Can language be clearer? It will not do to treat it lightly. It is a statement of what international law is on this point from an authority; and the reasons for the doctrine are clear and incontrovertible. Neutrality depends on the fact of war; when, for any cause, that fact no longer exists, neutrality ceases likewise, of course. It is only the application of a well-known maxim of law, that when the reason of a rule fails, the rule itself fails. Let there be 'a cessation of hostilities,' then, as proposed in the Chicago platform, and how long would it be before rebel ships of war from English ports would be ready to desolate our coast, destroy our shipping, raise the blockade, and give to the rebellion the aid and sustenance it must have ere long or perish? There is still another difficulty in the way of suspending hostilities, which it is well for us not to ignore. If we propose to the rebels 'a cessation of hostilities,' does not the question immediately become one of negotiation between separate Governments? Have we not in that moment, and in that thing, then recognized the Southern Confederacy as a separate and independent Power? For does not 'a cessation of hostilities' presuppose parties of equal sovereignty on both sides? Indeed, _The London Times_ of a recent date already declares that 'it would concede to the South a position of equality.' Such a concession cannot, for a moment, be thought of. For the very question at issue is our constitutional supremacy. When that is yielded, all is yielded. The exchanging of prisoners, and the numerous like questions that perpetually arise in the progress of war, are matters of common humanity, that depend upon their own law. They are totally independent of the questions at issue between the parties belligerent; and our dealings with the South, in reference to such matters, cannot be construed into a recognition of its separate independence. If we consent to treat with the rebel chiefs, however, in regard to the very question involved in the war, how can we longer compel the non-interference of foreign Powers? If _we_ acknowledge the authority of Jeff. Davis to speak for the Southern people, we cannot then take offence if other nations acknowledge him as the representative and head of a new Government. Such and so great are the consequences of a 'cessation of hostilities,' which the Chicago platform proposes to the serious consideration of the American people.