374 



CONGRESS, U. S. 



widely in respect to this. The principle is the 

 same. The Senator has entirely misapprehend- 

 ed, at least it would seem so from the remarks 

 he has made, the scope and extent of the pro- 

 visions of this bill in regard to proceedings in 

 rem. If I understand the bill, the seventh sec- 

 tion of the bill provides for the seizure of rebel 

 property where there are no proceedings against 

 the person, not by the army merely, but by 

 proceedings instituted on behalf of the Govern- 

 ment by the executive department of the Gov- 

 ernment. It seems to me that the Senator from 

 Illinois is of all others the last person who 

 should object to this explanatory provision by 

 which the bill is made to conform to his own 

 principles." 



The joint resolution, with the amendments, 

 was subsequently passed in the Senate and ap- 

 proved by the House. 



The hill and joint resolution were signed 

 by the President, after which he sent the fol- 

 lowing Message to the House. 



Fellow Citizens of the Senate and 



House of Representatives : 



Considering the bill for " An act to suppress insur- 

 rection, to punish treason and rebellion, to seize and 

 confiscate the property of rebels, and for other pur- 

 poses," and the joint resolution explanatory of said act, 

 as being substantially one, I have approved and signed 

 both. 



Before I was informed of the resolution, I had pre- 

 pared the draft of a Message, stating objections to the 

 bill becoming a law, a copy of which draft is herewith 

 submitted. ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 



July 12, 1862. 



[Copy.] 

 Fellow Citizens of (he House of Representatives : 



I herewith return to your honorable body, in which 

 it originated, the bill for an act entitled " An act to 

 suppress treason and rebellion, to seize and confiscate 

 the property of rebels, and for other purposes," together 

 with my objections to its becoming a law. 



There is much in the bill to which I perceive no ob- 

 jection. It is wholly prospective ; and it touches nei- 

 ther person nor property of any loyal citizen, in which 

 particular it is just and proper. 



The first and second sections provide for the convic- 

 tion and punishment of persons who shall be guilty of 

 treason, and persons who shall "incite, set on foot, as- 

 sist, or engage in any rebellion or insurrection against 

 the authority of the United States, or the laws thereof, 

 or shall give aid or comfort thereto, or shall engage in 

 or give aid and comfort to any such existing rebellion 

 or insurrection." By fair construction, persons within 

 those sections are not punished without regular trials 

 in duly constituted courts under the forms and all the 

 substantial provisions of law and the Constitution ap- 

 plicable to tneir several cases. To this I perceive no 

 objection ; especially as such persons would be within 

 the general pardoning power, and also the special pro- 

 Tision for pardon and amnesty contained in this act. 



It is also provided that the slaves of persons convict- 

 ed under these sections shall be free. I think there is 

 an unfortunate form of expression, rather than a sub- 

 stantial objection, in this. It is startling to say that 

 Congress can free a slave within a State, and yet if it 

 were said the ownership of the slave had first been 

 transferred to the nation, and Congress had then liber- 

 ated him, the difficultv would at once vanish. And 

 this is the real case. The traitor against the General 

 Government forfeits his slave at least as justly as he 

 does any other property ; and he forfeits both to the 

 Government against which he offends. The Govern- 

 ment, so far as there can be ownership, thus owns the 

 forfeited slaves, and the question for Congress in re- 



gard to them is, " Shall they be made free or sold to 

 new masters?" I perceive no objection to Congress 

 deciding in advance that they shall be free. To the 

 high honor of Kentucky, as I am informed, she is the 

 owner of some slaves by escheat, and has sold none, but 

 liberated all. I hope the same is true of some other . 

 States. Indeed, I do not believe it will be physically 

 possible for the General Government to return persons 

 so circumstanced to actual slavery. I believe there 

 would be physical resistance to it, which could neither 

 be turned aside by argument, nor driven away by force. 

 In this view I have no objection to this feature of the 

 bill. Another matter involved in these two sections 

 and running through other parts of the act will be no- 

 ticed hereafter. 



I perceive no objections to the third and fourth sec- 

 tions. 



So far as I wish to notice the fifth and sixth sections, 

 they may be considered together. That the enforce- 

 ment of these sections would do no injustice to the per- 

 sons embraced within them is clear. That those who 

 make a causeless war should be compelled to pay the 

 cost of it is too obviously just to be called in question. 

 To give governmental protection to the property of per- 

 sons who have abandoned it and gone on a crusade to 

 overthrow that same Government is absurd, if consid- 

 ered in the mere light of justice. The severest justice 

 may not always be the best policy. The principle of 

 seizing and appropriating the property of the person 

 embraced within these sections is certainly no_t very 

 objectionable, but a justly discriminating application 

 of it would be very difficult, and, to a great extent, im- 

 possible. And would it not be wise to place a power 

 of remission somewhere, so that these persons may 

 know they have something to lose by persisting and 

 something to gain by desisting ? I am not sure whether 

 such power of remission is or is not within section 

 thirteen. Without any special act of Congress, I think 

 our military commanders, when, in military phrase, 

 " they are within the enemy's country," should, in an 

 orderly manner, seize and use whatever of real or per- 

 sonal -property may be necessary or convenient for 

 their commands ; at the same time preserving, in some 

 way, the evidence of what they do. 



What I have said in regard to slaves while comment- 

 ing on the first and second sections is applicable to the 

 ninth, with the difference that no provision is made 

 in the whole act for determining whether a particular 

 individual slave does or does not fall within the classes 

 defined in that section. He is to be free upon certain 

 conditions ; but whether those conditions do or do not 

 pertain to him, no mode of ascertaining is provided. 

 This could be easily supplied. 



To the tenth section I make no objection. The oath 

 therein required seems to be proper, and the remainder 

 of the section is substantially identical with a law al- 

 ready existing. 



The eleventh section simply assumes to confer dis- 

 cretionary power upon the Executive. Without the 

 law, I have no hesitation to go as far in the direction 

 indicated as I-may at any time deem expedient. And 

 I am ready to say now, I think it is proper for our 

 military cnmmanders to employ, as laborers, as many 

 persons of African descent as can be used to ad- 

 vantage. 



The twelfth and thirteenth sections are something 

 better than unobjectionable ; and the fourteenth is 

 entirely proper, if all other parts of the act shall stand. 



That to which I chiefly object pervades most part 

 of the act, but more distinctly appears in the first, 

 second, seventh, and eighth sections. It is the sum 

 of those provisions which results in the divesting of 

 title forever. 



For the causes of treason and ingredients of treason, 

 not amounting to the full crime, it declares forfeiture 

 extending beyond the lives of the guilty parties ; 

 whereas the Constitution of the United States declares 

 that ' no attainder of treason shall work corruption of 

 blood or forfeiture, except during the life of the person 

 attainted.' True, there is to be no formal attainder in 

 this case ; still, I think the greater punishment cannot 



