he Government of the United States, etc., to
depart from the _Confederate States_ in forty days.' It is very
evident the author approves this order as warranted by
international law, at least according to his interpretation
thereof.

'Need I go farther to satisfy you of the temper and character of
the notes, and the views of their author? I can hardly suppress the
expression of my indignation that such a use should have been made
of this great national work--that such an opportunity should have
been lost to say something worthily in favor of colonization and
freedom, and in vindication of our nation, in its great struggle
with the relics of barbarism in its midst, and with the selfish and
ambitious spirits of the European continent, so ready to take
advantage of our troubles to promote their own schemes.'

We now come to another and more generally obnoxious instance of this use
of standard national works for personal or political objects. The
'Federalist,' from the circumstances under which it was written, the
influence it exerted, the events with which it is associated, the
character of the writers, and the ability manifest both in their
arguments and the style--has long been regarded as a political classic.
It was the text book of a large and intelligent party at the time of and
long subsequent to the adoption of the Constitution; and few works of
political philosophy, written to meet an exigency and prepare the way
for a governmental change, have attained so high and permanent a rank
among foreign critics and historians. It is evident that such a work,
whoever owns the copyright or boasts the authorship, has a national
value and interest. To preserve it intact, to keep it in an eligible and
accessible form before the public, is all that any editor or publisher
has a right to claim. Much has been written as to the authorship of the
respective papers, and some passages have been variously rendered in
different editions; but the general scope and merit of the work, and the
obvious and unchallenged identity of style and opinion with the
acknowledged authors as regards most of the articles, make the
discussions on these points of comparative little significance to the
reader of the present day, who regards the work as a whole, seizes its
essential traits, and is _en rapport_ with its magnanimous tone, so
wholly opposed to petty division of credit in a labor