Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

SAVANNAH DAILY HERALD. vox-*xj>rE 14 no. 17. / 16 PUK^ISHKD EVERY EVENING, SUNDAYS BXCEPTED, 1 ! ' BY 63. W. 'MABON & CO. Av 111 Bay SinFOT, Sayaskab, Gjhkiuu.. * TEb m 8: Per Copy .• - P * e <* n £ per Year..... 00, ABVRBTJBING : A Jiittited number of Advertifcemeetß will l>e xm c ived at the rate of Twenty Cents per Line for Aral rasertion.ancl Fifteen Cents per Line for each snbecqnen' m&ertion ; invariably in advance. Ad rertisexne&ts ebould be handed i» before noon of each day, JOB PRINTING in every style, neatly and promptly done. (From the Herald Extra of Yesterday.) Important Aortfieru News. IV. Y. DA PEH f JC*O .TAIV. t>G. latest from Wilmington. Ppitf CasweQ and Campbell Blown Ip and Evacuated. Other Workfe Abandoned by the feiiemy. Till? DECLINE (iOTA) tanadiaii Pailiament. Tfrk’ ike arrival of thq.Fyiltoii atjHjifcon. Iliad, yesterday, Northern papers to the- 25th• were received. We are in debted to Parser Lockwood, of the Cos mopolitan, ior promptly forwarding us copies frqm Purser McManus, of the Fulton. The following are extracts . War Department, Washington, Jan. 24. Major Gen end Bix—The following telegram has been received by this De part meat from Lieut. Gen. Grant: - E- M. Stanton, Sec. of War. Crry Point, Ya., Jan. 23. Hon. E. >l. Stanton, Sec. of War—One of my staff has just returned from Fort Fisher with despatches from Gen. Terry, from which 1 extract the following: On the 16th the fenemy blew up Forts Caswell and Campbell, and abandoned them and the works on Smith’s Island, and those at Smith villa and Reeves’ Point. These places were occupied by the navy. The whole number of guns captured amounts to one hundred and sixty-two. A large number of small arms also fell into our hands, besides quantities of ordnance and commissary stores. Our casualties move smaller than at first reported. They foot up thus: Twelve officers and one hundred and seven men killed; for ty-five officers and four hundred and ninety-men wounded. U. S. Grant, Lieut. Gen’l. .[From the N. Y. Herald, Jan. 26.] The stock market was higher yester day, and speculative feeling for a rise was developed. Government securi ties were heavy. Gold was irregular, but firmer, and closed at 202 3-4. Qoeb.ec, Jan. 24, 1865.—1n the opea higpdeb&te in Parliament last night the government was sustained by a large majority, and the Southern refugees in Canada strongly denounced. A deter mination: was expressed ■ to stop the abuse of asylum; a commission was ap pointed to enquire into the cause of the thilure of justice in reference to the re lease of Bt. Albans raiders and the mis appropriation of the money restored them ; also to inquire into the conduet of Justice Coureol and the Chief of Po lio*. Meantime the government bassos jwadefi the judge. i » SAVANNAH, GA., MONDAY ‘EVENING, JAN. 30, 1865. Jeff. Davis on Reconstruction. An Important letter from the Rebel President. HE OPPOSES A CONVENTION OF STATES AMD SEPARATE STAtE ACTION. His Answer to the Georgia Reflation?. Richmond, ’ISoy. 17, 1864. To the Hon. Senators of Georgia., Messrs. A. R. Wright , President of the Senate , J. L. Guerrv , J. M. Chambers , Thomas R% Lloyd, Frederick K. West, Robert JJ. Nesbit: Gentlemen: I answered by telegraph this morning your letter of the 11th instant, as requested, ;md now respect fully comply with vour desire that I should express my on the subject to which you invite my attention. In forwarding to me the resolutions introduced into the House of Represen tatives of Georgia by Mr. Stephens, of Hancock, yoit state that you are not in clined to favor the passage of these or any similar resolutions, believing them to have a tendency to create diversions among ourselves, and to unite and strengthen our enemies, but that it is,as serted inMiiiedgeviUe that I favor such action on the paid of the States, and would oe pleased to see Georgia cast her influence in that way. You are kind enough to say that if this be true, and if the passage of these or similar'resolu tions would in the slightest degree aid or assist me in bringing the war to a successful and speedy, <;)osc\ you will give tliem your earnest and hearty sup: port. I return you my cordial thanks for this expression of confidence, but assure yon that there is no truth in the assertions which v you mention : and I presume that you will already have seen, by the closing part of my annual mes sage, which must have" reached you since the date of your letter, that I have not contemplated the use of any other agency in treating for peace than that established by the Constitution of the Confederate States. That agency seems to me to be well adapted to its purposes and free from the injurious consequences that would follow any other means that have been suggested. The objection to separate State action which you present in your letter appears to be so conclu sive as to admit of no reply. The im mediate and inevitable tendency of such distinct acts by each State is to create discordant instead of united counsels, to suggest to our enemies the possibili ty of a dissolution of the Confederacy, and to encourage them by the spectacle of our divisions to more determined and united action against us. They wouffi readily adopt the false idea that some of the States of the Confederacy arc dis posed to abandon their sister States and make separate terms cf peace for them selves; and if such a suspicion, how ever unfounded, were once engendered among our own people, it would be de structive of that spirit of mutual confi dence and support which forms our chief reliance for success in the main tenance of our cause. When the proposal of separate State action was first mooted it appeared to me so impracticable, so void of any promise of good, that I gave no heed to the proposal; but upon its adoption by citizens whose position and ability gave weight t© the expression of their opin ions, I was led to a serious consideration of the subject. My first impressions have not been changed by reflection. If all the States of the two hostile federa tions are to meet in convention, it is plain thas such a meeting can only take place aftfcr an agreement as to the time, place and terms on which they are to without discussing thei mir.or, although not trifling, difficulties of agreeing as to time and place, it certain that the States would never con-' vened without agreement as. to terms on which they were to meet. The pro posed convention must meet on the basis either that no State should against its own will be bound by the decision of the convention, or that it should be so bound. But it is plain that an agreement on the basis that no State should be bound, without its consent, by the result of the deliberations, would be an abandonment oh the part of the North of is pretended right of coercion—would be an absolute recognition of the independence of the several States of the Confederacy—would be. in a word, so complete a concession of the lightfuilness of our cause that the most visionary cannot hope for such an .agreement, .In advance of the meeting of a con vention, the only other possible basis of meeting is that each State sh >uld agree beforehand to be bound by the decision of the convention ; and such agreement is but another form of submission, of Northern dominion, as we well know that in such a convention we should be outsun bered nearly two to one on the very threshold of the scheme proposed. Theretord we are met by an obstacle which cannot be removed. Is not the impracticable character of the project apparent? You will observe that I leave entirely but of view the suggestion that a conven tion of ail the States of both federations should be held by common consent, without any previous understanding as to the effect of its decisions —should meet merely to debate and pass resolu tions that are to bind no one. It is not supposed that this can really be the meaning attached to the proposal by those who are active in its support, although the resolutions to which you invite my attention declare the function of such a convention would be simply to propose a plan of peace with the consent of the two belligerents—or, in other words, to act as negotiators in treating for peace. This part of the scheme is not intelligible to me. If the conven tion is only to be held with the consent of the two" belligerents, that consent can not be obtained without negotiation. The plan, then, would resolve itself into a scheme that the two governments should negotiate an agreement for the appointment of negotiators to make pro posals for a treaty. It seems much 01010? prompt and simple to negotiate for peace at once, than to negotiate for the ap pointment of negotiators, who are to meet without power to do anything but make proposals. If the government of the United States is willing to make peace it w ill treat for peace directly. If unwilling, it will refuse to consent to a convention of States. The author of these resolutions, and those who concur in his views, appear to me to commit the radical error. of supposing that the obstacle to obtaining the peace which w T e all desire consists. in the difficulty of finding proper agencies for negotiating, so that the whole scope of tlitTresolutions ends in nothing but suggesting that, if the enemy will treat, the best agency would be State delegates to a convention; whereas, the whole and only obstacle is that the enemy wi .1 not treat at all, or entertain any othr pro position than that w T e should submit to their yoke, acknowledge that we are criminals, and appeal to their 'or peace. .eater this statement of objeca .ua a may appear superfluous to add others of less gravity : but as you invite a full ex pression of my views, I will add that history is replete with instances of the interminable difficulties and delays at tending the attempt to negotiate on great and conflicting interests where the par ties to the negotiation are numerous, iqtfns has been the case where ffcke par- ties possessed full power to conclude a treaty, what can we hope from the .as sembly of negotiators from thirty or forty btates, who, in the midst of an. exasparating warfare, are to meet with out power to conclude anything? In the history of our country we find that in a time of profound jteace, when the post cordial brotherhood sentiment ex isted, and when a long and bloody war had been brought to a triumphant close, it required two years to assemble a con vention and bring its deliberations to an end, and another year to procure the ratification of their labors. With such a war as the present in progress, the views of she large assemblage ol negotiators proposed would undergo constant changes according to UiA vic& situdes, according to the struggle, ami the attempt to secure concordant vifcws would soon be abandoned and leave the parties must embittered than ever, Icha hopeful of the possibility of succesciul negotiation. Again, how is the difficul ty resulting from the conflicting preten sions of the two belligerents in regard t<*. several of the States to lie overcome ? Is it supposed that Virginia would enter into a convention with a delegation from what our enemies choose to term the State of \Y r est Virginia, and thus recog nize an insolent and violent dismember ment of her territory ? Or would the United States consent that West Virginia should be deprived of her pretensions to equal rights alter having formally ad mitted her as a State, and allowed her t.< > vote at a Presidential election? Who would send a delegation from Louisiana, Tennessee, Kentucky pr Missouri ? The enemy claim to hold the governments 01 those States, while we assert them to luv members <4 the Confederacy. Would delegates be received from both sides?— If so, there would soon be a disruption jot* the convention. If delegates be re ceived from neither side, then a conven tion of the States most vitally interested in the result would remain Unrepresent ed-, and what value could be attached to mere recommendations of a body of no gotiators under such circumstances ?- Various other considerations suggest, themselves, but enough has been said to justify my conclusion that the proposa of separate State action is unwise, im practicable, and offers no prospect of good to counterbalance its manifold in jurious consequences to the cause of our country. Very respectfully, yours, &c. Jkfturbon Davis. FROM: MEXICO. Ex-Senator I*win made a Duke by Maximillimui. REPORTED CESSION OF HEXICAN TER RITORY TO FRANCE. -" San. Francisco, Jan. 23, ters from -the Mazatian to the 14th inst., announce the arrival there of Captain. Beauregard, a brother of Major General Beauregard, of the rebel States, in the capacity of private secretary to Wm. M Gwin, formerly United States Senate* from California. Captain Beauregard reports that Mr. Gwin has been created a duke by the Emperor Maximilian of Mexico, and that Sonora, Sinaloa, Ciuhubia, Pwrango and Lower California have been coded to the Emperor Napoleon, by the French gov ernment in payment for the troops fur nished by the French government t© subjugate Mexico, and that Mr. Gwin has been appointed Viceroy over those States* and will soon enter upon the dn ties of his office. This story is not believed further than that Mr. Gwin has obtained certain grants of Land, and is authorized to encourage immigration from the rebel State*. i PRICE \Five Cents.