ises indefatigable “research," sincerest "candor," and unwearying, patient industry to supply in part his deficiency in "ability," to aid in determining that "we have a Government," which we ought by all means to preserve, or reconstruct another similar; and we shall find abundant occasion for wishing "that its powers might be defined;" and not only "be defined," but that each department of the agency be kept strictly within its defined limits.]

It would be a great thing to have all the authorities and debates bearing on these points fairly brought together. It has occurred to me whether, starting as you do with the avowed intention of making out a case, you could bring everything together in such a way that it would be accepted as done fairly. You will need care on that point. [The writer is deeply sensible of the importance of this friendly caution, which will be constantly heeded; and whatever else may be said against his performance, he trusts that the merit of fairness shall at least be accorded it. The writer acknowledges "the avowed intention of making out a case," and he cannot conceive it possible for any one to study the subject as he has done, without becoming settled in his convictions; without having the case" thoroughly established in his own mind. But it happens, that "starting ... with the avowed intention of making out a case” against the South, proving the heresy of State Sovereignty, and that this one People of the United States were a nation, and as such indissoluble as any other nation; the examination resulted in producing the directly opposite conclusion. The writer thinks he can make the " case "clear also to the reader, and carefully endeavoring to be fair and candid, he will bring together principles of International Law, the debates of the fathers, the documents, historical facts, &c., in such a manner that the reader · can adjudge the "case " for himself. If the writer is disingenuous and unfair, his work will be to him a most disgraceful failure, and he would not only merit, but surely receive, the contempt of his fellow Citizens, for daring to tamper with their momentous concerns in this their period of imminent peril. But he believes with this most competent judge, that "it would be a great thing to have all the authorities and debates bearing on these points fairly brought together," and that there is to be an immense and growing demand for this important reading, which is now inaccessible to the masses, being scattered through hundreds of volumes. What he does shall at all events be done "fairly."]

If I could do anything to aid you, I should be glad, but it is plain I cannot. What you do is well executed in a literary point of view [thanks to Dr. Agnew], and in research you are far in advance of me.

If the former, I fear [As the reader will

Do you propose a large work for the few, or something for the many? you would publish at a pecuniary loss. I should be glad to take a copy. see by the prospectus on the cover, and in the "Explanatory" remarks, the work is designed "for the many."]

But the writer expects not commendation alone. Already has he expe rienced the contrary. Another sincere friend and kinsman, of good repute in the world of letters, raps him severely, and is "amazed that

"A man not conversant with such studies, should undertake to pronounce so confidently as you do, upon such subjects, and upon all the great publicists who have written upon them.

"Strike, but hear!" The writer yields to no man in respect and veneration for the wise men of the past, who have established the principles upon which all rightful authority is instituted, based upon the Bible; those who have created the code known by the name of International Law. Yet fallibility, imperfection is stamped upon their works, as upon all things human, and other great and good men have corrected errors preceding, to be in turn corrected by equally authoritative successors. In the main, however, they have agreed upon the chief points, and every Christian Government is based upon their solid foundation.

3

The more one studies those standard works, the profounder will be his admiration of their genius and excellence, notwithstanding the perception of errors.

And respect and veneration generated by these studies, is intensified with sincerest filial devotion, strengthened by loftiest pride in our fathers, who came nearer than any men of modern ages to a proper comprehension of those great principles of Government, and who put them more successfully into practice, in these our State and Federal systems, than had ever before been done by man, of which any record is left to us. Yet even our wise and honored fathers were not absolutely perfect in their knowledge, and made some errors which have led their Sons astray, and many of "the great publicists" have been confusing theories until we have been led into essential errors in practice. Stands it not to reason, that, if there be established principles of Government, there cannot be such fundamental differences of opinion as to the nature of our Governments, the location of the Right of Command, and the rights and wrongs of these States touching slavery and every other question, without one party or the other being violators of those principles? There must be wrong, fundamental wrong, that the gradual divergence of opinions and plans of these Christians, these Christian Peoples, in the South and in the North, these sovereign States, should have at length culminated in the most terrible of all civil wars. The writer does dare "to pronounce [most] confidently," that many of "the great publicists who have written" since the days of Vattel, have not followed the teachings of that "elegant author of the Law of Nations, and of his illustrious predecessors, but have issued vagaries and contradictions that have led us entirely astray.

It requires no great amount of legal knowledge to discern, that if there be any such thing as International Law, Hooker, Grotius, Pufendorf, Montesquieu, and Vattel, are the chief founders; and if they have established any one principle, it is that Sovereignty, the Right of Command, is one and indivisible; and if so, it follows as a necessary consequence, that Madison was mistaken in affirming that we were "partly national and partly Federal." But it has been taken for granted that Madison was correct, and the absurdity has grown and strengthened, until very many of our best men teach the nonsense that we are subjects of two Sovereignties, State and Federal. It is "amazing" that those learned in the law should have permitted such errors of theory to go on for so many years; and it betokens no great perspicacity in the writer, only a little common sense and independent judgment, that he should be able to point out the inconsistency of these teachings with the established principles of International Law. Either the old or modern writers are in error, for they surely are in conflict; which is right, the writer assumes not to judge. This the reader will please constantly remember, that the writer arrogates to himself nothing of the teacher. It is not his own thoughts and views that are to be presented in his forthcoming work, but those of unquestionable authorities; and surely our lamentable circumstances justify the humblest Citizen in doing what he can to restore our beloved country to peace and reunion. May he not also expect, that

4

in the midst of present calamities, in the perils which threaten our free institutions, his humble but earnest effort to call the attention of his fellow Citizens, the business men in particular, to old truths and teachings which will serve to lead us out of this labyrinth of confusion, will be received and examined in all fairness and candor? From a certain class, the writer expects little else than derision and contempt. Unable to meet the views and arguments he will draw from eminent, unquestionable authorities, they will endeavor by ridicule to destroy their effect, because at this time presented by a Citizen unknown to fame, and unskilled in the mysteries of legal lore. Not so with the candid, reasonable, intelligent reader. With him will the truths themselves have weight, irrespective of the medium by which they are presented, and according to the power and influence of their eminent authors.

In the "Explanatory" pages, which it is hoped will not be unread, the writer shows that his views are concurred in by those competent to judge, and he deems it proper to add, that soon after he began this examination, nearly two years ago, he wrote some newspaper articles (which however were not published, as the subject expanded beyond a reasonable size for a newspaper,) calling attention to existing errors of opinion concerning our Federal Government. Being at variance with all the books treating upon our Government he had then examined, and not liking to trust his own judgment, he took his MS. to Hon. Charles O'Conor, who very kindly heard them read, approved the views in the main, and said that as to the law, they were unquestionably correct. The leading ideas of this Compend, and of the forthcoming work, were embodied in that MS., and two years of constant study has not materially altered one of those ideas, but strengthened and confirmed them. The writer therefore feels that he may claim a hearing, even from lawyers.

Nor does the writer desire commendation merely. He will be obliged to the reader for his opinion of the plan proposed, of its desirableness, and of its execution thus far, which it will be taken for granted may be used wholly or partially in a circular with the author's name, unless requested to the contrary. Friendly suggestions and advice as to the plan, or any of the details, will be gratefully received, though the writer cannot engage to answer letters, his time being constantly occupied with the work.

Copies will not be distributed to the newspapers for ten to twenty days, within which time it is hoped individuals will be able to examine the Compend, and give their independent judgment concerning it. Purchasers, too, or other readers of copies of this small edition first issued, are respectfully solicited to give their opinions as early as practicable, directed to

J. S. WRIGHT, Chicago.

OPINIONS OF COMPETENT JUDGES.

FROM a few recipients of copies of this Compend, earliest distributed in New-York, where it was printed, responses have been received. They come from persons eminently qualified to judge of the merits of such a work; and though General Dix has been prevented by his onerous official duties from reading it, yet upon the two chief results of my examinationfirst, that we in the North are engaged in a just, defensive war; and, second, the preeminent importance of maintaining our Federal Union, and guarding against consolidation, in order to protect the rights of these sovereign States, and to perpetuate our liberties-the Compend will be found in full accord with the sentiments of this distinguished statesman. The letters are given in the order of reception.

FROM PROF. WILLIAM C. FOWLER, OF CONNECTICUT, AUTHOR OF "THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY."

MY DEAR SIR: Immediately on receiving your pamphlet, entitled, "Citizenship, Sovereignty," I examined the marginal index throughout, that I might obtain both a separate and a connected view of the topics which you handle in the "Introductory Compend," and in the forthcoming volumes.

These topics are well chosen and seasonable, and they demand discussion before the people of the States and by the people of the States; especially as some of them have been studiously kept out of view by certain demagogues. If they were carefully examined by the leading men in many larger and smaller circles of influence, we might hope that the true causes of the unnecessary, deplorable war between the sections might be discovered, and the war might cease by a simultaneous impulse, and harmony be perpetuated.

The opinions on these topics, so far as they are drawn out in your pamphlet, are distinctly, frankly, and forcibly expressed. Without subscribing to all of them, I can cheerfully say that they are generally supported by sound and convincing argumentation. This is true of your opinion of the nature of Sovereignty, or the Right of Command, which is original and inhering in the several States, though they " delegated" the exercise of a portion of it to the Federal Government.

The authorities you cite in support of your opinions on the subject of Government in general, and of our Federal Government, and of our State Governments, are all the highest and best. Your readers will owe you a debt of gratitude for turning their attention from bewildering meteors to the great lights of political science that have taken their places in the sky to guide us through the night and the storm.

The historical facts which you have industriously collected from wide fields of investigation, vindicate the credibility of the authorities which you cite, and furnish the solid basis of your opinions.

Your criticisms on the opinions of others are well put, and convey fitting and deserved reproof, and in some cases will help to break the charm of error, though sanctioned by a great name.

In short, your "Introductory Compend" besides being valuable in itself, has awakened in my mind a strong desire to see the volumes of which it is the forerunner. I trust it may have the same effect upon many honest seekers after political truth, who are studying the great questions of the day.

You are aiming to accomplish a noble object; may your countrymen appreciate your efforts; may they read your pamphlet and forthcoming volumes and be wise. I am, dear sir, very truly yours,

FROM MAJOR-GENERAL JOHN A. DIX, or NEW-YORK.

WILLIAM C. FOWLER.

J. S. WRIGHT, ESQ.: DEAR SIR: I thank you for the "Introductory Compend" to your proposed work on "Our Faderal Union: State Rights and Wrongs." I have only had time to glance at the marginal index and the heads of sections. The subjects are of the highest importance, and the copious references to, and extracts from, writers and jurists of acknowledged authority, give great value to your treatise, and commend it to public attention. Nothing can be lost, and every thing is to be gained, by fair and enlightened discussion. Starting, as you do, with the propositions that the "Federal Government" has been "wantonly and wickedly assailed," that this is "a just and defensive war" on our part, and that "the surest means to peace" is to prosecute it with "the utmost vigor," I have no fear in regard to differences of opinion between us on abstract questions, or such as are merely incidental,

In the conduct of a war which shakes our political system to its centre, involving nearly every principle vital to its stability, and leading almost necessarily to the exercise of the very largest powers known to the Constitution, it is the more important that we should not lose sight, for a moment, of the fact that ours is a Federal Government; and while we assert it against the doctrine of secession, by virtue of which the Southern States have assumed to dissolve their connection with the Union, we must not forget there is an opposite danger to be guarded against with equal vigilance-to danger of Consolidation, which would be subversive of all State rights, and obliterate, in its progress, every vestige of personal liberty. I am truly yours,

FROM HON. JAMES S. GREEN, EX-SENATOR FROM Missouri.

JOHN A. DIX.

J. S. WRIGHT, F9Q.: DEAR SIR: I have received and read your Compend, explanatory of ereignty," with great pleasure and interest. The references and marginal notes are valuable to the student of Citizenship, Sovpolitical science, and presented in the most interesting manner. The labor of historical research, in this im portant study, is by your work reduced to a small compass, and made accessible to all. words I can with propriety say, that you have performed a most important service to the present age and future In fact, and in few genexions.

For viters or speakers, in the United States, have shown a proper conception or comprehension of the nature racter of “Sovereignty," which is well expressed in the words, "the de facto power to control and comparticular people called a State, or political community."

That each of our States, united or separate, is sovereign and independent, is a fact not to be disputed, and has the sanction of recognition by all civilized powers of the world. I am, therefore, highly gratified that you have vindicared and called public attention to this important truth, which lies at

their own convenience, these sovereign States have created a Fed the foundation of all our institutions. For

conflict with their sovereignty.

; but this does not in the least

It is, however, useless for me to add a word on a subject which you so well understand and have so ably presented. My only purpose is to express my hearty approval of your very able vindication of these fundamental principles of our Governments, without, however, concurring in many of your deductions and conclusions. From many of these I essentially and totally differ; but for me, these differences do not detract from the value and importance of your work in the vital parts. Very respectfully, your obedient servant,

FROM PROF. SAMUEL F. B. MORSE, OF NEW-YORK.

JAMES S. GREEN.

MY DEAR SIR: Yours of the 26th inst. is this morning received. Your request would have been sooner complied with but for the fact that I have been on the move to and from the city ever since I saw you, and engaged on matters which engrossed all my time and attention; and I have, since returning home, had but very little time to bestow on your valuable work. You are aware that my mind has been wholly absorbed with another branch of the great questions of the day, and it is not an easy matter, under these circumstances, to give an intelligent opinion on a different though related subject, without more careful study.

When I interested myself in your labors, I was impressed with the importance of the subject of your investigations, and your zeal and perseverance in bringing out from the standard works of former times the most important political truths bearing upon our national welfare; and I therefore cheerfully aided you to the extent of my ability with the means of publishing your Introductory Compend. In glancing over its pages, I was struck with the great amount of most valuable matter which you have garnered; and without saying that I shall subscribe to every thing you have advanced, I can say that no intelligent man, at least no statesman, ought to be without a copy, not merely of your Introductory work, but also of your proposed larger work, which I sincerely hope you may be encouraged to publish.

In relation to Sovereignty, on which point you think I differ from you, I have incidentally given, in my forthcoming Argument, my opinion both as to the seat of Sovereignty and its distribution under our form of government, and so far, on reading it to you, we are agreed.

The portion of the subject which requires more thought with me before pronouncing a judgment, relates to the delegation by sovereign bodies of authority to create a United Sovereignty, a Sovereign over Sovereigns. In plain words, can several Independent Sovereigns agree each to surrender the exercise of his Sovereignty, to form a United Sovereignty, which shall have sovereign power over certain affairs, while other affairs are reserved and retained under the Sovereignties of the original bodies? This seems to be the case of our Federal Government. Now a question arises, if, under the Sovereign power thus delegated, an act should be consummated to which each Sovereign has assented, can any one of these Sovereigns withdraw his assent and annul the act, on the plea that he is a Sovereign?

I have no doubt your work will clear up this point. Gladly would I give you further pecuniary help to bring out your larger work, but I have so many calls from other sources that I can not. I am persuaded, however, that they who read and study your Introductory Compend will, as a matter of course, subscribe for your larger

work.

With sincere wishes for your success, I am, as ever, your friend and servant,

SAMUEL F. B. MORSE.