wanted to do what was right, he also succeeded in finding out what was the right thing to be done. Broad as the shoulders of his giant frame were, they were on the 4th of March, 1861, not equal to the weight of the mountain that was to be laid upon them. But he could not help growing with his task, because he could no more refuse implicit obedience to the "categorical imperative" than he could get out of his own skin. The time to ask the question, whether and how far he was fit to carry the load was past. Upon him the constitutionally expressed will of the nation had laid it, and the supreme law of the land made it his duty to carry it to the best of his ability. Yes, his duty, and not that of any one else, though never so much better qualified. This perfect consciousness of his personal responsibility is the secret of his prodigious moral and intellectual development in those terrible four years. Moral weaklings, though intellectually ever so great, are crushed by great responsibilities in great times; pure and strong characters, though intellectually much nearer the average than the prodigies, grow under this most trying of all ordeals into truly great men. The honest assumption of the whole responsibility devolved upon him being to Lincoln simply a matter of course, it could have but one effect: the more fearful the responsibility grows by the consequences involved in his decisions, the more implacable the truthfulness becomes, with which his clear, sad eye tries to discern his duty, and the more unbreakable and unbendable the determination to do his whole duty and nothing but his duty, though it not only cost his life, but what was infinitely more-though it break his heart. And was it not one continuous breaking of that great heart, as tender as it was strong, from week to week, from day to day, through four interminable years? Abraham Lincoln never ceased to be a party man, but, at least from the moment he entered the White House, he never allowed himself to indulge in the partisan spirit. He was a Republican, because his political convictions rendered it his duty as an American citizen to be one. Not only in theory, but also in his practice, the party was to him always but a means, and never the end. All the promptings of his own head and heart were in fullest accordance with his constitutional obligation. With unswerving decision and persistency he based his whole policy upon the creed of the Republican party, because he was thoroughly convinced that the Constitution, the true interests of the nation, and the laws of God imperatively demanded it. But he never administered the government with the views, motives, and aims of a party chieftain, for he was ever fully conscious that that would have been an unpardonable breach of trust. With that utter disregard of consequences which an awful duty enforces upon an uncompromising conscience, he was bent with religious earnestness and intentness to be, in fact and in spirit, what the law had made him and bade him remain-the President of the United States, embracing not only all the sections of the country, but also the whole people, irrespective of their political tenets. Therefore all the anguish and all the terrors of the most gigantic civil war of all times only chiseled deeper and deeper into his rough-hewn, homely face, the furrows of sorrow, care, and sadness of heart, but not the slightest line of anger and hatred. And therefore his name has become and will become ever more and more dear to the whole people, whether Republicans or Democrats, whether Northerner or Southerner. There is in the whole history of this Republic not one man, from whom we all-wherever born and whatever our political opinions—can learn more instructive and more inspiring lessons as to what true patriotism is; and there is but one who is fully his peer in this respect. To be pitied is, indeed, the American whose way of feeling and thinking will not allow him to look with infinite patriotic pride upon Abraham Lincoln.-H. E. VON HOLST. LINCOLN'S SPEECH AT THE COOPER INSTITUTE. Mr. President and Fellow-citizens of New York: The facts with which I shall deal this evening are mainly old and familiar; nor is there anything new in the general use I shall make of them. If there shall be any novelty, it shall be in the mode of presenting the facts, and the inferences and observations following the presentation. In his speech last autumn, at Columbus, Ohio, as reported in the New York Times, Senator Douglas said: 'Our fathers, when they framed the government under which we live, understood this question just as well as, and even better than, we do now." I fully endorse this, and I adopt it as a text for this discourse. I so adopt it because it furnishes a precise and an agreed starting point for a discussion between Republicans and that wing of the Democracy headed by Senator Douglas. It simply leaves the inquiry: "What was the understanding those fathers had of the question mentioned?" What is the frame of government under which we live? The answer must be: "The Constitution of the United States." The Constitution consists of the original, framed in 1787 (and under which the present government first went into operation), and twelve subsequently-framed amendments, the first ten of which were framed in 1789. Who were our fathers that framed the Constitution? I suppose the "thirty-nine" who signed the original instrument may be fairly called our fathers who framed that part of the present government. It is almost exactly true to say they framed it, and it is altogether true to say they fairly represented the opinion and sentiment of the whole nation at that time. Their names, being familiar to nearly all and accessible to quite all, need not now be repeated. I take these "thirty-nine," for the present, as being "our fathers who framed the government under which we live." What is the question which, according to the text, those fathers understood just as well, and even better than we do now? It is this: Does the proper division of local from federal authority, or anything in the Constitution, forbid our federal government to control as to slavery in our federal territories? Upon this, Douglas holds the affirmative and Republicans the negative. This affirmative and denial form an issue; and this issue this question-is precisely what the text declares our fathers understood better than we. Let us now inquire whether the "thirty-nine," or any of them, ever acted upon this question; and if they did, how they acted upon it-how they expressed that better understanding. In 1784-three years before the Constitution-the United States then owning the Northwestern Territory and no other -the Congress of the Confederation had before them the question of prohibiting slavery in that territory; and four of the "thirty nine" who afterward framed the Constitution were in that Congress and voted on that question. Of these, Roger Sherman, Thomas Mifflin and Hugh Williamson, voted for the prohibition—thus showing that, in their understanding, no line dividing local from federal authority, nor anything else, properly forbade the federal government to control as to slavery in federal territory. The other of the four-James McHenry-voted against the prohibition, showing that, for some cause, he thought it improper to vote for it. In 1787, still before the Constitution, but while the Convention was in session framing it, and while the Northwestern Territory still was the only Territory owned by the United States-the same question of prohibiting slavery in the territory again came before the Congress of the Confederation; and three more of the "thirty-nine" who afterward signed the Constitution, were in that Congress, and voted on the question. They were William Blount, William Few, and Abraham Baldwin, and they all voted for the prohibitionthus showing that, in their understanding, no line dividing local from federal authority, nor anything else, properly forbids the federal government to control as to slavery in federal territory. This time the prohibition became a law, being part of what is now well known as the Ordinance of '87. The question of federal control of slavery in the territories seems not to have been directly before the Convention which framed the original Constitution; and hence it is not recorded that the "thirty-nine" or any of them, while engaged on that instrument, expressed any opinion on that precise question. In 1789, by the first Congress which sat under the Constitution, an act was passed to enforce the Ordinance of '87, including the prohibition of slavery in the Northwestern Territory. The bill for this act was reported by one of the "thirty-nine," Thomas Fitzsimmons, then a member of the House of Representatives from Pennsylvania. It went through all its stages without a word of opposition, and finally passed both branches without yeas and nays, which is equivalent to a unanimous passage. In this Congress there were sixteen of the "thirty-nine" fathers who framed the original Constitution. They were: John Langdon, Nicholas Gilman, William S. Johnson, Roger Sherman, Robert Morris, Thomas Fitzsimmons, William Few, Abraham Baldwin, Rufus King, William Patterson, George Clymer, Richard Bassett, George Read, Pierce Butler, Daniel Carroll, James Madison. This shows that, in their understanding, no line dividing local from federal authority, nor anything in the Constitution, properly forbade Congress to prohibit slavery in the federal territory; else both their fidelity to correct principle, and their oath to support the Constitution, would have constrained them to oppose the prohibition. Again, George Washington, another of the "thirty-nine,' was then President of the United States, and, as such, approved and signed the bill, thus completing its validity as a law, and thus showing that, in his understanding, no line dividing local from federal authority, nor anything in the Constitution, forbade the federal government to control as to slavery in federal territory. No great while after the adoption of the original Constitution, North Carolina ceded to the federal government the country now constituting the State of Tennessee; and a few years later Georgia ceded that which now constitutes the States of Mississippi and Alabama. In both deeds of cession it was made a condition by the ceding States that the federal government should not prohibit slavery in the ceded country. Besides this, slavery was then actually in the ceded country. Under these circumstances, Congress, on taking charge of these countries, did not absolutely prohibit slavery within them. But they did interfere with it-take control of it— even there, to a certain extent. In 1798 Congress organized the territory of Mississippi. In the act of organization they prohibited the bringing of slaves into the territory, from any |