EARLY EMANCIPATION.

WATSEKA. M. Did B. F, Butler, in the time of the rebellion, issue a proclamation freeing the slaves? If so, at what time was it, and did President Lincoln revoke the order? And when was the emancipation order of General Fremont issued? S. B. TETER.

Answer.-General Butler issued no such proclamation, but he was the first to suggest to the Government a partial solution of the very perplexing question as to what was to be done with the slaves during the rebellion. It was held that the Constitution of the United States did not give to Congress, or to the non-slaveholding States, any right to interfere with the institution of slavery. This was reaffirmed by Congress in a resolution passed by the House, Feb. 11, 1861, without a dissenting voice, to reassure the South that, in spite of the election of Mr. Lincoln, the North had no intention of usurping power not granted by the Constitution. But when, after the outbreak of the war, the army began to occupy posts in the seceding and slaveholding States the negroes came flocking into the Union lines, large numbers being set free by the disorganized condition of affairs from their usual labor on the farms and plantations of the South. Then the question arose, What can be done with them? General Butler, when they came into his camp at Fortress Monroe, detained them and refused to surrender them upon the application of their owners on

the plea that they were contraband of war, that is, property which could be used in military operations, and therefore, by the laws of war, subject to seizure. He set the able-bodied men at work upon Government fortifications, and when they brought their women and children with them he issued rations to them and charged them to the service of the men. The President sustained General Butler's action in this case and the example was followed by other commanders. The Government ordered strict accounts to be kept of the labor thus performed, as it was not yet determined that these laborers should be regarded as free. On Aug. 6, 1861, the President signed an act passed by Congress which declared that

when any slave was employed in any military or naval service against the Government the person by whom his labor was claimed that is, his owner-should forfeit all claims to such labor. The intent at the time this bill was passed was that it should only be in force during the continuance of the insurrection, for few were then able to see what proportions the rebellion would assume and what other measures would be found necessary to overthrow it, General Fremont, then in command of the western department of the army, chose to assume that the confiscation act of Congress had unlimited scope, and Aug. 31, 1861, issued a proclamation confiscating the property and freeing the slaves of all citizens of Missouri who had taken or should take up arms against the Government. This action of Fremont embarrassed President Lincoln greatly. For whatever may have been his hope that the outcome of the war would be the final abolition of slavery, he could not fail to see that to permit the generals of the army to take such a course then in this matter was rather premature. He accordingly wrote to General Fremont requesting him to modify his proclamation. The General replied with a request that the President himself would make the necessary modifications. President Lincoln therefore issued a special order, Sept. 11, 1861, declaring that the emancipation clause of General Fremont's proclamation "be so modified, held, and construed as to conform with and not to transcend the provisions on the same subject contained in the act of Congress approved Aug. 6," preceding. Another instance of the kind oceurred at the hands of General Hunter, the following year. That officer, being in command at Hilton Head, S. C., proclaimed the States of Georgia, Florida, and South Carolina, in his department, under martial law, and May 9, 1862, issued an order in which occurred these words: "Slavery and martial law in a free country are altogether incompatible. The persons in these States-Georgia, Florida, and South Carolinaheretofore held as slaves, are therefore declared forever free." Though President Lincoln had

only storm

been bitterly censured by extremists for his action toward General Fremont, and though knew that to interfere with General Hunter would bring upon him even & worse of reproaches, ho did not shrink from what he believed his duty in the matter. He immediately issued a proclamation sternly revoking General Hunter's order, saying that the Government had not had any knowledge of the General's intention to issue an order, and distinctly stating that "neither General Hunter nor any other commander or person has been authorized by the Government of the United States to make proclamation declaring the slaves of any State free." "I further make known," he continued, "that whether it be competent for me, as commander-in-chief of the army and navy, to declare the glaves of any State or States free: and whether, at any time or in any case, it shall have become a necessity indispensable to the maintenance of the Government to ex ercise such supposed power, are questions which. under my responsibility, I reserve to myself, and which I can not feel justified in leaving to commanders in the field." Though much displeasure was expressed by many at the time concerning the position thus taken by the President, it was generally admitted later that he was justified in taking it, since it was from no lack of sympathy with the cause of emancipation that he withheld his sanction from the premature attempts to secure it.

AUTHOR OF "HAIL COLUMBIA.' Who was the author of "Hail Columbia"?

PEOTONE, D. 8. GOODSPEED. Answer.-The ringing popular ballad was written by Joseph Hopkinson, son of Francis, who was one of the signers of the great Declaration of Independence. Joseph was a jurist, a native of Philadelphia, where he was born Nov. 12, 1770, and where he died Jan. 15, 1842. As has been well said, the great works of his life have been forgotten by the million, but the ballad still lives. He composed it in the year 1798 for the benefit of an actor named Fox, after an air entitled "The President's March," which had been composed by a German named Teyles, on the occasion of General Washington's first visit to a theater at New York in 1789.

CONFEDERATE TREASURE. YORK, Neb. What was done with the coin taken from Richmond by the Confederates when they left that city in 1865? READER.

Answer.-April 2,1865, when Richmond wa evacuated, the retreating President and his Cabinet took with them a sum in gold coin belonging to the Richmond banks, and also some gold that had been sent by the Louisiana banks to Richmond for safe keeping. They went to the town of Danville, where the Confederate government had its headquarters for a few days. When the news of the surrender of Lee arrived the demoralized "government" again moved on to Greensboro, N. C., where it stayed until April 15. It then took flight on horseback and in ambulances-for Sfoneman's forces had destroyed all the railroads-for Charlotte, N. C., where Mr. Davis planned to establish a new cap

ital for the Confederacy. However, shortly after his arrival there, news was received of the surrender of Joseph E. Johnston's army to Sherman, and a rapid line of march was resumed in the direction of the Gulf of Mexico. An escort of 2,000 cavalry accompanied the fugitives when they left Greensboro, but a large part of this deserted before the town of Washington, Ga., was reached. There Mr. Davis decided to dismiss the cavalry foree, and with a small company to attempt to make his way to Forrest's army in Mississippi. His purpose was to distribute most of the coia under his charge among these soldiers. Lieutenant C. E. L. Stuart, of Davis' staff, in his book, "History of the Last Days and Final Fall of the Rebellion," thus gives the particulars of the final disposition of this money:

"At Washington there was a scramble for the specie. It was determined to give the cavalry a few dollars each. They were impatient, and helped themselves as soon as they discovered where to get it. The result was a great irregularity of distribution; many got too much, many nothing; and 'dust-hunters' picked up a good deal the following day-a good deal that was trampled under foot in the contemptible scramble."

STATUS OF THE INDIANS. HENRY, Ill. Have any of the Indians in the United States a right to vote for President? What qualifications are necessary for them to become voters? A READER.

Answer.-The suffrage laws of three States only-Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsingrant the franchise to civilized Indians who are not connected with any tribal organization. Further, the United States Government has by treaty or legislative enactment at different times admitted tribes or parts of tribes to full rights of citizenship, as follows: In Kansas, the Pottawatomies and Wyandots, and a remnant of the Kickapoo and Delaware tribes; in Dakota, a band of friendly Sioux: also the Winnebagoes, of Minnesota; the Stockbridges, of Wisconsin; the Ottawas and Chippewas, of Michigan, and the Ottawas of Blanchard's Fork, Indian Territory. Of these a large number are known to have sold the lands allotted to them when their civil rights were conferred, and again associated themselves with their original tribe, so it is impossible to say what proportion may still claim to be citizens. The legal status of the Indian under the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments was defined by a decision in the United States Supreme Court Nov. 4, 1884. A Nebraska Indian had brought suit against a ward registrar in Omaha for refusing to register him as a qualified voter. The ruling of the Supreme Court was that an Indian, who was born a member of one of the tribes within the United States (said tribe still existing and recognized as a tribe by the Government), and who has voluntarily separated himself from his tribe and taken up his residence among the white citizens of a State, but who has not been naturalized or taxed, or recognized as a citizen either by the United States or by the State, is not a citizen within the meaning of the fourteenth amendment, and can not sustain claim to the elective franchise under the amendment. The