those opposed to an efficient measure of confiscation, if there is a disposition to bring in amendments, you may have forty amendments offered the moment your committee reports. Surely fortyfive Senators will not put their constitutional scruples into the custody of this committee of five to settle for them. They may offer all these amendments after the bill comes back into the Senate, just as they are offered now. I shall not despair. I shall not say, with the Senator from Ohio, that nothing will be done; but I admit that it is discouraging. I think the tendency will be to bring about that unanimity which the Senator from Rhode Island desires, by giving up the life and vitality of a confiscation bill. I should be glad to have unanimity. I wish we all might agree. But I want that agreement upon something that will be of value. However, many of my friends who are as earnestly for confiscation as I am, favor this reference, and I shall rejoice if the committee to to which it is referred, if the Senate thinks proper to refer it, which, of course, will be done without my vote, can bring in a measure that shall have vitality, that shall accomplish something, that shall take the property of rebels to pay in part the expenses occasioned by this rebellion. The classification now contained in the first section has been adopted into the bill since it was reported from the Judiciary Committee. I voted against it. Further reflection has satisfied me that my vote was correct. There was great force in what the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. HowE] said yesterday in regard to this classification. He thought that under it innocent persons might have their property taken, while the guilty would go unpunished. I think so to some extent; but I thought it a very strange argument to come from the Senator from Wisconsin, who, if I mistake not, came into the Senate and voted to put the classification into the bill, and then attacked the bill because it was in it. I believe it ought not to have gone in, and I agree very much with what he said on that subject. I think the bill was better as it originally stood. However, others of my own friends thought then, as they do now, that it was better to adopt the classification; and although I voted against it, I did not very strenuously oppose it, and I took in regard to that the same view that I shall now take in regard to this question of reference. Senators favorable to the bill insist upon it; I can only acquiesce-and that I desire to do gracefully-without any strenuous opposition to the motion, stating at the same time that, in my judgment, it is a mistake, and that we had better adhere to the measure that is before us. was opposed to confiscation is no evidence now; because this very question of reference is now urged by those whom the Senator from Ohio agrees are as good friends of confiscation as he himself; and he might with equal justice agree that, at least, some of those who advocated the reference on Friday last were just as good friends of confiscation as he himself. I speak only for one; but I believe there were others who voted with me that are just as sincere friends of confiscation as he is. Mr. WADE. They had a singular way of showing it. Mr. FOSTER. They had a singular way of showing it, says the honorable Senator. It was singular on Friday last; but after two days' discussion, it is not at all singular now; the honorable Senator does not think it singular now. It is perfectly in accordance with the utmost zeal for confiscation to vote now for this reference to a committee; and the honorable Senator thinks so now. Mr. WADE. Oh, no. Mr. FOSTER. The honorable Senator agrees that those who do think so, and who are going to vote so now, are just as good friends of the measure as he is. If the fact that a man votes for this reference is any evidence against him, it is just as much evidence against those who are now good confiscationists as it is against those who voted in the same way on Friday last, and with entire deference to the Senator's better judgment, I think much stronger evidence, for the question of reference on Friday last was a different question from the question of reference to-day. There were reasons for the reference then which do not exist now. I am not about to say that there may not be good reasons now, but they are not as good nor as numerous as they were then. We have had further discussion. There is no one identical proposition before the body to-day which was not before us then. They are arranged in a little different form in the amendment proposed by the honorable Senator from Massachusetts this morning. That is the only measure which is brought forward that is claimed to be new, and there is nothing new in that except the arrangement of it. It is an eclectic amendment, so to speak, taking those propositions which the honorable Senator deemed best and putting them together. So, then, we have had nothing new, and we have had two days in which to compare these bills and make up our minds in regard to voting. Now, there is good reason in the minds of men who are earnest friends of confiscation for the reference. The reason why I rose to speak now, was to protest against the assertion made by the honorable Senator from Ohio, who said that a man who was in favor of referring these bills was not a friend of Mr. WADE. I believe the Senator has inferred that; I think I said no such thing. If the Senator is conscious that such is the fact in regard to himself, that is a deduction of his own mind. I did not say it. Mr. FOSTER. Mr. President, on Friday last the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. CowAN] moved that this bill which was then before the Senate, together with the other bills on the table of the Senate connected with the same subject-confiscation. matter, be referred to a select committee-the numbers five and seven were both named; seven I believe was finally the motion. It was opposed, and it was suggested that it would occasion delay when we had already long delayed action on the bill. In connection with that suggestion, the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. DOOLITTLE] proposed, as an amendment to the motion, that the committee should be instructed to report upon these several propositions on the Monday then next, now yesterday. The question was taken upon the motion to amend, by instructing the committee when to report, and it was voted down; and then upon the motion to refer to the committee, and that was voted down; and the honorable Senator from Ohio says that those who voted at that time for the motion to refer were persons who are opposed to confiscation, and those who voted against the motion to refer are friends of confiscation. that was what the Senator from New Jersey alluded to when, not disclaiming that he was a friend of confiscation, he still said that that vote was no test of what bill he would go for, what measure he would support. That was the test exactly. Mr. WADE. I do not like to interrupt the gentleman; but I believe there was no friend of confiscation who voted for that reference; not one. Mr. FOSTER. That was what the gentleman said. I understand him now to come back to it, after having once suggested that he did not say it. Mr. WADE. No. I say it now. I did not say it before. Mr. FOSTER. I thought the gentleman said it before, but in that he stated that I was wrong. It is sufficient that I understand him now to mean that not a man who voted for that reference on Friday was a friend of confiscation. Mr. WADE. I believe not. Mr. FOSTER. Of course the Senator does not speak as a matter of knowledge, because that would be more presuming than the Senator from Ohio ever is, for he always speaks properly; and to say that you believe a man means so and so is about as strong as you can speak on a subject not admitting knowledge. Now, I say that when a distinction is undertaken to be made in this Senate between those who vote differently on a matter of that sort, gentlemen are speaking without authority; they are speaking without book. When the Senator comes to apply his own test to-day to an act done on Friday last, he agrees that the test fails, because he agrees that men who now vote for the reference are as good friends of the measure of confiscation as he himself. Mr. TRUMBULL. Will the Senator from Connecticut allow me to suggest to him that there is all the difference in the world between the two motions in my estimation? The motion to-day comes from a friend of confiscation. It came the other day from a Senator known and avowed to be opposed to confiscation. Mr. FOSTER. Ah, Mr. President, that is it, is it? It is because the measure did not come from the right source. The character of an act, then, does not depend upon the act; or rather the act has no character, it depends upon him who performs it-the actor. Mr. TRUMBULL. The Senator does not mean to misrepresent me, I know. Mr. FOSTER. Of course I do not. Mr. TRUMBULL. He must know that the person making the motion takes control of the measure. I think it makes all the difference in the world whether a confiscation measure goes to its friends or its enemies. By parliamentary rule, the Senator knows as well as any gentleman upon the floor, that the Senator making the motion to refer takes charge of the bill. Mr. FOSTER. I would say that the Senator is a little fast, first, in his assumptions, but if he were entirely right, what did the Senator from Pennsylvania do? He rose here in his place and disavowed, in the most explicit terms, any desire or wish to be upon the committee, and if the committee were raised, he requested that he should not be placed upon it. Does any man doubt his good faith, and that he did not mean what he said? If so, of course they would still take it for granted that the Chair would appoint him, and that he was taking that particular course for the sake of getting the appointment; but I trust-although Senators may think the Senator from Pennsylvania is not a friend of the confiscation bill-no one will say but that he spoke sincerely and truly, not hypocritically, when he disclaimed any desire or wish to be upon the committee. And as to his being an enemy of confiscation, it is better, per Mr. FOSTER. I understood the Senator, in the remarks he made a short time ago, to assert distinctly that those who on Friday last voted in favor of the motion to raise a select committee, and to refer these bills to that committee, were persons who were opposed to confiscation, and that those who voted against it were friends of confiscation. In that connection my friend from New Jersey [Mr. TEN EYCK] made an explanation, in which he said that, although he voted against the motion to refer, it must not be inferred that he thereby pledged himself to any particular bill before the body, or that by that vote he indicated distinctly what were his views upon the ques-haps, that he should speak for himself. I do not tion of confiscation. The Senator from New Jer did, and at that time the Senator from Ohio did not think proper to disclaim having made such a remark. I may have misunderstood him. Certainly if he did not intend it, it is sufficient; whether he said what I have asserted or not. Now, Mr. President, the question comes up again, and we have had over an hour of discus-sey at least understood the Senator from Ohio as I sion upon this motion to refer, which does not open the merits of the question; still the Chair, in forbearance to members upon the floor, has permitted us to go on and discuss not only its merits and demerits, but matters connected and unconnected with the measure, to the heart's content of every gentleman who has addressed the Senate. This discussion has been confined entirely to gentlemen who, on Friday, voted against any reference of this question, and who are considered by the Senator from Ohio [Mr. WADE] as friends, par excellence, exclusively of confiscation; so what was on Friday last evidence that a man Mr. WADE. The Senator from New Jersey spoke about the test question, not about who was for or who against confiscation; but about the matter of test, which I explained to him. Mr. FOSTER. Precisely; and what was the test? It was the vote on that motion of reference. That was the test-those who voted yea were no friends of confiscation, those who voted nay were; undertake to speak for him. If the Senator from Illinois or the Senator from Ohio can, of course it is because they have more knowledge on the subject than I have. I confess I should prefer to have the Senator from Pennsylvania speak for himself. There is nothing, as I apprehend, in the fact that the motion is now, as it is said, made by the friends of the measure, and was not made by the friends of the measure on Friday. There is no force in the suggestion, because, as I before remarked, the Senator from Pennsylvania, if he is to be taken as an enemy of the measure, disclaimed entirely any disposition to be upon the committee, and requested not to be placed upon it. The Pres 1862. THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE. ident of the body would appoint the committee, and there was no reason, in parliamentary usage or otherwise, for supposing that there would be a committee appointed other than a fair and impartial one, as friendly to the bill of the Senator from Illinois as to the bill of the Senator from Vermont, or Pennsylvania, or Wisconsin. There can be no reason on earth for supposing that the Chair would undertake to discriminate in regard to those particular measures, but he would endeavor to make up an able, competent committee. By those principles the Chair would have been governed on Friday; by them the Chair will be governed to-day-no different rule. I say, then, Mr. President, that an attempt to decide who are for and who are against a particular measure by a vote which they give on an incidental question strikes me as unwise and unsafe; and surely it is not worth while for us to interpret each other's opinions, and especially each other's motives. It was not alone the Senator from Ohio who thus is enabled by a vote to determine what a man's views are; the Senator from Illinois, who has made several suggestions in the course of the matter, charged, I remember, the Senator from Maine, [Mr. FESSENDEN,] the other day, with being opposed to confiscation; and on being asked what the evidence of that was, answered because he voted for the reference on Friday last of these It may be that that is conclusive. If so, it places some gentlemen on the floor, who have never as yet, I believe, agreed that they were opposed to confiscation, and who were never, I believe, charged by anybody with being opponents of confiscation, in a most unfortunate position. measures. I think that at that time and now it is better that a matter so complicated as this should go to a committee for preparation, that these several projects may be digested and brought forward in proper form and shape, but it is possible to go on without; and having gone on several days without, as I have before remarked, there is less necessity now than then. Still I am inclined to think it will be as well to have them now go to a committee, though I am by no means strenuous on the subject. Mr. WADE. I have been a little surprised at the course of remarks indulged in by several gentlemen on account of what I said when I was up before. I did regret most sincerely that we were not able to pass an efficient confiscation bill. I remarked, I think, that it would be the saddest announcement to the country that had been made for a long time when it was found that we now referred this bill to a committee after four months' discussion. I did not impugn the motives of any man for the course he saw fit to take. I never do that, whatever gentlemen may insinuate. I am one of those who admit that every man has the same honesty of purpose that I claim for myself. Nor did I undertake to fix the status of any man on the subject of confiscation. I did regret, and I do regret, that there seems to be a majority op. posed to confiscation in any practicable form. I have nobody to blame for it; because every man has a right to his own opinions on the subject, as 1 claim to have myself. I had not even said that any man was opposed to confiscation. I did say that, from the announcements made on this floor, there were radical differences of opinion upon constitutional grounds, and that I did not see how a reference to a committee could be of any service to surmount those difficulties. If the difference were simply as to the details of the measure, a reference to a committee might be of very great advantage; but we differ on this question most radically upon principle. Here are some eight or nine different bills. The Senator from Vermont has announced that he believes it is only constitutional to take a man's property after you have convicted him. That is his argument, in short, as I understand him; and several other Senators entertain the same opinion. Then why refer it to a committee? The gentlemen who believe that, are opposed to any practical measure, such as the bill of the Senator from Illinois. I could not see, therefore, why it would be of any use to refer it to a committee. A committee cannot fix the Constitution for members of the Senate. It is a matter of conscience; a matter of oath; a matter that gentlemen cannot surmount. I blame no man for his constitutional opinions; but I have regretted that we did so differ that we could not make an efficient confiscation bill. I regret it now. Gentlemen have spoken of the remark which I was the bill of the Senator from Vermont is inefficient, The Senator from Ohio Mr. COLLAMER. expressed that opinion three or four times over; he had a perfect right to express it, and give his reason for it. Now, Mr. President, whether men are in favor of confiscation or not, depends very much upon the definition of the term; how you use the word; in what sense you use it. If you ren here who wished to go for an efficient confismean by confiscation that you may strip people cation bill to resist the attempt to refer it to a comof their property by a law which shall execute mittee, because, in my judgment, it was fatal to I did not pretend to itself without any other means or mode of carrythe measure; and I said so. say that every one who voted for that propositioning it into effect in a way which I regard as unwas an enemy to confiscation, as the Senator from Connecticut supposes I said. What I said was that, in my judgment, at so late a period of the if we should refer it to a new committee, session, after nearly four months' discussion of the measure, when it was seen how we differed and upon what principles we differed, it would be nugatory, other things would intervene, your tax bill would be up, the session would be advanced, a thousand reasons would interfere why no efficient measure could be passed after that; and I believe to-day that the fact that this is going to a committee is fatal to the measure. I am sorry that it is so; regret, as the people will regret, that gentlemen so construe the Constitution that we have not a majority here who will pass this measure. It will be a sad announcement to the country to tell the people that we are powerless to do anything in this particular, for I know that they have been extremely anxious in regard to it, believing themselves that it was within our power to punish traitors, and make their property indemnify us in some measure for this rebellion, and for defending ourselves against it. That was about the course of remark in which Mr. COLLAMER. Mr. President, I had sup- constitutional, I am opposed to confiscation alto- "Whereas, on the 1st day of March, which was in the year of our Lord 1778, an act was passed for attainting certain persons therein mentioned of treason, and confiscating their estates for the use and benefit of this State, which act has not as yet been carried into full execution; and whereas it is necessary that the names of the said persons so attainted by the said act should be inserted in a law, with the names of various other persons who have since the aforesaid time been guilty of treason against this State, and the authority of the same, by traitorously adhering to the King of Great Britain, and by aiding, assisting, abetting, and comforting the generals and other officers, civil and military, of the said king, to enforce his authority in and over this State, and the good people of the same; and whereas the said treasons have been followed with a series of murders, rapine, and devastation, as cruel as they were unnecessary, whereby order and justice were banished the land.” And so on, speaking of the evils which gentlemen have so often recapitulated here, and then it proceeds: "And whereas the aforesaid treasons and other atrocious crimes justly merit a forfeiture of protection and property: "Be it enacted by the representatives of the freemen of the State of Georgia in General Assembly met, and by the authority of the same, That all and each of the following persons, viz: for Chatham, Sir James Wright, Bart., John Graham, Alexander Wright, Lachlan McGillivray, John Muiryne, Josiah Tatnall, Bash Cowper" And so on, enumerating the names through two whole pages "be and they are hereby declared to be banished from this State forever; and if any of the aforesaid persons shall remain in this State sixty days after the passing of this act, or shall return to this State, the Governor or commanderin-chief for the time being is hereby authorized and required to cause the persons so remaining in or returning to this State to be apprehended and committed to jail, there to remain without bail or mainprize until a convenient opportuny shall offer for transporting the said person or persons beyond the seas to some part of the British king's dominions, which the Governor or commander-in chief for the time being is hereby required to do; and if any of the said persons shall return to this State after such transportation, then, and in such case, he or they shall be adjudged, and they hereby are declared to be guilty of felony, and shall, on conviction of their having so returned as aforesaid, suffer death without benefit of clergy. 5. And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That all and singular the estates, real and personal, of each and every of the aforesaid persons which they held, possessed, or were entitled to in law or equity, on the 19th day of April, 1775”— That was three years previous "or which they have held since, or do hold in possession, or others hold in trust for them, or to which they are or may be entitled in law or equity, or which they may have, hold, or be possessed of in right of others, together with all debts, dues, demands, of whatever nature, that are or may be owing to the aforesaid persons, or either of them, be confiscated to and for the use and benefit of this State, and the moneys arising from the sales which shall take place by virtue of and in pursuance of this act, to be applied to such uses and purposes as the Legislature shall hereafter direct." Thus it will be perceived that they attaint the persons directly, say they are guilty of treason, name them, confiscate their estates and all the estates they had at any time for three years previous, and order them to be transported without the country, and to remain out of the country. That is a confiscation bill. I submit to any and all gentlemen in the Senate who are in favor of confiscation, if they will answer me, do you believe that under the Constitution of the United States, under which we act and exist, we have a right to pass such a bill as that? If we have not, we have no right to pass a confiscation bill properly so called. Another act passed by the same Legislature provides, after naming a list of persons-whether the same as the other I do not know-that they shall "Be attainted and adjudged guilty of high treason against this State, and they are hereby attainted and judged guilty of the same accordingly." There is a bill of attainder, and the other which I have just read is a bill of confiscation. In the course of the remarks made by the Senator from Michigan, these examples of the colonies are cited to us as proper for us to consider and to follow. I would ask gentlemen to read such a bill of confiscation and attainder as this, and then I would ask them, do you believe we have the power to follow examples of that kind? Can any man believe it? If such be attainder-and I say everything depends on your definition-if that is attainder, I wish gentlemen distinctly to understand that I am utterly opposed to it, and I am opposed to it because the Constitution of the United States utterly forbids it. I will remark further, that all the bills that are offered here, propose only to work the forfeiture of the property of those who shall "hereafter" commit an act of rebellion. The bill of the honorable Senator from Illinois is that way. Why is it that that is put in? In the bill of attainder which I have just read they do not provide that a man shall be thereafter guilty of the crime. Confiscation was made of their real estate and of all their estate that they had held for three years past; and the Legislature declared they were already guilty. Why is it asserted in all these bills that if a person shall hereafter, or after the passage of this act, be guilty of the crime, the punishment shall follow? Why are they put that way? Simply and singly and for nothing else but this: they concede upon the very face of them that it is a punishment; they know that you could not make a law according to our Constitution which was ex post facto. What do you mean by that? To define the punishment for the offense after it is committed; that is what is ex post facto. They do not attempt to create what they call confiscation, or anything of that kind, in relation to acts committed in the past, because they will not pass an ex post facto law. away and would not hear the answer, and did not I was remarking that the very forms of all these Now, come pretty near answering the Senator's last question to me, when he asked why I would provide other law. Because I would provide some law that I could execute and that might have effect. The present law would have none; and hence it is that I introduced a bill by way of amendment, providing that the punishment of treason should be death or fine and imprisonment,| in the discretion of the court, believing that this last part might be effective. If I understand honorable Senators in their argument-for I shall not misrepresent them intentionally-they seem to suppose that that mode of providing for taking property by fining them and thus disposing of their property would be utterly ineffective. It is said that the reason why it would be ineffective is because judgment could not be obtained. Is not that very strange, very extraordinary, after the remarks we have heard from the honorable Senator from Ohio? He has said that the people of the South are writing to him from day to day to have a law made for the punishment of the people who have raised this rebellion, and led the people of the South into all their troubles. He is receiving them constantly, and yet are we to be told in the very next breath that when we have taken possession of that country and reëstablished the laws and the Government, we cannot get a jury who will convict them? Could we not obtain a jury from those men who are writing here and pressing gentlemen, who are of consequence enough to be pressed, to have a law made that shall punish those people, as they know the present law will never be executed? They are asking exactly for the very law I offer, a law that can practically punish those in rebellion. Do you believe there will be any difficulty in administer What is the reason that Senators are so tender on that point? Why is it that you will regard that provision of the Constitution forbidding you to pass an ex post facto law, but you will utterly disregard all those provisions of the Constitution that declare that a man shall not be deprived of his property without due process of law; that he shall not be visited with punishment except upon indictment, trial, and conviction; and that he shall not be twice punished for the same offense? Why overlook all these prohibitions of the Constitution? Why be so tender and careful about the provision in regard to ex post facto laws, and utterly regarding that law through juries of loyal men who are less of all the others? It seems to me the hon-importuning us for it? The moment you take orable Senator from Ohio comes always to this conclusion, that if he cannot have what he calls a confiscation bill except according to the Constitution, he cannot have anything effective. I answer that if he requires anything to be done contrary to the Constitution, he must go without an effective law. It is not my fault. He says he does not disregard the Constitution at all. But, sir, when that Constitution forbids the punishing of people without conviction, how is it that you will confiscate their property-as you call it confiscation-without conviction? How can you do it? Mr. WADE. If that is all we can do, and there is a law now punishing treason, I would ask the Senator what more he expects to do by bringing in a bill here ? Mr. COLLAMER. I do not believe that a question put by that honorable Senator in that way to me could ever be put if there had been a candid reading of my bill, or any candid hearing of my remarks. I cannot believe it. Mr. WADE. Then why does not the Senator answer it? Mr. COLLAMER. The gentleman, I remember, the other day asked me a question, and went possession of the country and of this property, When I ask gentlemen to tell us why it is that understand, but I cannot fully appreciate the candor of arguments made in that way. The honorable Senator from Illinois occupied considerable time to-day in finding fault with my bill; and in some features he thinks it is a more extreme measure than his own. I wonder he should complain of me for that. I should think in that he would, at least, find ground for commendation; but no, that will not do; that will not answer. The Senator finds in my bill that it is provided that the President, by his proper officers, shall take possession of all these people's property for the purpose of sequestering it to meet the fine which will be levied upon them, and he asks, "there, do you not take the property?" So I do; but it is a mere sequestration. "Well, but you order some of it that is perishable to be sold. If there is a quantity of sweet potatoes there, you must let them perish." Certainly, not at all. I provide for the disposing of such property, and putting the proceeds in the Treasury. But that is not what is required; that is nothing but sequestration. The moment you bring a man to trial, if he is acquitted, you return him that with his other property." As a matter of course. Now, is it a fair and candid mode of treating the bill to say it does not mean that, when it is declared expressly it is a mere act of sequestration to meet the final judgment which is to be rendered against him? And yet he says we are to pocket the money and mean to keep it, even though the man is innocent! I am perfectly willing to agree to certain amendments if gentlemen desire them, and I believe one Senator has shown me an amendment that I am willing to adopt. If gentlemen say that we should not leave any discretion to the President, but he should seize the property of them all when he gets possession of the country, if it is to wait until judicial trial, I care nothing about it. I am perfectly willing that he should take anything from those supposed to be engaged in the rebellion to wait until trial; but I want it ultimately disposed of according to the Constitution and the laws under it. If, after being notified that their property will be seized and sequestered, they will not submit, but go off and remain away, I am perfectly willing there should be a provision that that should be considered as an abandonment of that property forever. After due proclamations and notice given by the courts, it should be so. When gentlemen say my bill leaves too much to the President whether he will seize this property for the purpose of meeting the offense, and it should be made imperative upon him to seize it all, I say they can make it so if gentlemen prefer it. If they think it is better to go into these States and get possession, and seize the property of all men supposed to be in the rebellion before you offer them conditions of amnesty, and that your offer of conditions of amnesty will be more effective after the seizure than before, I have no objection to gentlemen making it so. Perhaps it may be so; I have doubts about it. It is a mere practical question, whether it would be better to offer them amnesty if they come in and take the oath of allegiance and submit to the laws, and if they do not come in, then seize their property, or whether it is better to seize their property first and then offer them amnesty, and if they come in, let them have it back again. I am perfectly willing to have it whatever way gentlemen think the most effective. If they believe the last the most effective, let them make it so. I have now occupied all the time I desire in relation to this question. I can merely say that the only confiscation which Congress can pass must be by way of punishment for offenses thereafter committed, and it must be upon trial and conviction; because so I believe the Constitution to be. At the same time I believe that the bill which I have presented would be effective for that purpose, I mean constitutionally. The seizing and holding of the property, and trying and convicting the men and selling their property by way of meeting their fines, I believe would be the most effective way, and I believe it is the only constitutional way. I have said thus much merely in relation to that part of the bill with which the gentleman from Illinois has found fault to-day. I ought to say, however, that I am for confiscation, that is, a legal and constitutional one; no other. Mr. TRUMBULL. I should like to inquire of the Senator from Vermont if he knows anybody 1862. THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE. that is for any other confiscation except that which is legal and constitutional? Mr. COLLAMER. I mean, as I understand it. Mr. TRUMBULL., I do not think there is anything peculiar in the Senator's position in being for constitutional confiscation, unless he meant to make the inference that somebody was for unconstitutional confiscation. Mr. COLLAMER. We know how that matter is, especially among lawyers. One says, “you are against confiscation, because you provide trial, and that will not do; I am for a confiscation bill, and mine is constitutional." The other man says, "I think confiscation can only be by way of punishment upon conviction, and I think that is the They only one that would be constitutional." both claim to be constitutional; but each man in speaking of them thinks according to his own All of us do that. I do not say that the course taken by gentlemen in relation to their bills is, in their estimation, unconstitutional. They must be their own judges of that; but I take it they must let other people be their own judges of their course; for, I take it, differences of opinion must be indulged in in bodies like this, and courtesy of treatment in relation to those opinions. But it was in relation to the point that my bill could not be effective in the way I proposed that 1 desired to make my rema.ks. views. In relation to the reference of this whole subject to a select committee, I have only this to say about it: I have now thrown my plan before the body, and presented my views in relation to it. I do not expect that I am infallible. I expect the body to decide it, and I expect to abide by their decision. If they desire to have it committed to a committee with other men's propositions, I have no objection. I am not afraid to commit my proposition with the others, and having them all compared. I do not shrink from it. I do not particularly court it. I think, with the Senator from Ohio, we shall probably entertain our own views after all; but it may be worth the experiment; it may be worth the trial. I voted for the reference to a committee the other day. I am willing that they should try it now. I am no way tenacious about it. I have no very great confidence in it; but I think it is worth a trial. That is all I can say of it. I should be myself entirely willing and desirous of obtaining the opinions of men about it. But I have this to say: if that committee is to be composed of the men who have offered propositions, the prospect of any coincidence of opinion on the subject will not be very bright. I do not think if the subject were committed to the honorable Senator from Illinois and myself now, we should ever be likely to agree. In the fore part of the session I thought we might agree; and I cannot but say that I believed then that if full conference had been had in relation to the principles of it, we might have come to something. It is tob late now. Though I do not presume to dictate, and hardly attempt to advise certainly not at all in such a body as this still it would be, in my estimation, rather desirable, if this committee is to be raised, that it should be composed of men who are not committed upon the subject, if that could be done. It may be difficult to do that. Still, that is not a duty that falls within my circle. That belongs rather to the Chair, to the appointing power, and not to me. I have merely this to say: I am willing that my proposition shall be considcred with that of other Senators, and receive the fate it merits; and that is all. Mr. FESSENDEN. A few words which passed between my friend from Illinois and myself the other day, perhaps render it necessary that I should explain to the Senate and to the country, so far as the country may be interested in anything I do, precisely my position upon this question. Ordinarily a man owes an apology for talking too much or for talking at all in such a body as this. Perhaps on this occasion, as there has been so wide and general a debate, if I owe any apology at all to the Senate and to the country, it is for not expressing my opinions upon a measure of so much importance. I have only to say that up to the present period I have had no opportunity to so digest my own thoughts upon the subject as to render it, in my judgment, proper that I should address the Senate. I have been engaged, as all my brethren here know, upon other matters; and since the debate came up, for the last four weeks very nearly, I have been constantly occupied, days, and many times nights, upon another sub- I will only say, therefore, sir, that when my my chair for a moment, having been called in by a But, sir, there were certain things that I did ever. My friend knew another thing, and that was, that early in the session I had given the opinion very decidedly and strongly, that we never should come to a conclusion which would be satisfactory to our friends and ourselves upon the subject, upon which we could unite, until it had been examined by a committee, and another committee appointed to examine the measure itself as brought forward by the Committee on the Judiciary. That had been my opinion. That opinion was expressed freely, but it was not followed. I did not choose to bring it forward here. But, sir, have not results That is the view that I entertain with regard to I am in favor of confiscating the property of rebels, and have been from the beginning, and have so stated. I am in favor of doing it under the Constitution and of not violating the Constitution in doing it, and of doing it to just that extent, and no further, that I judge the good of this country requires that we should go in doing so. That is as far as I go, and for that I will go. Why, sir, after the adjournment of the Senate on Friday lastand it was the first time I had an opportunity to look at them from my very multifarious engagements-I took these different bills, read them over carefully once, all of them but one for the first time, and there is not one of them that is not a confiscation bill, and a strong confiscation bill. The only question that arises in them or that can be raised in them by gentlemen on one side or another and I am expressing no opinion about that is, what is confiscation under the Constitution and according to it, and what is confiscation against and in violation of it? I do not express my opinion upon that subject now. There is no occasion that I should do so. But I ask gentlemen, suppose I am opposed to confiscation, what then? I have a right to be, and no man has a right to call me to account for it. No man has a right to question my motives or my opinions, and no man has a right to speak for the people, to threaten me with the judgment of the people, or to talk about the disappointment of the people. It may be so in some localities. Each gentleman can answer for his own. That remains to be seen after the thing is acted upon. We are to act upon a great constitutional question, a question involving the interests of this country, without reference to anything of that sort. To be sure, we all wish to act in accordance with the views and wishes of the people and our constituents; but we should be unworthy of seats here if we allowed any supposed views of the people, our constituents, to influence us to go against what was our deliberate judgment of our rights and our duties under the Constitution of the United States. Thank God, I represent a people that I know would visit judgment upon me more severely when they believed that, in accordance with their wishes and their opinions, I had yielded one hair of what I believed was my duty under the Constitution. That is what they would judge me for and judge me rightly. I have that respect for them and that knowledge of them to be aware, from long communication with them, that they hold a representative responsible for an honest discharge of his duty; and when they believe they have had that, it is all they ask at his hands. the measure, and to let them examine it, not the opponents of the measure, and I prefer the word opponents" to "enemies," if there are any opponents. I prefer not to denounce a friend-I am speaking with reference to the measure-ora political friend, if you please, simply because he happens to differ from me in relation to the extent to which a particular thing should go. He has the same right to his opinion that I have to mine; and it is useless for any set of gentlemen to say that their opinions are right, they have examined it, it must be so, and if there is any difference of opinion it is very ill-founded, and there is no accomplishing any purpose without coming up to their standand. I require no man to come up to mine, or down to mine. Therefore, sir, I say, as I said in the beginning, that I voted for this reference the other day, not as an opponent of confiscation, but as a friend of it, wishing to get a bill which would unite the votes of all the members of this body, or a great majority, particularly of all the gentlemen on this side of the Chamber, in favor of it. I believed that to be the only course by which it could be accomplished. It was entirely indifferent to mefor I never suspect bad faith; I wait until it is proved-who makes the motion, whether it is Mr. A, or Mr. B; if the thing is a good thing, we have only to do it. I hope, therefore, for these reasons, as I intend to vote for this committee again, that gentlemen will understand they are not to designate me for that vote as an enemy of confiscation, but to take me at my word as a friend of it, and at the same time not to suppose that I cease to be a friend of it because I do not come up to their standard. We all have our peculiarities of thought and opinions, and we must all be at liberty to express them. Now, sir, with reference to this particular matter, I feel precisely as I felt in the beginning. If gentlemen wish to get a confiscation bill-and I wish to get one, and as strong a one as the good of the country demands and the Constitution will allow-if they wish to get such a bill, in my judgment, and I say it kindly, for I do not mean to interfere with this matter-I have been out of the Senate too much to give my advice about it-the only way in which it can be accomplished is to refer all these propositions. You cannot accomplish a thing upon which there is such a difference of opinion upon detail and particular provisions, by discussions and amendments moved in the Senate; because gentlemen will not understand each other; because unfortunately they suspect each other; and because if an amendment is moved by a Senator who happens to differ strongly in opinion with another, that other says at once, "that comes from an enemy of the bill; I cannot look at the subject-matter of the thing, but I look to the man that offered it." In the first place, sup-sibly we could act upon it without its going pose an amendment is offered, and then an amendment to an amendment is offered; there you stop; you can go no further; you are hampered and controlled always by the rules of the Senate. There are in such cases infinite difficulties always in coming to a conclusion that will be satisfactory to men who wish to vote together. Mr. TRUMBULL. I trust I have no such pride of opinion, because I had given expression to that opinion months ago, that I would adhere persistently to it, and insist that that must have been right. The Senator from Maine tells you that long ago he knew this matter could not be brought to a vote, and that we could not get action upon this measure without its going to a committee. I denied it. He was wiser than I, and he adheres to it to-day. I thought in my simplicity that when it had been to a committee of its friends, and they had reported it to the Senate, that pos to another committee of its friends. It seems was mistaken; and the Senator from Maine, much wiser than I, expressed that opinion long ago, and now he rejoices that he was right in that, and reminds the Senate of the correctness of his view at that time. A person who heard him to-day would suppose that I had come into the Senate and singled him room, to proclaim to the country that he was opposed to a confiscation bill. One would suppose that he was sitting quietly in his seat and had not said a word, and that I had referred to him. Has the Senator from Maine forgotten that I was replying directly to him; that he spoke immediately before me? Has he forgotten the circumstances of that day, that there had been an understanding in the Senate, so far as it was possible to obtain an understanding, that a vote should be taken upon that day? It had been suggested the day before. When the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. HOWE] came in, and proposed to say something upon the bill, not exactly certain whether he would or not, and without asking to put the bill over, saying he felt hardly willing to do that, then the Senator from Maine rose and insisted that the bill should go over. We have been told by the Senator from New Hampshire to-day that it has been under consideration four months, and when the Senator from Maine came in and insisted that it should go over another day, was it singling him out if I tried to reply as well as I could, and show the impro Now, how is it here? Those who are in favor of confiscation-and they comprise a great major-out, engaged as he has been in his committeeity of the Senate-and gentlemen on both sides of this Chamber, perhaps all, cannot agree upon the details here; it is out of the question. They will have different views. It cannot be prevented in the nature of things. If you look into the history of Congress, I think you will find that when the Senate or the House gets itself into difficulty from this great difference of opinion and these numerous propositions, the course always has been to raise a committee of the friends of the measure, and let those friends see if they cannot agree upon something that will be satisfactory to all. It binds nobody. No one is compelled to accept that result. No one is compelled to say I will do this. I acknowledge it is a strong argument, a very strong argument. When a measure of this kind has been pending about which I have great doubts, which has been much argued, and a committee fairly made up of the friends of the measure have considered all these different propositions and come to a result, I confess I am very much inclined always, and should be, to say, "very well; the thing has been carried out; the measure is important, and I yield; I am not going to set up my opin-priety of its going over another day? ion against everybody else after a fair and thorough and careful examination of the subject.' That is the course of a fair man and a fair mind, and I hope that I am a fair man in reference to these things. My opinion, then, is now, sir, as it has been from the beginning-and in saying it 1 wish to treat with disrespect no member of the Senate at all-that the proper course would have been earlier to have selected a committee of the friends of Mr. FESSENDEN. Will the Senator, instead of saying that I insisted upon its going over, just read what I said? Mr. TRUMBULL. "If any one member of the committee of which I am chairman who has not spoken on this subject wishes time, it ought to be granted under the circumstances. "That is part of what the Senator said. He said more than that, however. I do not propose to read his whole speech unless he desires me to do so. "I saw him vote on the yeas and nays to refer this matter to a committee, the other day, on the motion of a gentleman known to be opposed to any confiscation bill,”° I proceeded further to say: "I think that is pretty good ground. When a Senator votes to refer a pending measure and all propositions on the subject to a person known to be opposed to the whole of them, I think it is pretty good evidence that he is opposed to it. I may have drawn a wrong inference, and I shall be very glad to know that I have. I hope I am mistaken, and that the Senator from Maine is for a confiscation bill." Now, it seems to me that was said in a kind spirit, and not in a spirit that should have called forth, after a week elapsed, the remarks of the Senator to-day in which he speaks of my having denominated him as an enemy to the bill. It may not have been a choice expression. If it will gratify my friend from Maine in the least, I will try not to say "an enemy of the bill" hereafter; I will use the word that he has thought better, and say "opponent of the bill." I am sorry that on Thursday or Friday of last week I did not say that the motion to refer was made by an opponent of the bill; and if it was in my power I would correct it in the Globe, so that it should appear that it was "an opponent" and not "an enemy" of the bill. Mr. FESSENDEN. I had no reference whatever to the Senator in what I said. Mr. TRUMBULL. The Senator now says he had no reference to me in what he said! Mr. FESSENDEN. In what I said about an enemy of the bill. Take me as I speak. The Senator did not use the word "enemy." Mr. TRUMBULL. Then I misunderstood the Senator, it seems, to-day. I am sorry to be so unfortunate as to misunderstand the Senator. Now, sir, I suppose we are all for the Constitution, and I do not know that those Senators who are opposed to a confiscation bill are par excellence the defenders of the Constitution. I'claim, so far as I am capable of understanding the Constitution, to be as devotedly attached to it as anybody else. I may be mistaken in my views about it; but I will not vote for any measure which I believe to be unconstitutional. I know that a number of amendments are here pending to this bill. It will be very easy for those who are not satisfied with any bill which a committee of five shall report to introduce a great many amendments hereafter. I think the effect of referring this bill is to weaken the friends of an effective confiscation bill. I think that the union of sentiment which is sought to be brought about will be a union of sentiment upon a bill that really will accomplish but little. I know the bill of the Senator from Vermont accomplishes something. It has some excellent provisions in it, in my judgment. It substantially copies some sections of the original bill, changing the language, perhaps, and, very probably, improving it. Those who think as I do, if they cannot get an efficient measure accomplishing all they desire, will vote for a weaker one. I have no pride of opinion about this measure. I shall vote for the best confiscation bill I can get. I believe it is a duty, a constitutional duty, imposed upon me, to endeavor to make those who are carrying on this war against the Government pay its expenses as far as I can. I may be defeated; the votes of the Senate may determine otherwise; but I cannot consent that the lives of loyal men shall be sacrificed, that the property of the loyal men of this whole country shall be taxed to the utmost ability of the people to pay, that a debt shall be incurred which will hang upon our posterity for ages to come to pay |