Armies are marshalled; battles ensue; Washington itself is beleaguered; the Republic trembles with peril.

He avows his purpose to enlist in the Rebel army, thus to levy war against his country, and adhere to its enemies.

If all this accumulated disloyalty, beginning in a total renunciation of every patriotic duty, and finally consummated by an act of flagrant, unblushing enormity, is not “aid and comfort” or “countenance” or “encouragement” to the…

They must be treated as thread or gossamer, when they should be links of iron.

There is no pretence that the father communicated the crime of the son to this patriot magistrate, or to any other loyal officer by whom he could have been arrested.

Therefore, beyond all question, on the facts of the case, the father is guilty under the statute, and liable to seven years of imprisonment and a fine of one thousand dollars.

And now, instead of seven years of imprisonment and a fine of one thousand dollars, it is proposed to give him six years of trust and honor as a Senator of the United States, with an annual allowance of five thousand dollars.

And now, with this crime unatoned for, he comes here to ask your support and countenance.

What is patriotism, what is the sacred comprehensive charity of country, if a father can be blameless after such a license to his son?

The country was another mother to this son, and he went away to strike this mother on the bosom.

The American father should not have slain his son, but he should have kept him from joining the enemies of his country.

I utter not only the rule of patriotism, but the rule of law, when I say that it was positive and peremptory.

I will not admit that an American citizen can be blameless who dismisses a son from the paternal roof with money in his purse, to make war upon his country.

All that the son did afterward, all that the son sought to do, became the act of the father who sent him forth on his parricidal errand.

The father’s treason was continued and protracted in the treason of the son.

In making this contribution to the Rebellion, the act of the father was enhanced by his eminent position.

He had held a seat in the Cabinet, binding him more than any common citizen to the most watchful allegiance, and giving to what he did peculiar importance.

It was aid and comfort, countenance and encouragement, of far-reaching significance.

It was a hostile act, directly injurious to his country, and of evil example, the influence of which no man can measure.

When the citizen who has enjoyed public trust and been a “pillar of State” gives way, others about him must fall likewise.

And now this father, who gave a son to the Rebellion, comes into this sanctuary of the Constitution, where loyalty is the first condition of admission, and asks for a seat.

Admit him, and you will unloose the bonds of loyalty and give a new license to the Rebellion in its protracted struggle.

On the contrary, if you send him away, you will furnish a warning to the disloyal, and teach a lesson of patriotism which will thrill the hearts of good citizens now anxiously watching for peace and reconciliation through the triumph of…

The facts are indisputable, and over all towers one supreme act of parricide, for which there can be no excuse or apology.

In the presence of such an act, so absolutely criminal, there can be no room for inquiry as to the motive.