The law supplies the motive, when it says, in its ancient phrase, "moved and seduced by the instigation of the Devil."

Some there are who doubt the motive of the father, and claim for him now the benefit of that doubt. Even if the motive of this criminal act were in question, as I insist that it cannot be, then do I say, that, in a case like this, when disloyalty is to be shut out of this Chamber, I give the benefit of doubt to my country.

There is another voice which sometimes reaches me. We are told, that, if the applicant be disloyal, then we may expel him. For myself, I prefer to take no such risk. Viewing the case as I do, I have no right to take any such risk. Disloyalty must be met at the door, and not allowed to enter in. The old verses, more than once repeated in our public discussions, are applicable now,

never more so:

"I hear a lion in the lobby roar:

Say, Mr. Speaker, shall we shut the door,
And keep him there? or shall we let him in,
To try if we can turn him out again?" 1

February 19th, after a debate of several days, Mr. Thomas was declared "not entitled to take the oath of office, or to hold a seat, as a Senator of the United States," Yeas 27, Nays 20.

1 Bramston, The Art of Politics, 162-165. See, ante, Vol. VI. p. 350; Vol. XI.

p. 6.

INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT.

LETTER TO A COMMITTEE IN NEW YORK, ON THIS SUBJECt, February 17, 1868.

FROM time to time International Copyright has occupied attention, and Mr. Sumner has often in correspondence expressed himself with regard to it. The following letter, in answer to an inquiry, was pub lished by a New York committee of the following gentlemen: George P. Putnam, S. Irenæus Prime, Henry Ivison, James Parton, Egbert Hasard.

SENATE CHAMBER, February 17, 1868.

Y DEAR SIR,- Pardon my delay. There are

MY

My two ways of dealing with the question of Inter

two ways

national Copyright, one by the treaty power, and the other by reciprocal legislation.

I have always thought that the former was the easier, but at the present moment the House of Representatives is not disposed to concede much to the treaty

power.

Mr. Everett, while Secretary of State, negotiated a treaty on this subject with Great Britain, which was submitted to the Senate, reported by the Committee on Foreign Relations, considered in the Senate, and finally left on the table, without any definitive vote.

I shall send you a copy of this treaty, which, I believe, has never seen the light.

I have always been in favor of an International Copy

right, as justice to authors and a new stage in the unity of nations. Perhaps the condition of public affairs at this time, the preoccupation of the public mind, the imminence of the Presidential election, and also the alienation from England, may present temporary obstacles. But I am sanguine that at last the victory will be won. If authors should have a copyright anywhere, they should have it everywhere within the limits of civilization.

Accept my best wishes, and believe me, dear Sir,

Faithfully yours,

CHARLES SUMNER.

JAMES PARTON, Esq., Secretary of the Committee.

THE IMPEACHMENT OF THE PRESIDENT.

THE RIGHT OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE PRO TEM. TO VOTE.

REMARKS IN THE SENATE, ON THE QUESTION OF THE COMPETENCY OF MR. WADE, SENATOR FROM OHIO, THEN PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE PRO TEM., TO VOTE ON THE IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT JOHNSON, MARCH 5, 1868.

MR.

R. PRESIDENT, I shall not attempt to follow learned Senators in the question whether this is a Senate or a Court. That question, to my mind, is simply one of language, and not of substance. Our powers at this moment are under the Constitution of the United States; nor can we add to them a tittle by calling ourselves a Court or calling ourselves a Senate. There they are in the Constitution. Search its text and you will find them. The Constitution has not given us a name, but it has given us powers; and those we are now to exercise. sole power to try impeachments. No matter for the name, Sir. I hope that I do not use an illustration too familiar, when I remind you that a rose under any other name has all those qualities which make it the first of flowers.

The Senate has the.

I should not at this time have entered into this discussion, if I had not listened to objections on the other side which seem to me founded, I will not say in error,

for that would be bold when we are discussing a question of so much novelty, but I will say founded in a reading of history which I have not been able to verify. Senator after Senator on the other side, all distinguished by ability and learning, have informed us that the Constitution intended to prevent a person who might become President from presiding at the trial of the President. I would ask learned Senators who have announced this proposition, where they find it in the Constitution. The Constitution says:

"When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside."

This is all; and yet on this simple text the superstructure of Senators has been reared.

The Constitution does not proceed to say why the Chief Justice shall preside; not at all; nothing of the kind. Senators supply the reason, and then undertake to apply it to the actual President of the Senate. Where, Sir, do they find the reason? They cannot find the reason which they now assign in any of the contemporary authorities illustrating the Constitution; they cannot find it in the debates of the National Convention reported by Madison, or in any of the debates in the States at that time; nor can they find it in the "Federalist." When does that reason first come on the scene? Others may be more fortunate than I; but I have not been able to find it earlier than 1825, nearly forty years after the formation of the Constitution, in the Commentaries of William Rawle. We all know the character of this work, one of great respectability, and which most of us in our early days have read and studied. How does he speak of it? As follows: