350 



CONGRESS, U. 8. 



reach of judicial process that I suppose their 

 property may be reached in this way. As our 

 armies advance into the South, if this bill be- 

 comes a law, all the property belonging to 

 these rebels, as fast as we get possession of it, 

 will be appropriated to the use of the Govern- 

 ment : it is forfeited by the act. 



" I know that some have objected that this 

 bill amounts to nothing; that we have not 

 possession of this property. Why declare, 

 they say, the slaves of rebels free, and why 

 forfeit and confiscate the property of rebels 

 when, for want of possession of the property 

 and slaves, the law can have no practical effect ? 

 But if you pass such a law as this, and it goes 

 into effect immediately, you may take posses- 

 sion of this property next year or any time 

 hereafter ; the forfeiture is effected ; the title is 

 divested in these military districts ; and in the 

 other districts of the United States where there 

 is property belonging to non-resident rebels the 

 forfeiture is to be perfected through the courts. 

 Perhaps I had better read two sections of the 

 bill in order to show the mode of forfeiting 

 property. The fourth section provides for the 

 mode of doing this where judicial authority is 

 overborne. It declares 



That it shall be the further duty of the President of 

 the United States, as often as in his opinion the mili- 

 tary necessities of the army, or the safety, interest, 

 and welfare of the United States, in regard to the sup- 

 pression of the rebellion, shall require, to order the 

 seizure and appropriation, by such officers, military 

 or civil, as he may designate for the purpose, of any 

 and all property confiscated and forfeited^ under and 

 by virtue of this act, situated and being in any district 

 of the United States beyond the reach of civil process 

 in the ordinary course of judicial proceedings by reason 

 of such rebellion, and the sale or other disposition of 

 said property, or so much of it as he shall deem ad- 

 visable. 



" Under that provision it will be perceived 

 that the President may appoint persons to take 

 possession of this property as our armies ad- 

 vance, and he may order the sale of it. Under 

 this section of the bill, we go through no 

 judicial proceeding whatever for the purpose 

 of condemning this property. Confiscation is 

 not a judicial matter in regard to this property. 

 You cannot condemn the property by a judicial 

 proceeding, because you have no court there to 

 do it. The very fact of the existence of the 

 rebellion and of the necessity to call out the 

 army for the purpose of putting it down, pre- 

 supposes that your judicial tribunals are over- 

 borne, and this confiscation of the property is 

 to be made effective through the military 

 tribunals. I think this may be done. 



" "We have toward these people in the rebel- 

 lious States a twofold right. There would be 

 no difficulty in determining our rights as against 

 them if they were an independent nation ; but 

 what makes the difficulty is the relation which 

 the persons in arms against the Government 

 bear to it, that is ; as enemies, and at the same 

 time as citizens. That is what seems to embar- 

 rass some minds. That is the precise condition 

 that persons now in arms against the United 



States in the rebel States are in. We may 

 treat them as traitors, and we may treat them 

 as enemies, and we have the right of both, bel- 

 ligerent and sovereign, so far as they are con- 

 cerned. 



" When an insurrection assumes such formi- 

 dable proportions as the present, and when 

 armies are arrayed against each other and the 

 power of the nation called forth to put it down, 

 the international law writers all agree that the 

 rebels are entitled to be treated as belligerents 

 or as enemies. We have been treating the 

 rebels in the South as belligerents during this 

 present war. We have sent flags of truce to 

 them. We have taken them as prisoners of 

 war. Whenever a rebellion becomes of such 

 magnitude as to be entitled to be called a civil 

 war, then the rights of the parties are to be 

 governed by the ordinary rules of war between 

 independent nations; but that does not prevent 

 the Government, after the war is over, from 

 trying as a traitor any person that may be in 

 its hands. That is the way, I take it, that this 

 rebellion is to be finally put down. Nobody 

 expects to try for treason the two or three 

 hundred thousand men now in arms against 

 the Government, every one of whom is a legal 

 traitor ; but we will give them the rights of 

 belligerents ; we will take them as prisoners of 

 war ; and when those who have been seduced 

 from their loyalty to the Union shall have 

 returned to their allegiance, we will release 

 them again. But the ringleaders of this rebel- 

 lion the instigators of it, the conspirators who 

 set it on foot will, I trust, be brought to trial 

 for treason, and, if found guilty, be executed 

 as traitors. These are our rights as against 

 rebels. 



" One of the rights as against an enemy is 

 the right of confiscation. We have the right 

 to take the persons and the property of our 

 enemy and destroy them both if necessary. 



" I desire to call attention for a moment to 

 the second and third sections of this bill, which 

 I regard as among the most important in it. 

 The second section forfeits the right or the 

 claim of any person to the service or labor of 

 any other person, when the person claiming 

 the service has been engaged in any manner in 

 this rebellion, and makes the person owing the 

 service forever afterward free. I take it there 

 can be no doubt of the power of Congress to 

 pass this provision. Congress has authority 

 to raise armies, and it may draft soldiers. It 

 may take the hired man of my friend from 

 Kentucky (Mr. Davis), whom he has engaged 

 at a stipulated price to work upon his farm 

 for the next year, and in the middle of his 

 contract, in the midst of his harvest, the Gov- 

 ernment of the United States may come along 

 and draft that man into the service of the 

 United States, and what becomes of the con- 

 tract? Can you enforce it as against the Unit- 

 ed States? Can you plead that you are en- 

 titled to the service for which you had, per- 

 haps, paid in advance? The paramount au- 



