vailed. Afterward, for more than half a century, the
form was paramount; the term of substance again begins. The
Constitution is substance and form. The substance in it is perennial;
but every form is transient, and must be expanded, changed, re-cast.

Few, if any, Americans are aware of the identity of laws ruling the
universe with laws ruling and prevailing in the historical development
of man. Rarely has an American patience enough to ascend the long
chain from effect to cause, until he reaches the first cause, the
womb wherein was first generated the subsequent distant effect. So,
likewise, they cannot realize that at the start the imperceptible
deviation from the aim by and by widens to a bottomless gap until the
aim is missed. Then the greatest and the most devoted sacrifices are
useless. The legal conductors of the nation, since March 6th, ignore
this law.

The foreign ministers here in Washington were astonished at the
_politeness_, when some time ago the Department sent to the foreign
ministers a circular announcing to them that armed vessels of the
neutrals will be allowed to enter at pleasure the rebel blockaded
ports. This favor was not asked, not hoped for, and was not necessary.
It was too late when I called the attention of the Department to the
fact that such favors were very seldom granted; that they are
dangerous, and can occasion complications. I observed that during the
war between Mexico and France, in 1838, Count Mole, Minister of
Foreign Affairs, and the Premier of Louis Philippe, instructed the
admiral commanding the French navy in the Mexican waters, to oppose,
even by force, any attempt made by a neutral man-of-war to enter a
blockaded port. And it was not so dangerous then as it may be in this
civil war. But the chief clerk adviser of the Department found out
that President Polk's administration during the Mexican war granted a
similar permission, and, glad to have a precedent, his powerful brains
could not find out the difference between _then_ and _now_.

The internal routine of the ministry, and the manner in which our
ministers are treated abroad by the Chief at home, is very strange,
humiliating to our agents in the eyes of foreign Cabinets. Cassius
Clay was instructed to propose to Russia our accession to the
convention of Paris, but was not informed from Washington that our
ministers at Paris, London, etc., were to make the same propositions.
When Prince Gortschakoff asked Cassius Cl