CONGRESS, U. S. 



285 



sanction to the principle I now contend for, 

 and I quote a part of it to establish the fact 



The prevalence of Christianity and the progress of 

 civilization have greatly mitigated the severity of the 

 ancient mode of prosecuting hostilities. It is a gen- 

 erally-received rule of modern warfare, so far at least 

 as operations on land are concerned, that the persons 

 and effects of non-combatants are to be respected. 

 The wanton pillage or uncompensated appropriation 

 of individual property by an army even in possession 

 of an enemy's country is against the usage of mod- 

 ern times. " Such a proceeding at this day would be 

 condemned by the enlightened judgment of the 

 world, unless warranted by particular circumstances. 

 Every consideration which upholds this conduct in 

 regard to a war on land favors the application of the 

 same rule to the persons and property of citizens of 

 the belligerents found upon the ocean. Mr. Marcy 

 to the Count de Sartigej, July 23, 1S56. 



The proposition of this Government to ex- 

 tend the principle recognized as prevailing on 

 land to the sea was declined. On the whole I 

 am inclined to doubt the propriety of the pro- 

 posed extension so far as we are concerned. I 

 do not know how blockades are to be made 

 effective if private property of the enemy on 

 the high seas is to be exempt from capture ; 

 nor does it seem wise to exempt commerce, 

 the parent of so many wars, from its principal 

 dangers. 



Yet the present Secretary of State, by di- 

 rection of the President, has offered to accede 

 to the Paris declaration, so great regard has 

 the present Administration for the sanctity of 

 private property not only on land but on the 

 sea also. 



John Quincy Adams, in his correspondence 

 both with the British minister and the Amer- 

 ican Secretary of State, affirmed the invio- 

 lability of private property on land, even in 

 the case of slaves. I call the attention of the 

 House to this great authority. In a letter to 

 the American Secretary of State, August 22, 

 1815, he says : 



Our object is the restoration of all the property, 

 including slaves, which by the usages of war among 

 civilized nations ought not to have been taken. AD 

 private property on shore was of that description. 

 It was entitled by the laws of war from capture. 



"Again, to Lord Castlereagh, Feb. 17, 1816: 



But as by the same usages of civilized nations pri- 

 vate property is not the subject of lawful capture in 

 war upon the land, it is perfectly clear that in every 

 stipulation private property shall be respected, or 

 that upon the restoration of places taken during the 

 war it shall not be carried away 4 American 

 State Papers, 116, 117, 122, 123. 



" Mr. Adams contended that the British Gov- 

 ernment had violated the- usa^.-s of civilized na- 

 tions in taking away after the war was over, or 

 in capturing during the war, slaves, because 

 they were property upon land. It is known, 

 sir, that by the treaty of 1814 indemnity was 

 accorded by Great Britain for this very viola- 

 tion of the laws of war. 



" But it has been said, and there is a case 

 Brown's case 8th Cranch, referred to often to 

 maintain the position that a nation has a right 

 to do these things which the laws of nations 



forbid ; that a sovereign accepts the laws of 

 nations as addressed to his reason and justice 

 and morality, but that if he chooses to disre- 

 gard them he may do so. But, sir, my own 

 opinion on that subject has been so well ex- 

 pressed by a distinguished judge I mean Judge 

 Hoffman and concurred in by two of the 

 judges upon the supreme bench in the Xew 

 Ahnaden mine case (2 Black.), that I beg the 

 attention of the House while I read a short ex- 

 tract from it : 



But, if it be admitted that humanity, Christianity, 

 and the usages and rules observed by all civilized 

 nations (which constitute public law), forbid even in 

 war the use of certain means, the discussion whether 

 such rights abstractly exist, would seem to be a dis- 

 putation savoring rather of the subtility of the 

 schools, than of that practical sense which se_eks to 

 discover and establish the actual rules by which na- 

 tions in a state of war are governed. That the rights 

 of war, as deduced by Bynkershoek, from a consid- 

 eration of its abstract nature, are mitigated by the 

 laws of war as established by the general consent 

 of nations, with respect to the effects of conquest as 

 well as to the mode of warfare, is proved by the gen- 

 eral recognition of the principle that, on the con- 

 quest of an enemy's territory, private rights of prop- 

 erty are to be protected. 



But, if " a nation which has injured another is to 

 be considered as confiscated, with all that belongs 

 to it, to the nation that has received the injury/' 

 this confiscation must extend to private as well 

 as public property. Judge Jfofm-an, with concur- 

 rence of Catronand Wayne, 2 Black, United States vs. 

 ':ro, p. 368. 



" I can add nothing to the force of these ob- 

 servations. Let it be remembered that it does 

 not matter how much power or how little the 

 Constitution gives Congress to seize and con- 

 fiscate private property on land, the laws of 

 nations and of war stamp the exercise of such 

 power as inhuman, immoral, infamous. 



"I consider, sir, the maxims of Christian 

 nations in modern times on that subject too 

 well established to detain the House with fur- 

 ther reference to them. They deny the right 

 in this Congress, in the exercise of its \var 

 powers, or its belligerent powers, to attack 

 temples of religion, to spoil works of art, or 

 in general to seize and confiscate private prop- 

 erty upon land, and when we do it we do it in 

 the face of the indignant and protesting Chris- 

 tian world. "We are then outside of the pale 

 of Christian nations. We "boldly spurn their 

 maxims, and despise and trample under foot 

 their morality; and unless Christian nations 

 reverse the judgments of the best and most 

 enlightened men and multitudes and times, we 

 must stand condemned and disgraced. 



' The honorable gentleman takes the posi- 

 tion that the eleven States now and formerly 

 subject to the rebel power are out of the Union, 

 and that we may make a conquest of them. 

 Suppose I were to grant it. Shall we then put 

 aside that law of nations which protects pri- 

 vate property a law sanctified by the self-in- 

 terest of the conqueror, all the dictates of hu- 

 manity, and the public opinion of the world ? 

 No ; even conceding, which I do not, Lis right 



