from a threatened invasion. The necessity must be actual and present; the invasion real, such as effectually closes the courts and deposes the civil administration. . . . . Martial rule can never exist where the courts are open, and in the proper and unobstructed exercise of their jurisdiction. It is also confined to the locality of actual war.” 1

Though four of the judges dissented from some of the opinions expressed by the court, the judges were unanimous in the decree that was made. Even the dissenting judges united in a declaration that martial law can be authorized only in time of war, and for the purpose of punishing crimes against the security and safety of the national forces. And no member of the court gave the least support to the proposition that martial law could be declared to punish citizens of the United States, where the courts of the United States were open, and where war, by its flaming presence, has not made the administration of justice difficult or impossible. Chief Justice Chase, who delivered the dissenting opinion, in which all the dissenting judges concurred, said:

Martial law proper "is called into action by Congress, or temporarily, when the action of Congress cannot be invited, and in the case of justifying or excusing peril, by the President, in times of insurrection or invasion, or of civil or foreign war, within districts or localities where ordinary law no longer adequately secures public safety and private rights.

"We think that the power of Congress, in such times and in such localities, to authorize trials for crimes against the security and safety of the national forces, may be derived from its constitutional authority to raise and support armies and to declare war, if not from its constitutional authority to provide for governing the national forces." 2

I have quoted not only the opinion of the court, but that of the dissenting judges, for the purpose of exhibiting the unanimity of the court on the main questions relating to martial law. I cannot think that this House will, at this time, take such an extreme and unprecedented measure as that here proposed.

Sir, this provision means war, or it means nothing; and I ask this House whether we are now ready to take that step? Shall

we

"Cry Havock,' and let slip the dogs of war"?

I have taken a humble part in one war, and I hope I shall always be ready to do any duty that the necessities of the coun

1

4 Wallace, 124-127.

2 Ibid., 142.

try may require of me; but I am not willing to talk war or to declare war in advance of the terrible necessity. Are there no measures within our reach which may aid in preventing war? When a savage war lately threatened our Western frontiers, we sent out commissioners of peace in the hope of avoiding war. Have we done all in our power to avoid that which this section contemplates? I hope the committee will bring in a companion measure that looks toward peace, and enable us to send the olive branch with the sword.

I hope this House will grant general amnesty to all except those who held high official trust under the United States, and then, breaking their oaths, went into rebellion. We should enlist both the pride and the selfishness of the people on the side of good order and peace. But I remind gentlemen that we have not even an indication or suggestion from the President. that such a remedy as martial law is needed; and yet we are called upon to authorize the suspension, not only of the great writ, but of all laws, and that, too, in advance of any actual necessity for it. I know that the bill states the circumstances under which martial law may be declared; but why should we now alarm the country by this extreme measure?

MR. SHELLABARGER. Because Congress may not be in session when the emergency arises.

When neither the courts nor the President, with the army and navy to aid in enforcing the laws, can keep the peace, the President will be justified in calling Congress together. No stronger reason for convening Congress could arise than the necessity for martial law.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I have only to say that, within the limits of our power, I will aid in doing all things that are necessary to enforce the laws of the United States, to protect and defend every officer of the government in the free and full exercise of all his functions, and to secure to the humblest citizen the fullest enjoyment of all the privileges and immunities granted him by the Constitution, and to demand for him the equal protection of the laws. All this can be done by this bill when amended as I have ventured to suggest.

THE OHIO CAMPAIGN OF 1871.

SPEECH DELIVERED IN MOZART HALL, CINCINNATI,
AUGUST 24, 1871.

THE gubernatorial candidates in the Ohio campaign of 1871 were Edward F. Noyes, of Cincinnati, Republican, and George W. McCook, of Steubenville, Democrat. The canvass was one of unusual interest, owing mainly to the Democratic party of Ohio having made the so-called "new departure." The following is the new departure resolution of the State Convention, adopted at Columbus, June 1, 1871, which is discussed below: "That, denouncing the extraordinary means by which they were brought about, we recognize as accomplished facts the three amendments in fact to the Constitution, recently adopted, and regard the same as no longer political issues before the country." This "departure" was made under the leadership of C. L. Vallandigham, who died in consequence of an accident before the campaign fairly opened.

F

ELLOW-CITIZENS, — The State Central Committee has assigned to me the duty of opening the campaign of 1871 in this city. I am the more happy to meet you because you have a special interest in the campaign this fall, growing out of the fact that a distinguished citizen of your city is made the standard-bearer of one of the great parties. It is fitting that here, at his home, so early in the campaign, his fellow-citizens and neighbors should meet together to consider the work that he is engaged in, to take into account its bearings, and to scrutinize the ideas that are involved in this struggle. It is fitting. that the candidate should have been taken this year from the city of Cincinnati.

You are, perhaps without all of you being aware of it, the recipients of an honor this year that you never had before, and will probably never have again. A curious calculation has

been made within the past few weeks, at the Coast Survey Office in Washington, to ascertain the geographical centre of our territory, and also the centre of our population, and with this result. The geographical centre of the United States, not considering Alaska, is not far from this latitude, and about a hundred miles east of the western line of the State of Kansas, or about two hundred miles west of the city of St. Joseph. The centre of gravity upon which the surface of our territory, loaded with its population, would balance, was found to be about forty-five miles northeast of Cincinnati, that is, two or three miles south of the village of Wilmington, in Clinton County. It was there in the month of June, 1870. I shall take it for granted that by the 24th of August, 1871, the centre has worked its way to Mozart Hall; and therefore it seems to me very proper that the candidate for Governor should have been selected from this city, and that so large an audience should have been assembled in this centre of gravity to consider the great topics of the day.

It is one of the misfortunes of our times that the current of public thought drifts so strongly in the direction of national affairs that the condition and interests of the State are almost wholly omitted in our political discussions. In the two party conventions lately held in Columbus, I find only a single brief reference made in either of them to State topics. Twenty resolutions were passed on national affairs, and one sentence only in regard to Ohio. And yet it will not be denied that the State government touches the citizen and his interests twenty times where the national government touches him once. For the peace of our streets and the health of our cities; for the administration of justice in nearly all that relates to the security of persons and property, and the punishment of crime; for the education of our children and the care of unfortunate and dependent citizens; for the assessment and collection of much the larger portion of our direct taxes and for the proper expenditure of the same, for all this, and much more, we depend upon the honesty and wisdom of our General Assembly, and not upon the Congress at Washington. In these lines especially are the recent developments of social science being made in other countries; yet the doings and sayings of Congress and the national administration form the staple of all our political discussions, to the exclusion of these topics. I hope the

time may come when, in the election of a Governor and other State officers, and of the members of a new legislature, political parties in Ohio will let Presidents and Congressmen alone, and will direct their discussions to the great and manifold interests of our State.

Nowhere can there be found a more triumphant vindication of the wisdom of that system of government which is administered by the people and for the people than in one of the wellregulated States of our Union. Consider, for example, the administration of justice in our townships and counties, where offences against persons and property are tried before judges of the people's own choosing, and before jurors who are neighbors of the parties, and who can administer justice far better than is possible at distant or remote points, where both court and jury are strangers. Consider, also, our plan of managing the finances of Ohio. Last year, under our State laws, taxes were levied to the amount of nearly twenty-four millions of dollars. Less than five millions of the twenty-four found their way to the State treasury at Columbus. Less than four millions, indeed, were used for general State purposes. Nineteen of the twentyfour millions were levied under the direction of township, city, and county officers, and expended at home under the direction. of the very men who specially consented that the tax should be levied. Twelve and a half millions were raised and expended in the townships. For the improvement of our laws and the advancement of the State in all that contributes to the security and prosperity of its people, the best efforts of its most thoughtful citizens should be invoked.

I have said that neither of the recent State political conventions has made more than a single reference to State affairs. I rejoice that in that reference they agree upon a new constitution for Ohio. Though no reasons were given and no remarks were made on the subject, yet both conventions have recommended the calling of a convention to revise the constitution of the State. Since then, however, Judge R. P. Ranney, of Cleveland, has challenged the wisdom of this action, and has asked the Republican committee to show cause why a new constitution should be framed. This is a proper call, though the Judge might have addressed the question with equal propriety to the Democratic committee. Not assuming to speak for others, I will give some of the reasons why I am in favor of calling a convention.