The evening Argus. [volume] (Rock Island, Ill.) 1861-1871, 1866-10-17

but. for some reason, has never before been
published:
ST. LOUIS, Aug. s, 1866.
To COL JAMES o. BRoApHEAD, st. Louis:
DEAR SIR-You were rightly informed that
President Lincoln did require of the heads of
the different departments their opinions In
writing as to both the constitutionality and
expediency of the 6 bill for the admission of
West Virginia into the union" And such
opinions were given by all of them, except
only Mr.. Caleb B. Smith (who had then va
Gated, or was about to vaoste, his Office of
secretary of the interior).
That transa elton took place In the few last
days of the year 1862 My own official opin.
ion bears date on the 9th of Decemb Der, 1862,
and the president approved and signed the
bill On tbs last day of that year.
| have occasion to remember those trans
actions very distinctly, for / took a lively in.
terest in the question and, indeed, it was
upon my own suggestion that President Lin
coin demanded our written opinions. urged
upon him the advantages of written over oral
communications on q subject SO important,
and chiefly upon these TIVE grounds: |. They
constitute valuable muniments of the passing
history of the government; and, I'd. They
operate a reasonable and wholesome check
upon US, the advisers of the president.
-ho Au0SsiShb Wy thO pIociooht " CIV IN
the most brief and compendious form, thus ::
" l. Is the said act constitutional? 2. IL the
said act expedient?" To these two questions
we all gave to the president our written an
swers and / can only express my surprise
that they should have been SO long withheld
from publication, seeing that they touch up
on principle of the greatest magnitude, and
bear directly upon q question which has pro-
duced great excitement in congress and in
the nation.
! have the only copy of those documents
that l know of in private hands; but no
doubt they may be found in the proper dspos.
itories at Washington. And in regard to your
suggestion as to what those opinions may
contain concerning the legal and political
status of states In rebellion, las have no time
now either 10 aualyze the opinions to copy
| them,) can only say that not one of them
contains a single paragraph tending to the
conclusion that state ordinance OF secession,
or the fact of open rebellion within a state,
did or could take state out of the union
The very contrary was assumed as undisput.
ed doctrine, and argued upon as q postulate.
In fact, did not know O republican of that
day, in congress or In the executive depart
ment, who pretended to believe that q state
could withdraw itself from the union by So
cession, or rebellion, or both together. We
all considered an ordinance of secession Q
mere nullity in law and politics, and rebel.
lion a personal crime, punishable by law
1t never was the doctrine of the republican
party In Mr.. Lincoln's lifetime, and believe
is not now, that q state can get out of tho
union by secession and rebellion. That is q
late invention of few enterprising, extreme
radicals. who have labored in vain to fasten
y upon the republicans ss one of their tenets.
rfesldent Lincoln, and both houses of con-
gIess, BY their repeated solemn acts, are
R,eogeo to the contrary. They passed the
west Vlrginis bill, which, according to the
plain provisions of the constitution, could
nos nave peen passed, unless VIRGINIA were
of consenting to the dismemberment. The
president, with the advice and consent of the
senate, did all he could 10 extend the indian.