COPIES of this pamphlet are distributed immediately upon its publication to a few leading minds of our country, irrespective of their politics, religion, or occupation. An independent, unbiassed expression of opinion, is desired from each recipient, either pro or con. Should he be decidedly favor able, he would doubtless like to aid in extending the circulation of this Compend, and a short letter to a paper or two in his city or neighborhood, or to some editor at a distance with whom he may be acquainted, calling attention to it, would be very influential. He may also be willing to write to two or three prominent persons, enclosing a copy of the accompanying prospectus; and upon being furnished with the address, we shall be happy to forward those parties a copy each of the Compend.

It is hoped the recipient will be able soon to make the examination, and that it will not be partial or prejudiced. And experience already proves the propriety of a caution to the reader, not to make up his judgment from detached parts. If he will just glance his eye over the marginal notes from beginning to end, he will have a general idea of the views, and can then better judge of the several portions. Having sent a copy of only the first 80 pages to one of the most eminent scholars of our country, an old and valued friend, he thus remarks:

success.

Your present line of labor is one that I had not thought of in connection with you, but your object is so important, and you are performing it with so much ability, that I wish you all My studies have not been much in the line of International Law, and I have accepted the doctrine commonly received, that there is such a thing as a United States Government. This I understand you to deny. [Not at all. So far from it, my main object is to prove that we have the grandest, most perfect systems of Government, both State and Federal, ever. instituted. My friend says in another place, "I have only had time to run over "the pages, and probably a further examination of even the first eighty pages changed his opinion, as would surely a perusal of the remainder.] Where there is Government, there must be the Right to Command, and the obligation to obey, in regard to some things; and that, I suppose, would constitute a Government, as no Government, except that of GOD, extends to all things. [Very true; and when by the usurpations of Parliament, and the violation of his oath by our King, the Right of Command, the Sovereignty, of George III over these Colonies was forfeited by him, we took it into the keeping of each individual Colony, each of these Peoples becoming a Sovereign State, or nation. But as these Peoples are too widely distributed, even in the smallest State, to exercise directly their Right of Command, they have made use of Republicanism or Representation, to preserve to themselves their Sovereignty, and to govern their faithful or unfaithful subjects. And in great wisdom have they joined together, and delegated the exercise of some important parts of their Rights of Command to certain parties which constitute the Government of the United States.] If the apparatus at Washington is simply a Federal Agency, then very much of what has been done from the first, has been usurpation. [Most certainly "the apparatus at Washington is simply a Federal Agency," for the tenth amendment to the Constitution establishes the truth beyond peradventure, that the powers are not granted, but "delegated." A delegate is ever an agent, restricted to the authority delegated; and whatever has been done by an agent beyond his authority, is surely usurpation, which circumstances may or may not justify.] I should wish it settled, first, whether we have a Government; and then that its powers might be defined. Any thing that will throw light on these points is most desirable, and you write with so much of research, and candor, and ability, that your labor cannot fail to be useful. [It shall be the constant aim of the writer to merit the encouraging encomiums of his partial friend, and he prom

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 experienced 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 la mentable 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

in the midst of present calamities, in the perils which threaten our free institu tions, 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 atten tion 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 execu tion 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.

P. S. The postal regulations prohibit the writing on the cover, even the name of the party addressed. The writer will therefore avail himself of this opportunity to remark that this copy is sent "with the respects," or "the regards of the author," requesting attention to the first and concluding paragraphs of the foregoing.

J. S. W.

MOB RULE AND STATE SOVEREIGNTY.

THESE two species of authority are totally incompatible. One or the other must be master. And of all men, the honest poor man is most deeply conced in putting down the former, in exalting and establishing the latter.

It is the misfortune of Cities to have an undue proportion of ignorant population. They are also the chief resorts of knaves and villains of every description. A large part of the honest and ignorant, as well as of the knaves, are foreign born, and have come hither with vague ideas of liberty, deeming it their privilege and right to do whatever they please. Nor do native-born, intelligent American citizens properly instruct themselves or foreigners in their rights and duties. Recently, a leading conservative paper, discussing the topic of allegiance, affirmed the word had no significance in this country; that we were not subjects, but were all Citizen-sovereigns.

Because of this entire ignorance of the plainest and most important principles of our Government, do we witness such lamentable occurrences as the mobs in New York City from the 13th to the 20th July. The thieves and robbers, taking advantage of such teachings, and availing themselves of popular prejudices, as against the conscript act, work upon a few of the lowest and most ignorant of the population and incite them to riot, that the real instigators may rob and plunder. How can it be expected that the ignorant can have proper knowledge of duty and be submissive, when taught they are no subjects, but actual sovereigns?

No one is a sovereign in this land of equal rights. Sovereignty, the Right of Command, is in the possession of the People, the body of the Citizens of each State. To that Sovereignty does every individual within the boundaries of that State owe allegiance. Should one of these States grant away its Right of Command to a select few, an Aristocracy, as in some of the Swiss States, allegiance would be due to them; should it convey it to one, as in Britain, or Russia, allegiance would be due to the Monarch. Every individual in these States, from the President to the pauper or convict, is a subject of the State Sovereignty where he resides, and to it owes his allegiance.

These Sovereignties have created their State Agencies, by which they exercise their Right of Command in most affairs of Government. They have also joined together to create a Federal Agency for certain defined purposes of Government, and they wisely permitted this Agency to operate directly upon their respective subjects. This feature is, indeed, one of the most notable, important improvements in Federalism which we have made, and does not, in any degree, "nationalize" the system, as Madison imagined. To be able to protect against aggression, the Federal Agency must, in periods of emergency, have the control of the militia, and with cautious safeguards in the appointment of officers, was it granted. Congress has the power, and very properly, to compel from each State its quota, and the officials of the State Agency would violate their allegiance to their Sovereignty, did they in any way interfere, so long as the Federal Agency duly observes the restrictions of the Constitution.

Because Congress has wisely or unwisely incorporated unpopular provisions in the conscript act, as in the $300 clause, affords not the least excuse for resistance to the law; and if there be in the law essential wrongs, we have