things, some changes in the Cabinet and the removal of General Halleck from his position of commander-in-chief. What sort of reception these foreign gentlemen met with from Mr. Lincoln, is very vividly set forth in the following report of the interview of the President with their deputy, made by himself:

Messrs. Emile Pretorious, Theodore Olshausen, R. E. Rombaur, etc.—Gentlemen-During a professional visit to Washington city, I presented to the President of the United States, in compliance with your instructions, a copy of the resolutions adopted in mass meeting at St. Louis, on the 10th of May, 1863, and I requested a reply to the suggestions therein contained. The President, after a careful and loud reading of the whole report of proceedings, saw proper to enter into a conversation of two hours' duration, in the course of which most of the topics embraced in the resolutions and other subjects were discussed.

As my share in the conversation is of secondary importance, I propose to omit it entirely in this report, and, avoiding details, to communicate to you the substance of noteworthy remarks made by the President.

1. The President said that it may be a misfortune for the nation that he was elected President. But, having been elected by the people, he meant to be President, and perform his duty according to his best understanding, if he had to die for it. No General will be removed, nor will any change in the Cabinet be made, to suit the views or wishes of any particular party, faction, or set of men. General Halleck is not guilty of the charges made against him, most of which arise from misapprehension or ignorance of those who prefer them.

2. The President said that it was a mistake to suppose that Generals John C. Fremont, B. F. Butler, and F. Sigel are systematically kept out of command," as stated in the fourth resolution; that, on the contrary, he fully appreciated the merits of the gentlemen named; that by their own actions they had placed themselves in the positions which they occupied; that he was not only willing, but anxious to place them again in com

mand as soon as he could find spheres of action for them, without doing injustice to others, but that at present he "had more pegs than holes to put them in."

3. As to the want of unity, the President, without admitting such to be the case, intimated that each member of the Cabinet was responsible mainly for the manner of conducting the affairs of his particular department; that there was no centralization of responsibility for the action of the Cabinet anywhere, except in the President himself.

4. The dissensions between Union men in Missouri are due solely to a factious spirit which is exceedingly reprehensible. The two parties "ought to have their heads knocked together." "Either would rather see the defeat of their adversary than that of Jefferson Davis." To this spirit of faction is to be ascribed the failure of the Legislature to elect Senators and the defeat of the Missouri Aid Bill in Congress, the passage of which the President strongly desired.

The President said that the Union men in Missouri who are in favor of gradual emancipation represented his views better than those who are in favor of immediate emancipation. In explanation of his views on this subject, the President said that in his speeches he had frequently used as an illustration the case of a man who had an excrescence on the back of his neck, the removal of which, in one operation, would result in the death of the patient, while "tinkering it off by degrees" would preserve life. Although sorely tempted, I did not reply with the illustration of the dog whose tail was amputated by inches, but confined myself to arguments. The President announced clearly that, as far as he was at present advised, the Radicals in Missouri had no right to consider themselves the exponents of his views on the subject of emancipation in that State.

5. General Curtis was not relieved on account of any wrong act or great mistake committed by him. The System of Provost-Marshals, established by him throughout the State, gave rise to violent complaint. That the President had thought at one time to appoint General Fremont in his place; that at another time he thought of appointing General McDowell, whom he characterised as a good and loyal though very unfor

tunate soldier; and that, at last, General Schofield was appointed, with a view, if possible, to reconcile and satisfy the two factions in Missouri. He has instructions not to interfere with either party, but to confine himself to his military duties. I assure you, gentlemen, that our side was as fully presented as the occasion permitted. At the close of the conversation, the President remarked that there was evidently a "serious misunderstanding" springing up between him and the Germans of St. Louis, which he would like to see removed. Observing to him that the difference of opinion related to facts, men, and measures, 1 I am, very respectfully, etc.,

withdrew.

JAMES TAUSSIG.

THE VALLANDIGHAM CASE.

Among the most active supporters that the rebellion found in the Free States, was the Hon. C. C. Vallandigham, Member of the House from Ohio, who opposed all measures for the prosecution of the war, denounced Mr. Lincoln's Government as endeavoring to establish a despotism, and advocated the calling in of a foreign government to settle the dispute between the rebels and the National Government. Finally - it was at a public meeting at Mount Vernon, Ohio-he proclaimed his intention of disobeying an order issued by General Burnside, in command of the Department, and called upon the people to set it at naught and resist its execution. For this he was arrested by General Burnside, and, after vain applications to the Circuit Court for a writ of habeas corpus, tried by a military commission, found guilty, and sentenced to close confinement in Fort Warren. This sentence the President commuted to banishment within the rebel lines, which was immediately carried into effect.

These occurrences were seized upon by the sympathis

ers with the rebels, who held meetings at various places over the country to denounce what one of the most distinguished of their number, Governor Seymour, of New York, called the establishment of military despotism. These words he used in a letter addressed to the organizers of one of the meetings in question, which was held in Albany, on the 16th of May. The resolutions of this meeting were transmitted to the President by Mr. Erastus Corning, the chairman, to whom Mr. Lincoln sent the following reply:

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, June 13, 1868.

HON. ERASTUS CORNING AND OTHERS:

Gentlemen-Your letter of May 19, inclosing the resolutions of a public meeting held at Albany, N. Y., on the 16th of the same month, was received several days ago.

The resolutions, as I understand them, are resolvable into two propositions-first, the expression of a purpose to sustain the cause of the Union, to secure peace through victory, and to support the Administration in every constitutional and lawful measure to suppress the rebellion; and, secondly, a declaration of censure upon the Administration for supposed unconstitutional action, such as the making of military arrests. And from the two propositions a third is deduced, which is, that the gentlemen composing the meeting are resolved on doing their part to maintain our common Government and country, despite the folly or wickedness, as they may conceive, of any Administration. This position is eminently patriotic, and as such I thank the meeting and congratulate the nation for it. My own purpose is the same, so that the meeting and myself have a common object, and can have no difference, except in the choice of means or measures for effecting that object.

And here I ought to close this paper, and would close it, if there were no apprehensions that more injurious consequences than any merely personal to myself might follow the censures systematically cast upon me for doing what, in my view of duty,

I could not forbear. The resolutions promise to support me in every constitutional and lawful measure to suppress the rebellion, and I have not knowingly employed, nor shall knowingly employ, any other. But the meeting, by their resolutions, assert and argue that certain military arrests, and proceedings following them, for which I am ultimately responsible, are unconstitutional. I think they are not. The resolutions quote from the Constitution the definition of treason, and also the limiting safeguards and guarantees therein provided for the citizen on trial for treason, and on his being held to answer for capital or otherwise infamous crime, and, in criminal prosecutions, his right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury. They proceed to resolve, "that these safeguards of the rights of the citizen against the pretensions of arbitrary power were intended more especially for his protection in times of civil commotion."

And, apparently to demonstrate the proposition, the resolutions proceed: "They were secured substantially to the English people after years of protracted civil war, and were adopted into our Constitution at the close of the Revolution." Would not the demonstration have been better if it could have been truly said that these safeguards had been adopted and applied during the civil wars and during our Revolution, instead of after the one and at the close of the other? I, too, am devotedly for them after civil war, and before civil war, and at all times, "except when, in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require" their suspension. The resolutions proceed to tell us that these safeguards "have stood the test of seventy-six years of trial, under our republican system, under circumstances which show that, while they constitute the foundation of all free government, they are the elements of the enduring stability of the Republic." No one denies that they have so stood the test up to the beginning of the present rebellion, if we except a certain occurrence at New Orleans; nor does any one question that they will stand the same test much longer after the rebellion closes. But these provisions of the Constitution have no application to the case we have in hand, because the arrests complained of were not made for treason—that is,