CONGRESS, U. S. 



249 



his houses, his lands, his mules, his cannon, yea, 

 his riirlit to service in another, shall be confis- 

 cated ; not annulling the law by which he holds 

 it : for that is a matter which neither in war 

 nor in peace can we reach. But because of the 

 crime, we may either in war or peace impose 

 the penalty of the confiscation of the offender's 

 right to hold property, or of the right to the 

 service and labor of another. This bill is put 

 on the ground of confiscation, on the ground of 

 forfeiture." 



Mr. Crittenden : " Mr. Speaker, it is the crime 

 against which we are legislating that irritates 

 and provokes us to extremity in our legislation 

 on this subject. We have a power in all cases 

 within our jurisdiction to try persons in our 

 courts for the crime alleged against them ; and 

 all the consequences which the law annexes 

 under the Constitution follow the judgment. 



" Xow, in reference to treason, which is the 

 crime here. The Constitution defines what it 



and provides for its punishment. It declares 



at treason against the United States shall con- 

 sist in levying war against them ; and that no 

 person shall be convicted of treason except on 



ie testimony of two witnesses to the same 



ert act, or on his confession in open court. 

 It declares that Congress shall have the power 

 to declare the punishment of treason ; but no 

 attainder of treason shall work corruption of 

 blood, or forfeiture, except during the life of 

 the offender. 



' Xow, sir, the crime declared by this bill, 

 and for which this forfeiture is to take place, is 

 treason treason by its very definition. It is 

 so considered in this bill. It is so considered 

 by my friend from Illinois. This law undertakes 

 to deprive the owner of slaves of his entire 

 property, and to give complete freedom to the 

 slave. The Constitution says that even on con- 

 viction of treason, there shall be no forfeiture 

 of property, of any description, beyond the life- 

 time of the offender. 



" Xow. I ask my friends everywhere if it is 

 not a plain breach of the Constitution that a 

 man shall forfeit his slave-? Whatsoever of 

 property he employs, or permits to be employed 

 in a certain way in aid of treasonable purposes, 

 he shall forfeit it absolutely, says this bill ; and 

 especially shall he forfeit his slaves forever. 

 That is the language of the bill. The language 

 f the Constitution is, that no title of his prop- 

 erty shall be forfeited for longer than his life, 

 this, however else we may differ, there is 

 apparent unconstitutionally in this bill. 



' Gentlemen, for the sake of our country, I 

 ask you not to enter upon such an experiment. 

 Your laws already declare what is treason ; 

 they define what shall be the penalties of that 

 crime. They are sufficient, and I hope there 

 will be no further action, such as this bill con- 

 templates. 



''Let us act our part like men; let us look 

 above these little means of penal laws which, 

 give me leave to say. will furnish those in arms 

 against the Government a pretext for misrepre- 



senting the purposes and objects of this war. 

 We have declared that this war is not for the 

 subjugation of the South, not for the overthrow 

 of slavery, nor for the overthrow of their social 

 institutions, but simply for the noble purpose 

 of restoring our country and preserving the 

 Union. That is our object. Let the means 

 with which we pursue that object be as noble 

 and elevated as the object itself. Let us raise 

 ourselves to that high level. But what will 

 be the effect of these penal laws ? Does any 

 man suppose they will assist you in gaining a 

 single battle? When we have before us the 

 noble purpose of uniting our countrymen under 

 a common Government, and of restoring the 

 supremacy of the Constitution, is it necessary 

 to rake in the dust for these small, petty means . 

 of annoyance, the effect of which will only 

 be to render those now in arms against tl>e 

 Government more bitter against us ? " 



Mr. Diven, of New York, asked : " Is there 

 any man who thinks that the passage of a law 

 authorizing the confiscation of property can 

 promote the success of our army 1 Why, then, 

 do not other nations think so? When we were 

 prosecuting our war against Mexico we respect- 

 ed the property of the enemy. When Garibal- 

 di was prosecuting the war of independence in 

 Italy, he respected the property of the Italians, 

 without regard to what army they were giving 

 their sympathies to. Have not the stern rigors 

 of ancient law been relaxed in favor of justice ? 

 Why have we protested against indiscriminate 

 piracy on the seas ? Why has the custom been 

 abandoned of giving up cities that had been be- 

 sieged to the sack of the soldiery, as was once 

 th universal usage of war? Did the sacking 

 of cities promote the success of the besiegers ? 

 On the contrary, it stimulated the besieged to a 

 more obstinate and determined resistance. If 

 any man doubts it, let him read the wars of the 

 Peninsula, where women, rather than undergo 

 the rigors of such a code, fought and perished, 

 till the streets reeked with their putrid bodies. 

 No, sir. The attaching of such rigors and pen- 

 alties to warfare only stimulates the resistance 

 of the enemy. Let it be understood that all these 

 Southern States, which may be regarded as in 

 rebellion against the Government, are to have 

 their property all confiscated if we are success- 

 ful in the war, and do you not see that they will 

 fight the battle to the bitter end ? Do you not 

 see that there is no hope for them, no home, no 

 hearthstone ; and that they may as well conclude 

 to die on the field of battle as to surrender ? " 



Mr. Stevens, of Pennsylvania, replied : " Mr. 

 Speaker, I thought the time had come when the 

 laws of Avar were to govern our action ; when 

 constitutions, if they stood in the way of the 

 laws of war in dealing with the enemy, had no 

 right to intervene. Who pleads the Constitu- 

 tion against our proposed action? Who says 

 the Constitution must come in, in bar of our 

 action ? It is the advocates of rebels, of rebels 

 who have sought to overthrow the Constitution 

 and trample it in the dust who repudiate the 



