CONGRESS, U. S. 



349 



tion that, in the event of any State hereafter 

 choosing to enter upon a system of gradual 

 emancipation of slaves, or gradual abolishment 

 of slavery, the United States ought to cooperate 

 with that State by giving it pecuniary aid, to 

 be used by the State, in its discretion, to com- 

 pensate for the inconveniences, public and pri- 

 vate, produced by such change of system. 



Mr. McDougall, of California, expressed his 

 views thus: "I have learned in the school 

 wherein I studied the Constitution of my coun- 

 try, that this Federal Government was one of 

 limited powers, contained and denned in the 

 grant of powers, and that nothing was granted 

 to this Federal Government but for the pur- 

 poses of administration and government for 

 public and general purposes. Is there or is 

 there not any limitation upon the Federal Gov- 

 ernment in disposing of the moneys assessed 

 upon the people, and brought into the Federal 

 Treasury ? May it or may it not be expended 

 for any and for every purpose ? If they can 

 be expended for all purposes or for any pur- 

 pose in the will of Congress, then there can 

 be no objection to this measure, so far as the 

 question of power is concerned. But if there 

 be a limitation, I would ask what limitation? 

 And then, if I were to answer the question I 

 asked, I would for its resolution look to the 

 Constitution. It is not at this time denied 

 but that the Federal power is power granted 

 by the terms, express or implied, in the Con- 

 stitution. The power granted is the limit of 

 power. The question then is, Is this a power 

 granted? That is, the power to take money 

 from the Federal Treasury, not for the pur- 

 poses of government, not for any purpose indi- 

 cated hi that instrument, but as a charity to 

 any one of the States of the Union who may 

 come and ask a particular charity at its hands. 

 I do not myself, with the instructions I have 

 had, understand that we have the constitu- 

 tional right to make ourselves almoners for the 

 States of this Union any more than we have 

 for the States of Europe." 



The amendment of Mr. Davis was lost ayes 

 4, noes 34 and the resolution was subsequently 

 passed, as foDows : 



TEAS. Messrs. Anthony, Browning, Chandler, Clark, 

 Collamer, Davis, Dixon," Doolittle, Fessenden, Foot, 

 Foster, Grimes, Hale, Harlan, Henderson, Howard, 

 Howe, King, Lane of Indiana, Lane of Kansas. Morrill, 

 Pomerov, bherman, Sumner, Ten Eyck, Thomson, 

 Trumbiill, Wade, Wilkinson, Willey, Wilmot, and Wil- 

 son of Massachusetts 32. 



NATS. Messrs. Bayard, Carlile, Kennedy, Latham, 

 Nesmith, Powell, Sa'ulsbury, Stark, Wilson of Mis- 

 souri, and Wright 10. 



The resolution, as adopted, was as follows : 

 That the United States ought to cooperate with any 

 State which may adopt gradual abolishment of slavery, 



iving to such State pecuniary aid, to be used by such 

 tate in its discretion, to compensate for the inconven- 

 iences, public and private, produced by such change 

 of system. (See PCBLIC DOCUMENTS. 



In the Senate, on the 25th of February, the 

 bill to confiscate the property of rebels," &c.. 

 was taken up. 



The confiscation of the property of the people 

 of the seceded States became a subject of 

 great interest at this session of Congress. It 

 was anticipated by those members who intro- 

 duced the proposition before Congress, that by 

 an act of this nature the slaves could be reached 

 and emancipated. The views presented in 

 favor of, and against this measure, possess the 

 highest importance. 



Mr. Trumbull, of Illinois, took the floor to 

 explain the bill. He said : " The bill is intend- 

 ed to operate upon property, and not to affect 

 the person of the rebel or traitor ; and it only 

 operates upon the property belonging to such 

 rebels as are beyond the jurisdiction of the 

 courts in the ordinary course of judicial pro- 

 ceeding. TVhere the rebel can be reached by 

 judicial process, the punishment for his crimes 

 can be visited upon him personally, and this 

 bill does not propose to interfere with his 

 property at all. It does not touch that class 

 of cases; and one reason why it does not was 

 to steer clear of any difficulty growing out of 

 this clause in the Constitution of the United 

 States ^ 



The Congress shall have power to declare the punish- 

 ment of treason ; but no attainder of treason shall 

 work corruption of blood or forfeiture, except during 

 the life of the person attainted. 



" Under that clause of the Constitution, I 

 have been inclined to the opinion that it was 

 not competent for Congress to forfeit the real 

 property of a convicted traitor, except during 

 life ; and as the punishment for treason by our 

 law is death, the forfeiture of his realty for 

 life would amount, of course, to very little. 

 But I understand that it is competent for the 

 Congress of the United States to prescribe a 

 punishment for those persons who, though aid- 

 ing and abetting the rebellion, cannot be 

 reached and prosecuted for treason ; and this bill 

 applies to that class of persons. They may be 

 non-residents ; they may be foreigners ; for in- 

 stance, an Englishman owning property in the 

 city of New York may be contributing to this 

 rebellion may be aiding it. I do not under- 

 stand that Congress is without power to punish 

 such a person, by confiscating his property. 

 He may aid the rebellion by contributing the 

 very means derived from his property in New 

 York to the support of the army which is now 

 arrayed against the Government. I wish to 

 put this question to those who doubt the con- 

 stitutionality of this bill, if there are such : I 

 wish to ask them if it is not competent for 

 Congress to reach that class of cases? 



"This bill also provides for reaching the 

 property of all rebels in States where the judi- 

 cial authorities are overborne. It is manifestly 

 impossible to try a man for treason in South 

 Carolina. You cannot practically carry out 

 the provisions of the Constitution which guar- 

 antee to a man a jury trial, and also make it 

 necessary that he should be indicted before he 

 is put on his trial, where you have no courts. 

 It is because these persons are beyond the 



