bill the governor vetoed, chiefly on the ground that the Constitution of the United States ex

pressly ordains that "no State shall pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts." The judges of the Supreme Court differed in opinion on the constitutionality of the law. One of them (Linton Stephens) thus stated the point of difference: "The whole confusion on this subject comes from the original false assumption which has sometimes been made in the obiter dicta of judges, but which has never been decided by any court, and is inconsistent with the unbroken current of decisions-the assumption that the obligation of a contract is the existing remedy for its enforcement. The obligation of a contract, it is very true, is not to be found always in the terms used by the parties: it is to be found in the liability which the existing laws attach to those terms. Indeed, the obligation of a contract is the liability which the existing law attaches to its terms. For illustration, a contract in this State to pay twenty per cent. interest, has no obligation beyond seven per cent., the rate fixed by law; and a contract to pay money for the killing of a human being has no obligation whatever. Parties may make what engagements they please, these do not constitute their obligations; the law existing at the time comes in and attaches its own liability to the terms used, defines and fixes the obligations arising out of those terms. These obligations are to be enforced by such remedies as the political power may provide from time to time; and the courts can never interfere with changes or modifications which the political power may make in the remedies, either quickening or slackening them, so long as the right is not abrogated by the indefinite withdrawal or suspension of all remedy."

A resolution was also adopted appointing a committee of sixteen to digest and report to the next Legislature a system of common schools. An act approved on March 17th regulated the rights and duties of masters and apprentices, which placed all on the same footing without regard to color. Administrators, executors, and guardians, and trustees, were relieved from all penalties of mismanagement, misappropriation, or misapplication of funds of estates, who, in pursuance of any decree of a court or any laws of the State, invested the funds represented, in certificates of the State of Georgia, or of the Confederate States.

After a short session, confined to local affairs, the Legislature adjourned to November 1st. The most important topic of the governor's message to this body, when it again convened, related to the amendment of the Federal Constitution proposed by Congress. After briefly analyzing its features, he said:

I ask you to consider, however, why it is that you are called upon to vote upon its adoption, whilst your State had no voice in its preparation? The Constitution secures to the States the one right as distinctly and as positively as the other. Had your Representatives, and those of other States similarly situated, been present, aiding in giving substance

amendment refuse their assent to it, it cannot be Should the States especially to be affected by this adopted without excluding them from the count and placing its ratification upon the votes of three-fourths of the now dominant States.

made, the now excluded States will be kept out of It is said, however, that unless this concession be the halls of Congress indefinitely. Were the amendment presented with such a menace distinctly expressed, a higher motive (if possible) than any hitherto suggested would prompt its rejection. proper that the previously resisting States should, in At the termination of hostilities, it was right and the most unequivocal and formal manner, abandon such resistance; should rescind all they had done in antagonism to, and do whatever was necessary and proper to place themselves in constitutional relation with that Government. All this, we believe, Georgia has done. Beyond this, in acting upon any proposed change in the fundamental law, even in this critical juncture, my advice is, that her legislators act with the same intelligent judgment and the same unflinchpast, or would exercise in the future, when in full ing firmness, that they would have exercised in the connection and unambiguous position. Any other rule of action may involve sacrifices of interest and of principle which magnanimity would not exact and self-respect could not make.

The subject was referred in each House to the Committee on the State of the Republic. These committees acted as a joint committee, and made a report on November 9th. They state that they had serious doubts of the propriety of discussing the proposed amendment, and they will depart from this course only so far as to give the reasons which seem to forbid discuzsion upon the merits. They say:

The argument resolves itself into a few simple propositions.

1. If Georgia is not a State composing a part of the Federal Government known as the Government of the United States, amendments to the Constitution of the United States are not properly before this body.

2. If Georgia is a State composing part of the Federal Government known as the Government of the United States, then these amendments are not proConstitution, and are proposed in such a manner as posed according to the requirements of the Federal forbids this House from discussing the merits of the amendments, without an implied surrender of the rights of the State.

In discussing these propositions, we shall endeavor to establish:

1. That Georgia is a State of the United States, coequal with all the other States of the Federal Union, and therefore entitled to all the rights and privileges of any and every other State under the Federal Constitution.

in either of the methods required by the fifth article 2. That the amendments have not been proposed of the Constitution.

to occupy that relation to her sister States, unless by the Constitution (either expressly or by implication), she has reserved to herself the right to secede, or vested in the legislative or some other department of the Government the right to reject her.

Did Georgia have the right to secede? Georgia supposed that when the General Government ceased to answer the purposes of its creation, she had the right to secede, and did in fact endeavor to withdraw from the Federal Union in conjunction with ten of her sister States. The remaining, or non-seceding States, declared the Union to be perpetual and indivisible, but failing under the Constitution to find any power to coerce a State, Congress resorted to the 8th section, in which the legislative powers are defined, wherein the power is given to the Congress to "suppress insurrection;" and on the 29th of July, 1861, passed an act entitled "An act to provide for the suppression of rebellion against and resistance to the laws of the United States, and to amend an act passed February 28, 1795."

Under this and similar acts the military power of the United States was called forth designedly not against the States, but to suppress insurrection by the people within the States. The United States Government uniformly refused to recognize the acts of secession as State acts, but treated them as the acts of insurgents rebelling against the authority of the States and of the United States. Under this political aspect of the case, no war was ever declared by Congress (which is the only power that could declare war), because a declaration of war would have recognized the practical right of secession.

The war would have necessarily been declared against the Confederate Government as a foreign power, and the relations in which the States composing the Confederate Government would have been to the United States or remaining States, when con. quered, would have been entirely dependent upon such terms as should be embodied in the Treaty of Peace, which might be made between the two contending powers.

Instead of recognizing secession and declaring war, the Congress of the United States passed the act referred to for suppressing insurrection whenever, in the judgment of the President, the laws of the United States could not be enforced by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings.

How long did the power of the President continue to employ the militia of the several States and the land and naval forces of the United States? So long as the cause which called it into existence continued, and no longer. What was that cause? This act, and all acts passed by Congress on the subject, declare that it was to suppress an insurrection when it should be so formidable that the laws of the United States could not be enforced by ordinary judicial course, and this fact was left to the judgment of the President, whose duty it is to see that the laws of the United States are executed.

The President, by proclamation, has declared the rebellion suppressed, that peace reigns throughout the United States, and that the laws be enforced by ordinary judicial course. In other words, that insurrection did exist on the part of a portion of the people of several States of the Union, that the insurrection has been suppressed, and the whole people of those States are now (as a portion of them always have been) ready to render obedience to the laws of the United States.

No treaty followed the suppression of the insurrection, because a government does not treat with individuals, and the Government of the United States throughout the whole of this contest has refused to treat it as a contest with the States, and again, because the people hitherto charged with being in insurrection were citizens of States already bound together by a compact known as the Constitution of the United States, which has never been abrogated or overthrown, and has lost none of its vitality by an unsuccessful

attempt to overthrow it, and which is, therefore, now the supreme law of Georgia. By virtue of its power, the Congress of the United States, acting upon the theory of the indivisibility of the Union, treated the State as a State in the Union. The second section of the article of the Constitution which declares "representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within the Union," and on the 5th of August, 1861, an act was passed "that a direct tax of twenty mil lions of dollars be and is hereby annually laid upon the United States, and the same shall be apportioned to the States respectively in manner following: the State of Georgia for $554,367, and a proportionate amount to each State and territory of the United States," distinguishing by the act States from territories; and on July 13, 1862, by an act to amend the judicial system of the United States, the districts of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Florida, were constituted the Fifth Circuit of the United States. There are several other acts passed during the rebellion deriving all their force from the Constitution, wherein it defines the legislative power of Congress over the States in the Union, and which, but for the fact that these States were regarded as in the Union, would have been wholly inapplicable to them. The whole theory adopted by Congress and the Executive, and maintained throughout the entire war, was this: The Union is indissoluble, the practical relation of the States to the Federal Government is interrupted by a rebellion. The whole power of the Government must be used to suppress the rebellion, that the States may be restored to their practical relations with the Federal Government. Had the people in the disaffected States returned peaceably to their abodes under the first proclamation, the State would have been immediately restored to their practical relations, and the result followed whenever the President declared the rebellion suppressed. Whenever the laws could be enforced in the ordinary judicial course, the Union was restored, and the Constitution proclaimed the relation of the States to the Federal Government, rendering legislation on the subject by Congress not only unnecessary, but unwarranted. We have thus endeavored to show that the right to se cede is denied by the General Government, and its construction has been maintained by the sword, and is submitted to by all the States. Has Congress the right to erect a State? The powers of legislation are defined in the eighth section, and no power is given to Congress to legislate a State out of the Union. And, while by the third section of the fourth article, the Congress may admit a new State formed out of the territory of the United States or foreign territory, there is no clause of that instrument by which Congress, or any other power, can transform a State into a territory. Then as Georgia was one of the original thirteen States which formed the Union, and could neither withdraw from it, nor be legislated out of it, her Federal relations were only suspended during the rebellion. She must necessarily continue to be one of the United States, and as such her relation to the Federal Government and to her sister States is defined by the Constitution of the United States. And this relation cannot be changed, nor the terms of the Constitution altered in any way, except in one of the modes provided in that instrument by the States themselves.

The report concluded with the following resolution:

Resolved, That the Legislature of Georgia declines to ratify the proposed amendment adding a fourteenth article to the Constitution of the United States.

In the Senate the resolution was unanimously adopted. In the House the vote in its favor was 132 to 2.

At this session the Legislature reënacted the stay law of the former session. It was again vetoed by the Governor for the same reasons as were given on the former occasion. Both houses then passed the bill by the constitutional majority. The committee on public schools reported a plan the leading features of which were that a superintendent of public education and schools should be appointed by the Governor, whose duty should be to report annually to the Legislature consolidated returns from school districts, and expenditures of educational funds. He is to submit estimates for two years in advance, and also plans for the management, improvement, and better organization of Georgia schools. He is, as often as possible, to deliver public returns on education, and perform other duties assigned him by the act. The Georgia schools embraced in this act are to be open to all white children of the district between six and twenty-one years of age, etc. The plan after some amendments was adopted with a provision that it should not go into operation prior to January 1, 1868.

On November 30th the following preamble and resolution were unanimously adopted in each house of the Legislature:

The General Assembly would do injustice to the great heart of Georgia, not to give some formal expression of their respect for the character, and sor row for the condition of the illustrious prisoner of state, Jefferson Davis. All the generous pulsations of that heart are in full unison and sympathy with his sufferings and misfortunes. Its warm affections cluster round the fallen chief of a once dear but now abandoned cause. There they will cluster and centre while men admire all that is chivalric in nature; while they regard all that is constant in purpose; while they love all that is noble in virtue; while they revere all that is sublime in faith, and respect unfailing greatness of soul. Therefore,

The General Assembly of Georgia do resolve, That their sincerest condolence and warmest sympathy are tendered to Mr. Jefferson Davis in his confine. ment; and they look forward with anxious solicitude to the day when a magnanimous and patriotic president shall put a term to his confinement, and by the interposition of executive clemency restore him to a people for whom he so faithfully struggled, and on account of whom he endures with Christian fortitude the hardships of a long and rigorous imprisonment. Bills appropriating State aid to railroads were vetoed by the Governor, chiefly on the ground that the State was not in a condition to make a large expansion of her credit. After the passage of many local measures the Legislature on December 14th adjourned.

The corn crop of the State was in many places disastrously affected by drought. A great deficiency in the supply ensued. Large donations were made in other States for the use of the destitute poor, as a hundred thousand bushels by citizens of Kentucky, etc.

The State Lunatic Asylum has continued in successful operation. Blacks are entitled to admission as well as whites, but the accommodations are too limited for the reception of all patients. The Academy for the Blind has likewise been in successful operation; but that for the deaf and dumb has not been reopened since

The en

the close of the war. The State Penitentiary, although destroyed during the war, has been partially restored, and preparations are making to place it on a permanent and successful footing. Manufacturing has received a new im. pulse, and promises to become one of the principal branches of future industry in the State. GERMAN-ITALIAN WAR. The disagree. ment of Austria and Prussia, in the joint administration of the Duchies of Schleswig and Holstein, seriously complicated, in 1866, the relations between these two powers. Austria favored the claims of the Prince of Augustenburg, and not only permitted but encouraged the public manifestations made in Holstein in favor of the Prince. The Prussian Government had published, in October, 1865, the opinion of the crown jurists, who declared that, since the Peace of Vienna, of October 30, 1864, the sovereignty of the two Duchies was exclusively vested in Austria and Prussia, and that, if the house of Augustenburg had ever possessed an hereditary right to the government of the Duchies (which was, however, denied by the crown jurists), it had ceased since, and in consequence of the Peace of Vienna. couragement given by Austria to the agitation of the adherents of the Prince of Augustenburg was, therefore, regarded by Prussia as an aggressive act, which it had a right to guard against. In its note of January 26th, Count Bismarck requested the Government of Austria to take this view of Prussia into serious consideration. In case the Cabinet of Vienna should give to this request a negative or evasive answer, Prussia must come to the conclusion that Austria refused to go hand in hand with her; she must, in this case, gain for its policy be most corresponding to her own interests. full freedom, and make such use of it as could In reply, the Austrian Government (note of February 7th) claimed an absolute freedom in the provisional administration of Holstein, and her unwillingness to allow her administration to be interfered with from any quarter whatever. As Prussia did not reply to this note, she was suspected by Austria of meditating aggressive acts, and the Austrian ambassador at Berlin was accordingly instructed to inquire what the Prussian Government understood by the use she would make of the recovered freedom of her policy. Prussia evasively replied that both powers returned to that relation which existed between them before the Danish war.

Austria, uneasy about the attitude of Prussia, began, as early as February, to arm. At the beginning of March, her armaments attracted the attention of Prussia. The King of Prussia, in his turn, issued (March 11th) a decree which threatened all attempts to undermine his and the Emperor's joint authority in the Duchies. The decree was promulgated for the Duchy of Schleswig on the 13th of March, and caused the Austrian ambassador at Berlin to inquire (on March 16th) whether Prussia intended

forcibly to violate the convention of Gastein. Bismarck disclaimed any such intention, and added that orally he could not give a more definite reply, as oral declarations were too liable to misinterpretation. If the Austrian ambassador desired a more explicit answer, he might formulate his inquiry in writing. The hint was not accepted, but the armament in Bohemia and Moravia became more and more threatening.

On the 24th of March, Prussia informed the minor German governments that she was compelled by the armaments of Austria to make preparations for the defence of Silesia; that she must also endeavor to obtain guaranties for the future which she had in vain expected from an alliance with Austria; that, as the German Confederation, in its present condition, did not promise to Prussia any federal aid, if she was attacked, she must exclusively rely on the States which were willing to render her aid without regard to the Confederation; that, therefore, she must inquire about the disposition of the several States; but that, in any case, Prussia must propose a reform of the political and military condition of the Confederation. To this note the minor States replied by referring to article 11 of the federal pact, by which the members of the Confederation are obliged not to carry on war against each other, but to bring their quarrels before the Diet, which would either mediate or call forth an austragal judgment," to which the litigant parties would have to submit without appeal.

The first armaments on the part of Prussia were ordered on the 27th and 29th of March. The battalions in the provinces which were most exposed were raised to their greatest strength on the peace footing; the field artillery was put upon the war footing, and the armament of the fortresses begun. Austria, in a note of March 31st, explained that all the movements of troops in Bohemia had simply taken place in consequence of the persecution of the Jews in several places, and that the Emperor had never thought of attacking Prussia. This declaration, Prussia asserted (April 6th), did not satisfy her, and she insisted on the purely defensive character of her armament. Austria replied (April 7th) that no military arrangements had been made which could be taken as preparations for a great war; that a discussion of the priority of the armaments was made superfluous by the declaration of the Emperor that he had never intended to make an attack upon Prussia, and that the amicable relations could be restored if only Prussia would be willing to disarm. Count Bismarck (April 15th) insisted that, as Austria had been the first to arm, she must be the first to disarm. Austria (Ápril 18th) agreed to accede to this demand of Prussia, and Bismarck (April 21st) promised to follow Austria step by step.

In the mean while, Prussia had concluded an offensive and defensive alliance with Italy, and consequently the latter power had also begun

to arm. When, therefore, Austria notified (April 26th) the Prussian Government that, according to agreement, she would disarm in Bohemia, but was compelled to make thorough preparations for defence in Venetia, Bismarck replied that he must insist upon the reduction of the entire Austrian army to a peace footing. He also expressed a regret that the Austrian Government had not accepted the proposition of Prussia conjointly to request the other Federal Governments to cease their armaments, and he announced that Prussia would demand from the neighboring Kingdom of Saxony an explanation of its warlike preparations.

While thus the negotiations for bringing about a mutual disarmament proved a failure, the discussion at Frankfort of the proposition made by Prussia in April, for a reform of the Federal Constitution, widened rather than contracted the breach between the two powers. A new Austrian note on the settlement of the Schleswig-Holstein question (April 26th), drew forth a reply from Prussia (May 1st and May 7th) declaring a readiness to treat with Austria concerning her claim to the Duchies, but declining to allow the interference of the German Diet or any other power. As the armaments on both sides uninterruptedly proceeded, Saxony, alarmed at the late Prussian note, moved at the Federal Diet (May 5th) that Prussia be requested to give appropriate assurances to the Diet with regard to article 11 of the federal pact. The motion was (on May 9th) adopted by 10 against 5 votes. A motion made by Bavaria, which showed itself very anxious to bring about a reconciliation, to request all the governments that had made warlike preparations for explanations, was likewise adopted, and the 1st of June fixed as the day on which the explanations should be given. The declarations given on that day by the representatives of the two great powers did not differ from those which had previously been made in the diplomatic notes exchanged between the cabinets; but matters became more seriously complicated by a declaration of Austria, that being unable to come to an understanding with Prussia on the Schleswig-Holstein question, she now referred the whole subject to the decision of the Federal Diet, which she was ready to abide by. Prussia, in reply, more emphatically than ever, declared that, if the Diet paid no attention to her proposition for a reform, which everywhere was regarded as necessary, Prussia must regard the Diet as incompetent to fulfil its mission, and resort to other measures. The announcement made by Austria, in the same sitting of the Diet, that the Austrian Governor of Holstein, General von Gablentz, had been instructed to convoke the Estates of Holstein, in order to hear the wishes of the people of the Duchies on their fate, was regarded by the Prussian Government as a direct violation of the Convention of Gastein, and called forth a sharp note from Count Bismarck to the diplomatic agents of Prussia (June 4th), in which he

charges Austria with a design of provoking war for the purpose of improving the desperate condition of the Austrian finances by Prussian war contributions or by an "honorable" bankruptcy. At the same time, the Prussian Governor of Schleswig, General von Manteuffel, was directed to march Prussian troops into Holstein as soon as the Austrian Governor of that Duchy should convoke the Estates. When, therefore, on June 5th, the order of convocation was issued, the Prussian troops in Schleswig entered Holstein (on June 7th), General von Manteuffel, at the same time, inviting General von Gablentz to reestablish with him a joint administration of the Duchies, as it existed before the Convention of Gastein. The Austrians deny that such an invitation was received, but the Prussians assert that it certainly was sent. As the isolated brigade of Austrian troops in Holstein was not strong enough to arrest the advance of the Prussians, it was ordered to withdraw-first into the southwestern corner of Holstein, and subsequently over Hamburg and Harburg to Hanover. The convocation of the Holstein Estates was prevented; the Prince of Augustenburg left Holstein in haste, and Prussia appointed a Schleswig-Holstein nobleman, Herr von Scheel-Plessen, as Oberpräsident (the name of the chief officer of civil administration in the Prussian provinces) of the two Duchies.

On June 11th, the representative of Austria in the Federal Diet, charged Prussia with having disturbed the federal peace, and moved the mobilization, within a fortnight, of the entire federal army, with the exception of the three army corps comprising the Prussian contingent. The army should be ready to march within twenty-four hours; reserve contingents and the chief command of the army should be provided for; and, for the execution of details, the military committee of the Diet should enter into communication with the federal military committee. A vote on the Austrian proposition was taken on June 14th, although it was objected by Mecklenburg that heretofore the Federal Diet had devoted to the most trifling subject at least three sittings-one to the proposition, one to the discussion, and one to the vote. The result of the vote was declared to be, by the president of the Diet, the adoption of the motion by 9 against 6 votes.

It is a remarkable circumstance that the most important resolution which has ever been passed by the Federal Diet, and which was to lead to the destruction of the Confederation, was not even carried by an undoubted majority. Of the seventeen votes ("curiae ") which ordinarily constituted the Diet, one, that of HolsteinLauenburg (the 10th curia), was dormant. The 13th curia (Brunswick and Nassau) was equally divided. In the 16th curia, which consisted of seven small States with equal shares in the aggregate vote-Lichtenstein, Waldeck, Reuss-Greiz, Reuss-Schleiz, Lippe, LippeSchaumburg, Hesse-Homburg-four States de

clared themselves for the Austrian proposition, and three against it. But as soon as the vote was published, the Government of SchaumburgLippe informed the Prussian Cabinet that it was against the motion, and disavowed its representative at Frankfort, who had voted for it. This change of vote would have put the 16th curia on the negative instead of the affirmative side. Deducting the votes of the 13th and 16th curiae, both of which were counted in to make up the majority of nine, there would only remain for the motion seven curiae, namely: the 1st (Austria), 3d (Bavaria), 4th (Saxony), 5th (Hanover), 6th (Würtemberg), 8th (Hesse-Cassel), 9th (Hesse-Darmstadt). Against the motion were cast the votes of the 7th curia (Baden), 11th (Luxemburg and Limburg), 12th (Saxe-Weimar, Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, Saxe-Altenburg, Saxe-Meiningen), 14th (the two Mecklenburgs), 15th (Oldenburg, Anhalt, the two Schwarzburgs), 17th, (the Free Cities).* If Prussia herself had voted, and if Lippe-Schaum burg had been allowed to change her vote, involving the change of the vote of the entire curia, the Austrian motion would have been rejected by 8 against 7 votes.

When the President of the Diet had proclaimed the adoption of the Austrian motion, the representative of Prussia rose to announce the action Prussia had resolved upon. Prussia, he said, regarded the adoption of the motion as a violation of the pact of confederation. The condition under which the federal law admits of "execution" against members of the Confederation had been altogether disregarded by Austria. Her conduct in Holstein had been equally contrary to federal treaties. The Diet ought not to have considered the motion at all. Its adoption proved to Prussia that the main object of the Confederation-the protection of the several members-was henceforth out of the question, and on that account Prussia must regard the Confederation as dissolved. But Prussia did not regard the national basis, on which the old Confederation had been reared, as destroyed, but it held fast to the unity of the German nation, and declared its readiness to enter, upon the basis of the Prussian draft of reform of June 10th, into a new Confederation with those governments who might wish it.

The Prussian manifesto was virtually a declaration of war. The available forces of the several belligerent parties, at this time, were about as follows: 1. Prussia.-The infantry of the guard had 4 regiments of guard infantry, 8 regiments of grenadiers, 1 regiment of fusileers, 1 battalion of chasseurs, 1 battalion of riflemen. The infantry of the line had 12 regiments of grenadiers (numbered 1 to 12), 8 regiments of fusileers (numbered 33 to 40), 52 regiments of infantry (numbered 13 to 32 and 41 to 72), and 8 battalions of chasseurs. On the peace footing, a regiment has 3 battalions; a battalion 4

Saxe-Meiningen and the City of Frankfort voted for the

Of the States constituting the 12th and 17th curiae,

motion.