Chapter XVI: Appendix (15)

The natural consequences of his acts were, to take the vessel and send her to a port to be adjudicated upon as a prize. Now, I state to my learned friends and the Court this proposition--that though a _legal presumption_ as to intent might have existed in this case if the prosecution had proved merely the forcible taking, yet if, in making out a case for the Government, any fact be elicited which shows that the actual intent was different from what the law in the absence of such fact would imply, the presumption is gone. And when the prosecution made their witness detail a conversation which took place between Captain Baker and the Captain of the Joseph, with reference to the authority of the former to seize the vessel, and when you find that Captain Baker asserted a claim of right, that overcomes the presumption that he despoiled the Captain of the Joseph with an intent to steal. The _animus furandi_ must, in this case, depend on something else than presumption. I will refer you for more particulars of the law on this point, to _1 Greenleaf on Evidence_, sections 13 and 14, and I make this citation for another purpose. When an act is in itself illegal, sometimes, if not in the majority of cases, the law affixes to the party the intent to perpetrate a legal offence. But this is not the universal rule. In cases of procuring money or goods under false pretences, where the intent is the essence of the crime, the prosecution must establish the offence, not by proving alone the act of receiving, but by showing the act and intent; so both must be proved here. Now, I ask, has the prosecution entitled itself to the benefit of any presumption as to intent? What are the facts--_the conceded facts_? Baker, and a number of persons in Charleston, did openly and notoriously select a vessel called the "Savannah," then lying in the stream, and fitted her out _as a privateer_. Baker, in all of these proceedings, acted under the authority of a commission signed by Jefferson Davis, styling and signing himself President of the Confederate States of America. Baker and his companions then went forth as privateersmen, and in no other capacity, for the purpose of despoiling the commerce of the United States, and _with the strictest injunction not to meddle with the property of any other country_. The instructions were clear and distinct on this head, as you know from having heard them read. They went to sea, and overhauled the Joseph; gave chase with the American flag flying--one of the ordinary devices or cheats practiced in naval warfare; a device frequently adopted by American naval commanders to whose fame no American dare affix the slightest stigma. On nearing the Joseph, the Savannah showed the secession flag, and Baker requested Captain Meyer to come on board with his papers. The Captain asked by what authority, and received for answer: "The authority of the Confederate States." The Captain then went on board with his papers, when Baker, helping him over the side, said: "I am very sorry to take your vessel, but I do so in retaliation against the United States, with whom we are at war." Baker put a prize crew on board the Joseph, and sent her to Georgetown; the Captain he detained there as a prisoner. She was then duly submitted for judgment as a prize. These are the facts upon which they claim that piracy at common law is established.

My learned associate, Mr. Larocque, cited a number of cases to show that though a man might take property of another, and appropriate it to his own use, yet if he did so under color of right, under a _bona fide_ impression that he had authority to take the property, he would only be a trespasser; he would have to restore it or pay the value of it, but he could not be convicted of a crime for its conversion.

Let me state a case. You own a number of bees. They leave your land, where they hived, and come upon mine, and take refuge in the hollow of a tree, where they deposit their honey. They are your bees, but you cannot come upon my land to take them away; and though they are in my tree, I cannot take the honey. Such a case is reported in our State adjudications. But, suppose that I did take the bees and appropriate the honey to my own use: I might be unjustly _indicted_ for larceny, because I took the property of another, but I am not, consequently, a thief in the eye of the law; the absence of intent to steal would ensure my acquittal.

That is one illustration. I will mention one other, decided in the South, relating to a subject on which the South is very strict and very jealous. A slave announced to a man his intention to escape. The man secreted the slave for the purpose of aiding his escape and effecting his freedom. He was indicted for larceny, on the ground that he exercised a control over the property of the owner against his will. The Court held that the object was not to steal, and he could not be convicted. In _Wheaton's Criminal Proceedings_, page 397, this language will be found, and it is satisfactory on the point under discussion.

"There are cases where taking is no more than a trespass: Where a
man takes another's goods _openly before him_, or where, having
otherwise than by _apparent robbery_, possessed himself of them, he
_avows the fact_ before he is questioned. This is _only a
trespass_."

Now all these principles are familiar and simple, and do not require lawyers to expound them, for they appeal to the practical sense of mankind. _It is certainly a most lamentable result of the wisdom of centuries, to place twelve men together and ask them, from_ FICTIONS _or_ THEORIES _to say, on oath, that a man is a thief, when every one of them_ KNOWS THAT HE IS NOT. If any man on this Jury thinks the word pirate, robber or thief can be truly applied to either of these defendants, I am very sorry, for I think neither of them at all liable to any such epithet.

But, suppose that the intent is to be inferred from the act of seizing the Joseph, and the defendants must be convicted, unless justified by _the commission issued for Captain Baker_; let us then inquire as to the effect of that commission. We say that it _protects the defendants against being treated as pirates_. Whether it does, or not, depends upon the question whether the Confederate States have occupied such a relation to the United States of America that they might adopt the means of retaliation or aggression recognized in a state of war.

It is our right and duty, as advocates, to maintain that the _Confederate Government was so situated_; and to support the proposition by reference to the political and judicial history and precedents of the past, stating for these men the principles and views which they and their neighbors of the revolting States insist upon; our personal opinions being in no wise called for, nor important, nor even proper, to be stated at this time and in this place.

If it can be shown that the Confederate States occupy the same position towards the Government of the United States that the thirteen revolted Colonies did to Great Britain in the war of the Revolution, then these men cannot be convicted of piracy.

I do not ask you to decide that the Southern States had the _right_ to leave the Union, or secede, or to revolt--to set on foot an insurrection, or to perfect a rebellion. That is not the question here. I will place before the Jury such views of law and of history as bear upon the case--endeavoring not to go over the ground occupied by my associates. I will refer you to a small book published here in 1859, entitled, "The History of New York from the Earliest Time," a very reliable and authentic work. In this book I find a few facts to which I will call your attention, one of which may be unpleasant to some of our friends from the New England States, for we find that New York, so far as her people were concerned--exclusive of the authorities--was in physical revolt against the parent Government long before our friends in New England, some of whom often feel disposed to do just what they please, but are not quite willing to allow others the same privilege. I will refer to it to show you what was the condition of things long before the 4th of July, 1776, and to show that, though we now hurl our charges against these men as pirates,--who never killed anybody, never tried to kill anybody,--who never stole and never tried to steal,--yet the men of New York city who committed, under the name of "Liberty Boys," what England thought terrible atrocities, in New York, were never touched by justice--not even so heavily as if a feather from the pinion of the humming bird had fallen upon their heads. I find that, about the year 1765, our people here began to grumble about the taxes and imposts which Great Britain levied upon us. And you know, though the causes of the Revolutionary war are set forth with much dignity in the Declaration of Independence, the contest originated about taxes. That was the great source of disaffection, directing itself more particularly to the matter of tea, and which led to the miscellaneous party in Boston, at which there were no women present, however, and where salt water was used in the decoction. I find that the governor of the city had fists, arms, and all the means of aggression at his command; but at length, happily for us, the Government sent over a young gentleman to rule us (Lord Monckford), who, when he did come, appears to have been similar in habits to one of the accused, who is described as being always idle. The witness for the prosecution explained that separate posts and duties were assigned to each of the crew of the Savannah; one fellow, he said, would do nothing. But he will be convicted of having done a good deal, if the prosecution prevail. A state of rebellion all this time and afterwards existed in this particular part of the world, until the British came and made themselves masters of the city. In the course of the acts then committed by the citizens, and which the British Government called an insurrection, a tumultuous rebellion and revolution, they offered, or it was said they offered, an indignity to an equestrian statue of George III. The British troops, in retaliation, and being grossly offended at the conduct of Pitt, who had been a devoted friend of the Colonists, mutilated the statue of him which stood on Wall street. The remains of the statue are still with us, and can be seen at the corner of West Broadway and Franklin street, where it is preserved as a relic of the past--a grim memento of the perfect absurdity of charging millions of people with being all pirates, robbers, thieves, and marauders.

When the British took possession of this city, they had at _one time in custody five thousand persons_. That was before any formal declaration of independence--before the formation of a Government _de jure_ or _de facto_--and yet did they ever charge any of the prisoners with being robbers? Not at all. Was this from any kindness or humane spirit? Not at all: for they adopted all means in their power to overcome our ancestors. The eldest son of the Earl of Chatham resigned his commission, because he would not consent to fight against the colonies. The Government did not hesitate to send to Germany for troops. They could not get sufficient at home. The Irish would not aid them in the fight. The British did not even hesitate to employ Indians; and when, in Parliament, the Secretary of State justified himself, saying that they had a perfect right to employ "all the means God and nature" gave them, he was eloquently rebuked. Even, with all this hostility, such a thing was never thought of as to condemn men, when taken prisoners, and hold them outside that protection which, according to the law of nations, should be extended to men under such circumstances, even though in revolt against the Government.

In October, 1774, the King, in his Message to Parliament, said that a most daring spirit of resistance and disobedience to the laws existed in Massachusetts, and was countenanced and encouraged in others of his Colonies.

Now, I want you to keep your minds fairly applied to the point, on which the Court will declare itself, as to whether I am right in saying, that the day when that Message was sent to Parliament the Colonies occupied towards the old Government a position similar to that of the Confederate States in their hour of revolt to the United States. But we will possibly see that the Confederate States occupy a stronger position.

In the course of the discussion which ensued upon the Message, the famous Wilkes remarked: "Rebellion, indeed, appears on the back of a flying enemy, but revolution flames on the breastplate of the victorious warrior."

If an illegal assemblage set itself up in opposition to the municipal Government, it is a mere insurrection, though ordinary officers of the law be incapable of quelling it, and the military power has to be called out. That is one thing. But when a _whole State_ places itself in an attitude of hostility to the other States of a Confederacy, assumes a distinct existence, and has the power to maintain independence, though only for a time, that is quite a different affair.

We remember how beautifully expressed is that passage of the Irish poet, so familiar to all of us, and especially to those who, like myself, coming from Irish ancestry, know so well what is the name and history of rebellion:

"Rebellion--foul, dishonoring word,
Whose wrongful blight so oft hath stained
The holiest cause that tongue or sword
Of mortal ever lost or gained!
How many a spirit born to bless
Has sunk beneath thy withering bane,
Whom but a day's--an hour's success,
Had wafted to eternal fame!"

A remarkable instance, illustrating the sentiment of this passage, is found in the history of that brave man, emerging from obscurity, stepping suddenly forth from the common ranks of men, whose name is so generally mentioned with reverence and love, and who so lately freed Naples from the rule of the tyrant. This brave patriot was driven from his native land, after a heroic struggle in Rome. History has recorded how he was followed in this exile by a devoted wife, who perished because she would not desert her husband; and how he came to this country, where he established himself in business until such time as he saw a speck of hope glimmer on the horizon over his lovely and beloved native land. Then he went back almost alone. Red-shirted, like a common toiling man, he gathered round him a few trusty followers who had unlimited confidence in him as a leader, and accomplished the revolution which dethroned the son of Bomba, and placed Victor Emanuel in his stead. You already know that I speak of Garibaldi. And yet, Garibaldi, it seems, should have been denounced as a pirate, had the sea been the theatre of his failure; and a robber, had he been unsuccessful upon land!

What do you think an eminent man said, in the British Parliament, about the outbreak of our Revolution, and the condition of things then existing in America? "_Whenever oppression begins, resistance becomes lawful and right._" Who said that? The great associate of Chatham and Burke--Lord Camden. At that time Franklin was in Europe, seeking to obtain a hearing before a committee of Parliament in respect to the grievances of the American people. It was refused.

The Lords and Commons, in an address to the King, declared in express terms, that a "REBELLION _actually existed in_ MASSACHUSETTS;" and yet, in view of all that, no legal prosecution of any rebel ever followed. So matters continued till the war effectively began, Washington having been appointed Commander-in-chief. Then some Americans were taken by the British and detained as prisoners. Of this Washington complained to General Gage, then in command of the British army. Gage returned answer that he had treated the prisoners only too kindly, seeing that they were rebels, and that "their lives, by the law of the land, were destined for the cord." Yet not one of them so perished.

In view of these things, even so far as I have now advanced; in view of the sacrifices of the Southern Colonies in the Revolution; in view of the great struggle for independence, and the great doctrine laid down, that, whenever oppression begins, resistance becomes lawful and right,--is it possible to forget the history of the past, and the great principles which gleamed through the darkness and the perils of our early history? Are we to assert that the Constitution establishing our Government is perfect in all its parts, and stands upon a corner stone equivalent to what the globe itself might be supposed to rest on, if we did not know it was ever wheeling through space? Is all the history of our past, its triumphs and reverses, and the glorious consummation which crowned the efforts of the people, all alike to be thrown aside now, upon the belief that we have established a Government so perfect, and a Union so complete, that no portion of the States can ever, under any circumstances, secede, or revolt, or dispute the authority of the others, without danger of being treated as pirates and robbers? The Declaration of Independence has never been repudiated, I believe, and I suppose I have a right to refer to it as containing the political creed of the American people. I do not know how many people in the old world agree with it, and a most eminent lawyer of our own country characterized the maxims stated at its commencement as "glittering generalities." But I believe the American people have never withdrawn their approbation from the principles and doctrines it declares. Among those we find the self-evident truth, that man has an inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that it is to secure these rights that Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; and that whenever any form of Government becomes destructive of those ends, it is right and patriotic to alter and abolish it, and to institute a new Government, laying its foundations on such principles, and conferring power in such a form, as to them may seem most likely to secure their safety and happiness. Is this a mockery? Is this a falsehood? Have these ideas been just put forward for the first time? There has been a dispute among men as to who should be justly denominated the author of this document. The debate may be interesting to the historian; but these principles, though they are embodied in the Constitution, were not created by it. They have lived in the hearts of man since man first trod the earth. I can imagine the time, too, when Egypt was in her early glory, and in fancy see one of the poor, miserable wretches, deprived of any right of humanity, harnessed, like a brute beast, to the immense stone about being erected in honor of some monarch, whose very name was destined to perish. I can imagine the degraded slave pausing in his loathsome toil to delight over the idea that there might come a time when the meanest of men would enjoy natural rights, under a Government of the multitude formed to secure them.

Now, what says _Blackstone_ (_1st vol., 212_), the great commentator on the law of England, when speaking of the revolution which dethroned James II.: "_Whenever a question arises between the society at large and any magistrate originally vested with powers originally delegated by that society, it must be decided by the voice of the society itself. There is not upon earth any other tribunal to resort to._"

Prior to the 23d March, 1776, the legislature of Massachusetts authorized the issuing of letters of marque to privateers upon the ocean, and when my learned friend, Mr. Lord, in his remarks so clear and convincing, called attention to the lawfulness of privateering, my brother Evarts attempted to qualify it by designating the granting of letters of marque as reluctantly tolerated, and as if no such practice as despoiling commerce should be permitted even in a state of war. I will not again read from _Mr. Marcy's_ letter, but I will say here that the position he took gratified the heart of the whole American people. He said in substance, If you, England and France, have the right to despoil commerce with armed national vessels we have a right to adopt such means of protection and retaliation as we possess. We do not propose, if you make war upon us, or we find it necessary to make war upon you, that we, with a poor, miserable fleet, shall not be at liberty to send out privateers, but yield to you, who may come with your steel-clad vessels and powerful armament to practice upon us any amount of devastation. No. We never had a navy strong enough to place us in such a position as that with regard to foreign powers. Look at it. Do you think that France or England has any feeling of friendship towards this country as a nation? I do not speak of the people of these countries, but of the cabinets and governments. No. Nations are selfish. Nearly all the laws of nations are founded on interest. Nations conduct their political affairs on that basis. They never receive laws from one another--not even against crime. And when you want to obtain back from another country a man who has committed depredations against society, you do it only by virtue of a treaty, and from no love or affection to the country demanding it. And if this war continues much longer, I, for one, entertain the most profound apprehension that both these powers, France and England, will combine to break the blockade if they do not enter upon more aggressive measures. If they for a moment find it their interest to do so, they will, and no power, moral or physical, can prevent them. I say, then, the right of revolution is a right to be exercised, not according to what the Government revolted against may think, but according to the necessities or the belief of the people revolting. If you belonged to a State which was in any way deprived of its rights, the moment that oppression began resistance became a duty. A slave does not ask his master when he is to have his freedom, but he strikes for it at the proper opportunity. A man threatened with death at the hands of another, does not stop to ask whether he has a right to slay his assailant in self-defence. If self-preservation is the first law of individuals, so also is it of masses and of nations. Therefore, when the American Colonies made up their minds to achieve independence, whether their reasons were sufficient or not, they did not consent to have the question decided by Great Britain, but at once decided it for themselves. Very early in our history, in 1778, France recognized the American Government. England, as you know, complained, and the French Government sent back an answer saying, Yes, we have formed a treaty with this new Government; we have recognized it, and you have no right to complain; for you remember, England, said France, that during the reign of Elizabeth, when the Netherlands revolted against Spain, you, in the first place, negotiated secret treaties with the revolutionists, and then recognized them; but, when Spain complained of this, you said to Spain--The reasons which justify the Netherlands in their revolt entitle them to our support. Was success necessary? Was the doctrine of our opponents correct, that, though people may be in absolute revolt against the parent Government, with an army in the field, and in exclusive possession of the territories they occupy, yet they have no right to be recognized by the law of nations, and are not entitled to the humanities that accompany the conditions of a war between foreign powers? Is success necessary? Why was it not necessary in the case of the Colonies when recognized by France? Why not necessary in the case of the Netherlands when recognized by England? Never has been put forward such a doctrine for adjudication since the days of _Ogden and Smith_, tried in this city in 1806. That was a period when we were in profound peace with all the world. Our new country was proceeding on the march towards that greatness which every one hoped would be as perpetual as it was progressive. We had invited to our shores not only the oppressed of other lands, but all they could yield us of genius, eloquence, industry and wisdom. Among others who came to assist our progress and adorn our history was that eminent lawyer and patriot--that good and pure man whose monument stands beside St. Paul's Church, on Broadway, and may be considered as pointing its white finger to heaven in appeal against the severe doctrines under which these prisoners are sought to be punished. I refer to THOMAS ADDIS EMMETT.

In 1806, two men, Smith and Ogden, were put upon trial, charged with aiding Miranda and the people of Caraccas to effect a revolt against the Government of Spain, which, it was said, was at peace with the United States. They were indicted under a statute of the United States; and if it had turned out on the trial that the United States was certainly in a condition of peace with Spain, they might have been convicted. However, that was a question of fact left to the Jury. The learned Judges, pure and able men, entertained views very hostile to the notions of the accused, and were quite as decided in those views as his honor Judge Grier in the summary disposition he made of the so-called pirates in Philadelphia. The trial came on, and, with the names of the Jurors on that trial, there are preserved to us the names of Counsel, whose career is part of history. Among them were NATHAN SANFORD, PIERPOINT EDWARDS, WASHINGTON MORTON, CADWALLADER D. COLDEN, JOSIAH OGDEN HOFFMAN, RICHARD HARRISON, and MR. EMMETT, already named. Well, there was an effort made to disparage any such enterprise as Miranda's, and any such aid thereto as the accused were charged with giving. The Counsel endeavored to prove that the intent was a question of law, and the fact had nothing to do with it. COLDEN, in his argument, said, "Gentlemen, all _guilt_ is _rooted in the mind_, and _if not to be found there, does not exist, and whoever will contend against the proposition_ MUST FIGHT AGAINST HUMAN NATURE, AND SILENCE HIS OWN CONSCIENCE."

We do not often find an opportunity, gentlemen, to regale ourselves with anything that emanated from the mind of Mr. Emmett. It is peculiar to the nature of his profession that most of what the advocate says passes away almost at the moment of its utterance. When Mr. Emmett comes to allude to the disfavor sought to be thrown on revolutionary ideas by the eminent counsel for the prosecution, he says:

"In particular, I remember, he termed Miranda a fugitive on the
face of the earth, and characterized the object of the expedition
as something audacious, novel, and dangerous. It has often struck
me, gentlemen, as matter of curious observation, how speedily new
nations, like new made nobility and emperors, acquire the cant and
jargon of their station.

"Let me exemplify this observation by remarking, that here within
the United States, which scarcely thirty years ago were colonies,
engaged in a bloody struggle, for the purpose of shaking off their
dependence on the parent State, the attempt to free a colony from
the oppressive yoke of its mother country is called 'audacious,
novel, and dangerous.' It is true, General Miranda's attempt is
daring, and, if you will, '_audacious_,' but wherefore is it novel
and dangerous?

"Because he, a private individual, unaided by the public succor of
any state, attempts to liberate South America. Thrasybulus!
expeller of the thirty tyrants! Restorer of Athenian freedom!
Wherefore are _you_ named with honor in the records of history?

"Because, while a fugitive and an exile, you collected together a
band of brave adventurers, who confided in your integrity and
talents--because, without the acknowledged assistance of any state
or nation, with no commission but what you derived from patriotism,
liberty, and justice, you marched with your chosen friends and
overthrew the tyranny of Sparta in the land that gave you birth.
Nor are Argos and Thebes censured for having afforded you refuge,
countenance, and protection. Nor is Ismenias, then at the head of
the Theban government, accused of having departed from the duties
of his station because he obeyed the impulse of benevolence and
compassion towards an oppressed people, and gave that private
assistance which he could not publicly avow."

Mr. Emmett, remembering the history of his own name, and the fate of that brother who perished ignominiously on the scaffold for an effort to disenthrall his native land, after that outburst of eloquence, indulged in the following exclamation:

"In whatever country the contest may be carried on, whoever may be
the oppressor of the oppressed, may the Almighty Lord of Hosts
strengthen the right arms of those who fight for the freedom of
their native land! May he guide them in their counsels, assist them
in their difficulties, comfort them in their distress, and give
them victory in their battles!"

I have thought proper to fortify myself, gentlemen, by reference to this man of pure purpose, finished education, and thorough knowledge of international law, in what I said to you, that the principles which lie at the base of this American revolution, call it by what name you please, have been known and recognized at least as long as the English language has been spoken on the earth, and will be known forever--they furnishing certain rules, the benefit of which, I hope and trust, under the providence of God, after the enlightened remarks of the Court, and through your intervention, may be extended to our clients.

Some people in New England take particular offence at applying these doctrines to the present state of affairs. Has New England ever repudiated them? Has the South ever maintained with more unhesitating declaration, more vigorous resolve, more readiness for the deadly encounter, than the North, these views which I present? Gentlemen, when we look at history, we must take it as we find it. In the war of 1812, the New England States, which had taken offence before at the embargo of 1809, were found, to a very great extent among her people, in an attitude of direct resistance to the war; and they were not afraid to say so. New England said so through her individual citizens. She said so in her public associations. She said so in the form of conventions and solemn resolves. To one of these I will call attention. I do this for no other purpose than to present analogies, principles, and precedents showing what rights belong to those who oppose the Government, or to a state of civil war, or revolution,--that men situated like our clients are not to be treated as pirates and robbers.

I have here a book called "THE UNION FOREVER; THE SOUTHERN REBELLION, AND THE WAR FOR THE UNION." It is an excellent compilation, prepared and published under the superintendence of _James D. Torrey_, of this city. I read from it:

"The declaration of war against Great Britain, June, 1812, brought
the excitement to its climax. A peace party was formed in New
England, pledged to offer all possible resistance to the war. * * *
The State Legislatures of Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, &c.,
passed laws forbidding the use of their jails by the United States
for the confinement of prisoners committed by any other than
judicial authority, and directing the jailors at the end of thirty
days to discharge all British officers, prisoners of war, committed
to them. The President, however, applied to other States of the
confederacy for the use of their prisons, and thus the difficulty
was, in a measure, obviated."

Thus these men set themselves up pretty strongly against the Government. It is an act of which I do not approve, gentlemen; but, suppose I should say that the men who did that were, because their political sentiments differed from mine, fools or idiots, knaves or traitors, what would you think of the taste or justice of such an observation? It is the intolerance, gentlemen, which abides in the heart of almost every man, woman, and child, and the diffusion of it over the land, that has led to our present dreadful condition. It is the endeavor of one party, or of one set, to set itself up in absolute judgment over the opinions, rights, persons, liberties and hearts of other men. It is that notion which CROMWELL expressed when he said (I quote from memory alone), "I will interfere with no man's liberty of conscience; but, if you mean by that, solemnizing a mass, that shall not be permitted so long as there is a Parliament in England." I have no doubt that the men who did these acts in New England, which we would call unpatriotic, were actuated by conscientious motives; and I want to claim the same thing for the men who, in the South, are doing what is very offensive to you and very offensive to me, and the more offensive because I honestly and conscientiously believe that it is unnecessary and wanton. I know that I differ with very eminent men who belonged to the same political organization as myself when I make that remark; but it is the result of the best judgment that I can form, after a careful and just review of the circumstances attending the present unfortunate breach in our relation to each other. And certainly, gentlemen, it is in no spirit of anger that we, in this sacred temple of justice, should deal with our erring brethren. We do not mean to pronounce, through the forms of justice, from this jury-box, any anathema or denunciation against our fellow-men, _merely_ for holding erroneous opinions. All the dictates of every enlightened religion on earth are against any such conduct. I take for granted that there is not one of you who has not some friend engaged in the war, on one side or the other. I took up a newspaper the other morning, and discovered that two men, with whom I had been in the most intimate relations of personal friendship, were in the same engagement, each commanding as colonel, and fighting against each other. They were men who had been close friends during a long series of years--men whom you and I might well be proud to know--each of them a graduate of West Point. One of them is said to have been seen to fall from his saddle, and the fate of the other (COLONEL COGSWELL) is at this moment uncertain. You or I, while we remain loyal to our flag and our country--while we wish and hope for success to our arms in all the conflicts that may occur--may regard with pity men born on the same territory, as well educated, as deftly brought up, as generous and as high minded as ourselves, because we consider them wrong. But, to look upon them as mere outlaws and outcasts, entitled to no protection, sympathy, or courtesy, is something which I am perfectly sure this Jury will never do, and which no community would feel justified or excusable in doing.

Now, let me read more to you from this book:

"On the 18th of October, twelve delegates were elected to confer
with delegates from the other New England States. Seven delegates
were also appointed by CONNECTICUT, and four by RHODE ISLAND. NEW
HAMPSHIRE was represented by two, and VERMONT by one. The
Convention met at Hartford, Connecticut, on the 15th of December,
1814. After a session of twenty days a report was adopted, which,
with a slight stretch of imagination, we may suppose to have
originated from a kind of _en rapport_ association with the South
Carolina Convention of 1861. We may quote from the report."

Listen to this, gentlemen, and say how much right we have to stigmatize as novel, unprecedented, base, or wicked, the notions on which the Southern revolt is, in a certain degree, founded:

"Whenever it shall appear" (says this Report, the result of twenty
days' labor among calm and cool men of New England) "that the
causes are radical and permanent, _a separation_, _by equitable
arrangement_ will be _preferable to an alliance by constraint among
nominal friends, but real enemies, inflamed by mutual hatred and
jealousy, and inviting, by intestine divisions, contempt and
aggressions from abroad; but a severance of the Union by one or
more States against the will of the rest, and especially in time of
war, can be justified_ ONLY BY ACTUAL NECESSITY."

The report then proceeds to consider the several subjects of complaint, the principal of which is the national power over the militia, claimed by Government. We will not agree, say they, that the general Government shall have authority over the militia; we claim that it shall belong to us. The report goes on to say:

"In this whole series of devices and measures for raising men, this
Convention discerns a total disregard for the Constitution, and a
disposition to violate its provisions, demanding from the
individual States a firm and decided opposition. An iron despotism
can impose no harder service upon the citizen than to force him
from his home and occupation to wage offensive war, undertaken to
gratify the pride or passions of his master. _In cases of
deliberate, dangerous and palpable infraction of the Constitution,_
_affecting the sovereignty of a State and the liberties of the
people, it is not only the right but the duty of such State to
interpose its authority for the protection, in the manner best
calculated to secure that end. When emergencies occur, which are
either beyond the reach of the judicial tribunals or too pressing
to admit of the delay incident to their forms, States which have no
common umpire must be their own judges and execute their own
decisions._"

I think that is pretty strong secession doctrine. I do not see that it is possible, in terms, to state it more distinctly. Well, it is true that candid people in that section of the country did not approve these views, but disapproved them; and yet they were the views, clearly and forcibly expressed, of a large number of intelligent and moral people.

Now, this enables me to repeat, with a clearer view derived from history, the proposition that the Confederate States are--_under the law of nations_, and the principles embodied in the Declaration of Independence, sustained in the Revolution, and recognized by our people--in a condition not distinguishable from that of the Colonies in '76, except that, if there be a difference, the position of the Confederates, _in reference to legality, as a judicial question_, is more justifiable, as it is certainly more formidable. This word "secession" is, after all, only a word; a word, as MR. WEBSTER said in one of his great speeches, answering Mr. Calhoun, of fearful import; a word for which he could not according to his views, too strongly express condemnation. But whether you use the word "secession," or the familiar expression, "going out of the Union," or, "not consenting to remain in the Union," the idea is one and the same. Much acumen and ingenuity have been displayed, even by a mind profound as that of Mr. Calhoun--a most acute man and a pure man, as Mr. Webster eloquently attested in the Senate chamber, after the decease of that South Carolina statesman--I say a good deal of acumen has been spent on the question whether a State, or any number of States, have _a_ RIGHT UNDER THE CONSTITUTION _to secede from the Union_. It is a quarrel about phrases. It is not necessary in any point of view, political, philological or moral, to use the word "secession" as either excusing or justifying the act of the Confederate States. Suppose I grant, as a distinct proposition, in accordance with what I admit to be the opinion of the great majority of jurists, and orators, and statesmen at the North, that there is no right in a State, under the Constitution, to recede from the Union--what then? I shall not stop to give you the argument with which the South presents a view of the question entirely different from that of the North. Of what consequence is it, practically, whether the right of the State to go out be found in any part of the compact called the Constitution, or be derived from a source extrinsic of it? You (let me suppose) are twelve States, and I am the thirteenth. There is the original Confederacy of States, pure and simple, under the agreement with each other; and there, according to the views of Mr. Webster and the prosecution here, we became constituted in a general Government, or, as Wheaton says, in a "composite Government," giving great power to the general center. Now, what difference does it make, if you twelve States conclude to leave me, whether you do it by virtue of anything contained in the Constitution, or inferable from the Constitution, or in virtue of some right or claim of right that resides out of the Constitution? It is not of the least consequence. I do not care for the word "secession." It would be, at the worst, revolution. In that same great speech of Mr. Webster's against Calhoun, in which I think I am justified in saying he exhausts the subject and makes the most formidable argument against the theory of secession that was ever uttered in the United States, all the conclusion he comes to is this:--"_'Peaceable_ secession!' I cannot agree to such a name. I cannot think it possible. _It would be_ REVOLUTION." Very well. Of what consequence is the designation? Who cares for the baptism or the sponsors? It is the _thing_ you look to. And if they have either the _right_ or the _power_ to secede or revolutionize, they _may do it_, and there is no tribunal on earth to sit in judgment upon them; though we have the right and the power, on the other hand, to battle for the maintenance of the whole Union. Our friend, _Mr. Justice Grier_, says: "_No band of_ CONSPIRATORS _can overcome the Government_ MERELY _because they are dissatisfied with the result of an election_." Now, gentlemen, with the deference he deserves, I would ask the learned Justice Grier, or any other Justice, or my learned friend, Mr. Evarts, how he will proceed to dispose of the case which I am about to put? Suppose that all but one of our States meet in their Legislatures, and, by the universal acclaim, and with the entire approval of all the people, resolve that they will remain no longer in association with the others--what will you do with them? That solitary State, which may be Rhode Island, says: "I have in me the sovereignty; I have in me all the attributes that belong to empire or national existence; but I think I will have to let you go. Whether you call it secession, or rebellion, or revolution, you may go, because _you have the power to go_, if there be no better reason." And power and right become, in reference to this subject, the same thing in the end. Do they not? Is there any relation on earth that has a higher sanction than marriage? So long as two parties, who have contracted that holy obligation, have, in truth, no fault to find with each other, is there any _right_ in either to go away from the other? There is no such right, either by the law of God or of man. But there is a _power_ to do it, is there not? And if the wife flee from her husband, instead of towards him, or if a husband go from his wife, is there any law of society that can compel them to unite? And why not? Because mankind, though they have perpetrated many follies, have, at least, recognized that this was a remedy utterly impossible. In the relation of partnership between two individuals, does not the same state of things exist? and do not the same arguments suggest themselves? I ask my learned brother what he can do in reference to the ten States that have claimed to secede from the Union, and have organized themselves into a Government? I will give him all the army he demands, and will let him retain in the chair of State this honest, pleasant Mr. Lincoln, who is not the greatest man in the world--nobody will pretend that--but is as good and honest a person as there is in the world. There is not the slightest question but that, in all his movements, he only proposes what he deems consistent with the welfare and honor of the country. I will give my learned brother the army now on the banks of the Potomac, doing nothing, and millions of money, and then I desire him to tell us how, with all these aids, he can coerce those ten States to remain in the Confederacy. What was said by MR. BUCHANAN on the subject, in his Message of December last? "_I do not propose_" said he, "_to attempt any coercion of the States. I believe that it would be utterly impossible. You cannot compel a State to remain in the Union. They may refuse to send Senators to the Senate of the United States. They may refuse to choose electors, and the Government stops._" Well, I grant you that this is not the view of other men quite as eminent as Mr. Buchanan. I grant you that the great CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL--a man to whom it would be bad taste to apply any other word than great, because that includes everything which characterized him--I grant you that brilliant son of Virginia met an argument like this with the great power that distinguished all his judgments, when a question arose in the Supreme Court of the United States, affecting the State of Virginia and a citizen. But of what importance is it what any man thinks about it? What is your theory as compared with your practice? Now, I will give my friend all the power he wants, and ask him to deal with these ten States. Do you believe it to be within the compass of a possibility to compel them to remain in the Union, as States, if they do not wish it?

Thus I reach the conclusion, on even the weakest view of the case for us, that the POWER to secede, and the POWER to organize a Government existing, there is no power on earth which, on any rule of law, can interfere with it, except that of war, conducted on the principles of civilized war.

Now, then, let us look at those Confederate States a little more closely. What says Vattel, in the passage referred to by my learned friend, Mr. Larocque, and which it is of the utmost importance, in this connection, to keep in mind?

[Here Mr. Brady read an extract, which will be found in the argument of Mr. Larocque.[5]]

[5] See pages 105, 106, and 107.

Is not that clearly expressed, and easy to understand? All of us comprehend and can readily apply it in this case. That resolves the question, if indeed this be the law of the land, into this: _Have the Confederate States, on any show of reason, or without it--for that does not affect the inquiry--attained sufficient_ STRENGTH, _and_ BECOME SUFFICIENTLY FORMIDABLE, _to entitle them to be treated, under that law of nations, as in a condition of_ CIVIL WAR, _even if they have not constituted a separate, sovereign_, and _independent nation?_ Really, it seems to me, too clear for doubt, that they have. We had, in the Revolution, thirteen Colonies, with a limited treasury, almost destitute of means, and with some of our soldiers so behaving themselves, in the early part of the struggle, that General Washington, on one memorable occasion, threw down his hat on the ground and asked, "Are these the men with whom I am to defend the liberties of America?" And those of you, gentlemen, who have read his correspondence, know how constantly he was complaining to Congress about the inefficiency of the troops, and their liability to desertion. I remember that he says something like this: "There is no doubt that patriotism may accomplish much. It has already effected a good deal. But he who relies on it as the means of carrying him through a long war will find himself, in the end, grievously mistaken. It is not to be disguised that the great majority of those who enter the service do so with a view to the pay which they are to receive; and, unless they are satisfied, desertions may be expected." He also remarked, at another period, in regard to the troops of a certain portion of our country, which I will not name, that they would have their own way; that when their term of enlistment expired they would go home; and that they would sometimes go before that period arrived. That, I am mortified to say, has been imitated in the present struggle.

Such was the early condition of the Colonies.

Now, the Southern Confederacy have ten States--they had seven when this commission was issued--with about eight millions of people. They have separate State governments, which have existed ever since the Union was formed, and which would exist if this revolution were entirely put down. They have excluded us from every part of their territory, except a little foothold in the Eastern part of Virginia, and "debateable ground" in Western Virginia. We have not yet been able to penetrate farther into the Confederate States. We cannot send even food to the hungry or medicine to the afflicted there. We cannot interchange the commonest acts of humanity with those of our friends who are shut up in the South. I do think, with the conceded fact looking directly into the face of the American people that, with all the millions at the command of the Administration, there is yet found sufficient force and power in the Confederate States to maintain their territory, their Government, their legislature, their judiciary, their executive, and their army and navy, it is vain and idle to say that they are not now in a state of civil war, and that they ought to be excluded from the humanities incident to that condition. Such an idea should not, I think, find sanction in either the heart, the conscience, or intelligence of any right-minded man.

Not only are the facts already stated true, but the Confederate States have been RECOGNIZED AS A BELLIGERENT POWER by FRANCE and ENGLAND, as we have proved by the proclamations placed before you; and _they have been recognized_ by OUR _Government as belligerents, at least_. That I submit, as _a distinct question of fact, to the Jury_, unless the Court conceive that it is a pure question of law,--in which case I am perfectly content that the Court shall dispose of it.

And where do I find this? I find it in the _admission of Mr. Lincoln, in his Inaugural Address, that there is to be no attempt at any physical coercion of these States_--a concession that it is a thing not called for, not consistent with the views of the Administration, or with the general course of policy of the American people. According to his view, there was to be no war. I find it in the _correspondence of General Anderson with Governor Pickens_, which has been read in the course of the trial--which of course has been communicated to the Government, will be found among its archives, and of which no disapprobation has been expressed. And here I borrow a doctrine from the District Attorney, who said, when I declared that the legislative branch of the Government had not given their declaration as to what was the true condition of the South, that their silence indicated what it was; and so, the silence of the Government, in not protesting against this correspondence, is good enough for my purpose.