Attorney-General, herewith submitted, and on the 30th the following letter to Charles H. Reed, Esq., State's Attorney of the Seventh Judicial Circuit, on the same subject: CHARLES H. REED: STATE OF ILLINOIS, EXECUTIVE Department, DEAR SIR:-I forward you herewith a copy of an official letter addressed by me to Hon, W. Bushnell, Attorney-General, in relation to the circumstances of the death of General Thomas W. Grosvenor. The matter has occasioned me a great amount of anxiety, and after the most mature reflection, I am forced to the conviction that the indictment against Treat, the person who inflicted the wounds upon him, should also include Philip H. Sheridan, Frank T. Sherman, and the persons who claimed to be officers of the reputed "Company L, First Regiment of Chicago Volunteers." Some of the reasons that have forced me to this conclusion are contained in my letter to the Attorney-General, and others will occur to you, familiar as you are with the criminal laws and the course of criminal justice. It would be simply dishonorable to you, and to the State, to prosecute young Treat alone, to conviction, when you, and every one besides that are supposed to know what the law is, are bound to confess that, if he is guilty of a legal offense, so are those who placed him in a position to do mischief; and neither you nor the State authorities can find a legal excuse for discharging Treat without trial. No course is open to us but to boldly and squarely stand up to the line of duty. I have written this to you because I can well understand that you may feel a degree of hesitation in advising the grand jury to find an indictment against such persons as R. B. Mason, P. H. Sheridan, Frank T Sherman; and as this case concerns the State, in its political capacity as much as in other respects, I think it proper that the Governor should take the responsibility of what is done. And while I have the utmost confidence in you, I do advise the indictment and trial of all concerned. Respectfully, JOHN M. PALMER. I have thus presented, with a degree of minuteness that may be thought unnecessary and tedious, an account of the efforts made by the State authorities to discharge their whole duty, and protect every interest of the citizens of the State; and then, to make the history complete, I will add what is well known: that on the 19th day of October, 1871, both houses of the General Assembly passed a bill appropriating two millions nine hundred and fifty five thousand three hundred and forty dollars, with interest thereon until paid, from the treasury of the State, for the relief of Chicago and for the support of its police and fire departments-which bill was at once approved by the Governor. It will be easily perceived that this statement does not present a complete history of the acts of the Mayor and Lieut. General Sheridan, and the persons who acted under the command of the latter. I have been informed that he issued other orders in respect to the organization and government of the regiment, and that either he or his subordinates assumed the right to command the organized militia of the State, and that he also gave directions to the city police as to their duties. Enough, however, can be discovered in the facts developed, to justify the statement that the conduct of the Mayor and the mili tary forces as well the regular troops as the volunteers raised by Lieut. General Sheridan-was in all respects violative of the constitution and laws of the United States and of this State, and at the same time, by their direct effect and example, subversive of the principles of free government. - It seems to me to be so clear that the conduct complained of is contrary to the constitution and the laws, that it is impossible, by any process of reasoning, to make it more so. The Mayor, the mere executive officer of a city created by the laws of this State, without control over the police, and with only the general powers of a conservator of the peace, abdicated some of the most important functions and duties of his office, and, in connection with this refusal to discharge his own duties, attempted to place the laws of the State under the feet of citizen, who, forgetful of his own duty to respect, obey and enforce the laws, in the capacity of an officer of the United States army, availing himself of the color of authority conferred upon him by the Mayor, subjected his fellow-citizens to military rule. No officer of the United States, or of the State of Illinois, has the constitutional or legal au thority to exercise such transcendent powers; for Lieutenant-General Sheridan employed the troops of the United States in a manner not authorized by Federal laws. He raised troops without the consent of Congress, and imposed upon them an unlawful oath. He disregarded the provision of the constitution of the State which provides that "the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power," and by posting his guards and sentinels upon the streets of a populous city, with instructions to arrest persons passing upon them, and to fire upon them in case of a refusal to obey their authority, the life of a citizen, who was under the protection of the laws, was destroyed. And the ground upon which this dangerous assumption of authority is defended is that of emergency or necessity. I do not admit that any necessity or emergency that could possibly arise would justify or excuse the acts of the Mayor and Lieutenant-General Sheridan; but as this defense for their conduct has been vehemently urged, and has, no doubt, made some impression upon the public mind, it may be proper to consider it in the light of the facts. * * * Up to the time of the arrival of the State troops, on the morning of the 11th day of October, according to all the evidence presented by the papers submitted, Lieutenant-General Sheridan had not officially interfered in the slightest degree with the affairs of the city, nor was there a single soldier of the army of the United States in Chicago, If there were any doubts upon that point they are put at rest by his own statements, in what is published as his official report. He there says: "The disorganized condition of affairs in this city, produced by and immediately following the late fire, induced the city authorities to ask for the assistance of the military forces, as shown by the Mayor's proclamation of October 11, 1871. *To protect the public interests entrusted to me by the Mayor's proclamation, I called to this city Companies A and K," etc. He obviously intends to inform the Adjutant-General that he ordered the troops into Chicago after the issuance, and in consequence of the Mayor's proclamation. If he had in fact ordered regular troops into Chicago prior to that time, I leave him to reconcile that fact with his report to his official superior. The fire broke out on the night of the 8th of October, and ceased during the afternoon of the 9th, and during the day and night of the 10th of October, the civil officers and police force-aided by a single battalion of State militia under Major Alstrup, who had ten dered its services to the Chief of Police on the 9th-and the people of the city, large numbers of whom had been sworn in as special police, had without difficulty preserved order. At four o'clock on tue morning of the 11th the Adjutant-General of Illinois arrived, with two hundred men, to increase the force, and at 8 o'clock A. M. of the same day, before the Mayor's proclamation was issued, there were on duty in Chicago: the regular police force, numbering upwards of four hundred men; Major Alstrup's battalion, 200 men [see his report], the militia of the State, 315 men [see Adjutant-General's report], others rapidly approaching, and several companies of organized militia within easy reach [see Adjutant General's report], and the whole male population of Chicago and Cook county subject to the call of the local authorities, and that of the State under the orders of the Governor. The officers in command of the troops sent by me to Chicago were among the most distinguished of the late volunteer service. In proof of this, no soldier of the late war need be more than reminded of Col. Hubert Dilger, of the Artillery of the Army of the Cumberland; Major James M. Beardsley, of the 13th Illinois Volunteers; Major E. S. Johnson, of the 7th Illinois Volunteers; Captain Joseph W. S. Stambaugh, of the U. S. Engineer Corps; Captain T. Culver, whose honorable crutches attest his bravery; Captain E. Snyder, a trained soldier from the European armies, who earned his American citizenship by valuable services in the South and West, and now fills the honorable position of Professor of Languages and Military Tactics, in the Illinois Invustrial University, Captain H. Kuhlmann, of equally tried services; or Captain Donegan and his colored men, each of whom participated in the horrors of the mine before Petersburg, and bears an honorable discharge from the army. Nearly all the enlisted men-it may be added-were honorable soldiers of the late war. * * * and Then what was the emergency that occurred on the 11th to justify the acts of the Mayor and the Lieutenant-General? I have no information upon that point, except what i gather from Lieutenant-General Sheridan's official report. He says, in describing the employment of his forces: "These troops, both regulars and volunteers, were actively engaged, during their service here, in protecting the treasure in the burut district, guarding the unburnt district from disorders and danger by further fires, and in protecting the store-houses, depots, and sub-depots of supplies, established for the relief of sufferers from the fire. These duties were terminated on the 23d inst., on the 24th instant the regulars started to their respective stations, and the volunteers were discharged." He does not, it is true, in this report, made on the 25th day of October, after enumerating these mere police duties, allude to the services of Company L, of the regiment of volunteers, that, as late as the night of the 20th of October, at a distance of three miles from the burnt district, while enforcing military rule by guards and sentinels, with orders to arrest suspected persons and shoot such as refused to obey their orders, killed Thomas. W. Grosvenor, but the omission must be accounted for by supposing that he regarded these operations as merely incidental to the emergent duty of protecting the treasures in the burnt district, guarding the unburnt district from disorders and dangers by further fires, and protecting the store-houses of supplies. It will be seen that in discussing the conduct of the Mayor and Lieutenant-General Sheridan, I have preferred to follow the accounts. given by themselves, rather than those which have been invented and exaggerated to create a public sentiment unfavorable to a fair judicial investigation. I presume no instance can be found in the history of free States where public officers, for reasons so flimsy, have undertaken to suspend the laws. Influenced alone by a sense of duty, and by the belief that the acts of the parties named were contrary to the laws and reproachful to the character of the people of the State, and of most dangerous example, I have deemed it my duty to lay all the facts before the General Assembly and the people of the State. In preparing and addressing the letters of the 28th day of October to the Attorney General and State's Attorney of the Seventh Judicial Circuit, and, indeed, in all that I have written or done in regard to these affairs, I was aware that I could scarcely avoid giving offense to powerful interests that have, for the present, the support of the opinions and sympanies of many, perhaps a majority, of the people of Chicago; and I knew, also, that the people of the State are still so far under the influence of feelings of hostility to secession and its kindred heresies, that they are inclined to view with distrust the assertion of the authority of a State and its constitution and laws, whenever the authority claimed is opposed to any pretension of the Federal government, or any person who professes to act in its name. Nor can I profess to be entirely free from such feelings, though I cannot bring himself to believe that the Federal and State governments are hostile or rival organizations, each eager to grasp and absorb the proper powers of the other, but I regard them as in fact but different agents and trustees of the people, instituted by them with different powers and designed for different purposes, and that the people can and will modify and diminish or enlarge the powers of each, as they may determine will best secure their own liberties and promote their own happiness. But while I continue to occupy the place to which I have been assigned by my fellow-citizens, it is my duty to exert all the powers they have conferred upon me to maintain the adjustments of political power, precisely as the people of the United States and of the State of Illinois have, by their own solemn constitutions, determined. I am not at liberty, even by my silence or indifference, to consent to acts that will, by their direct consequences or by their influence and example, insidiously change the spirit and substance of our institutions, while the forms of the government apparently remain unaltered. One of the vital principles that underlies our whole system of government, is that of the complete separation and the absolute independence of the Federal and State governments. Chief Justice Marshall, one of the most eminent jurists and statesmen whose names adorn our history, said: "In America the powers of sovereignty are divided be tween the government of the Union and those of the States. They are each sovereign, with respect to the objects committed to it; and neither sovereign, with respect to the objects committed to the other." And I have supposed that such is not only the proper view of the relative powers of the two systems in the light of the constitution and of judicial decisions, but that it has its foundation in necessity and reason. It is impossible to suppose the case of two governmental agencies that possess the same powers, that are subject to the same dutieswith respect to the same objects-at the same moment. If such a view was possible, under any incomprehensible system of politics, what would be the effect of an attempt to give it practical application? It would be, that on occasions of disorder or difficulty each would depend upon the other, until the rights and safety of the people would be imperiled; or, if both should eagerly hasten to the discharge of the common duty, their powers would be brought into collision-for if their powers and duties were equal, who shall decide between them? On the late occasion in Chicago, it was only because the representatives of the legal and rightful authority yielded-though unconsciously-to that which was usurped and illegal, that we escaped an unseemly controversy. And it is quite as difficult to imagine a case in which the inhabitants, or any officer of a city or district, have the right, when they require assistance, to elect the government from which they will demand it. Chicago is a part of the State of Illinois, and, upon principles that we can understand, the rights and duties of the State and the city are reciprocal. The obligation of the inhabitants of the city of Chicago, and of all its officers, to obey the laws of the State, and to submit to and enforce its authority, is continual, and admits of no interruption; and the duty of the State to protect its people by the authority of its laws, and the agency of its officers, can neither cease nor be suspended. But if the people of Chicago, or its Mayor, have the right, upon occasions of urgency, to call in the support of the army of the United States, and thereby exclude the authority of the State, how are the officers of the State to govern their conduct? On the 11th day of October, after the militia of the State had reached the city under the call of the Mayor, he decided to call on the military forces of the United States, and to authorize Lieut. Gen. Sheridan to reject the aid of the State. In his brief note to Lieut. Gen. Sheridan, of the morning of that day, he said: "If, in your opinion, the men are not wanted, please order their return." If this right of election and exclusion by the Mayor exists, what are the future. duties of the authorities of the State? If the condition of Chicago should again be such that its civil force is inadequate, and a call be made upon the Governor for support, what would be his duty for the right of election cannot be alone in the city, or the Mayor, and even the commander of the United States forces might conclude that he would not interfere. It seems to me, then, to be clear, that our free institutions rest upon the principle that the power and duty of the State to preserve order and maintain the laws within its own boundaries are complete and perfect, and are not subject to the control or interference of the authorities of the United States, in any case whatever, nor can the authori ties of any city or county relieve the State from such duties. I am not forgetful of the fact that by the provisions of the 4th section of the |