rights, and as axioms in the construction of Constitutional law, I now call the attention of the Committee to that part of the Constitution which provides for the election of Judges by the people.

"The Judges of the Supreme Court, of the several Courts of Common Pleas, and such other Courts of record as are or shall be established by law, shall be elected by the qualified electors of the Commonwealth, in manner following, to wit: The Judges of the Supreme Court, by the qualified electors of the Commonwealth at large; the President Judges of the several Courts of Common Pleas, and such other Courts of record as are or shall be established by law, and all other Judges required to be learned in the law, by the qualified electors of the respective Districts over which they are to Preside or act as Judges."

Here the right to elect their Judges is guaranteed to the people; and the constituency pointed out that shall vote in the election of certain Judges, to wit: The qualified electors of the State at large, in the case of Supreme Judge; and in the case of a President Judge, the qualified electors of the respective or particular District over which he is to preside or act as Judge. Now, can the Legislature, under a claim of power to regulate and arrange Judicial Districts, subvert this right? Or, what is the same thing, postpone its exercise indefinitely? Clearly not. Any exercise of Legislative power that would directly lead to this, is beyond question unconstitutional. The power of the Legislature must be exercised under such limitations and restrictions, as shall secure against encroachment the clear right of the people of each and every District to elect their own Judge.

Let us see what would become of this right of the people to elect their own Judges, if the Legislature can change at pleasure the Judicial Districts.

Judge Wilmot then proceeded to show, by specific local examples, that if the legislature could constitutionally pass the pending bill, they could by similar measures prevent the election of any judge disapproved by the party in power; or keep seated, in the majority of districts, judges whom not one elector had had any opportunity to vote for or against. It would be idle to talk about the constitutional right of the people to elect their own judges. The establishment of a new district was a wholly differ

ent matter-the discretion of the legislature there was unlimited, and an election must follow the erection of each new district. This, however, was the first attempt in the history of the State to abolish an old district. He next showed in the same way, by concrete example, that there was no analogy between the arrangement of judicial districts and the apportionment of the State for election of senators and representatives-still less analogy in the case of the change in the lines of a county. "The case would be more analogous if the Legislature should undertake to obliterate counties, and by changes in their names, place the officers elected by the people of one over the people of another." He resumed :

In conclusion, I submit that the proposed legislation is a direct and open attack upon the rights of the people of Bradford and Susquehanna Counties. It proposes to disfranchise that people for their political opinions. Its design and effect is, to obtrude a Judge upon them against their consent, and in flagrant violation of their rights. Against this stupendous wrong, four thousand citizens of those counties, have, within a few weeks, entered their protest among the archives of the Senate; and the voice of their remonstrance will not cease, until their rights are secure and unmolested.

For myself, I here enter my protest against the great wrong inflicted upon my character, in the course of this novel and unprecedented proceeding. I came here to meet and repel by proof, "specific charges in writing," against my official integrity. No such charges up to this time, have been preferred before this honorable Committee-none will be from any responsible source. Instead of meeting a legislative investigation into facts, touching my official conduct, my traducers have resorted to the streets and the press, to blacken my reputation, and prejudice the public mind, and the Legislative body against me. They make my reasonable request to be informed of charges against me, the occasion to write abusive and insulting letters; putting into my mouth language I never used, and intended to excite partisan prejudice against me, which are published in pamphlet with other slanders and falsehoods, without an ear mark to fix responsibility, and thrown, I cannot tell by whom, into the office for distributing the mails to members of the Legislature. Irresponsible men are

pushed forward to play a part, their backers dare not play. Cases in which there is no semblance of wrong, are garbled and accompanied with such comments as leave inferences against me. Men of no responsibility, venture upon actionable charges, while those having responsibility carefully and ingeniously avoid this, going, however, every length short of fixing upon themselves legal accountability. Another man of no responsibility (Francis Smith) writes me a letter at this place and sends a copy to a confederate for publication, in which he presumes to charge me with political bias, because a young man, charged with an assault and battery, and proved innocent beyond doubt, was not convicted in my Court. Yesterday I received a meanly insulting communication from a man who is responsible (Wm. Watkins), but who ingeniously saves himself from answering in a court of law, for slanders inferential and argumentative. How am I to meet this cowardly warfare upon my character? If all other redress is denied me, I rely with confidence upon the enduring records of the Senate, to shield my reputation from the slanders to which it has been wantonly exposed. No citizen of Pennsylvania, much less a Judge holding her commission, was ever made the victim of an outrage, such as I have been forced to endure. Malice and envy never hatched a more shameful plot against the good name and fame of a citizen.

If there be before this Committee any well-grounded suspicion against my official conduct-if it appears that any man, however humble, failed to have impartial justice meted out to him, because of my lack of integrity—I demand the common right of a citizen, a constitutional trial. If there be no charge or suspicion against me, I here protest against a trial for alleged political offenses. For my political opinions, and the manner in which I have maintained them, I hold myself responsible to the people, and to no other tribunal, save Him who tries the heart and searches the motives of men.

D. WILMOT.

IX

SPEECH ON THE CONFISCATION BILL1

MR. PRESIDENT, the second section of the bill reported from the Judiciary Committee is an act of emancipation, giving freedom to the slaves of those who, during the present rebellion, shall take up arms against the United States, or in any manner give aid and comfort to said rebellion. The bill itself declares their emancipation without the intervention of court or commissioners, and provides that in any proceeding by the master to enforce his claim against the slave, he shall establish his loyalty before an order shall be made for the surrender of the slave. The bill also provides for the confiscation to the national Treasury of both the real and personal estate of rebels who shall, after the passage of this act, be engaged in the rebellion, or in giving it aid and comfort, and who are beyond the United States, or, if within the United States, are beyond the reach of Judicial process. The bill does not per se work a forfeiture, but forfeiture takes place after seizure and appropriation by the commissioners appointed to act within those States and districts where the rebellion makes the holding of courts impossible, and after condemnation by the courts, in districts where they can be held, of the property seized, upon proceedings in rem, as in prize cases, or cases of forfeiture arising under the revenue laws.

I will consider briefly of both features of the bill. The second section, that providing for the emancipation of the slaves of rebels, I sustain in the whole length and breadth of its provisions. While I shall claim for the Government full power over the subject of slavery, I would not at this time go beyond the provisions of this bill. I would to-day give freedom to the slaves of every traitor; and after that would confidently look for the early adoption of

1 Delivered in the Senate, April 30, 1862. Cong. Globe, Thirty-seventh Congress, 2nd session, pp. 1873-1876. See Chapter XXXVI, on “The Confiscation Bill."

the policy recommended by the President, gradually to work out the great result of universal emancipation.

Special guaranties are claimed for the protection of slavery. Exemption is demanded for it from the hazards and necessities of war. Greater security is attempted to be thrown around it than is accorded to any other interest or right. I deny the legality of this pretension in behalf of slavery. It has no constitutional basis. Its claims of peculiar sacredness, and for special protection, are an insult to the nation. Life and liberty are made secondary to the safety and preservation of slavery. The property of the nation is to be subjected to heavy contributions, the lives of tens of thousands of its citizens sacrificed, hundreds of thousands of widows and orphans cast upon the charity of friends for support, all that we possess, life and property, are at the disposal of the Government; slavery alone claims exemption, the cause of the rebellion, the parent of all the calamities that threaten and afflict us. This great revolt against the integrity and sovereignty of the nation has no other foundation than slavery. Democratic government is a perpetual danger to slavery. The government of an oligarchy is demanded as security for its perpetuity and power. Here is the cause of the rebellion with its immense sacrifices of life and treasure. Amidst the sacrifices of this hour, this universal wreck of interests, shall the slaveholding traitor grasp securely his human chattel? Not, sir, if my voice or vote can reach him.

We must rightly comprehend the unparalleled wickedness of slavery, and the desperate determination with which it makes war on the Government, or we shall fail to deal with it as our security and peace demand. For thirty years slaveholders have looked with fear and hatred on our free system of government. Universal suffrage and the wide diffusion and increase of knowledge were sources of constant dread. For years they have kept the peace only on the terms of their domination and our subjection. They have governed the country, shaped its foreign and domestic policy, controlled its legislation on all questions of interest to themselves, and administered, in their own hands or through northern men subservient to them, every high office of State. A more imperious oligarchy never ruled a government.

The freemen-the democracy of the nation-in the election of