281 



CONGPwESS, F. S. 



number increases, the difficulty and the cruelty 

 of enforcing civil law increase, and the more 

 humane laws of war gradually step in. Cap- 

 tives, instead of being hanged for treason, are 

 treated as prisoners of war. Other nations in- 

 terfere in defence of their subjects. Aiding 

 and abetting traitors is treason ; supplying 

 traitors with food and arms is aiding and abet- 

 ting them. To prevent the consequences of 

 this, other nations require the granting of bel- 

 ligerent rights to insurgents. Thus the laws 

 of war take the place of the civil law. But as 

 between the sovereign and the revolted subjects 

 the right to enforce civil la-w is not changed. 

 The laws of war are only superadded, to be 

 exercised at the option of the sovereign, sub- 

 ject to the rights of other nations and of hu- 

 manity. Subject to these rights it is for the 

 sovereign to elect, in every particular case, 

 under which code of laws he will treat those 

 in revolt. The Government therefore may 

 seize and confiscate the property of traitors 

 absolutely, under the laws of war ; or it may 

 fine and forfeit absolutely under the civil law ; 

 but it cannot extend the effects of attainder for 

 treason beyond the life of the person attainted." 

 Mr. Wadsworth, of Kentucky, followed, say- 

 ing : " I am astonished how any gentleman can 

 refer us to the laws of nations in support of 

 this act which the bill now before us proposes 

 to amend, in the support of the amendment or 

 in support of the position taken by the gentle- 

 man from Pennsylvania (Mr. Stevens) and those 

 who agree with him. 



" Why, sir, the usages of nations in modern 

 times forbid the very means which the gentle- 

 man would employ, and the whole policy which 

 he advocates. The laws of nations recognize 

 the right of conquest between the parties to a 

 public war, but do not authorize the seizure 

 and confiscation of private property on land 

 only in excepted cases ; they do not authorize 

 the conquest of individual property. On the 

 contrary, they forbid it. 



"I am not going into a lengthy citation of 

 authorities. They have been quoted freely 

 in the discussions upon this bill. They were 

 cited fully and pertinently the other day by 

 the honorable gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Finck), 

 and I content myself now, in the main, with a 

 mere reference to them. I rely upon all writers 

 upon the public law who state the rule among 

 civilized nations in modern times. Their tes- 

 timony is uniform and explicit, uttering a united 

 voice of condemnation upon the policy which 

 the honorable gentleman from Pennsylvania 

 (Mr. Stevens) demands. I rely upon the prin- 

 ciples declared by all the civilized nations of 

 the world in modern times, French, British, 

 and American, in State papers, treaties, and 

 diplomatic assemblies, to support the declara- 

 tion of the elementary writers, that by the 

 usages of the civilized nations of modern times, 

 private property upon land is exempt from the 

 spoliations of war, exempt from seizure and 

 confiscation, except in certain specified cases. 



Wheaton states the rule in clear and prcci.w 

 terms : 



But by the modern usages of nations, which has 

 now ^acquired the force of law, temples of religion, 

 public edifices devoted to civil purposes only, monu- 

 ments of art, and repositories of science," are ex- 

 empted from the general operations of war. Private 

 property on .and it also exempt from confiscation, 

 with the exception of such as may become booty in 

 special cases, when taken from enemies in the field 

 or in besieged towna, and of military contributions! 

 levied upon the inhabitants of the hostile territory 

 This exemption extends even to the case of an abso 

 lute and unqualified conquest of the enemy's coun- 

 try. Elements, &c., p. 421. 



" This doctrine is supported by all writers 

 who state the usages of modern nations. 1 

 forbear to quote them again to the House. 

 But I call attention to the language of Chief 

 Justice Marshall in United States vs. Perch- 

 man, 7 Peters, 86 : 



It is very unusual, even in cases of conquest, for 

 the iXinqueror to do more than to displace the sov- 

 ereign and assume dominion over the country. The 

 modern usage of nations, which has become law, 

 would be violated ; that sense of justice and of right 

 which is acknowledged and felt by the whole civil- 

 ized world would be outraged, if private property 

 should be generally confiscated, and private rights 

 annulled. The people change their allegiance; their 

 relation to their ancient sovereign is dissolved ; but 

 their relations to each other and their rights of prop- 

 erty remain undisturbed. 



" In another part of the opinion he speaks 

 of the attempt on the part of the new sovereign 

 to confiscate the private property of the inhab- 

 itants occupying the acquired territory as 'a 

 wrong to individuals condemned by the prac- 

 tice of the whole civilized world.' Again, 

 speaking of the eighth article of the treaty 

 by which we acquired Florida, Chief Justice 

 Marshall says : 



This article is apparently introduced on the part 

 of Spain, and must be intended to stipulate expressly 

 for that security to private property which the laws 

 and usages of nations would, without express stipu- 

 lation, have conferred. Page 88. 



" I cite also the letter of a former American 

 Secretary of State of distinguished reputation 

 to the French minister, written in the course 

 of that discussion which grew out of the Paris 

 declarations of 1856. By the laws of nations 

 as previously existing, private property on land 

 was exempt from seizure and spoliation in time 

 of war ; and it was proposed by the Paris con- 

 ference to abolish privateering, and to that ex- 

 tent accord the same immunity to private prop- 

 erty on the ocean. This Government was asked 

 to assent to that principle being embodied in 

 the laws of nations. The then Secretary of 

 State (Mr. Marcy) replied very properly in be- 

 half of this Government, that this Government 

 would not assent to the proposition unless the 

 nations represented in the Paris congress would 

 also agree to abolish the right to seize private 

 property on the seas by public armed vessels., 

 placing all private property on the high seas in 

 the same position as private property on land. 

 Mr. Marcy in that letter give.? the weight of his 



