Page images
PDF
EPUB

1862.

THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE.

constitute the committee, the Chair will entertain that proposition.

Mr. HALE. Other amendments and other bills have been introduced, which make it a different proposition to commit from that on which the Senate acted.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The suggestion of the Senator from New Hampshire is well taken. They have changed sufficiently the character of the proposition to make it a new one.

Mr. HALE. I want to say a single word. There is a difficulty in my mind in regard to the amendment of the Senator from Massachusetts. I think I have been as anxious and as earnest as anybody to advance the cause of free principles, so far as might be done consistently with the rights we owe under the Constitution; but it seems to me the machinery of the sixth section of the amendment of the Senator from Massachusetts is objectionable to the exception that it is not in accordance with the Constitution. I hope we have not got so far that a man may be treated here as I used to be in my own State when I quoted the State constitution and the Supreme Court. The sixth section of the amendment undertakes to authorize the President of the United States to go into one of the States of the Union and point out a crime, and as a punishment for that crime, by proclamation, to liberate his slaves. It strikes me, if we have any Constitution at all-the thought is new to me-such a proceeding is palpably unconstitutional. It is not worth while for us to let our feelings run away with our judgments entirely, though I am willing to let them go a good way. I think the Senator will find that that is nothing more nor less than taking that crime, which is being in rebellion, or participating in insurrection, which is a crime now upon the statute, and imposing as a penalty a punishment, not of confiscation, but of the liberation of his slaves by the simple proclamation of the President. That will probably be thought of by others who are able to give it more mature consideration.

are submitted. I would not vote in palpable con-
tradiction to my convictions, but I do not intend
to throw any opinions that I may entertain ad-
verse to the measure in the way of it. I do not
think we shall make any progress by this course.

the Republic, I entertain no doubt. Every fiber of the being of the Republic is against slavery, was made to be against it, and is against it, and ever will be against it. Slavery knows it, is conscious of it, and slavery hates the institutions of the country and this Government, and all the legitimate and proper influences of democratic institutions more than anything on earth hates re

continent of Europe an institution, a party, a sect that hates republican government and democratic institutions with the thousandth part of the intense bitterness that slavery hates them. Between slavery and the masses of our people, nurtured and trained in Christian democracy, there is and must always be an antagonism.

Mr. WILSON, of Massachusetts. Mr. President, I think if the Senator from New Hampshire had spent the time in studying the various propositions that have been made instead of hunt-publican institutions. There is not to-day on the ing up the files to see who has made speeches, and how many have been made, and how many columns of the Globe are filled with those speeches, and how many days we have consumed, he would not have so readily pronounced this amendment unconstitutional. I must confess I do not see any very great statesmanship or wisdom in the suggestions that have been made by the Senator from New Hampshire in regard to this occupancy of time. Here are propositions, as the Senator from Wisconsin said the other day, of grave importance-questions never surpassed in magnitude by any that any Congress in the history of the country had to consider. We are in extraordinary times. It is to be supposed that members of this body would take occasion to make propositions when we undertake to perfect the bill in open Senate, and that they would make remarks upon them. That this should consume days of our time, can surprise no one. That it may consume other days, we must expect. If we pass a bill of this character, such as I think we ought to pass, the days we spend in maturing and considering such a bill will be fitly spent, and will be for the credit of Congress and the interests of the country.

Sir, I am not a lawyer. I never like to discuss law points, or to illustrate constitutional provisions. In the presence of Senators about me, I feel that it does not become one who is not a lawyer, and an able lawyer, to undertake to instruct those who are eminent as constitutional lawyers in regard to constitutional provisions. I have my opinions, and I make up my judgment. I listen to Senators, able lawyers, too, and on nearly all the legal and constitutional questions that come up here we find the most eminent men in this body disagreeing. Why, sir, it will be remembered that a few weeks ago we had a bill proposing to make the Treasury notes of the Government a legal tender, and we had the most eminent lawyers in this body taking different sides upon the question of constitutional authority. I could only, as an humble member, exercise my judgment as to the power. As to the expediency, I had my It is to render it as complete? || opinions. I had no more doubt than I have to

I wish to say further, once for all, that I am, as at present advised, opposed to any and every one of these bills and amendments and parts of bills that looks to a trial and conviction in the courts as a condition precedent to doing anything. Whatever may be the intentions, the real bona fide intentions and honest opinions of gentlemen who indicate a course of that sort-of course I have not a word against it—but the effect of that proposition is just exactly to emasculate entirely the whole measure.

useless as a practical measure as it can be possible to do. You might as well move to strike out the enacting clause of the bill, These are the views that suggest themselves to my mind.

day, after the working of the system, that it was
the part of wisdom to make those notes a legal

tender-none whatever.

Now, we have before us another question, far greater in its scope, and here we have the most eminent legal gentlemen of the Senate differing. The chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, acknowledged by us all to be a good lawyer, leads for one of these measures. The Senator from Vermont, to whom we all pay so much deference, and justly too, leads in another of these propositions. Other Senators, eminent men, have dif fered. Now, sir, exercising my judgment, I vote for these confiscation bills because I believe, in view of all the considerations, that we have the power.

As a matter of policy, of right, I have my own opinions, and I do not choose to sit at any Senator's feet. For twenty-six years I have read everything that is worth reading, in my judgment, on all sides of the questions connected with human

Sir, slavery has made this rebellion, and alone is responsible for it; and yet such has been the overshadowing power of slavery, so omnipotent has it been in these Halls, and over this Governocratic institutions, who have in our blood, in our ment, that when we, who are the children of dembeing, in our very souls, love of liberty and hatred of oppression, are called upon to act, when our brethren have been foully murdered, and wives and children and fathers are bowed in agony of soul all over the country, when the existence of this nation is threatened by this system of slavery; when we, under all these circumstances, are called upon to deal with it, such is its lingering power over even us that we can take rebel lives, take rebel property, take anything and everything, but are reluctant to touch slavery, the cause of all.

I said the other day, and I repeat it, I think we can get some property out of these rebels; but I do not expect to get a great amount of that propwilling to take possession of that property, and erty. I am willing to confine it to classes. I am hold it until we bring those classes to trial and judgment; and therefore I think the power proposed in this bill will enable the President to seize a considerable amount of property which we can hold for the benefit of the Government of the United States, at any rate, for many years. I believe we can punish the rebels more effectually, we can suppress this rebellion more surely, and we shall take the amplest security for the future peace and repose of the country by freeing the slaves of every rebel on this continent. I would be willing to do it at once; but I am willing to give them a few days' notice. I am willing to give them thirty days' notice, and to say to the men who shall be in rebellion against the Government, thirty days after the passage of the act, we give you fair notice, that, in addition to the other punishments now provided by law, or provided in this bill in regard to your life, your liberty, and your property, we will take away what has made you rebels and traitors to your country; we will take from you the bondmen you hold, and make them free

men.

I

I sent to the office of the Secretary of the Senate and got a little memorandum, which I desire Now, sir, it seems clear to me we have the to read here; for I want to suggest that in my power to free the slaves of rebels, and having the humble judgment the remedy for this is not a power to do it, I believe it to be our duty to do it. recommitment to any committee. Such has not believe if you were to submit that simple propbeen my experience nor my observation in regard osition to the people of the loyal free States of this to the effects of these committees to which these Union to-day, they would vote for it with a shout matters are to be committed. As I suggested bethat would shake the North American continent. fore, in 1850 the famous committee did nothing. Put that question to the people of my State, and What we want is to vote upon something, and you could not poll a thousand votes against it; and the longer we delay voting the more propositions I do not believe there could be found ten thousand we shall have. To find out what we have been. men in New England who would walk over the about, one of the accommodating gentlemen we graves of their pilgrim and revolutionary anceshave in our Secretaay's office handed me this tors to the ballot-boxes to vote that the slaves of memorandum. The confiscation bill introduced by the honorable Senator from Illinois was reported rebels-rebels who are striking at our national life, and murdering our brave sons who are bearing the on the 15th of January, 1862. From that time until the 1st day of May, instant, there have been twenty speeches, which, with the running de-slavery in America. I have listened, in Congress national flag-should not be made free. Put that and out of Congress, to the most eminent minds question to the men who are with rifle or musket bates, make one hundred and seventy-three colof our country on that question. I have endeav-fighting the battles of your country in the East or in the West, under their gallant leaders anywhere umns of the Daily Globe. The bill has been conored to learn from every quarter where anything. sidered in all twenty-five days, up to the 1st of could be learned on the transcendant questions and everywhere, and few and rare would be the votes against a proposition so plain, so clear to May, instant. If we go on as we have, we shall involved in the issues of slavery. That slavery the comprehension of the head and the heart of a probably have one hundred and seventy-three is the sole cause of this rebellion; that it made brave soldier. The men who traverse vast spaces more columns, and I think this reference to a comCalhoun, in his day, its leader, its philosopher, mittee will add one hundred more to it. Whenpond and river water, sleeping on the cold, wet ever the Senate make up their minds to vote, I its teacher; that it governed that class of public || of country, walking through the mud, drinking men who have instructed the southern mind and think we can vote; but the longer we delay, the "fired the southern heart;" that it prepared that ground, sharing the soldier's hard fare, shot at when out on picket duty-the men who have seen more confused our counsels will be; the more propI entertain their comrades fall, and have laid them down in ositions we entertain, the further we shall be from people, by years of teaching, so that it is in their their bloody graves-those brave men would give a conclusion. It is impossible that we can all blood, their bones, their very marrow, no more doubt than I entertain a doubt that I am. a vote approaching unanimity in favor of striking think alike. We cannot; and not constituting one a member of the Senate of the United States. That down a power that plunged this nation into rebelof the leaders or distinguished members, I have concluded to give up my judgment in a great de-slavery is disloyal to the country; that it is dislion, summoned them from their own dear homes, gree to those whom the wisdom of the Senate have their wives, children, fathers, mothers, brothers placed on the committees to whom these matters

loyal to everything connected with the Govern-
ment of the United States and the institutions of

43361

[ocr errors]

and sisters, neighbors and friends, and took them away to bloody fields of strife, sorrow, and death.

Sir, if the Congress of the United States shall fail to free the slaves of rebel masters, the men who are endeavoring to destroy the national life, I believe Congress will fail to do the duties of the hour, the duties that the nation and God require at their hands. I feel deeply upon this question. The conviction is upon me that this is the path of duty to my country, and that the future peace of the nation requires that this slave interest shall be broken down; and now is the opportunity-an opportunity that only comes to nations once in ages. It comes to us now. Let us hail and improve it.

I heard Senators, and among them the Senator from Ohio, [Mr. WADE,] with whom I generally concur in sentiment, feeling, and opinion, say the other day that slavery was broken down by this rebellion. My hopes are that its power is broken. I believe much of its power is broken, to return no more forever. But, sir, I warn the Senator from Ohio, I warn other Senators, not to underrate the tenacity and power of slavery in this country. A power that could instruct seven or eight millions of our countrymen, men whose ancestors won with ours the independence of the country, who laid the foundations of a republican Government, who have controlled this nation for three generations, a power that could make them hate our people, their brethren, hate the democratic institutions of our country, hate our Government, and plunge into a bloody revolution to destroy the life of the nation-I say, a power like that is not to be underrated or trifled with. Why, sir, see the power of slavery even in the capital to-day, even in these Halls, in the portions of the country near and around us. See the power of slavery in Louisville, and in portions of Kentucky, as described by my colleague the other day. See its power over many officers of the old Army, some of whom seem to be more anxious to catch negroes than to catch rebels. Do not underrate that power that even now controls the action of millions of our countrymen.

rebels against the country in sentiment and in
feeling; and so long as slavery lives as a power
to be upheld and supported as the corner-stone of
republican institutions, just so long will those
hearts be disloyal to the country. There may be
here and there a few men who believe slavery to
be right, to be good, to be sustained and upheld,
who may have a loyal heart; but they are like
angels visits, few and far between. I cannot see
how a man can love slavery and wish to uphold
and perpetuate it, as a system blest of man and
of God, and be loyal to the Government, which,
in every fiber of its being, is against slavery.
The democractic institutions of the Republic are
against slavery; for they are founded upon the
great cardinal idea that all men have an inaliena-
ble right to freedom.

[ocr errors]

thing, because it does not look like a war measure, and it does not look like availing ourselves of the physical assistance of that body of men, but it is simply in the form of a judicial trial for crime, and pronounces as a punishment for crime the liberation of the slaves. Nor need the Senator have made the slightest apology when he came to express his views on the Constitution, for not having studied law a great while. He ought to thank himself for it. If he had studied law so much as some of us, he might have been left to utter some of the legal nonsense and judicial quackery that lawyers frequently pour out upon the Senate. [Laughter.] I have respect, I think, for almost everything that is respectable; and among other things, I have great respect for what the honorable Senator from Vermont [Mr. COLLAMER] says, and I want to read what he says as a caution to my zealous friend from Massachusetts. The Senator from Vermont said the other day:

"If we are constrained to call up, invoke, and put in exercise in any one department of the Government-it is immaterial in what department of the Government-more of power, more of force than the Constitution provides, or than is limited by that Constitution, the moment we do that, or are constrained from our necessities to do it, we acknowledge before the world that our institutions are insufficiently founded, and that we are, after all, compelled in the period of trial to resort to the force which they say is necessary to the existence of nations, and our experiment is a failure."

The Senator from New Hampshire has moved to commit these bills to a special committee. Sir, we have undertaken to perfect these bills in open Senate. That has been our policy; and it is possible that we can do so. I was of opinion-although I chose to follow the lead of the Senator from Illinois, who has the care of this measure, and to consult his wishes-that the commitment of these propositions to a special committee, a majority of whom should be friendly to some legislation for confiscating the property and freeing the slaves of traitors, would hasten the passage of a bill. That has been my judgment; and think if we had so acted three weeks ago we would have had a bill through the Senate by this time. I may err in judgment; but that is my opinion. I gave up my own judgment to other Senators who have had the care of the measure. I am willing to continue on to perfect the bill in the Senate, or I am willing to vote for what seems to me to bepelled to violate its precepts, trample upon its the wise motion made by the Senator from New Hampshire. If we can have a committee friendly to action, and who will act promptly in regard to the subject, I think it can bring in a bill in eight hours that will receive the sanction of the Senate, of Congress, and of the country.

I

Mr. HALE. When I made the few remarks I did make, which were very short, and I have refrained very much from talking on this subject in the twenty-five days it has been up, I had no idea of provoking such a response from my friend from Massachusetts. He almost seems to put me in the condition of having been one of the supporters of slavery.

Sir, slavery cheated Washington and Jefferson, and the great men who founded our Government. They believed it to be a temporary perishing system that was to pass away under Christian and democratic influences. The nation thought so; but not so thought South Carolina and Georgia in 1789. South Carolina has extended her opinions of 1789, her sentiments, and feelings in favor of slavery over nearly all the slave States of this Union. Jefferson looked forth hopefully to the time when the young men of Virginia and Maryland would be advocating the cause of emancipation in those States, and to-day we see the young men of Virginia in arms over the graves of Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Henry, Mason, and the old revolutionary patriots of the Ancienting the Democratic State committee to call toDominion, fighting to destroy the institutions they founded, to destroy the Government they made, and the nation they brought into being.

Sir, I believe that if the Congress of the United States fails now to do its duty, and its whole duty, we shall see even in these Chambers some of the leaders of this rebellion come back here, and shake their bloody hands in our faces defiantly. The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Howe] shakes his head. I hope the Senator discerns the future clearly; but I am not sure, if we leave this gigantic power untouched, that we may not have again in the national councils that race of bold, arrogant, domineering, disloyal men who believe slavery to be a positive good, to be upheld, supported, and extended, and who wish to see its power, in the future as in the past, sway the councils of this country. I expect to see them here again, and to witness their seductive arts and their domineering spirit. Our fleet rode up the Mississippi the other day, and lying before New Orleans, its commander received from the mayor of that city a specimen of his feelings, and the feelings of this slaveholding class of men. They bow in submission to power; but they meet us with scorn and defiance. Hatred, scorn, and defiance reign today all over the land of secession. When our armies defeat their armies, as we have done, and as I believe we shall do on all fields hereafter, we do not change the hearts that hate us, hate our Government, hate our institutions, hate our flag. There is nothing on earth but slavery that has made those men, ay, and those women, too,

Mr. WILSON, of Massachusetts. Oh, no. Mr. HALE. I know the Senator would not be so unjust as that; but his zeal sometimes hurries on his eloquence in a manner of which he is little aware. The Senator need not argue with me about the moral evils of slavery. He need not argue to me about the power of slavery. I have felt it more than he has. The time was when the slave power sent missives from the city of Washington direct

That is what the honorable Senator from Vermont said, and well said, as he says everything that he does say. Now I would suggest to my friends around me that if in their crusade against slavery they are obliged to invoke a power that is not conferred by the Constitution, if they are com

provisions, disregard its restraints, and disobey its injunctions, they do that which, in the language of my learned friend from Vermont, makes our forty-institutions a failure. I have not read so much upon this subject as the Senator from Massachusetts professes to have read; possibly I have read more. He says that he has read everything that is worth reading. I have read a good deal I know that was not worth reading upon this subject; [laughter;] whether I have read all that was worth reading or not, I will not say, but will say this: if there was one single subject upon which the early anti-slavery men of this country were careful and jealous and guarded in the enunciation of their principles and the measures which they calculated to follow out, it was that they claimed, under the Constitution of the United States, no more power to interfere with slavery in one of the States of this Union than with serfdom in Russia or slavery in Turkey, and they have left no mistaken evidence of what their intentions were. They spoke early and continuously and fervently upon that subject, and I remember that the first time I ever had the honor of a seat in either branch of the national Congress, a friend of mine from the State of North Carolina came to me and asked me what were the opinions of the anti-slavery men upon the question of interference with slavery in the States? and I told him that they repudiated any such power with one voice, earnestly. He begged of me to take an early occasion to say so myself on the floor of the House. I said, no, never; for however it might satisfy you to hear me disclaim that power, my own constituents would look upon me as a fool who was undertaking to deny that which was palpable and apparent to everybody who knew anything about the A BC of the reformation that the anti-slavery people were about introducing. They claimed that slavery was a moral evil, and was to be fought by moral means. When they found that slavery had seized upon the Democratic party, and made it an engine for it to work with, they then attacked the Democratic party, and they attacked it for its subThe honorable Senator from Massachusetts servience to slavery, The Democratic party were says that slavery cheated Washington and cheated defeated years ago, in the election of General TayJefferson. Not half so bad as it will cheat him if lor; and the Whig party when they came into in his crusade to kill it, he tramples upon the Con- power, forgot their faith, their first love, their stitution of his country in his march. I am will-fidelity, their consistency, and they bowed down ing to go as far as anybody within the limits of the Constitution to cripple slavery, and I think the Government ought to make use of that as a physical agency in suppressing the rebellion when it is brought in contact against it. All that I suggested to the Senator was that I did not think the machinery he had prescribed in this sixth section was precisely the mode and manner of doing the

gether a convention and reconsider its action in
nominating me for Congress; and the Democracy
bowed its head, adopted resolutions that were sent
from this city, excommunicated me from the
Democratic party, called a new State convention,
and nominated another man in my place. The
leading Democratic paper of my State published
a large handbill soon after that took place with a
large crowing rooster, and announcing in his jubi-
lant proclamation that they had buried me so deep
the resurrection would never find me. That be-
ing my experience, I do not need a lecture on the
power of slavery. I can say as it is said a servant
once replied to his master. The master found out
sometime after, that somebody had flogged the
servant against his wishes, and he said to him,
"I do not know anything about that."""
"Well,'
said the servant, "I knew all about it at the time.'
[Laughter.] So did I about this power of sla-
very, and long ago I felt it.

||

to worship in the same temple; and when they did that the anti-slavery men attacked them, they overthrew the Whig party, and from the ruins of that overthrow they erected battlements upon which they have waged new warfare on the Democratic party and overthrew them.

Mr. COLLAMER. I hope the gentleman does not mean to be understood that that was done

1862.

THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE.

under General Taylor? I trust he does not mean that the Whig party disregarded their faith and their obligations while he was in power.

Mr. HÄLE. I do not say they did it under anybody; but I recollect that my friend from Ohio [Mr. WADE] once issued a sort of warning which proved to be something like a voice from the tombs, to the Whig party, telling them that their days were numbered, their race run, their course finished, and the cup of retribution at their lips to be drank up to its dregs. And why was it? Because of a dereliction of duty on the part of many of them, of all that constituted it a national party in reference to these sentiments.

Sir, this new Republican party came into power upon the destruction of two parties that had been false on this subject; and now whatever party may succeed this Republican party-and God only knows what it will be-I hope that they may not write on our tombstones that we split on the rock on which our predecessors did, and that is in want of fidelity to our declared principles. If there is one principle that we have declared often, early, and long, it is fidelity to the Constitution, to its requirements, and its restrictions. The mourners go about the streets in all the places that used to be the high places of power of those two old parties, mourning over their derelictions, and I trust that will not be left to us. No, sir, let us under the flag-the old flag, under the Constitution-the old Constitution, carry on the warfare in which we are engaged; and if we fail, we shall not fail because the Constitution does not give us power enough, but because we are recreant and do not That is all I power that it does give us. use the want. I want the Constitution preserved, and I

do not want to achieve even a success that is to be purchased at the price of honor. I took occasion in an early part of this session, upon a resolution that was introduced I think by my friend from Illinois, [Mr. TRUMBULL,] but which was . buried in the Committee on the Judiciary so deep that we do not even hear the clods of the valley reverberate on the coffin that closed it-I say when that resolution was up for consideration, when it had life, before it was strangled in the house of its friends and by its friends, I took occasion to say what I now repeat, though I do not often make speeches that are worth repeating, that I wanted constitutional liberty left to us after the war was over; that constitutional liberty was the great boon for which we were striving, and we must see to it that in our zeal to put down rebellion we did not trample on that; and that when the war was over and our streamers floated in the air, and shouts of victory and thanksgiving to God went up from the hearts of a regenerated and disenthralled people, in that breeze might still float the old flag, and over this regenerated country might sway an unviolated and a sacred Constitution, in the faithful maintenance of which in the hour of our peril and our trial we had not faltered.

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. President, when the motion for a reference of this subject was before the Senate a few days ago I voted against it. I did so upon the ground that if a committee were constituted, as I understood parliamentary usage to require that it should be, it would be made up from among the friends of the measure and also those who were opposed to it, and that thus we should have a divided committee and probably two reports, and the matter would be thrown open again for a general discussion.

I think now, sir, that the discussion has proceeded so far, the very diversified views of Senators have been so generally developed and brought out, that a committee is necessary. I do not, like the Senator from New Hampshire, regret the discussion that has taken place. I do not think that the subject has been discussed one hour too long. It is a great subject; it is a new subject; it is a subject on which we should act cautiously and carefully; and this discussion has brought out a very great variety of views and propositions and projects.

hope they are all out. If there are nore, I should be glad to have them brought forward. It seems to me that now, having all these before the Senate, the best mode of getting at a profitable result, a wise conclusion, will be to comrait all these propositions to a committee of Senafors who are generally friendly to the measure, friendly to some act of confiscation, to digest and present to the Senate a perfect bill. My own judgent is that it would be impossible in such a body

as this, out of these crude elements, to mature a
bill that any of us will be satisfied with; but if a
committee be carefully formed who shall desire
not to promote their own particular theory or
views in relation to it, but to embody the views
of the members of the Senate who are friendly to
this measure, a committee who will enter upon
will be able to bring out of the elements
their labor with such a disposition and such a
purpose
we have before us a bill of which a large ma-
jority of the Senate will approve, and which will
be adopted by a pretty emphatic vote. That is
the thing that I desire. I should be sorry to have
such a measure as this passed by a bare, lean
majority. I desire that it should go out to the
country, if it passes at all, with some moral effect,
not merely as a law passed by Congress by a mere
majority vote, but that the great body of the Sen-
if we can get such a bill, will approve of the
measure. I shall vote therefore for the proposition
of the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. CLARK]
to refer this matter to a select committee, in the
hope that a committee will be framed with a view
to the object I have indicated, and that that com-
mittee will enter upon their duties with a purpose
not to promote their own particular projects, but
to mature out of all the elements before them a
bill such as will be most satisfactory to the Sen-
ate, and that we may be able to reach a wise
conclusion in reference to this most important
question.

ate,

Mr. WADE. I did hope, when this motion
was first made, that it would not prevail, but I see
now that it is to prevail, and I believe we have
come to an end of this subject. The reference of
this matter at this time to a committee I look upon
as a renunciation of the principle altogether. We
have compared notes in the Senate; almost every
Senator that had any project has brought it for-
ward, and a good many that had none, have ex-
pressed their opinions upon the whole subject fully.
regret to be compelled to say that from the prin-
ciples enunciated here, it is most evident that there
is not a majority in the Senate favorable to an ef-
ficient bill of confiscation. The bill reported by
the Judiciary Committee was one that contained
Most of
real practical principles of confiscation.
the others add scarcely anything to the efficiency
of the law punishing treason at present, and when
you go into the seceded States, it is perfectly evi-
dent that you can bring no rebel to trial there. It
is idle and nugatory and vain for us to be here
talking about confiscation, unless we are ready to
adopt some measure other than that of punishing
treason under the Constitution and by the course
of the common law, because the moment you go
across this river, from here to the Gulf, you can
convict nobody, as every one knows. Therefore
all who contend for any such measure as that con-
tend for what any one can see is perfectly idle and
vain. If the Constitution does not permit us to
go a greater length than that, why do we talk
about it? I do not know but that the law punish-
ing treason as it stands now, and has stood for a
great many years, is well enough. I suppose we
can go further than that. My opinion has been
and is now, but I shall not undertake to reargue
it, that the bill of the Judiciary Committee is a
constitutional bill. It is so in my judgment, but
it is not so in the opinion of a majority of the Sen-
ate, and it is not so for reasons so radical that no
efficient bill can be made upon the principles enun-
ciated here. I think that is perfectly evident. I
regret exceedingly that it is so. The attempt to
pass a confiscation bill has now cost us a great
deal of time and labor. I do not contend that all
that labor is lost. It is something for us to ascer-
tain that we cannot agree upon this great meas-
ure, and the people will understand it from us
with greater regret even than is manifested here.
Sir, the recommittal of this bill after it has been
for four months under our consideration, and at
a period which I hope is towards the end of this
session, will be a proclamation to the people that
will fill them with more despondency for your Gov-
ernment than the loss of half a dozen battles, and
it will be viewed with as much regret by all the
loyal people in the seceded States as by those in the
northern States. I have letters every day from
the South, from loyal men of the South, praying
us and praying Heaven that we do something to
punish their neighbors who are robbing them. It
seems, however, that we can do nothing. Here
we are, every man with a bill of his own, differing

slightly from the one reported by the Judiciary
Committee, and yet differing so far that there can
be no yielding on the subject; each one must have
his or nothing, and several propose measures, and
enunciate constitutional doctrines, that show they
cannot conscientiously go any further.

I say, then, sir, I have no hope of this measure
when it goes to this committee, and I see that it
is a foregone conclusion. The question of recom-
mittal was tried the other day; it was made a test
question then, and every man who was in favor
of an efficient confiscation bill voted against the
motion, and we defeated it by a small majority.
Now, new light is shed on the subject. Many of
the warm friends of this bill now wish to get
another bill, and for what? To emasculate it. The
bill of the Judiciary Committee which is under
consideration goes none too far, if you intend to
do anything. It proposes to take the property of
the great leaders of this rebellion, and of nobody
else. I liked the bill much better before it was
amended than I do now. It was said to be alto-
gether too sweeping. Sir, the people whose estates
are mortgaged to make a defense against these
traitors will not think it is too sweeping; the peo-
ple who have to hazard their lives, their fortunes,
and their honor in the field, and those who stay
at home, and who are impoverished by providing
for the country's defense, will not think that the
bill of the Senator from Illinois goes too far in tak-
ing the property of those who have compelled us
to this, in order to indemnify the northern peo-
ple somewhat for the exertions they have been
compelled to make against these murderous trai-

tors.

But, sir, it cannot be done here. With some gentlemen the Constitution of the United States is a stumbling-block, and some seem to feel very tender in regard to these persons. For myself, I want it understood, I want it to go to the people, that I am of the opinion that under the Constitution of the United States justice can be done both to the rebel and the loyal man. I believe we have the power; and I am anxious to take the property of every man who has sought to murder my constituents, who has compelled them to go forth to battle and to mortgage their estates, or to lose their liberties or their lives. I want it to be understood by my constituents that I am one of those who have stood here urging upon the Senate a measure that would indemnify them, so far as it can be done, by taking every scintilla of property beto defend themselves. I hope it will be understood longing to an accursed murderous rebel, and disposing of it to indemnify the people who have had that I stand for this bill, and I do not want to emasculate it; I do not want to send it to a committee, for when it comes back it will come back a mere milk-and-water concern, just such as we passed at the last session-a thing that was met with scorn by the people, a laughing-stock, a matter of derision; so that they threw back in our teeth that we had shown a disposition to do something, but dared not manifest the courage to do it. It is a foregone conclusion that this will be no better. I do not care whom you put on the committee, the bill will come back shorn of its strength and its usefulness.

I did not get up to argue this question; I rose only to say that at this moment when I see a foregone conclusion to refer this subject to a select committee, to take all these propositions out of which to manufacture something new, the great principle for which we have contended is gone. The country will so understand it, and you will find that we shall have no confiscation bill.

Mr. SUMNER. Mr. President, the Senator from Ohio knows well that I always differ from him with regret; he knows also that I differ from him very rarely; but I do differ from him to-day. I shall not follow him in what he has said on the constitutional question, nor shall I follow the Senator from New Hampshire in what he has said on that question. The precise point on which we are to vote, as I understand it, has been stated by the Senator from New York. It is, shall the pending bill and all the associate propositions and amendments be referred to a select committee, with instructions to report forthwith?

Sir, it seems to me in the present stage of this discussion the time has arrived for such a motion. I have from the beginning, in good faith, followed the Senator from Illinois [Mr. TRUMBULL] in the support of his bill. I accepted it when it was first

presented to the Senate. Were it now pressed to a vote, my name would be recorded in its favor. But, sir, I cannot be insensible to what has passed in this Senate; nor to what is constantly before our eyes. We have already on our tables more than a dozen different bills or amendments that have been printed. Every morning there is a new batch. This morning, the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. DOOLITTLE] reminds me, there are more. Some of these proceed from Senators who are not supposed to be very friendly to the principle of the bill introduced by the Senator from Illinois; but some of them unquestionably proceed from other Senators whose loyalty to that principle cannot be drawn into doubt. There, for instance, is my own colleague, who this morning offered an amendment very important in its character, and going into many details.

ator from Ohio. When we cannot do it in the Senate, I am ready to try a committee, and to strive there, and to see if something cannot be done which shall be efficient for the purpose. I agree with the honorable Senator that the time that has been spent here has not been wasted; and it is a singular standard of measure that my colleague has set up here, for the consideration you shall give to a bill, when, he says, so many speeches have been made, so many days have been spent upon it. Truly, the Senate will agree that never was there such an argument and such a subject | before Congress and before the country as now; and if we spent twice the days, and if we made twice the speeches, and those speeches result in a good bill, I think my colleague will agree with me that they have been well spent, and that we have done good service to the country. Then, why despair? Here are different measures before us, and almost every measure has some good in it. There are some things good in the amendment of the Senator from Vermont, [Mr. COLLAMER;] So of the amendment of the Senator from Ohio, [Mr. SHERMAN;] So of the bill of the Senator from Illinois, [Mr. TRUMBULL;] So of the other propositions, particularly that of the Senator from Massachusetts, [Mr. WILSON.] You cannot have them all at the same time before the Senate; and I found

Is the Senate ready to vote on all these propositions, in all their details, one after the other, so that it may reach the final vote on the bill of the Senator from Illinois? I have my doubts if the Senate is ready. At any rate, it seems to me that it is a bad economy of time to undertake here to examine and judge all these multifarious propositions, some of them embracing many sections, in order to reach that result which I believe a majority of the Senate is ready to adopt. Owing to the rigidity of parliamentary rules, it is impossi-myself in this difficulty practically this morning: ble to bring the Senate always at the ment to vote on a desired amendment. There may be an amendment to an amendment, but nothing beyond. In the familiarity of the committee-room there can be no obstructions or delays on this account. That is the natural place for this consideration of details. If the question was directly between two rival propositions, or if the number of propositions was more within the bounds of ordinary business, all this would be unnecessary.

proper mo

Sir, the Senator from Ohio says that if this motion prevails, and these bills are referred to a select committee, the whole question of confiscation is lost. I do not agree with him. I say the whole question is saved. I believe that at this moment such are the embarrassments by which we are surrounded, such is the maze into which we have been led by these various propositions, that we need a committee to hold the clue which shall extricate us. The old parliamentary rule is that a committee supplies ears and eyes and hands to the Senate. Surely there never was an occasion when such a committee was more needed than now, when we have all these multifarious propositions which need to be carefully revised, collated, considered, and brought into a constitutional unit, or, if I may so say, changing the figure, passed through an alembic, in order to be fused into one complete bill on which we can all harmonize. And this I believe can only be accomplished by adopting the motion of the Senator from New Hampshire.

On a former occasion I voted against the proposed reference, and I am satisfied with that vote. But the circumstances have changed since. What I would not do then, I am ready to do now.

Mr. CLARK. I did not propose to say anything upon this question, and I do not now propose to speak at any length upon it; but a remark or two of the Senator from Ohio makes it necessary that I should say a word in my own defense, if I am put upon trial. I understand the Senator to say that the motion is the renunciation of the principle of confiscation.

Mr. WADE. I say it will result in that. I do not say that is the motive.

Mr. CLARK. I do not understand the Senator to say that I have that motive, because I have uttered nothing, I think I have done nothing, that should lead him to make such a statement. I desire to say, in the presence of the Senate, that upon no measure, since I have occupied a seat here, have I bestowed so much careful thought. The Senate will bear me witness that I have said nothing about it, but day and night, upon all occasions, it has been the subject of intense thought. I have never been so embarrassed between my inclination and the constant hedges that seemed to be about me. I have desired, and I desire now, to pass an efficient confiscation bill, but I desire to do that in way which shall be according to the Constitution of my country, if I can. I have not abandoned the idea that I can do so; I will not abandon that idea without a further effort; and I am not so ready to give up as the honorable Sen

here was the amendment of the Senator from Vermont pending; the Senator from Massachusetts moved to amend that, and that shut off all other amendments. I like some things in the amendment of the Senator from Massachusetts; I could have adopted a portion of it; but a portion of it I dislike. I could not make a motion to cut off a portion and take the rest. I was put in the position bf being obliged to take the whole or noneto vote for it or to vote against it. I did not desire to do it. What was the only resource? In the first place, to ask him, as I did in one or two instances, to accept a modification, and to propose another which he was not quite ready to accept; or to take a committee that should consider the whole matter. The committee is not limited by. one amendment to an amendment, but it may take the whole bills and the whole amendments; it may pick out of this one what is good, and out of that one what is good, and so of the third and fourth, and reject the bad, and make up a good bill for the country.

Now, I do not despair, let me say to the Senator from Ohio, [Mr. WADE.] If we finally fail and cannot agree, then, like good servants, we shall have done everything that was demanded of us, and I think shall stand acquitted by the country. It is with that earnest desire to do something in this position that I have made this motion, and with no unfriendly spirit to the measure.

Mr. TEN EYCK. ́ ́A remark which fell from the Senator from Ohio also makes it desirable for me, in my own vindication, to say a word. I understood him to state that a few days since we had a test vote on this very question, that the vote on the motion of the Senator from Pennsylvania to refer the bill from the Judiciary Committee and all kindred subjects to a select committee of seven, was a test vote upon an efficient or stringent confiscation bill. I presume the Senator from Ohio, in speaking of an efficient bill, alludes to the bill as it came from the committee originally, which included the confiscation of all property of all rebels and the liberation of the slaves of all rebels. In all frankness, I desire to say that I do not consider the vote I gave four or five days ago against referring these measures to a special committee, as being a test vote to bind me.

Mr. WADE. I perceive that I was misunderstood by the Senator. I did not suppose it was a test vote on any particular bill, but I did think it was a test on the part of those earnestly believing that they could enact an efficient bill, indicating that they would do it in open Senate, reject ing such amendments and adopting such as they thought best, but they would not refer it to a committee.

that committee, I did not feel myself bound as by a test vote on the occasion when I voted against referring the measure to a select committee; nor do I feel myself bound to stand to every letter, syllable, or provision of that bill. I am in favor of a confiscation bill; I always have been. I hope I may not violate any confidence when I say that, although I was not the originator of the bill, as reported by the Senator from Illinois, without my vote in the committee no such bill could have been reported to the Senate. For reasons which it is improper for me to state, there was a difficulty about reporting a confiscation bill; and as I was in favor of punishing rebels without discrimination, as I was in favor of putting down rebellion, and in favor of affording every opportunity of affecting that object and securing that measure, although I did not deem myself committed to every provision, as I said before, of that bill, I did not feel myself at liberty to take such a position as would prevent the matter being brought before the Senate-a matter new and important in its character, which might, by the wisdom and the reflection and the meditation and the suggestions of a body, composed, as it is understood by the country the Senate is, of wise, judicious, calm, and discreet men, be matured and passed by this body in such a shape as would effect the objects we all have so much in view, and that are so dear at heart.

I voted against the reference the other day, and I shall vote against the reference again to-day, not because I am in favor of a very extreme, radical, or stringent confiscation bill, but because I believe by keeping the matter before the Senate, now that we understand it, now that it has been talked threadbare and bald, we can here and now do our duty in relation to this matter, and answer the requirements of the country in this particular better than by letting it slip through our fingers and go there to be buried or postponed in the chamber of a special commitiee. I do not know if I were to talk over it a month-and I believe I have not said anything before-that I could make myself better understood or explain my position more fully than I have done, and having come to that conclusion, I resume my seat.

Mr. ANTHONY. Mr. President, I voted on the question of reference before, and I shall now, simply with a view to dispatch the public business. I thought at the stage of the measure when the motion was made before, that a reference would only bring the question back in the shape of three or four bills to the Senate, and we should have the whole debate to go over again. I believe now, from the intimations that are made on various sides, that if it is referred to a committee a bill may be agreed upon that will meet with the assent of a majority of the Senate, and I think that a most desirable consummation. I shall therefore vote for the reference,

Mr. TRUMBULL. Mr. President, I shall not vote to refer the bill, and I regret that the motion has been made and that it now comes from and is sustained by friends of the measure. I do not feel like contending with my own friends, or at any rate being obstinate in regard to the course that shall be adopted by the Senate. I hope that we may be able, notwithstanding the reference of these measures to a committee, to pass a bill that will have some life and some vitality in it, and that will accomplish something. It will be a very easy matter to pass a bill in this body, as the Senator from Rhode Island has indicated, if the friends of confiscation, those who want to accomplish something, are willing to dilute the bill down till it means nothing, and those opposed to it will vote for it. When those opposed to confiscation vote for it, you may have a unanimous vote. 1 think that will be the tendency of a reference of the bill. I think, in the effort to be harmonious, the harmony is to be brought about by giving up anything that is in any of the bills that has vitality and efficiency in it.

Constitutional objections are made to these bills. They are the chief questions which have been arMr. TEN EYCK. It is to avoid a misappre-gued here. Is it supposed by my friend from New hension that might arise from my vote under the declaration of the Senator from Ohio, so far as myself and my constituents are concerned, that I desire here, to-day, to say in a few words what I have to say. I wish still further to be frank, and say that although I, as a member of the Judiciary Committee, agreed in the report of the bill from

Hampshire, who is kindly disposed to these bills, that a committee of five will settle the constitutional opinions of fifty Senators? How is it to help the other forty-five Senators when five have unanimously agreed? Senators tell us they do not know how to vote on the amendments, that they are embarrassed by them. Will they be

enlightened by the private meditations of five Senators who shall assemble together in some room by themselves? Will that determine for the Senator from Wisconsin, [Mr. DoOLITTLE,] for my colleague, [Mr. BROWNING,] for the Senator from Vermont, Mr. COLLAMER,] what is constitutional? I have no doubt that certain Senators may get together and agree, but the chief objections to a confiscation bill have come from those who based their objections on constitutional ground. The Senator from Pennsylvania, [Mr. Cowan,] who is opposed to all measures of confiscation, bases his objections on constitutional grounds.

I know that other objections are made. I know that Senators say it is inexpedient. I know, and I regret to know, nothing has made me sadder than to see that feeling exhibited here in this body to-day, even to this hour, which is the cause of all our troubles. I have been astonished, I have been astounded beyond measure, when Senators have risen here, after a year of bloodshed and war, and have advocated the very course of policy which has brought war and desolation and devastation upon us. Why, sir, I remember when, during the last Administration, some of us went to the Chief Magistrate of this nation, and appealed to him, "Sir, take some steps to prevent the fortifications of the South from falling into the hands of traitors to the Government; do not suffer the forts at the mouth of the Mississippi, on the Gulf of Mexico, at Charleston and Savannah, and the valuable navy-yard at Norfolk, to fall into the hands of rebels and traitors;" and what was the the answer? Oh, you must not do anything, you must not send troops down to Charleston harbor; it will alienate the South, and it will unite them as one man against the Government at once! When Major Anderson, with a few men, was down in Charleston harbor, he was ordered to do nothing that could offend the people of South Carolina! Sir, a single regiment of men in November, 1860, sent by the President of the United States to Charleston harbor, and placed in the three forts there would have saved us this war. There must not be a gun fired there we were told; it would alienate the South! And so at Norfolk, where two thousand cannon lay, with munitions of war and valuable vessels, where the Merrimac was, where the Government had millions of property, no steps were taken to protect it. Why? To do so would alienate Virginia! And now, sir, after all the suffering that has followed, Senators rise here in their places and tell us, "If you confiscate the property of these rebels, you pass this law, you will unite the South as one man, and you will never have any peace." Is it not time, sir, that we took counsel of our judgments and of loyal men, and stopped inquiring how traitors and rebels would feel at our legislation? Sir, it has been the thing in the way of the prosecution of this war, yielding to the neutrality that was preached in some of the border States, yielding to the men who came here from Virginia when their convention was in session to take the State out of the Union, to steal your property at Norfolk and at Harper's Ferry. You held still until they got ready and were prepared, and then they took possession of your cannon and your guns, and they have been firing them at you ever since.

I believe that is the great distinction between the bills here. I believe that no bill is worth the paper on which it is written that hesitates to take the property of traitors and rebels before they are convicted in your courts of justice. You might as well undertake to make war through courts of justice as to talk about confiscating the property of rebels through courts of justice. Why, sir, it is because you have got no courts of justice in the South that this war is upon us. It is idle to talk about a judicial tribunal in South Carolina condemining a man for treason before you can touch his property. If a majority of the Senate believe that you cannot touch the property of traitors and rebels except on the verdict of a jury, we can do nothing toward touching their property that will be worth the paper we write the bill upon. The Senator from Vermont made really a great deal of sport of the bill which came from the Judiciary Committee, and yet his bill, so far as constitutional principles are concerned, contains every principle that is in any of the bills. He provides in his bill for taking property without any trial, without any court, without any adjudication; he proposes to take property and sell it and put the

money into the Treasury without ever looking at a court; but he says that it must be property that is expensive to keep. It is constitutional to confiscate property without the action of the courts, if it is expensive to keep it!

Mr. COLLAMER. My bill does not say so. Mr. TRUMBULL. It does not say that? Let us look at what it says

Mr. COLLAMER. That is not the confiscation provision.

Mr. TRUMBULL. We shall see what it is. Mr. COLLAMER. With the consent of the Senator

Mr. TRUMBULL. I will read it; it will speak for itself. I have the bill before me. Mr. COLLAMER. I prefer to speak for myself, if you will let me.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I would rather let the bill speak. I know the gentleman's speech and his bill were not in exact harmony.

Mr. COLLAMER. If the gentleman' desires to pervert my meaning, he may go on.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I will read the bill. Mr. COLLAMER. Your understanding of that provision is not correct. Putting the money in the Treasury is not the end of it. It is to be kept until the man is tried, and if he is convicted it remains in the Treasury; if he is not convicted, the property must be returned to him, or the avails. Mr. TRUMBULL. There is no provision in the bill for returning any property to him or the avails of it.

Mr. COLLAMER. That is the meaning of it. Mr. TRUMBULL. The other day, when my friend from Maine [Mr. MORRILL] was commenting on this bill, and appealed to the Senator from Virginia [Mr. CARLILE] to know if it was this|| feature of the bill which he indorsed after the Senator from Vermont took his seat, the Senator from Virginia said, "I indorse the speech of the Senator from Vermont; not his bill." Now, sir, we will see what the bill says:

"Whenever it shall be deemed necessary to the speedy and successful termination of a rebellion by the President, he is hereby authorized by such commissioners as he shall appoint"

Not by a court

"to sequester and seize the property, real and personal, of such persons as shall bear arms against the United States, or give aid and comfort to such persons, wherever situated ; and if within any part of the United States the inhabitants whereof have been proclaimed to be in a state of insurrection, to hold, occupy, rent, and control for the United States until the ordinary course of judicial proceeding shall be restored in the State or district where the same is situated, and in all cases until the owners of said property can be proceeded against by legal prosecution"—

And then comes an exception→→→

"but no persons holden to service, commonly called slaves, shall be taken under this section."

[ocr errors]

Of course not; it has always been the doctrine that you could never touch slaves; you cannot seize them under this provision and set them free! Oh, no! Another section of the bill provides that you may do it after six months of insurrection and a proclamation of the President. Then you can do it; but all this other property you can seize at once, except the negro; you cannot touch him; and I am sorry that even my friend from Massachusetts copied that into his amendment. Now we will see what is to be done with this property:

"And all such personal property as shall be so taken which is perishable, or expensive in keeping, may be sold

counts Commissioners, who shall keep and render full accounts of all the avails and receipts from said property so sold, let, or occupied, and pay over the avails to the Treasury of the United States."

[ocr errors]

"Court" is not mentioned there once as to the disposition of this property. If it is property of a perishable character, or if it costs something to keep it, it is not unconstitutional to take it and sell it and put the money in the Treasury; and as to the other property, the use of a thing is as much property as the ownership of a thing, and this bill provides for taking the real estate and using it for how long? Until you can bring its owner to trial. Suppose you never bring him to trial, are you to keep it forever? Then, it seems you may, after all, do this without getting the matter before the courts. Now, I want to know, if you can do that, why you cannot take the real estate absolutely? You will observe, sir, that this property which is to be taken and to be held, occupied, and rented by the bill of the Senator from Vermont, is property in a part of the United States where the inhabitants have been proclaimed to be

in a state of insurrection. Now, what will the Senate do with a case like this? I have a letter here from a very intelligent gentleman, a gentleman of high character in my State, which I have received since I came to the Senate, in which he says:

"Five or six years ago, when attending the land sales at Danville, in this State, I met an agent of John Slidell, present rebel minister to France, who entered for him some forty thousand acres of land, and I learned that the next year he entered some thirty thousand acres in Iowa. Last week, when in St. Louis, I met this agent and he informed me that Slidell still owned these lands. Now, it seems to me that here is a fit subject for confiscation."

That is one instance; there are a great many such instances all over the State of Illinois and all over the western States where these rebels hold real estate, for they have been making investments for years in our lands. Are we not to touch them? Not unless you can bring the man to trial! I reckon it will be some time before you get John Slidell to trial. I propose to take that property and sell it whether Slidell comes to trial or not. I propose to confiscate that property by proceedings against the property where we can reach it. I know that was an extraordinary proceeding to the Senator from Vermont-a proceeding in rem. The distinguished Senator made a great deal of sport, of the words in rem. He actually pronounced" them in so humorous a way that he "brought the house down." Everybody laughed at "proceedings in rem. It was a very strange proceeding, one would suppose, to the distinguished Senator from Vermont, But in the Senate of the United States I hardly think it is necessary to reply to an attack of that kind upon a bill.

a

I will allude to another feature of the bill of the Senator from Vermont; and I speak of his bill as sample; it will be found that the same principles are admitted in the bill of the Senator from Kentucky, [Mr. DAVIS,] and in all the various propositions; they all admit the principle, every one of them, that you can confiscate property. The first section of the substitute offered by the Senator from Vermont is a provision for the punishment of treason. It will be remembered by the Senate-I would like the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. DOOLITTLE] to notice this, for I believe this bill suits his views

Do

Mr. DOOLITTLE. What bill is that? Mr. TRUMBULL. The bill of the Senator from Vermont. He thinks you cannot confiscate the real estate of a rebel or traitor beyond his life, under the clause of the Constitution which declares that "no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture, except during the life of the person attainted;" and here comes in the bill of the Senator from Vermont, a proposition to confiscate-he does not call it by that name-the real estate of a convicted traitor. you believe we can do that? That is this bill. Mr. DOOLITTLE. I believe we can for life. Mr. TRUMBULL. But this bill proposes to dispose of it not for life; but how does it do it? It does it in the name of a fine. It does not call it confiscation, but it declares that the traitor who shall be convicted upon the oath of two witnesses to the same overt act may be punished by imprisonment and a fine which may take all his estate-a fine of not less than $10,000-" which fine shall be levied and collected on any or all the property, real and personal, of which the said person or persons so convicted was owner at the time of the committing of the said act, any sale or conveyance to the contrary notwithstanding." He proposes in that way to take the property of a convicted traitor, when the Constitution of the United States says that no attainder of treason-and that means, I take it, no conviction for treason, because we have no such thing as a technical attainder of treason-no conviction for treason shall work corruption of blood or forfeiture, except during the life of the person attainted. The Senator from Vermont proposes that it shall work a destruction of all his real estate if you do it under the name of a fine; just call it a fine, and you may take the real estate forever.

But, sir, I did not rise for the purpose of discussing the Senator's bill. I rose simply to state that I do not believe any good will arise out of a reference of these measures. I cannot see how any five Senators here can determine these constitutional questions for forty-five Senators I do not see how that will dispose of the amendments. If there is a feeling in the Senate on the part of

« PreviousContinue »