and non-commissioned officers, 50 privates, which number may be increased to 100 at the discretion of the President. Eight of these regiments are to be composed of colored men. All vacancies in the grade of lieutenant, and two-thirds above that grade, to be filled from volunteer officers and soldiers, and one-third from officers and soldiers of the regular army, who have served during two years of the war,

and have been distinguished for capacity and good conduct in the field; promotions in the colored regiments to be confined to the regiments of that corps; and volunteer officers to be distributed among the States in proportion to the number of troops furnished by them during the war. There are to be one Lieutenant-General, five Major-Generals, and ten Brigadier-Generals in the army. No officer of the regular army below the rank of Colonel can be promoted to a higher grade before having passed a satisfactory examination as to fitness and past services; and no person can be commissioned in any regiment until he has passed a satisfactory examination before a board to be convened by the Secretary of War.

In the Senate, the right of Mr. Stockton of New Jersey to a seat was contested on the ground of the alleged illegality of his election. The Committee to whom the question was referred reported in his favor. His claim was at first apparently decided in his favor, his own vote giving him a majority. This vote was given under peculiar circumstances. Mr. Morrill, of Maine, had some time previously "paired off" with Mr. Wright of New Jersey, who was detained from his seat by protracted illness. Mr. Morrill gave notice that he considered the time of this arrangement to have expired, and that he should vote when the question came up. Mr. Wright was unable to be present, and Mr. Morrill's vote made a tie, which was in effect to negative the claim of Mr. Stockton, who thereupon, having been recognized as having the right to vote on all previous questions, voted in his own favor, thus giving him a majority of one. Subsequently it was considered, nearly unanimously, that Mr. Stockton had no right to vote in his own case; and the former vote recognizing him was re-considered, and he was, by a vote of 22 to 21, declared not entitled to the seat. This affair derives special importance from the fact that it may decide the course of the Senate in respect to the passing of the Civil Rights bill over the veto of the President. Mr. Stockton would have voted against the bill; the present Legislature of New Jersey, it is assumed, will

choose a Senator who is in its favor; and so close is the division in the United States Senate that a single vote may make the difference between acquiescing in the veto or setting it aside by the requisite majority of two-thirds.

in the full enjoyment of all the rights secured to them under the preceding section. It implies the probability of forbidden legislation, and imposes pains and penalties upon legislators who shall pass, and judges and officers who shall execute such laws, thus invading the legislative and judicial powers of the States. The remedy proposed against oppressive legislation," he thinks, "not only anomalous but unconstitutional; for the Constitution guarantees nothing with certainty if it does not insure to the several States the right of making laws in re

subject only to the restrictions in cases of conflict with the Constitution or Constitutional laws of the United States-the latter to be held as the supreme law of the land."

The 3d Section gives to the District Courts of the United States exclusive cognizance of all offenses

On the 28th of March the President sent in his veto upon the bill entitled "An Act to protect all persons in the United States in their Civil Rights, and to furnish the means of their Vindication." This bill had passed both branches of Congress by large majorities: in the House by 111 to 38-34 Representatives not voting; in the Senate by 33 to 12-gard to all matters arising within their jurisdiction, 5 Senators not voting. Those in both Houses who voted for the bill are all Republicans. Of those who voted against it, Senators Cowan of Pennsylvania, Norton of Minnesota, and Van Winkle of West Virginia, Representatives Bingham of Ohio, Latham of West Virginia, Phelps of Maryland, Randall, Rousseau, and Smith of Kentucky, are Repub-committed against the provisions of this Act, and licans; all the others Democrats. Of those not voting 26 Representatives and 3 Senators are Republicans, 8 Representatives and 2 Senators Democrats. The first and second sections of the bill read thus: "SECTION 1. That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of Slavery or involuntary service, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, to be sued, be parties and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property as are enjoyed by white citizens; and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other; any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to the contrary notwithstanding.

concurrent jurisdiction with the Circuit Courts of the United States over all civil and criminal cases affecting persons embraced in the special view of this Act. By this Act, the President says, "the Legislative department of the Government of the United States takes from the Judicial department of the States the sacred and exclusive duty of ju dicial decision, and converts the State Judge into a mere ministerial officer, bound to decide according to the will of Congress." And as in any State where any of the enumerated rights are denied to colored persons all criminal and civil cases affecting them come under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Courts, any colored person who should commit a crime not provided for by the Federal law must be tried by the Federal Courts under the common law, as modified by the laws of the States, so far as the same are not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States. So that "in the vast domain of criminal jurisprudence provided by each State for the protection of its own citizens and for the punishment of all persons who violate its criminal laws, Federal law, wherever it can be made to apply, displaces State law." The President finds no constitutional authority for this transfer of judicial power. He thinks that for the enforcement of the Amendment to the Constitution abolishing slavery there is no necessity for the expre-ercise of the powers conferred by this bill. There is no probability of any attempt by any State to reestablish slavery. But if, says the President, "any such attempt shall be made, it will then become the duty of the General Government to exercise any and all incidental powers necessary and proper to maintain inviolate this great law of Freedom."

"SECTION 2. And that any person who, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, shall subject, or cause to be subjected, any inhabitant of any State or Territory to the deprivation of any right secured or protected by this act, or to punishment, pains, and penalties on account of such person having at any time been held in a condition of Slavery or involuntary servitude, except for the punishment of crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, or by the reason of his color or race, than is prescribed for the punishment of white persons, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction shall be punished by a fine not exceed ing one thousand dollars, or imprisonment not exceeding one year, or both, in the discretion of the Court."

The remaining sections, nine in number, scribe at length the mode of carrying into effect the provisions embodied in the first two sections. Their essential points will be found embodied in the objections made to them by the President. He objects to Section 1 because it declares not only persons of color, but Chinese, Indians who are taxed, and Gipsies to be citizens of the United States. He thinks it inexpedient to bestow the right of citizenship upon four millions of persons who have just emerged from a condition of slavery, while persons born abroad, more likely to understand their duties as citizens, can only become such after a long probation, and upon proof of good character and attachment to the Constitution of the United States. The "subjects embraced in the enumeration of rights contained in this bill have been considered as exclusively belonging to the States; they all relate to the internal policy and economy of the respective States; they are matters which, in each State, concern the domestic condition of its people, varying in each according to its own peculiar circumstances, and the safety and well-being of its citizens."

The President objects to the 2d Section because it "affords discriminating protection to colored persons

The 4th and 5th sections empower officers of the Freedmen's Bureau to make arrests, and provide for Commissioners who may appoint agents to carry into effect the provisions of the Act, authorizing them to call to their aid the military and naval power when necessary. The President thinks such power "conferred upon agents irresponsible to the Government and the people, and to whose number the discretion of the Commissioners is the only limit, may be made a terrible engine of wrong, oppres sion, and fraud." He thinks the general laws regulating the military power sufficient for any emerg ency which can arise in time of peace; if not, Congress can amend these laws.

To the 8th and 9th sections, which prescribe certain details in the execution of processes, the President objects, mainly upon account of their practical inconvenience.