lowing morning, however, the bill was taken up, on motion of Mr. Emery of Portsmouth. Mr. Blood of Hillsborough moved to make it the special order for the next day at 11 o'clock. Mr. Emery moved to amend by fixing the time at 4 o'clock that afternoon. Mr. Blood accepted the amendment, but expressed a desire for greater knowledge of the situation before final action, as did Mr. Bingham, who had no inclination to "approve, ratify and confirm" doubtful contracts, as he might be doing in voting for the bill, so far as he then knew. The bill was then made in order for 4 o'clock p. m.

When the bill came up, in order, in the afternoon, a motion was made by Mr. Blood of Hillsborough to amend by substituting $500,000 for $1,000,000, as the amount of the appropriation called for, and he proceeded to speak at some length in support of his motion and in general discussion of the situation. Mr. Emery of Portsmouth replied and was followed by Mr. Bingham in the most extended speech of the discussion.

In opening, Mr. Bingham said there were important objections to the bill and if its passage in the present form were urged, he should be compelled to vote against it. We all know the fact of war, he remarked. It has been in our thoughts by day and in our dreams by night. It is time for us to talk about and begin to comprehend it. We have seen the people rushing to the defence of their capital against threatened invasion, and it was one of the noblest spectacles our free institutions could have furnished; but he did not understand that there was now any danger of the capital being taken. The questions now forcing themselves upon our attention are: How shall we preserve our institutions? Is this war to be carried on for the subjugation of sovereign states, and to reduce them to the condition of conquered provinces? Does the gentleman from Portsmouth (Mr. Emery) take this position? he asked.

For his own part, Mr. Bingham declared, he believed, there were only two ways in which we could reclaim the seceded stateseither by compromise or by subjugation. One means or the other must be adopted. He was for defence, but not for subjugation. We have been born and educated in a land of liberty and our supreme duty is to preserve the constitutional liberty which has

descended to us from the fathers. When we hold sovereign states by force of arms, ours is no longer a free government, but a military despotism. Coercion must necessarily result in national consolidation. If we subjugate, it necessarily follows that we abolish state rights. He had recently heard a remark attributed to the Secretary of War (Simon Cameron) to the effect that when this war is over we shall hear no more talk about "Virginians," "Pennsylvanians," and "New Yorkers," but we shall only be known as "Americans." In Mr. Cameron's judg ment we are to have a national consolidation after the war; but, as for himself, he was in favor of the constitution as it is of the government as it is—and opposed to consolidation. The necessary result of reducing states to subjugation by force must be to wipe out every vestige of their sovereignty; therefore, he was opposed to any coercion. He would defend the government property and the capital, whenever or by whomsoever attacked, but he protested against subjugation - against the conquest of sovereign states.

He illustrated by reference to the present condition of Mexico, where Santa Anna abolished state sovereignty and the result has been continual anarchy ever since, a republic existing only in name. If our government is thus consolidated the result must necessarily be the same. But our people will never submit to the anarchy and disorder of Mexican misrule. They will rather choose one strong man for a ruler and we shall have a Napoleon or a Caesar for our future government. God deliver us from this! We must expect the most determined resistance from the states we attempt to subject. They are fighting on their own soil. We could bring ten men to defend our own borders, where we could carry one over there. We will find these people rallying as one man in defence of their own property and soil. An attempt to coerce and subjugate them must necessarily fail; and, if in the end, the states ever come together again, it will be, not through arms, but by compromise.

He objected to this administration or any other overturning the government, and he protested against it. It is the government that our fathers gave us a government based on the constitution as it is and the laws as they are constitutionally made.

How shall we best preserve it? Life is nothing, money nothing, in defending it. To protect it is our sacred duty. Regarding the pending bill, he said he would vote for a million dollars if necessary; but he did not believe over half a million would be required. He protested, however, against a one-man power. "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." If you would preserve your liberties, preserve your constitution. Under this bill the governor can give such rank and such pay as he chooses. He may act fairly, but the bill gives him the power to do otherwise. He objected, decidedly to this feature of the bill. Why authorize the governor to fix the pay of the officers and not of the soldiers? Why not let all stand together, on existing laws in this respect? He approved of authorizing the governor to liquidate existing contracts, and saving him harmless from liabilities already incurred, and if the detailed information which had already been called for should prove satisfactory, there could be no objection to the first section of the bill.

At the conclusion of his remarks, Mr. Bingham moved that the bill be made the special order for the following day (Friday, June 28), at 11 a. m. Mr. Emery moved to amend by making the time that evening, which amendment was accepted, and the matter arranged accordingly; but the bill was not reached again, in fact, till the following afternoon, when discussion followed, participated in by Messrs. Hughes of Nashua, Woodman of Dover, Emery of Portsmouth, Bingham, and Smith of Wentworth. Mr. Hughes expressed his desire to sustain the government which both his grandfathers had fought to establish; but he deprecated the spirit of intolerance manifested by the supporters of this measure, relating the fact that when passing out of the hall the previous day, he heard a man declare that he "ought to be hung" for moving a reduction of the appropriation from $1,000,000 to $500,000; which circumstance goes to illustrate the bitterness of feeling that prevailed at the time. Mr. Bingham, in reply to Messrs. Woodman and Emery in their criticism of his remarks of the day previous, and their laudation of President Lincoln, expressed his satisfaction that free discussion was had. That the country was in a deplorable condition was not to be disputed, he said. He was for restoring

peace and there was no one willing to do more to effect such result; but it was to the government of our fathers and not to Mr. Lincoln, merely, that the people must look in the emergency. "I firmly believe," said he, "that the subjugation of sovereign states and the holding them as conquered provinces by despotic power, would be a most disastrous move. This is my view and I leave my record for the justification of coming time.”

The question recurring on the motion of Mr. Hughes to amend by making the appropriation $500,000 instead of $1,000,000, the negative prevailed, the yeas and nays being demanded and the vote standing, yeas, 112; nays, 176.

Mr. Smith of Wentworth proposed to amend by inserting the word "lawful," so as to authorize the governor to respond to only lawful calls for troops by the president, and spoke earnestly in support of his motion. The House adjourned, however, to half-past seven in the evening, with the matter pending. Upon reassembling consideration of the measure was resumed, the question being upon Mr. Smith's motion which was rejected yeas, 87; nays, 154.

Mr. Bingham then moved to amend by inserting: "Provided that such military force is not employed in subjugating and holding as a conquered province any sovereign state, now, or lately, one of the United States." He demanded the yeas and nays upon the question, the vote resulting: yeas, 92; nays, 165; and the amendment was rejected. The bill was then read a third time, and passed by a vote of 196 to 94, the yeas and nays having been called for by Mr. Abbott* of Concord, who desired to go on record in favor of the measure. Mr. Bingham immediately gave notice that he should claim

*David J. Abbott represented Ward 6, Concord, in the House in 1860 and 1861. He was a native of Auburn, Me., born July 26, 1820. He came to Concord when a young man and was employed as a painter by the Abbot-Downing Co., and subsequently by the Northern Railroad. In 1862-'63 he was a deputy assessor of internal revenue. In 1864 he went to Washington where he had charge of the government painting for several years. Subsequently he was made inspector and receiver of material for the new state, war and navy building, the work on which was in progress about ten years. He returned to Concord in 1884, and died April 27, 1889, being an alderman from Ward 6, at the time of his decease, and then serving on his second term.

his constitutional right to enter upon the journal his written protest against the passage of the bill.

Upon the afternoon of Tuesday, July 2, the bill for the reorganization of the militia being under consideration, Mr. Huntoon of Hanover offered an amendment, inserting the word "white," so as to exclude colored men from the service, but upon opposition expressed by Mr. Emery of Portsmouth, withdrew his amendment. Mr. Bingham thereupon immediately renewed it. He said the Constitution of the United States declared that the militia should consist of "free, white able-bodied citizens," and that the Governor of Massachusetts (Banks) had vetoed a bill in which the word "white" had been omitted. He declared that the Constitution was the supreme law of the land, and any act of any state against it, a violation thereof. He called for the yeas and nays upon his motion to amend and the same was rejected by a vote of 116 to 154. On the next and closing day of the session, however, reason and common sense in a measure resumed sway, and, on motion of Mr. Goodall of Portsmouth the House reconsidered its action and adopted this amendment by a vote of 221 to 32.

On the afternoon of this last day, also, Mr. Bingham presented, for insertion in the record, the protest against the "million dollar bill," notice of which he had previously given, the same being signed by himself and ninety other members. He proceeded to read the same, but had only partially completed the reading when Mr. Chamberlain of Keene arose and objected to further reading; but, on motion of Mr. Eaton of South Hampton, he was permitted, by a decisive vote to proceed, and completed the reading of the protest, which, with the signatures appended, here follows:

Protest Against The Passage of An Act Conferring Extraordinary Powers on the State Executive.

The undersigned claim their constitutional right of entering upon the journal of the House this their protest against the passage of a bill entitled "An act to aid in the defense of the country," with the following, their reasons therefor:

1. Because the bill compels us to approve, ratify and confirm "All payments made by the Governor and Council, or by