Indiana State Sentinel, Volume 23, Number 17, Indianapolis, Marion County, 28 September 1863 — Page 2

i . a - , 1st. Prescribing, bv the designation ol "dis- ;

WEEKLY SENTINEL. MONDAY, - - - - - - - - SEPT. 28.

A Democratic friend, professedly so at least, : finds fault with ns fo" publishing torn articles criticizing unfavorably the national currency act. His argument is, that we most bate a paper backing system, that it is a necessary evil, hence there should be no opposition to the proposed national banking scheme which received the sanction of Congress at its last session. We make oo war upon individuals who may engage in the business of banking under that law, but we oppose the system as at war witb every principle of sound political economy. The Democracy, under the lead of Jackso, made war ' against a national banking system as not only a dangerous political power, calculated to subvert and overthrow public . liberty, but aa a financial error. A currency which has no real aloe and which can be indefinitely expanded, must produce commercial revulsions, with the wido spread eril they occasion. A paper currency system may stimulate prosperity for a while, but it is an unhealthy excitement which is certain to meet with a prostrating reaction. The financial revulsions which have occurred in our national experience had their origin in an undue ex pansiou of private and public credit, as unsubstantial as the soap bubbliugs blown from a pipe. Is it wise statesmanship to base private and public enterprise upon a foundation of sand, which the first storm will wash away? .It is universal experience that the true basis of permanent nationl prosperity and progress is a currency of actual value. Is it not then an evidence of political wisdom and sagacity to adhere to principles and to a policy which will produce those results? And it is the duty of political parlies and public men, may we not say it should be their controlling object, to be guided by those principles and be governed by that policy which will best advance the welfare and the happiness of the people individually and collectively. The tendency of a national banking system is to centralize power. The fathers of the republic, in framing its governmental institutions, anticipated this danger, and guarded agaiost it by providing checks against encroachments upon popular rights and civil liberty from that source. The experience of the past two years has proven the the correctness of those apprehensions. The decline and fall of all free governments have had their origin in the assumption of despotic and arbitrary power by the central authorities. Unless the people of this country watch and resist these encroachments, our history will be like those of all other nations that have lost thei- liberties by permitting rulers to usurp power Believing that a vast paper currency system, such as is proposed nnder the national currency law, is a portion of the machinery to aid the centralisation of power, for that reason a e think it should find no favor with any ciiizeo who desire to perpetuate free institutions. Xbe Kallanal Debt. In addressing the great political gathering at Philadelphia last Thursday, Col. J. Ross SsowDix, late Director of the United States Mint, made some curious statements showing the magnitude of the financial operations of this Government, as follows: The national debt what is it now? Who can tell? An official statement recently published says that it amounted on the 30th of June last to one thousand one hundred and ninetv-teven millions two hundred and seventy four thousand three hundred and sixty-six dollars. It consists the of the following classes of obligations: Four per cent. 28,n5!t,2U5 F per cent ....... loi.2S7.8n9 M per ccut. ..... ...... 4S1.iT3,875 8ren and three-tenths percent. 189,920 soft Debts tiol bearing interest ........... 396,721,057 Total 1,197.274.366 But this frightful sum total does not include all the liabilities of the Government. I see in the newspapers of the day other items mentioned, namely: U S. certificates of indebtedness; new U. S. certificates ol indebtedness; order for certificate of indebtedness; Quartet masters' vouchers. The e and many other items constitute a floating däbt, most of which is not embraced in above fin mcial statement. Some ilea of the magnitude of the business of settling irtny paymasters' accounts may be in fetred fr m the fact that over one hundred and fifty vierV s are employed upon them at the office of the Second Auditor; yet, with all this force, there U a year and a h ill's accumulation of ac comits and claim in that office K we add to the above statement all the liabilities incurred lor war purposes since the 30th of Jane, and claim for damage, pensions, bounties, &c , &c, e will not overstate the total liabilities of the United State at the present time at two thousand millions of dollars. Pennsylvania U about one-tenth of the Union as it was." Her proportion of the national debt is, 1 therefore, two hundred millions of dollars. But if we impoverish and destroy the South, depopulate her cities, her towns and her plantations, the proportion of the debt to Pennsylvania will be increased fifty per cent.; making her liabilities Tor the war four hundred millions of dollars. The expenses of the General Government, for all purposes, at the present time exceed two millions ot dollars per d-y; that is, at the rte of more than seven hundred millions per annum. The internal revenue tax now levied is esiim tied at one hundred nd fifty millions of dollar. It is very, doubtful whether that nmount will be collected; but whe .her it is or not, these figures will show what an immense increase every month and every year of war will make to the above mentioned enormous amount of liabilities. The debt is now represented by a mere promise to pay, but it is ptyable in money, which the Constitution recognizes to be gold and silver. It will increase our understanding of the amount of the motiev I have named when we consider the weight of those amounts ia gold and ail ver The debt is now, sav two thousand millions of dollars; this to gold coin of the United States would wetgh three thousand eight hundred and seventyfive tons. (A ton of gold weighs about 3,685 pounds ) To move this amount on an ordinary road woild require 3.8d5 horses, or 921 wagons with four hordes. Silver weighs about fifteen times as much as gold. It would therefore re quire a greater force, In that proportion, to move the above amount if estimtted in that metal. -How much these amounts would weigh in pper, which has no intrinsic value, I havt no means of calculating. The valuation of all the property, real and personal, in Pennsylvania, as fixed by the Revenue Bo tri of lk6-J. is fire hundred and ninetysix millions of dollars. The ascertained and registered debt of the United States on the 3k!i of Jane last, alone, without reference to other debts and liabilities, is nearly twice as great as the whole value of the assessed property of this commonwealth! If we include the estimate) debts before referred to, inc oding claims for darmges, 4c, k , weihen have a debt more than fjur times the value of the property of II kinds in Pennsylvania, aa retorned by the Assessors to the County Commissioners This comparison also wiTl assist us to form some adequate idea ot the magnitude of the national debt. Again. Boston. In proportion to her population, is the riche-t cUv in the Untd "States. The total wealth of that city, as rectntly valued by the Assessors, is three hundred and two millions of dollars., The whole wealth of that city will not pay the expenses of the Government for much more than oue hundred days. Zaeh Chandler . The Cleveland Plain Dealer quotes the follow Ing choice passage from Zaca. Cba.tdlu's speech at Cleveland this week: "I ftank God we were defeated at Bull Run. "Let me tell yoa as sure as God's in Heaven and U devil's in hell, if you eWct Vallandigbam Governor the draft will be three times as great m it w'll be if you do not." ' It is rch men as this 7ach. Cbasdi, without brains, without educJ.n and without any jist appreciation of the nature of our political institutions, that are the leading spirits of the Republican ' party. When the . Government machinery is rua by engineers of that class, what Ise can be expected but disaster and rain.

Speech of tiro. XV . onk of I ytti,

Ohio, on Personal Liberty and the Arbitrary Arrest Trial and Itanith neni of lion. C. L. Vallandtgham Delivered at BellbrooKGreene Co; Ohio August 22 ' ' I propose, gentlemen, to confine myself upon this occasion to the di-cu-sion of a Single ques tion second in iuiporunce, however, to none that can be submitted to the consideration of a free people. Do we enjoy our personal liberty and the se curity of our homes under the guarantee ol the Constitution and laws of the country, or br the ufferance of the President of the Uuited States or any military officer he may place in command over usl The President himself, by bis own action, and by the act of his subordinates, has presented this issue for the decision of the people of Ohio at the pproaching election. Un the 24ih dayot September, lBtr-i, assuming an authority no where conferred upon him, but irectly forbidden, as I shall show by the Consti tution of the United States, he issued the following proclamation: WHEacAS, It has become necessary to call into service not enly volunteers, but also portions of the militia of the States by drait in order to suppress insurrection existing in the Uuited States, and disloyal persons are not adequately restrained by the ordinary process of law from hindering this measure and from giving aid and comfort in various ways to the insurrection; now, therefore. Be it ordered, 1st. That during the existing insurrection, and as a necessary measure for sup pressing the same, all rebels and insurgents, their aiders and abettor within the United States. nd all persons discouraging enlistments, resist ing militia drafts, or guilty of any disloyal prac tice, offering aid and comfort to the rebels against the authority of the United States, shall be sub ject to martial law, and liable to trial and punishment by court martial or military com mission. 2d. That the writ of habeas corpus is pus pended in regard to all persons arrested, or who are now or hereafter during the rebellion sh 11 be un prisoned in auy fort, arsenal, camp, military prison, or other place ol connnement, oy any m Iitary authority or by sentence ol any courtmartial or military commission. In witness whereof, I have hereunto set ray hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed. Done at the c'.tv of Washington this 21th day of September. 1662, and of the independence of the United States the eightv seventh. (Signed:) ABRAHAM LINCOLN. By the President; W. H Sawaao, Secretary of State. On the bth dav of August previous to the issuing of this Presidential proclamation, Uts sub ordinate, Edwin M. Stanton, Secretary of War, issued the following order: Waa Dtp artmk. st, Washington. D. C 1 August 8, lSb2 Ordered,!. I hat all the United States Alar shals and Superintendents or Chiefs of Police of any town, city or district, be and they are hereby authorized and directed to arrest or imprison any person or persons who may be engaged by act, or speech, or writing, in discouraging volunteer en istments, or in any way giving aid or comfort to the enemy, or in any other disloyal practice against the United States. 2 That immediate report be made to Major L C. Turner, Judge Advocate, in order that such persona may be tried by a military commission. 3. I he expenses of such arrest and imprison ment will be certified to the Chief Clerk of the War Department for settlement and payment. (Signed:) iowix M öta.xtox. Secretary of War. On the 13th day of April, lc63. General A E. Burnside. placed in command of what had been designated as the "Department of the Ohio," assuming a military jurisdiction over all citizens and persons, as well as soldiers, within the limits of that "Department," in furtherance of the policy of the Presideut.us indicated by the foregoing proclamation, Issued his General Order Ho. 33, to wit: HlADQCAkTEES DePAETMXNT Of THE OHIO,) Cincinnati, Ohio, April 13, lt&3. ( General O jVe. 3d J. be "inding Ueneral publishes, tor the intornr f. all concerned, that hereatter all persoiaouArwithin our lines who commit acts lor th benefit of the enemies of our couutry. will be tried as spies or traitors, and if convicted will suffer death. This order includes the lolloping class of persons: Carriers of secret mails. Writers of letter pent by secret mails. Secret recruiting officers within the lines. Persons who have entered into an agreement to pass our lines for the purpose of joining, the enemy. Persons found concealed within our lines be longing to the service of the enemy; and in fact, all persons found improperly within our lines who could give private inform t ion to the enemy. All persons within our lines who harbor, pro tect, conceal, feed, clothe, or in any way aid the enemies of our country. The habit of declaring sympathies for the enemy will not he allowed in this Departmrnt Persons committing such offences will be at once an es ted, with a view to be tried as above stated, or sent bevond our lines luto the lines of their friends. It must be distinctly understood that treason. expressed or implied, will not be tolerated in this Department. All officers and soldiers are strictly charged with the execution of this order. By command ol M;jor General Burnside. LEWIS RICHMOND, Assistant Adjutant General. Official: D. R. Larned, Cant, and A. A. G. On the 1st day of My, 1H63, Hon. C. L Val landigham, in the exercise of his constitutional rieht as a citizen of the State of Ohio and of the United States, addressed a large assembly of his fellow citizens at Mount Vernon, who met peace ably together to take counsel together concern ing the distracted state of the country. He criticised, as he had a right to do, and as I now propose to do, the policv of the measures re sorted to by the Administration in the suppression of the rebellion. He denounced Order No. 33 as a base usurpation of "arbitrary authority ,Htid am n ' other things asserted thu the men in power were attempting to establish a despotism in this country more cruel and oppre-sive than ever existed before propositions which I now undertake to assert and prove to be true. For the language used in that speech, garbled from it by an unskillful reporter, Mr. Vallan digham was arrested by virtue of the following order: UlAlXJUARTERS DEPARTMENT OF TBI OHIO Cincinnati, Ohio, May 4, 1863. Capt. Charit G. Hutton.A. D C , SfC.: Carraix; You will proceed at once to Dayton, Ohio, by special train, and cause the arrest of the Hon. Clement L. Vallandigham. after which you will at o.ice return to these Head quarters. . loa will confer ith the Provost Marshal, who will await your arrival at Dayton, and see that the arrest is made as quietly as possible. Capt. Murray will accompany you an 1 render you any assistance you may request of him. The Superintendent of the C, 11. & D. Ii. K. will make all the necessary arrangements tor trains upon your showing him this order. You will endeavor to arrive here before daylight tomorrow morning. Muvh discretion is allowed to your good judg ment in this matter. By command of Major General A.E Burnside. D. R. Larned, Capt. and Asst. Adjt. General. The arrest was made between two and three o'clock In the morning; it was made by violence, aud the prisoner was hurried off upon a special train, to reach Cincinnati "before daylight.' On Wednesday, the 6th of May, he was brought from prison before a military commission, upon the folowing CHARGE: "Publicly expressing. In violation of General Orders No 38, from Headquarters Department of the Ohio, sympathy for those in arms against the United States, and declaring disloyal sentiments and opinions with the object and purpo-e of weakening the power of the Government in its efforts to suppress an unlawful rebellion." Upon his arraignment before hU military com mission, the accued asked delay to procure counsel, stating that he was engaged In preparing his plea, and required advice. The reply was that he would be required to plead "Guilty" or "Not Guilty," and that half an hour would be allcwed him to procure counsel, when the com mission would proceed to hear the evidence for the prosecution. The trial proceeded, he was found guilty, and sentenced to be banished to the territory of the Southern Confederacy. I have thu presented to you In full, gentlemen, the evidence of the authority assumed by the President of the United S'ates and his subordi nates over the liberty of private citizens, and the exercise of that authority in a single instance that is destined to historical importance. By the President's refusal to release Mr. Vallandigham upon a solemn appeal made to him. he has asaumed the justification of hi arrest and cuniahment thereby.

loyal practice," a new crime unknown U- the Constitution or criminal jurisprudence ot the

countrv. - . 2d. Superseding the necessity of an accusation upon oath, and the issuing of legal warrant. 3d. Conferring upon a military or police officer the important function of judging wkmt shall be regarded as a disloyal practice; and. 4tn. Arrogating to himself aud delegating to hia subordinates the discretionary power to imprison any citizen for any length of time inde pendent and in denauce of all judicial process. ,-1 propose to show that this extraordinary claim . is purely despotic and unconstitutional that it is in violation of the sacred right that has been sanctified by the struggles of our ancestors, at. various periods of English history, for the last six hundred years; and, finally, has been so ex pressly guaranteed to us by the provisions of our fundamental law, that its violation can be regarded in no other light than that of monstrous usurpation. nea Mr. Lincoln entered upon the duties of President he took the following oitth: "1 do solemnly swear that 1 will faithfully execute the office of President of the Uuited States, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." . - The following provisions are embraced i.a the amerdmeuü to that instrument: ARTICLE IV. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizure shall not be violated; aud no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath of affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the person or things to be seized. ARTICLE T. No person shall be held to answer for a capital or other infamous crime unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases" arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia when in active service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be ubject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any crimi nal case to be a witness against himself; nor be deprived of life, liberty or property without, due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation. article n. In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy public trial by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law; and to be informed of the nat.are and cause of the accusation to be confronted with witnesses against him to have compulsory process for ob taining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. These provisions so distinctly asserting and protecting the right of personal security from arbitrary or despotic authority, were not in the Constitution as it came originally from the convention which framed it not, however, because, there was any dissenting voice to the doctrines they embraced but only because they were con eidered to be so universally admitted, that their express recognition in the Constitution was unnecessary. Such, however, was the jealousy of arbitrary power existing in some of the States, that a number of them in the convention called to consider the question of the adoption of the Con stitution insisted upon these declatory and restrictive clauses, to prevent misconstruction and abuse of power. They were, therefore, proposed by Congress, and submitted to the several States for their ratification, and thus became a part, and, indeed, the crowning glory ol the Constitution. W hv, then, was it that. those illustrious men, fresh from the struggles of our own revolution, insisted upon the incorporation of these provisions into our fundamental law? Do you suppose it was simply because they imagined that sometime thereafter a free people might become the betrayed victims of arbitrary power? Do you suppose that those men were not enlightened in the history of that illustrious people from whom they derived their origin, and the model of their civil and political institutions? If you will continue to give me your attention, gentlemen, I will show you from the indisputable record of history why it was that the fathers of this republic placed in our fundamental law those priceless and sacred guarantees of personal liberty. I will show you. from that impartial record, in which the guilt of tyrants is fearlessly gibbited for the eternal execration and instruction of mankind, that the struggle between roval prerogative and executive authority, upon the one side, and a liberty loving people upon the other, commenced as far back as the year 1215, and that that struggle was continued with various vicissitudes until the age of our own revolution, when Lord Chatham could assert in the British House of Commons that there was not a man to be found of sufficient profligacy to defend an arbitrary arrest upon the principal of legality. And now, gentlemen, if you will foilow me, I will present the historical proof: In the year 1215, on the 1 5th of June, the Barons of England assembled in arms on the banks of the Thames, at Runnymede, and compelled their Sovereign, King John, to sign, with his own hand, a document which we would now call a written constitution. I have thtt celebrated document in my hand, and it is called MAGNA CHARTA. It consists of seventy-eight articles, and was designed to define the rights of all classes of the English people, and to prescribe proper limitationa to the roval authority.. Its forty fifth arti cle ia in the-e noble words: "No freeman shall be laken, or imprisoned, or disseiged, or outlawed, or banished, or nnywavs injure!; uor will we pass upon him, nor send upon him. unl-ss by the legal judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land." In that language is the germ of those provisions I have read to von from the Constitution of the United States, it is the written guarantee of the liberty of the individual man, his exemption from injury or harm, except by the judgment of his equals and by the law of the land. King John was compelled too, by the terms of the 69ih article of this charter, in case of his own delinquency, to abide by all its provisions to admit the right of his subjects to "distrain and distress him in all ways possible;" to seize his chst!es, lands, possessions, and in any other manner they can, until the grievance is redressed to their pleasure. This gteat charter has been regarded and recognized in all succeeding ages of the British monarchy as the foundation, the very cornerstone in the edifice of their liberties. It has been revered by British statesmen, and has been appealed to with success in all the contests between popular rights and royal prerogative. It was confirmed in the twenty fifth year of the reigu of Edward I, in the year 1297, by a statute which Mr. Hillam (a historian from whom I will quote more copiously hereafter,) says "added another pillar to the English Constitution, not less important than the great charter itself." During the reigns of Edward II and III, despotic power upon various occasions began to show itself by asserting the right of arbitrary arrests for the alleged crime of treason, t he crime of high treason seems to have been of a very vague and indefinite nature, determined only by the construction of the courts, which sought chief! v to gratify the malice or vengeance of the King.It was something like Ueneral Burnside a treason" "expressed," or "implied" not the "treason" of the Constitution ol the United State, which ia defined in these words: Art. 3, Section 3. "Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court." The Parliament of Edward III, declaring that "the King's Judges in different counties adjudge men indicted before them to be traitors for divers matters not known by the Commons to be trea sonable," J making speeches, perhaps,) demanded the enactment of a law which should define"what should be held for treason," and the consequence was the patg of the celebrated Statute of Tre isona. h the twenty filth vesr of the reign of Edward III. A. D. 1350. When King Henry VII came to the throne in the year 14tt5, (more than a century afterward and seven years before the discovery of this continent in 1492.) among the essential check upon the royal authority mentioned by Mr. Halhm, from whose "Conslitutionnl History of England" I will now read, were these: 3d No man could be committeJ to prison but by a legal warrant specifying his offense; and. by a usage nearly tantamount to constitutional right, be must he speedilv brought to trial by means of regular sessions of jail delivery. 4th. The f-ct of guilt, or innocence, on-a criminal charge, was determined in a public court, and in the county where the offense was alleged to have occurred, by a jury .of twelve men from whose unanimous verdict no appeal could be made. 5th. The officers nd servants of the Crown, violating the personal liberty, or other rights of the subject, might be sued In an action for damages, to be assessed bj a jury, or in tome case

ere liable to criminal process; nor could they

plead any warrant or command in their justifica tlon, not even the direct order of the King. Here, then, vou have the testimony of history that, nearly lour hundred years ago a King of England dared not do what Ambrose E. Burnside has done, in the exercise of a power dele giied to him by the sworn defender ol the Constitution of the United States! In these limitations upon the royal authoritv. tqu can not fail to observe the very essence of the provisions of our own Constitution; guarding personal liberty with the protection of a legal warrant, specifying the offense of the accused, ith a fair trial in a public court in the county where the offense wea committed and by a jury of twelve men. Look now to the language of President Lin coin's proclamation, to the language of General Urder no. 3p, and the authority under which a subordinate officer executed it upon C. L Val Inndigham. then turn to the articles of the Constitution I have read and behold the irrefutable and disgraceful evidences of an arbitrary and despotic power that was forbidden even to a King of England four hundred years agol But come with me down to a later period of time in English history. The reign of Queen Elizabeth in the latter part of the sixteenth century was distinguished for the encroachments of royalty upon the liberty of the subject. State trials were conducted with most notorious injustice. Mr. Hallam says "that the glaring transgressions of natural as well as posiuve law rendered the courts of justice in cases of treason little better thai- the c iverns of murderers." He further savs that "it can not be too frequently repeated that no power of arbi trary detention has ever been known to the English Constitution since the Charter obtained at Runnymede. The writ of habeas corpus has always been a matter of right but as may naturally be imagined, no right of the subject, in his relation to the crown, was preserved with greater difficulty. Not only the Privy Council in gen eral arrogated to itself a power of discretionary imprisonment, into which no inferior court was to inquire, but commitments by a single counsellor appear to have been frequsrot." so grievous did this evil become, that even the Judges, who held their offices at the pleasure of the Crown, addressed a remonstrance and complaint to Sir. Charles Hat-vrn, the Chancellor, and Lord Burleigh, bulh Ministers of the Queen Here is part of the language of that remarkable document: "We, Her Majesty's Justices of both Benches and Barons of the Exchequer, desire your Lord ships that by vour good means such order may be taken that Her Highness' subjects may not be committed or detained in prison bv command ment of any nobleman or counsellor, against the laws of the realm." Is it not humiliating that we must go back to the despotic reign of Elizabeth to find exmtples ol the lawless outrages of which we complain to day? But even the judici 1 subserviency of that cotoriouslv corrupt age did not descend to the level reached by a Judge of the Circuit Court of the United State, who, so far from remon strating against the commitment and detention of a free citizen, (not by commandment of any nobleman or counsellor, but by the arbitrary or der of a commanding General,) actually refused to release him upon the pre it writ of right, and remanded him to the custody of his jailors! But further: It is to the reign of Elizabeth that Mr. Lincoln is indebted for the idea of the proclamation he issued on the 24th day of September, 18G2, which I have read, whereby he "arrogated to himself and delegated to his subordinates "a power of discretionary imprisonment into which j no inferior court was to inquire. In sneaking of this infamous proclamation, the I historian says: "No other measure of Elizabeth reign can be compared in point of violence and illegality to a commission issued in July, 1595, directed to Sir Thomas Wilford, whereby upon no other allegation than that 'there had been of late sundry great unlawful assemblages (public meetings perhaps, like that held at Mount Vernon,) of a number of base people of a riotous sort, Sic, it was found necessary to have some such notable rebellious persons to be speedily suppressed by execution and death, 'according to the justice of martial law;'and he is therefore appointed Provost Marshal.' " a name quite familiar to us in these latter tines, to carry out the atrocious purposes of this arbitrary and illegal order. The encroachment of the royal pemgative during the reign of Elizabeth, and her successor, James the First; and the arbitrary conduct of Charles the First, upou his accession to the throne, led to the celebrated "PETITION OF RIGHT, Which waa granted in the third year of his reign, A.D. 1627. Chart- having broken up Parliament, and dissolved it, was compelled to resort to forced loans lor means to carry on the govern ment. . The arbitrary exaction of money by the King, without the authority of Parliament, was a violation of the established Constitution of England, no less gross than the infringement of the right of personal liberty. Having committed the first without hesitation, he did not scruple to incur the responsibility of the latter. Five of his subjects, being all men of some distinction, Darnel, Corbet, Earl, Heveningham nnd Hampden, having refused to accede to the forced loan, the King arrogated to himself this power of discretionary imprisonment, which Mr. Lincoln arro gates to himself today, and casts them into prison. These men, like Mr. Vallandigham, determin ed to resist what they believed tobe the encroachmet t of arbitrary power, appealed to he Court of King's Bench for the writ of h ibc-as corpus. The writ was granted. The officer having custody of the prisoners returned that they were de tained by a warrant from the Privy Coined, informing him of no particular cause of imprison ment, hut that they were committed by command of His Majesty. Mr. Vallandigham was arrested by ommmd of Major General Burnside, and when he was called upon to state the cause of his arrest and detention, he could show no warrant, no affidavit, or any other legal process whatever against the accused. Now, let us see what is written in authentic history about this great habeas cord us case, that occurred in England more than two centuries and a quarter ago. The historian says: "This g!ve rise to a most Important question, whether ruch a return was sufficient to justify the Court in remitting the tmities to custody. The fundamental immunity of English ubjec'ts from arbitrary detention had never before been so fully canvassed; and it is to the discussion which arose out of the ce of these five gentle men that we owe its continual assertion by Parliament and its ultimate establishment in full practical efficacy by the statute of Charles II." The counsel for the prisoners grounded their demand for liberty on the original basis of Magna Chrt-, the 45th section of which provides ih:U no freeman shall lie taken or imprisoned unless by the lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land. Ample proof ws brought from the old law books that the King's command could not excuse an illegal act. "If the King commands me," said one of the Judges under Henry VI, "to arrest a man, and I arret him, he shall have an action of false imtrisonnjent against ine, though it was done in the King's presence" ... The power of Charles was sufficient, however, to overawe the Court, and after a full and able discussion of the principles governing the case, which bore the legitimate fruit of liberty in future time, as I will presently show, the Court remanded the prisouers to custody, as Mr. Vallandigham was remanded to the custody of General Burnside. Perhaps it was urged by the Crown lawyer of that day, that the "life of the English nation wa at stake," inasmuch as if Charles was not permitted to exact forced loans from his sub jects, his government would have to go down for want of supplies. But whatever may have been the considerations that prevailed with the Court, let me read to you the impartial verdict of history upon this celebrated case. Hallam says: "It was evidently the cousequence of this de cision, that every statute from the time of the Magna Charta, designed to protect the personal liberties of Englishmen, became a dead letter, since the insertion of four words in a warrant (per ptcil mandatum regit.) which might become matter of form, would control their remedial efficacy And this wound was the more deadly, in that the notorious cause of these gentlemen's imprisonment was their withstanding an iMegal exaction of money." What think yon will be the verdict of history, when it is recorded that the cause of Mr. Vallandighnm's imprisonment was the exercise of free speech at a public meeting of his fellow citizens, when it Is written in the first article of the a mend menu to the Constitution of the United States that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech or of the pre', or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for redress of grievances " . But I return to the history of the petition of right. "Neiiher the measures of illegal severity toward the uncompliant, backed by a timid court of justice, nor the exhortations of a more prostitute and shameless band or, churchmen, could divert the nation from Its cardinal point of faith in lis own prescriptire franchises." A new Par

liament assembled. The matters of complaint boldly addressed to the King were:

First The exaction of money uuder the name of loans.' Second The commitment of those who re fused compliance arid the late decision of the Cing's Bench, remanding them on habeas corpus. Third The billeting of soldiers on private persons, lor couveuience or lor intimidation or annoyance. fourth Commissions to try offenders by mar tial law. . . v . , : The people of England were profoundl v agita ted. Thev were determined that the King should be compelled by a signal act, to recog-' titze those sacred rights for which their ancestors had successfully contended, and which were , handed down to tbem as their prescriptive fran chises. In this great act there was no equivocation. Iu regard to personal liberty, alter reciting the provision of Magna Charta and the act of Ed ward III, to which I have referred, whereby it was declared that no mau, of whatever state or condition, should be injured in any wise, or imprisoned, without being brought to answer by due process of law. It holds the following language: "V. Nevertheless, against the tenor of the said statutes, and other the good laws and statutes of your realm to that end provided, divers of your subjects have been of late imprisoned with cut any cause showed, and when for their deliverance they were brought before justice, by your Majesty's writs of habeas corpus, there to undergo and receive as the cou-ts should order, and their keepers ordered to certify the causes of their detainer, no cause was certified but that they were detained by your Majesty's special command, signified by the Lords of your Privy Council, and yet were returned back to several prisoners without being charged with any thioe to which they might make answer according to law." It is thus, gentlemen, that the history of the despotism of Charles I is repeating itself under the admimstra'ion of Abraham Lincoln. There is, in the first place, the illegal and unconslitational exercise of Executive authority, the exercise of the power of discretionary imprisonment, without legal warrant, and the refusal ol a servile or intimidated court to release upon habeas corpus. Let us tiow see what the Commons of England demanded and what they received io this crisis of the cause of constitutional liberty; perhaps we may derive encouragement as well as instruction from their manly and patriotic conduct. They demanded, in Parliament, that no freeman, in any such manner as is before mentioned, be imprisoned or detained; that the aforesaid commissions, for proceeding by martial law, may be revoked and annulled, and that hereafier no commissions of. like nature may issue forth to any person or persous whatsoever, to be executed us aforesaid " To this celebrated Petition of Right the King was constrained to yield his assent. It was called a "petition of right" as implying that it contained only a corroborrtion or explanation of the ancient constitution, and not any infringement of royal prerogative, or acquisition of new liberties. A I have said, gentlemen, this monument of English liberty was established in the year 1627; aud now, to show you that its guarantee of personal security was regarded as a birthricht of Englishmen, I will call your attention to the . provisions of a code or system of law established by the British colonists in Massachusetts, in the year Ib41 . This remarkable code I have in my hand, and it is called TUE MASSACHUSETTS BOUT Or LIBKBT.'ES. This document embraces ninety eight sections, the verv first one of which reads as follows: "1. No man's life shall be taken away; no man's hon'r, or god name, shall be stained; no man's person shall be arrested, restrained, ban ished or dismembered . under color of law or countenance of authority, unless it be by virtue or equity of some express law warranting the same, est -iblished by a general court sufficiently published." Lc. At this period, a seve-e struggle was in progress between Charles I and the Euglish Commons. That monarch, by the pertinacity of his efforts to trample down the chartered liberties of his people, at leujrh received tbepunishmentdue his crimes, and suffered death on the block in the year 1648. The Commonwealth under Cromwell and his son Richard followed, and the House of Stuart was rnstored to the throne afterward, in the person of Ch -rles II. It was during the reign of this King, in the year 1679, that the celebrated statute was passed, entitle! THC HABEAS CORPUS ACT. In reference to this act Mr Htllam says that "It is a very common mistake among Englishmen, as well as foreigners, to suppose that this statute enlarged in a great degree our liberties, and forms a sort of epoch in their history. But though a very beneficial enactment, and eminently remedial in many cases of illegal im prison rdt-nt, it introduced no new principle, nor conferred any right upon the subject. From the earliest records of the English law. no freeman could be detained in prison, except upon a criminal charge or conviction, or for a civil debt. " In the former case, it was always in his power to demand of the Conn of King's Bench a writ of h ibe i corpus, directed to the person detaining him in custody, by which he was enjoined to bring up the body of the prisoner, with the warrant of commitment, that the court might jmLc of its sufficiency and remand the party, admit him to biil, or lisch trge him according to the nature of the charge. The writ issued tl right, and could not be refused by the court. It w.-i not to bestow an immnniiT from arbitrary imprisonment (which is abundantly proTided in Magna Chirta, if indeed it were not much more ancient), but to cut off the abuses by which the ()'veriiniut's lust of power, and the servile suMlety o' the Crown lawyers, had impaired so fundamental. privilege." This extract lffi iently explains the object of that celebrated statute. Immunity from arbitrary imprifOiiment wki regarded as a right, concerning which there could be no dispute and heu the line of succession was afterward broken hv the Inlic itiini of James II, and William and Mary culled to the throne in the year 16S8, this, together with all the other ancient rights and liberties of the English people, was agai;i confirmed Jo thorn by a written instrument, which called a new dyn taty to the throne, denominated the BILL OK RIGHTS. Thi ilncumiit, w:w pre-tired by a committee, of which L rd Sorner, afterward Lord Chancellor, was Cmirmin The new Sovereign was made distinctly to understand that the Crown was held by act of I'trli ment and n-t by ii.defeasible aud d-vine r'uh', und tint he was called to the throne exprs-ly to maintain those ancient liberties of the people, by violating which his predecessors of the House of S u art h id lost it. I have thus tdiowu you, geutlemeu, by these copious relerences to English history, fiat from the most ancient t ime the exemption of a subject of th? British Crown from arbitrary arre-t and imprisonment has been regarded as a sacred aud never to be-surrendered right. It was first distiuctly asserted in that most ancient relic of the documentary history of English liberty, Magna Charta, in 1215 confirmed afterward in 1297, guarded by the Statute of Treason in 1350, again asserted in the Petition of Right in 1627, recognized in the Massachusetts Body of Liberties in 1641; again protected in England by the habeas corpus act of Charles the second in 1679, and confirmed again by the Bill of Rights iu. 1663, an act declaring the rights and liberties of the sub ject, and settling the succession of the Crown It must not be supposed, however, that this sacred right remained during these successive pe Hods uninfringed by despotic power. On the contrary, it was by reason of those infringments that its reiteration and reassertion became necessary. The practice of issuing Government warrants, "one ot the remnants of a jurisprudence which : favored prerogative at the expense of liberty," was occasionally exercised until the reign of George the Third, when. Mr. Hallam says, "it received its death blow from the boldness of Wilkes and the wisdom of Lord Camden. In the fourth article of the amendments to the Constitution of the United States, you will remember, it is provided that the right of the peo pie to be secure in their-persons. houses, papers and effect agiinst unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; snd no warrant shall issue but upon probible cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the person or things to be siezed. ' . ' ' This provision was placed ir. our Constitution in the year 1788. I need not remind you that it was grossly violated in the seizure of Mr. Vallandigham and the breaking iu of his house. I will direct vour attention to the case in England In 1763, which suggested the insertion of this important guarantee in our fundamental law. On the 21d of April, 1763, there appeared in England the 45th number of a newspaper called the North Briton. ' It contained an article that was regarded by the Ministry as defamatory and libelous upon the Government, (equivalent probably to the discouragement of enlistments, or some other "disloyal practice") and Lord Hallfax, one of the Secretaries of State, arrogated to

himself the right to issue a warrant directing four messengers, "taking with them a constable,

to search for the authors, printers and publishers of the obnoxious paper, to apprehend and seize them, together with their papers, and bring tbem before him." 'Armed with this roving commission, these officers seemed to have been as indus trioua aa modern Provost Marshal like them. "lietsnmcr to idle tales rumnrsanri rurinua crneaa - - - e-" es; tney arrested in tnree aays not less man forty-nine persons on suspicion. From some of these, they ascertained that John n ilkes, a member of Parliament, was the author of the obnoxious article; and the messengers were di rected to arrest him. They did so, and took him before Lord Halifax, after ransacking his drawers and seizing hia private ppers. He was committed to prison, and afterward released on habeas corpus, by reasou of his privilege as a member of the House of Commons. The question of the legality of the warrant now came before the courts of England, in writs brought against the messengers concerned in the arrest, by three whom thev had arrested. In the first trial Lord Chief Justice Pratt decided that a general warrant was illegal, and that the messengers were not indemnified by statute. Mr. Wilkes bimself sued Mr. Wood, one of the Secretaries of State, and recovered &5.0U0 damages against him. Lord Chief Justice Pratt thus spoke of the warrant: "The defendant claimed a right, under precedent, to force per wns". houses, break open escre toires, and eize their papers upon a general war rant. " If such a power is trulv vested in a Secretary of State; and he can delegate it to another, it certainly may affect the person and propertv of every man in this kiigdom. and is totally subversive of the liberty of the subject This, with other cases, afterward came before the Court of King's Bench, and Lord Mansfield pronounced a judgment against the legality of such proceedings, which was concurred in bv the 0'her judges. Mr. Wilkes afterward sued Lord Halifax for false imprisonment, and recovered $2(1.000 damages! It is this identical power of discretionary im prionment. thus pronounced against over and over again in the struggles for constitutional lib erty in England, that is claimed to day by the Administration of Abraham Lincoln. It was but recently that Mr Seward made the boast to Lord Lyons, the British Minister, that "he could touch a bell at his right hand and or der the arrest of a citizen of Ohio; that he could touch a bell at his left and order the arrest of a citizen of New York, and that no power on earth, save that ot the President, could release tbem. My Lord, can '.he Queen of England do as much?" Well might the British Minister have replied to this disgraceful and infamous boast. Jio. sir, the Queen of England is a constitutional monarch, and assumes to exercise no authority not conferred upon her by the English Constitution. Still less would she dare to arrogate to herself the power of discretionary imprisonment a power only assumed by the most profligate and despotic of her predecessors, and incompatible with the liberty of an English subject. It was for the assumption of powers akin to this that Charles the First lost his head, and James the Second his Crown. No, sir, the Queen of Eng land could not do as much: for, as Lord Chat ham has eloquently said, "The poorest man in his cottage can defy all the powers of the British Crown. It may be frail, its roof may shake, the wind may blow through it, the storm may enter it but the King of England cannot enter it. He cannot, with all his power, cross the threshold of that ruined tenement. I have now shown you, my fellow -citizens, the constitutional provisions under the hitherto sacred guarantee of which we have enjoyed our personal freedom and the security of our homes I have traced tl e history of those provisions through the vicissitudes of the English monarchy for a penod of six hundred jears; I have shown you how pertinaciously arbitrary power baa sought to arrogate to itself this dangerous privilege of dis cretionary imprisonment, and how it has been foiled, time and time again, by the bold and courageous resistance of a liberty-loving people. It was in the full light of these historical struggles that the framers of our noble Constitution acted when thev placed the articles I have read to you in our fundamental taw. I should but weary your patience were I to refer to the repeated and reiterated assertion of this sacred right of personal immunity from arbitrary arrest and im orison ment, contained in the constitutions and bills ot rights ot the several states. It is one of the great, if not the most prominent. characteristics of our American system of gov ernment. Let me not be told that these guarantees were not designed to apply to a time of war or public danger, but only in peace, when no occasion would arise for their application! It was amid the throes of domestic revolution that they had their birth; it was because arbitrary power had arrested and imprisoned free men without warrant, that the protection of a warrant and due legal process was guaranteed; it was because men had been convicted by military commissions that a jury of twelve men was prescribed as the only tribunal that could pronounce upon the liberty or life of a citizen, not in the land or naval forces of the United States, or in the militia when in actual service, intime of war or public danger: it was because men's houses had beenroken into and the sanctity of of their homes violated in time of domestic commotions, that it became necessary to provide thaf no such outrages should be tolerated, unlet under a warrant legallj sworn out. specifying distinctly the grounds, pur poses and objects of the search. In times of domestic quiet there is no temptation to the com aaaa mission of these outrages; it is only when the demon of fraternal d'scord has been loosed in a community when d.irk suspicion, false imputa tions and vindictive hate usurp the place of en lightend justice in the breasts of men, th it thoe who find themselves invested with authoritv will strive to use it oppressively. It is from the ve atmosphere of insurrection and discord that these sacred guarantees of person ard property derive a vital power trat gives them emcacy. Exemption from punishment for committed crime, no man has anv right to claim; but ex eruption from punishment, unless by due process of law, the vilest criminal that can be arraigned has a right to demand. It is a right sacrel, be cause it is designed to protect the innocent it cannot be violated, under any circumstances, without danger to our liberties. Despotic power is never at a loss for plausible pretext? to justify or excuse its encroachments. Mr. vallandig ham's case to-dar may be mine or yours to morrow. Military necessity is a plea capable of illimitable extension. Its recognition is despot ism. If we yield the guarantees of our written Constitution, we are the helpless victims of an irresponsible power. I have the authority of Mr Clay for asserting that "if there be a des cription of rights which more than any other should unite all parties, in all parts of the Union, it is unquestionably the liberty of the person No matter what his vocation whether he seeks subsistence among the dangers of the deep, or draws it from the bowels of the earth, or from the humblest occunations of mechanic li e; whenever the sacred rights of an American citi zen are assailed, all hearts ought to unite, and every arm should be braced to vindicate his cause." I have not spoken of the causes of the rebel lion, nor of the policy of its suppression by arms I am not one of those who believe the guilt of this terrible calamity is all upon one side. As the desolation and suffering is sent by Providence alike upon the North and South, so do I believe that the North and S inth are both In a great, if not an equal degree responsible for it. A disregard of the great principles of justice between man and man, citizen and citizen, is at the hot torn of this whole controversy. , Recrimination, however, can never lead to its satisfactory settlement It is not only by self accusation and open .confessions on both sides that a Union such as existed before can ever be again attained. Upon these topics I have refrained from entering. From all the mighty quetioos involved in the present struggle, I have selected a single one, but it is one which concerns you more vitally than any other for what shall it avail yuu if the South Is conquered nnd desolated if you are to betheJaves of arbitrary power? If you shall be liable to be torn from your house and family, under the order of a Provost Marshal, in defiance of the guarantees which the Constitution and laws of your country have prescribed for your protection, what is there left that is worth living for? . But I can not believe, mv fellow citizen, that the cause of constitutional liberty as involved in this struggle here smong us to day for the right of personal immunity from arbitrary arrest and punishment, after itssignal triumphs in psstages, will meet with discomfiture in this. Those pre scriptive franchises that were strugnled for as the birthright of our ancestors, and were made secure to us by express constitutional provision, will yet emerge resplendent from the smoke and carnage of this terrible revolution, and will be reasserted again here, as they have been time and again iu England, in a new and solemn act of popular sovereignty. Tou are to pronounce your judgment upon .. this momentous issue when you deposit your votes at the approaching election. The crisis is here. "A breach has been made in the Constitution the battlements are dismantled the citadel is open to the first

invader the walls totter what remains, theo.

but for us to und foremost in the breach, and to aiTAia it, oa raaisH witb it." Special CorrerpoixleBc af U Cincinnati Gaiett. The" Army cf the Cumberland. BATTLES OF CHICKAMATJGA. Desperate Engagements on Saturday - and Sunday. -, A Partial List of Casualties. HcADquaaTEas Army op the CmstKLAxnJ Mokdat, Sept. 21, lb 63. j , Another battle, and would that I could say, another victory! but, alas! truth compels me to declare that, after a series of tremendous struggles, unsurpassed by anything similar in the present war, the Army of the Cumberland haa been overwhelmed by numbers;has suffered immense losses in men snd material, and has fallen back to a new position. It may console us to know, how. ever, that it has saved its honor, kept its haughty . foe at bay, and has inflicted upon the enemy as severe blows as it received. . The rebel army, after evacuating Chattanooga, retired to Lafayette, twenty-eight miles to the southward, concentrated their troops at that point, restored their courage and hopes by promisea of reinforcements, snd awaited the arrival of the same. Meantime be took possession of the gaps iu Pigeon mountain (wb'ch Gen. Rosecrans must cross in order to reach the Georgia State road, and the great railroad which formed Bragg's line of communication with Atlanta.) and carefully fortified them. This obstruction delayed for some days the advance of our forces, which had already crossed the Raccoon and Lookout mountains. and gave the enemy time not only to recover their spirits, but to receive a portion of their reinforcements. Hitherto our army had been marching iu three great columns Crittenden, followed by Granger, by way of Chattanooga; Thomas by way of Trenton; and McCook, with Stanley's cavalry, still further to the southward. The daily increasing numbers and boldness of the enemy compelled a concentration of our forces as rapidly as the natjre of the case would admit, and by evening of the 10th instant the whole army was in line along the West Chick amauga, between Lookout and Pigeon mountains. and just to the east of that low chain of wooded hills called Mission ridge Oa Thursday the 17th the army shifted toward il.e north, contracted its lines, snd as the enemy s demonstrations became each hour more threatening, prepared for battle. On rnday morning the extreme teft of the ar my rested upon the Cbickamauga, at Gordon s Mill, tin point where the Lafayette road crosses the Chickamauga, about twelve mi 'es southwest of Chattanooga. The right could only be loose ly defined and was in a constant state of prepare tion to shift northward, in order to bade the . rebels, who seemed bent upon turning our left and gettiug between us and Chattanooga. About IIA. M., hearing some cannonading to the northward. I started from near the corner of our lines, and, riding past Palmer's and Van Cleve a divisions, came upon Gen. Woods troops . at Gordon's Mill. Here had this dauntless com mander been stationed for a week, liable at any ' moment to be attacked from Lafayette by the whole army of the enemy and cut to pieces before assistance could reach him. But it was a matter of the least importance that while Crittenden's main body was moving to form a junc tion with Thomas, the rebels should not be allowed to get in the rear of the former and take possession of Chattanooga. Consequently, V ood was ordered to hold this important point at all hazards, and as long a possible, and if overpowered to fall back to Rossville, renew the fight there, and then if he could not sustain himself,, to retreat to the foot of Lookout mountain, and at the narrow passage between it and the river to fight while a man remained. To execute hia ' difficult and perilous task Gen. Wood had but two brigades, llarker s and Buell s. Gen. Wagner's command of his division having been left in Chattanooga. Here was General Wood when I found him on Friday, expecting momentarily that the storm which was now so evidently preparing would borst upon him. It seemed to me that the very spirit of vigilance was embodied in the General as he passed carelessly from one end to the other of his lines, directing, strengthening, suggesting; observing what was going on amongst his own men. and reconnoitering the operations of the rebels, who frequently made their appearance on the other side of the stream. The skirm:6hers were firing almost continually, and occasionally the deep roar of a cannon would be preceded or followed by the whiz and bursting of a shell, according as the missile was hurled toward or from our lines. This state of things continued until 1 o'clock, when Van Cleve moved from his place In line, and took position on Wood's left, while Palmer, marching by the left flank, came iDto communication with Wood's right. This made an immense opening between Gen Crittenden's corps and the left wing of Gen. Thomas, which was evidently filled by another general shifting from south to north. Meantime the sound of a brislc cannonade in the direction of Ringgold indicated either that our mounted troops, or Gen. Granger's corps, were engaged with the enemy. From half past one to three, courriers came dashing past, now from Minty snd now from Wilder, bearing; dispatches to Wood, or Crittenden, or Rosecrans, the geueral tenor of which was that they wete fighting: rheeneaj briklj, and although meeting with some lossee. were firmly holding their ground. On Thursday Minty and Wilder were at Reid'a bridge, but on Friday morning Wilder moved to Anderson's bridge, higher up the creek. During the day the latter closely watched the enemy's movements, and obeerved a troooof rebel cavalry come through Napier's gap, in Pigeon mountain, and move toward Gen. Wood's position at Gordon's Mill. At the same lime a strong column came over, directly in front of Wilder, and another column boldly advancing on the Ringgold road, threatened Minty Both attacked simultaneously. Wilder succeeded in repulsing his opponents, but Minty's flank being turned by the rebels he was considerably distresses, until the more fortunate Wilder sent two regiments ' and a section of artillery to his asistance With the help of these he maintained hia ground; but the same movement by which the rebels had succeeded in turning Minty's right flank enabled them to get upon Wilder' left, and in bis rear. Under these disadvantageous circumstances the latter was compelled to renew the fight; but, although severely pressed, he succeadea in holding the bridge until near dark. Then fresh forces of the enemy coming up, and his own men being entirely exhausted. Wilder began to fall back. The rebels perceiving this mad a determined effort to cut him off. He slowly retired, resistirg at every step, until he arrived within a mile and a half of Gordon's Mill, where the 44th Indiana and 59 tb Ohio coming to bis assistance, he was enabled to check the rebels and encamp for the night. During the night his own pickets snd those of the enemy actually grasped each other's guns in the darkness, and several times engaged in fierce struggles f r their possession! Before daylight Wilder was ordered to move to the Lafayette road and take position there, which he did. throwing op for his protection a breastwork of rails. t When Friday night came few expected a battle next day; but the movements of Thomas and McCook toward the left, commenced this time and carried on nnder cover of the darkness, indicated to the reflecting that the rebel foe was still menacing our line of communication with Chattanooga, and that a final position was about to be taken up for the purpose of defending this line and giving battle to the enemy if he desired it; for it was not our intention to fight if we could just as well avoid it. But the enemy had collected what be believed to be a sufficient force to crush our gallant army; the necessities of his situation world not allow him to wait; he could easily turn vnr flanks by reason of his superior numbers; he knew that we cou'd not afford under sny circumstances to allow him to get between us and Chattanooga; he saw his opportunity, and he determined to seize it. AH night long on Friday night, the movement of Thomas' corps continued. A night march of a large body of troops Is a solemn thing. The soldiers scarcely speak a word to each other; the animals move with a dull, mechanical motion which hardly resembles life; the rattle of the wagon wheels seems strangely muSed, and almost the only sound yon recognize is the heavy, measured, etrful tramp of thousands of living men! The fit me of batt'e had first broken out upon the extreme left, where Gen. Braunan's division was posted. The troops composing it behaved most gallantly; some of the regiments had covered themselves with glory, and they were com pelled to retire, at length, leaving uncovered the left flank of Gen. Baird, upon which the enemy at once threw himself with great force, ou SaturThe brigade commanded by Col. B. F. Scribner, the 3bth Indiana, one of the very first in the army, was left particularly exposed, "aa - iu right flank had been somewhat too far advanced where it had taken position in the morning. Almos