but the law of nations.

And even in regard to that,

the law of nations in respect to a foreign war differs from that in regard to a domestic war. We have a right to do things in a domestic war which we would not have in a foreign war. There is not a nation in the world which does not confiscate the property of rebels. It is part of the common law. This right to confiscate extends in this country with regard to lands, only to the lifetime of the guilty person. Therefore, real estate cannot be confiscated beyond the lifetime of the guilty parties. With that restriction, the power to confiscate is absolute, and without that restriction it is absolute in every other country in the world. In a foreign war we should not possess this right. We could not confiscate the property of the citizens of France, as they would owe obedience and allegiance to their own government. But rebels, who fight against their own government, have not that plea. The law of the civilized world says that the property of rebels may be confiscated. So that, while we are bound by the law of nations, it is the law of nations as applied to a rebellion.

Now, whether confiscation is or is not expedient, is another question. I only say it is constitutional— i. e., it is not unconstitutional.

It is not for me, gentlemen, to discuss this or that particular measure of the Administration. It is not for me to sit in judgment in matters of such minor importance. If the line of authority has been overstepped we must not stop now to punish the guilty. Now we must put down the rebellion, and restore the authority of the Constitution and laws.

Mr. Bradley then referred to the duty of every citizen to support the Government, instancing the example of the Federalists in the war of 1812, who opposed the war violently, and yet for the most part, when the war actually begun, stepped gallantly forward to lend their aid. They went forth like men, and fought side by side with Democrats, and those who then stood back, and let their hands hang idly by their sides, were forever branded as traitors to their country. [A voice, "Buchanan."]

When the country is actually engaged in a war, we must stand by the country. If the Government does wrong, even, I say, stand by it, and see the war through, and attend to the wrong afterwards. That's what we are bound to do now. Party issues are to be discarded. We should discard every issue but one, and that is our country must be saved and the authority of the Constitution vindicated. Mr. Bradley then referred to the possibility of England and France interfering in this war. If they do, said he, we shall have a more solemn duty than ever before to perform.

The question arises, what will be our duty then? Have we ever injured them, or interfered with them during all their wars? Then what right have they to interfere with us? Neither the laws of God or of nations (except as concocted by themselves), give them any right to interfere, and if they do, it will be because they hate our institutions and will be glad to see their downfall. We are not called upon to declare a policy in advance, yet I, for one, would let those nations know that they can't interfere with us with impunity [great applause]; that there will be

blows to take as well as to give; that there are domestic dissensions and discontent in other countries as well as ours. I would let them know in advance that if they dare stir up the lion in his lair they may feel the weight of his paw. I do not say what policy should be pursued, but I will say that these are my strong convictions. Now, gentlemen, some of these remarks of mine may not be those of a politician. I talk straight out and straight on. You have my views, you have them frankly, fully. Our opponents are full of the wisdom of the serpent, if not the harmlessness of the dove. They profess to be in favor of the war, yet we see in their councils, in their most secret councils, men whom we know, from their antecedents, to be secessionists at heart. What they mean I don't know, but I do know that those who are heartily for aiding the Administration in carrying on the war can't be far wrong.

I deprecate party politics in a time like this. I would say to all patriotic men of every party, let us unite in this great and holy cause until peace shall be restored on the only basis on which it can permanently stand-the unity of the whole country under the old Constitution and the old flag. [Loud cheers.]

THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

LETTER

FROM

JOSEPH P. BRADLEY, ESQ.,

OF NEW JERSEY,

ΤΟ

MR. CHARLES KNAP,

ON THE

QUESTION OF THE NUMBER OF STATES REQUISITE TO RATIFY AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION.

.

NOTE. The publication of the following letter at this time calls for no apology. The subject is so important in itself, and the views contained in the letter impressed me as so conclusive, that it seemed to me eminently proper to give them publicity, and, at my urgent request, the writer has given his consent to such disposition of it. C. KNAP.

WASHINGTON, February 20, 1865.

WASHINGTON, February 18, 1865.

MY DEAR KNAP: Agreeably to your request, I proceed to jot down the substance of the views expressed in our conversation to-day, in relation to the number of States required to ratify the Constitutional amendment abolishing slavery. I apprehend you will find very little that is new, is new, as most right-thinking men, who have given attention to the subject, have undoubtedly come to the same conclusion. But the persistency with which certain leading journals and politicians detract from the just authority of the Government and the validity of its proceedings as being unconstitutional, on the plea that certain integral and essential elements