Year: 1868

H'DoUARTERS FIFTH MILITARY DIST,


New ORLEANS, La, March 9, 1868.


To His Escellency, E. III. Psase, GoDernor


of Teras:


SIR: Your communication of the 18th JAN
uary last, was received in due course of mail,
but not until it had been widely circulated by
the newspaper press. To such letter.
written and published for manifest Purposes
it has been my intention to reply as soon as
leisure from more important business would
permit.


Your statement that the act of Congress
20 to provide for the more efficient government
Of the rebel States" declares that whatever
government existed in Texas was provisional;
that peace and order should be enforced
that Texas should be part of the Fifth Mill
tary District, and subject to military power;
that the President should appoint an officer
to command in said district and detail force
to protect the rights of persons and property,
suppress insurrection and violence, land punish
offenders, either by military commission or
through the action of local civil tribunals, as
in his own judgment might seem best, will
not be disputed. One need only read the act
to perceive it contains such provisions But
how all this is supposed to have made it my du-
ty to order the military commission requested,



to do thing if shown, and the proprlety of
doing it, are often very different Matters
You observe you are at a loss to understand
how government without representation in
Congress, or a militia force, and subject to
military power, can be said to be in the full
exercise of all its proper powers. You do
not reflect that this government. created or
permitted by Congress, has all the powers
which the act intends, and may fully exercise
them accordingly. If you think it ought to
have more powers, should be allowed to send
members to Congress, WELD 4 militia force,
and possess yet other powers, your complaint
not to be preferred again me, but against
Congress- who made it what it is.


AS respects the issue between us, any ques
ton as to what Congress ought to have done
has no pertinence You admit the act of
Congress authorizes me to try an offender by
military commission, or allow the local civil
tribunals to try, as l shall deem best; and
you cannot deny the act expressly recognizes
such local civil tribunals as legal authorities
for the purpose specified. When you contend
there are no legal local tribunals for any pur~
pose in Texas, you must either deny the plain
reading of the act of Congress or the power
of Congress to pass the act.


You next remark that you dissent from my
declaration 'that the country (Texas) is in
state of profound peace" and proceed to state
the grounds of your dissent. They appear
to me not little extraordinary. [ quote
your words: at is true there no longer exists
here (Texas) any organized resistance to the
authority of the United States" but
large majority of the white population, who
participated in the late rebellion, are en-
bittered against the Government, and yield to
it an unwilling obedience" Nevertheless,
you coucede they do yield it obedience. You
proceed "None of this class have any affec-
ton for the Government, and very few any
respect for it. They regard the legislation of
Congress on the subject of reconstruction as
unconstitutional, and hostile to their interests,
and consider the government now existing
here under the authority of the United States
as a usurpation on their rights. They look
on the emancipation of their late slaves and
the disfranchisement of a portion of their
own class as an act of insult and oppression"


And this is all you have to present for
proof that war and not peace prevails in Texas,
and hence it becomes my duty ESQ you sup
pose) to set aside the local civil tribunal and
enforce the penal code against citizens, by
means of military commissions.


My dear sir, am not lawyer, nor has it
been my business, as it may have been yours,
to study the philosophy of statecraft and
politics. But l may lay claim, after an ex-
perience of more than half a lifetime, to some
poor knowledge of men, and some apprecla-
ton of what is necessary to social order and
happiness. And for the future of our COM
mon country, could devouty wish that no
great number of our people have yet fallen
in with the views you appear to entertan.-
Woe be to us whenever it shall come to pass
that the power of the magistrate, civil or
military, is permitted to deal with the mere
opinions or feelings of the people.


[ have been accustomed to believe that
sentiment of respect or dsrespect, and feel
ings of affection, love- or hatred, so long as
not developed into acts in violation of law,
were matters wholly beyond the punltory
power of human tribunals.


will maintain that the entire freedom of
thought and speech, however acrimoniousy
INDUCED, is consistent with the noblest aspl
rations of man, and the happiest condition of
his race.


When boy, I remember to have read
speech of Lord Chatham, delivered in Paria-
ment 1t was during our Revolutionary War,
and related to the policy of employing the
sayages on the side of Britain. You may be
more familiar with the speech than l am
IF I am not greatly mistaken, his Lordship
denounced the British Government-his Gov
crnment-in terms of unmeasured bitterness.
He characterized its policy as revolving to
every sentiment of humanity and religion;
proclaimed it covered with disgrace, and
vented his eternal adherence Of its measures.
1t may, J. think, be safely asserted that
majority of the British nation concurred in
the views of Lord Chatham. But whoever
supposed that profound peace was not existing
in that Kingdom, or that Government had
any authority to question the absolute right
of the opposition to express their objections
to the propriety of the Kings measures in
any words, or to any extent they pleased 1t
would be difficult to show that the opponents
of Government in the days of the elder