Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1861-10-10
The Confiscation Act.

The recent correspondence had between the
President of the United States and Major Gen,
eral Fremont, which resulted in the "6pen Or
der" modifying the earlier proclamation of the
latter so as to bring it into conformity with
the law of Congress, approved August 6, 1861,
and entitled "An act to con6scate property used
for insurrectionnry purposes, has drawn the pub
lie attention to the precise scope of this enact
ment. The terms Of the Law, go far as it relates
to property in slaves, are confined in the fourth
section, which is as follows;
And be il further enacted, That whenever
hereafter, during the present insurrection
against the Government of the United States,
any person claimed to be held to labor or ser
vico under the law of any State, shall be re-
quired or permitted by the person to whom such
labor or service Is claimed to be due, or by the
lawful agent OF such person, to take up arms
against the United States, or shall be required
,or permitted by the person to whom such labor
or service is claimed to be due, or his lawful
agent to work or to be employed in or upon any
fort, navy yard, dock, armory, ship, entrench.
ment, or any military or naval service whatso-
ever, against the Government and lawful author
'ity of the United States, then and in every such
case the person to whom such service or labor
is claimed to be due, shall forfeit his claim to
such labor, any law of the State or of the Uni
ted States to the contrary Notwithstanding. -
And whenever thereafter the person claiming
such labor or service shall seek to enforce his
claim, it shall be full and sufficient answer to
such claim that the person whose service or
labor ia claimed had been employed in hostile
service against the Government of the United
States, contrary to the provisions of this act.
Upon the general provisions Of the act in
question, and upon the particular action relat'
ing ID the status Of persons SHIELD to labor OF
service under the law OF any State'-as that
status is affected by the late legislation of Con
gress-.he Boston Daily AdUertiser, In some ex.
pository comments which appear to Us well.
founded, remarks as follows; lN H~
"Aiter q rather singular series of misconcep-
tions the real meaning Of the act of 'conhsca-
ton passed by Congress ia beginning to be
clearly understood. The Secretary of the
Treasury has point d out that, as regards ord-
nary descriptions of property, the Government
does not undertake to coDfscate the estates even
of rebels, but simply seizes property which is
used in aid of the rebellion, or which is used in
course of transmission to the rebellious States
in defiance of the prohibition of intercourse.
The result ia that q system Of indiscr:minste
seizures and iDquistorial proceedings, which
sprang up under mistaken notions Of the bear
ing OF the law, which none can account for and
few are willing to acknowledge, is cut off, tC
the great relief Of the business world, whict
was rapidly falling into panic of fear ut tn,
misguided zeal Of the public officers and thu
general apprehensions as to what might mex
happen. As it now stands in fact il has stoo,
ali the wbile-if any loyal citizen of the Soutl
has property lying here in any shape it is safe
ii any disloyal citizen has property here he ha
his choice, to let it lie, to the manifest adyan
tage of our people, or, by attempting its removal
to make Il over at once to the Government o
the United States. t.' ,''
1.-THE question as to the effect Of the act o
Congress upon slave property has not yet receiy
ed any public and authoritative exposition Q
this sort, and has been the subject of misappre
hension, quite as radical and inexplcable a
that noticed above. The actual meaning Of th
act, however, seems to US to be too clear to rs
main long in question. The act certainly afford
no sort OF pretense for the ground assumed
Gen. Fremont's proclamation, in declaring q
slaves Of rebels to be free; for it ia specifcall
confined In its operation 10 slaves employed i
military or naval service. Right or wrong,
was NOT the intention Of Congress to pass thl
which would be equivalent to o general act {
emancipation in South Carolina or Alabama
but It was proposed to deal with slaves as wit
|
that which is used for insurrectionary purpose
and that which is not. In our Judgment also
was quite as far from the intention of CongreI
to do what some defenders Of Gen. Fremont
proclamation have charged as the effect of th
only alternative construction of the act-t
make the Government itself holder Of slav
property. No such conclusion can be draw
from the terms of the act itself,
"It is misnomer to call the act of Aug. 6!l
| an act OF 'confscation' as regards slaves. Coz
fscation Is the forfeiture of property for the bel
eft of the public treasury, but no such intentio
ia disclosed In this act. The slave is describe
In il by the constitutional periphrasis as "a pc
son claimed to be held to labor or service und
the law of any State;' ard it Is declared th
.. when he Is permitted, by the person making tn
claim, to be employed In any military or nav
service, the claim shall be forfeited. The clsi
is not forfeited TO the Government, nor does
psss over to any other person; but the fact
, this prohibited employment is made "a full al
sufficient answer TO such claim The operate
of the statute seems TO have been intended
be somewhat analogous TO that OF tho statute
limitation, which does not destroy the debt,
takes away the action for its recovery. The O
| of Congress simply provides an effectual bar
any action on the claim Of labor or service.
recognizes and acts upon that claim alonei
does not pretend to act upon the sfdtus OF 9
individual, nor admit that there 10 any such ?
: culiar status, aside from the immediate res,
of the claim. II cuts of the means Of entol
Ing the claim, only when the person agair
whom II Ia made has been employed In host
lservice; and u even seems 70 Dc tho intenti