attendance was very large, there being delegates from all parts of the Union present. The convention was organized by the election of George H. Stuart, Esq., as chairman. The Committee on Credentials reported that there were 180 Old School, 75 New School, 26 United, 20 Reformed Presbyterian, 5 Cumberland, and 4 Reformed Dutch Churches represented. Total, 313. The only delegate from the South, in the convention, was Professor A. D. Hepburn, of Orange, Synod of North Carolina. The convention adopted a basis of union containing the following articles: 1. An acknowledgment of the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be the Word of God. 2. That in the United Church the Westminster Confession of Faith, with the larger and shorter Catechisms, shall be received and adopted, as containing the system of doctrines taught in the Holy Scriptures, it being understood that this Confession is received in the historical, that is, the Calvinistic or Reformed sense. 3. That the united Church shall receive and adopt the Presbyterian form of church government. 4. The Book of Psalms, which is a divine inspiration, is well adapted to the state of the Church in all ages and circumstances, and should be used in social worship; but, as various collections of psalmody are used in the different churches, a change in this respect shall not be required. 5. That the sessions of each church shall have the right to determine who shall join in communion in the particular church committed to their care.

An address to all the Presbyterian churches, defining the importance of the action of the convention, and requesting all interested in the subject to stand by the union, was read. It met with the approbation of the members. The convention voted by Churches, and on the adoption of the basis as a whole, the final vote stood: Old School, unanimous; New School, unanimous; United Presbyterian, 10 for, and 1 against; Reformed Presbyterian, 5 for, and 4 against; Reformed Dutch, unanimous; Cumberland Presbyterian, declined voting. The report was declared adopted by the Churches voting unanimously.

PRICE, STERLING, ex-Governor of Missouri, and a major-general in the Confederate Army, born in Prince Edward County, Va., in September, 1809; died in St. Louis, Mo., September 27, 1867. His parents being in humble circumstances, he received but a plain English education, and, when yet a young man, left the parental home and settled in Missouri, where he pursued the avocation of a farmer. Much study, united to good natural abilities, soon gave him a prominent position in the community, and upon his appearance in politics he became a popular and successful candidate for various offices in the gift of the people. After serving in the State Legislature for several terms he was, in 1844, elected to Congress, and served with credit and distinction. On the breaking out of the Mexican War he resigned

his seat in Congress, and, returning home, raised a regiment of cavalry, as colonel of which he was mustered into the United States service at Fort Leavenworth. His career in Mexico was brilliant. At the head of three hundred men he besieged Taos and compelled the surrender of its garrison, numbering thirteen hundred men. For this feat he was commissioned a brigadier-general and appointed Military Governor of Chihuahua. After peace was declared he retired from the service, and returning home, was elected, in 1853, Governor of Missouri, on the Democratic ticket, by nearly 14,000 majority. His administration gave general satisfaction, and although he declined a reelection in 1857, he accepted the position of Bank Commissioner for the State. The secession excitement having attained its height in 1861, a convention was called, ostensibly to revise the constitution, but really to decide the relations of Missouri with the Union, and General Price was elected a delegate from the Chariton District, and was chosen president of the convention by a large majority.

No sooner had Mr. Lincoln's coercive policy been fully developed, than he declared himself in favor of resistance, and being appointed major-general of the State forces by Governor Claiborne Jackson, set vigorously to work to organize the Missouri State Guard. The prompt action of General Lyon in compelling the surrender of the State Guard at St. Louis alone saved the State from falling hopelessly into the power of the enemy. The movement of the Union troops on Jefferson City compelled him to retire to Boonville, thence to Carthage, and thence, on the advance of General Sigel, he retired to the vicinity of the Arkansas line, where the Missourians flocked to his banner, and in a few weeks he was at the head of nearly 10,000 men. General Ben McCullough, of the Confederate army, having formed a junction with him at the head of 5,000 Confederate troops, the combined army moved forward, and encountered, on the morning of August 7th, the joint forces of Generals Lyon and Sigel. General Lyon was killed, the Union army was defeated with severe loss in killed, wounded, and prisoners. After this battle McCullough withdrew his forces from the Missourians on account of differences between him and General Price. This quarrel was all that saved Missouri to the Union. Price continued the advance alone, and on Septeinber 16th attacked Lexington, and after a siege of four days compelled the surrender of the garrison under Colonel Mulligan, numbering nearly 4,000 men. This was the last of his series of successes. General McCullough refused to come to his aid, and he was driven out of the State. After the Missouri troops were mustered into the Confederate service he remained without a command for some months, but was eventually assigned to a division. He was engaged in the battles of Iuka and Corinth: was subsequently in command of the Depart

ment of Arkansas, and in the latter part of 1864 invaded Missouri, but after gaining temporary success was driven from the State. On the close of the war he went to Mexico, and for a time acted on the Board of Immigration for the Imperial Government. Several months ago he returned to Missouri, his constitution shattered and his fortune utterly wrecked. As a general he was certainly one of the ablest in the Confederate trans-Mississippi army.

PRUSSIA, a kingdom in Europe.* King, Wilhelm I., born March 22, 1797; succeeded his brother, Friedrich Wilhelm III., on February 2, 1861. Heir-apparent, Friedrich Wilhelm, born October 18, 1831. The ministry, in 1867, consisted of the following members: Count Otto von Bismarck-Schönhausen, Presidency and Foreign Affairs (appointed in 1862); Baron von der Heydt, Finance (1866); General Dr. von Roon, War (1859) and Navy (1861); H. Count von Itzenplitz, Commerce and Public Works (1862); Dr. von Mühler, Worship, Instruction, and Medical Affairs (1862); Leonhard, Justice (December, 1867); Von Selchow, Agriculture (1862); F. A. Count zu Eulenburg, Interior (1862). Ambassador of the United States at Berlin, George Bancroft (1867); Prussian ambassador in Washington, Baron von Gerolt.

The area of the kingdom, inclusive of the territory annexed in 1866, is 135,662 square miles; the population, according to the census of 1864, 23,590,543. By a treaty concluded with the Prince of Waldeck, the administration of this principality, which has an area of 455 square miles, and a population of 59,143 inhabitants, was ceded to Prussia for a term of ten years (see WALDECK). The population of Berlin, the capital of the kingdom, has increased with wonderful rapidity of late. From the census taken on the 3d December, 1867, it ap: pears that there were 683,673 citizens, 396 members of the diplomatic corps, 2,060 visitors, and 16,308 troops in the town, making a total population of 702,437. At the last census, in 1864, the population was 632,379 only; so that 70,058 inhabitants have been added to the population in the last three years.

The revenue and the expenditures, in the budget for 1867, were each estimated at 168,929,873 thalers. This estimate does not include the newly-annexed states, in the special budgets for which both revenue and expenditure are fixed at the following amounts: Hanover, 22,589,700 thalers; Hesse-Cassel, 5,749,000 thalers; Schleswig-Holstein, 7,671,304 thalers; Nassau, 8,254,030 florins; Hesse- Homburg, 625,712 florins. The draft of the budget for 1868, which was laid before the Chambers on November 21, 1867, fixed the revenue and expenditures for the whole monarchy, inclusive of the annexed territory, at 159,851,879 thalers.

For the population of the several provinces and the largest cities, and the statistics of churches and nationalities, see ANNUAL CYCLOPEDIA for 1865 and 1966; for an account of the Prussian Constitution, see ANNUAL CYCLOPÆDIA for 1865.

821,962 858.48

Prussian

Foreign

Total..

8,488 267.672 4.267
2,986 258,613 4,831
6,474 556,285 8,598 650,510

5,302 vessels, of a total burden of 325,349 lasts. The merchant navy, in 1866. consisted of The most important events in the history of Prussia have been fully noted in the article on Germany. In the Prussian Diet, the German question led to a considerable change in the position-of the political parties. The two conservative factions (" Conservatives" and "Free Conservatives"), the "Old Liberals" and the

National Liberals" favored the ratification of the Constitution of the North-German Confederation by the Prussian Diet, while on the other hand the "Party of Progress," the "Poles," and the "Catholics" worked together Center" divided on this question. The strength in opposition to the Government. The "Left of the two combinations in the Chamber of Deputies was shown at the election of a president on April 30th, when the former president. Von Forckenbeck (National Liberal) was reelected by 162 out of 239 votes), Dr. Waldeck (Party of Progress) receiving 60 votes, and Von Arnim (Conservative) 13 votes from such Conservatives as refused to combine with the other Liberal) was elected first vice-president, and parties. Deputy von Stavenhagen (National Count zu Eulenburg (Conservative) second vice-president.

A royal decree of September 23d dissolved this Diet, in view of the approaching complete incorporation of the annexed states with Prussia. The new Diet, containing for the first time the representatives of the new as well as the old provinces, was opened on November 15th, by the king, who declared the situation of the kingdom to be in every respect satisfactory. The complexion of the new Chamber of Deputies, according to the classification made by a semi-official paper, was about as follows: Out of the 432 members elected, 195 were decided Supporters of the Government; 25 belonged to the Old Liberal party, and 95 to the National Liberals, while 75 supported the Progress party. Thus the Government could command a decided

majority in the German question, while in questions of home politics the united Liberals would have a small majority. In November Herr von Forckenbeck was elected president by 280 out of 317 votes. Herr von Koller was elected first vice-president by 168 votes, and Herr von Bennigsen second vice-president by 149 votes.

The continued disorganization of the Union, to which the President has so often called the attention of Congress, is yet a subject of profound and patriotic concern. We may, however, find some relief from that anxiety in the reflection that the painful political situation, although before untried by ourselves, is not new in the experience of nations. Political science, perhaps as highly perfected in our own time and country as in any other, has not yet disclosed any means by which civil wars can be absolutely prevented. An enlightened nation, however, with a wise and beneficent constitution of free government, may diminish their frequency and mitigate their severity by directing all its proceedings in accordance with its fundamental law.

When a civil war has been brought to a close, it is manifestly the first interest and duty of the State to repair the injuries which the war has inflicted, and to secure the benefit of the lessons it teaches as fully and as speedily as possible. This duty was, upon the termination of the rebellion, promptly accepted, not only by the Executive Department, but by the insurrectionary States themselves, and restoration, in the first moment of peace, was believed to be as easy and certain as it was indispensable. The expectu tions, however, then so reasonably and confidently entertained, were disappointed by legislation from which I felt constrained, by my obligations to the Constitution, to withhold my assent.

It is, therefore, a source of profound regret, that in complying with the obligation imposed upon the President by the Constitution to give to Congress from time to time information of the state of the Union, I am unable to communicate any definite adjustment, satisfactory to the American people, of the questions which, since the close of the rebellion, have agitated the public mind. On the contrary, candor compels me to declare that at this time there is no Union as our fathers understood the term, and as they meant it to be understood by us. The Union which they established can exist only where all the States are represented in both Houses of Congress-where one State is as free as another to regulate its internal concerns according to its own will, and where the laws of the central Government, strictly confined to matters of national jurisdiction, apply with equal force to all the people of every section. That such is not the present state of the Union" is a melancholy fact, and we all must acknowledge that the restoration of the States to their proper legal relations with the Federal Government and with one another, according to the terms of the original compact, would be the greatest temporal blessing which God, in His kindest providence, could bestow upon this nation. It becomes our imperative duty to consider whether or not it is impossible to effect this most desirable consummation.

The Union and the Constitution are inseparable. As long as one is obeyed by all parties, the other will be preserved; and if one is destroyed, both must perish together. The destruction of the Constitution will be followed by other and still greater calamities. It was ordained not only to form a more perfect union between the States, but to "establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." Nothing but implicit obedience to its requirements in all parts of the country will accomplish these great ends. Without that obedience, we can look forward only to continual outrages upon individual rights, incessant breaches of the public peace, na

tional weakness, financial dishonor, the total loss of our prosperity, the general corruption of morals, and the final extinction of popular freedom. To save our country from evils so appalling as these, we should renew our efforts again and again.

To me the process of restoration seems perfectly plain and simple. It consists merely in a faithful application of the Constitution and laws. The execution of the laws is not now obstructed or opposed by physical force. There is no military or other necessity, real or pretended, which can prevent obedi.. ence to the Constitution, either North or South. All the rights and all the obligations of States and iudividuals can be protected and enforced by means perfectly consistent with the fundamental law. The courts may be everywhere open, and, if open, their process would be unimpeded. Crimes against the United States can be prevented or punished by the proper judicial authorities in a manner entirely practicable and legal. There is, there:ore, no reason why the Constitution should not be obeyed, unless those who exercise its powers have determined that it shall be disregarded and violated. The mere naked will of this Government, or of some one or more of its branches, is the only obstacle that can exist to a perfect union of all the States.

On this momentous question, and some of the measures growing out of it, I have had the misfortune to differ from Congress, and have expressed my convictions without reserve, though with becoming deference to the opinion of the Legislative Department. Those convictions are not only unchanged, but strengthened by subsequent events and further reflection. The transcendent importance of the subject will be a sufficient excuse for calling your attention to some of the reasons which have so strongly influenced my own judgment. The hope that we may all finally concur in a mode of settlement, consistent at once with our true interests and with our sworn duties to the Constitution, is too natural and too just to be easily relinquished.

It is clear to my apprehension that the States lately in rebellion are still members of the national Union. When did they cease to be so? The "ordinances of secession," adopted by a portion (in most of them a very small portion) of their citizens were mere nullities. If we admit now that they were valid and effectual for the purpose intended by their authors, we sweep from under our feet the whole ground upon which we justified the war. Were those States afterward expelled from the Union by the war? The direct contrary was averred by this Government to be its purpose, and was so understood by all those who gave their blood and treasure to aid in its prosecution. It cannot be that a successful war, waged for the preservation of the Union, had the legal effect of dissolving it. The victory of the nation's arms was not the disgrace of her policy; the defeat of secession on the battle-field was not the triumph of its lawless principle. Nor could Congress, with or without the consent of the Executive, do any thing which would have the effect, directly or indirectly, of separating the States from each other. To dissolve the Union is to repeal the Constitution which holds it together, and that is a power which does not belong to any department of this Government, or to all of them united.

This is so plain that it has been acknowledged by all branches of the Federal Government. The Executive (my predecessors as well as myself) and the heads of all the Departments have uniformly acted upon the principle that the Union is not only undissolved, but indissoluble. Congress submitted an amendment of the Constitution to be ratified by the Southern States, and accepted their acts of ratification as a necessary and lawful exercise of their highest function. If they were not States, or were States out of the Union, their consent to a change in the fundamental law of the Union would have been nugatory; and Congress, in asking it, com

mitted a political absurdity. The Judiciary has also given the solemn sanction of its authority to the same view of the case. The Judges of the Supreme Court have included the Southern States in their circuits, and they are constantly, in banc and elsewhere, exercising jurisdiction which does not belong to them, unless those States are States of the Union. If the Southern States are component parts of the Union, the Constitution is the supreme law for them, as it is for all the other States. They are bound to obey it, and so are we. The right of the Federal Government, which is clear and unquestionable, to enforce the Constitution upon them, implies the correlative obligation on our part to observe its limitations and execute its guarantees. Without the Constitution we are nothing; by, through, and under the Constitution we are what it makes us. We may doubt the wisdom of the law; we may not approve its provisions, but we cannot violate it merely because it seems to confine our powers within limits narrower than we could wish. It is not a question of individual, or class, or sectional interest, much less of party predominance, but of duty-of high and sacred duty which we are all sworn to perform. If we cannot support the Constitution with the cheerful alacrity of those who love and believe in it, we must give to it at least the fidelity of public servants who act under solemn obligations and commands which they dare not disregard.

The constitutional duty is not the only one which requires the States to be restored. There is another consideration which, though of minor importance, is yet of great weight. On the 22d day of July, 1861, Congress declared, by an almost unanimous vote of both Houses, that the war should be conducted solely for the purpose of preserving the Union, and maintaining the supremacy of the Federal Constitution and laws, without impairing the dignity, equality, and rights of the States or of individuals; and that when this was done the war should cease. I do not say that this declaration is personally binding on those who joined in making it, any more than individual members of Congress are personally bound to pay a public debt created under a law for which they voted. But it was a solemn, public, official pledge of the national honor, and I cannot imagine upon what grounds the repudiation of it is to be justified. If it be said that we are not bound to keep faith with rebels, let it be remembered that this promise was not made to rebels only. Thousands of true men in the South were drawn to our standard by it, and hundreds of thousands in the North gave their lives in the belief that it would be carried out. It was made on the day after the first great battle of the war had been fought and lost. All patriotic and intelligent men then saw the necessity of giving such an assurance, and believed that without it the war would end in disaster to our cause. Having given that assurance in the extremity of our peril, the violation of it now, in the day of our power, would be a rude rending of that good faith which holds the moral world together; our country would cease to have any claim upon the confidence of men; it would make the war not only a failure, but a fraud.

Being sincerely convinced that these views are correct, I would be unfaithful to my duty if I did not recommend the repeal of the acts of Congress which place ten of the Southern States under the domination of military masters. If calm reflection shall satisfy a majority of your honorable bodies that the acts referred to are not only a violation of the national faith, but in direct conflict with the Constitution, I dare not permit myself to doubt that you will immediately strike them from the statute-book.

To demonstrate the unconstitutional character of those acts, I need do no more than refer to their general provisions. It must be seen at once that they are not authorized. To dictate what alterations shall be made in the constitutions of the several States; to control the elections of State legislators

and State officers, members of Congress and electors of President and Vice-President, by arbitrarily de claring who shall vote and who shall be excluded from that privilege; to dissolve State Legislatures or prevent them from assembling; to dismiss judges and other civil functionaries of the State, and appoint others without regard to State law; to organize and operate all the political machinery of the States; to regulate the whole administration of their domestic and local affairs according to the mere will of strange and irresponsible agents, sent among them for that purpose-these are powers not granted to the Federal Government, or to any one of its branches. Not being granted, we violate our trust by assuming them as palpably as we would by acting in the face of a positive interdict; for the Constitution forbids us to do whatever it does not affirmatively authorize either by express words or by clear implication. If the authority we desire to use does not come to us through the Constitution, we can exercise it only by usurpation, and usurpation is the most dangerous of political crimes. By that crime the enemies of free government in all ages have worked out their de signs against public liberty and private right. It leads directly and immediately to the establishment of absolute rule; for undelegated power is always unlimited and unrestrained.

The acts of Congress in question are not only objectionable for their assumption of ungranted power, but many of their provisions are in conflict with the direct prohibitions of the Constitution. The Constitution commands that a republican form of govern ment shall be guaranteed to all the States; that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, arrested without a judicial warrant, or punished without a fair trial be fore an impartial jury; that the privilege of habeas corpus shall not be denied in time of peace; and that no bill of attainder shall be passed, even against a single individual. Yet the system of measures established by these acts of Congress does totally subvert and destroy the form, as well as the substance, of republican government in the ten States to which they apply. It binds them hand and foot in absolute slavery, and subjects them to a strange and hostile power, more unlimited and more likely to be abused than any other now known among civilized men. It tramples down all those rights in which the essence of liberty consists, and which a free government is always most careful to protect. It denies the habeas corpus and the trial by jury. Personal freedom, property, and life, if assailed by the passion, the prejudice, or the rapacity of the ruler, have no security whatever. It has the effect of a bill of attainder, or bill of pains and penalities, not upon a few individuals, but upon whole masses, including the millions who inhabit the subject States, and eveu their unborn children. These wrongs, being expressly forbidden, cannot be constitutionally inflicted upon any portion of our people, no matter how they may have come within our jurisdiction, and no matter whether they live in States, Territories, or districts.

I have no desire to save from the proper and just consequences of their great crimé those who engaged in rebellion against the Government; but as a mode of punishment, the measures under consideration are the most unreasonable that could be invented. Many of those people are perfectly innocent; many kept their fidelity to the Union untainted to the last; many were incapable of any legal offence; a large proportion even of the persons able to bear arms were forced into rebellion against their will; and of those who are guilty with their own consent, the degrees of guilt are as various as the shades of their character and temper. But these acts of Congress confound them all together in one common doom, Indiscriminate vengeance upon classes, sects, and parties, or upon whole communities, for offences committed by a portion of them against the govera