Worcester daily spy. [volume] (Worcester [Mass.]) 1850-1888, 1861-09-18

WED ElsAH rs Sh-~ = -
yTg PRESIDENT AND EREMoNT.
Nh, presidents order modifying Fremont's
DroeIamaton is not as explicit as could be
wished. We notice that some who read it
understand that the president objects to the
amancipation of confiscated slaves This,
bowrver. is evidently mistake. The act
nt congress to which reference is made pro
vides that slave,owners shall forfeit their
claim to such slaves as may be employed in
aid OF the secession war on the government;
but il does not provide that anybody else may
acquire a title 10 such property" The result
of such forfeiture is emancipation, for no de-
pariment of the government can have author
ity to buy or sell slaves. Slavery has no war
rant beyond the local law Of the state where II
exists, and for the general government to con.
fscate slave is necessarily neither more nor
less than TO set him tree.
If we understand the presidents letter, his
objection to Gen. Fremonfs proclamation was
that it confiscated the slaves and other proper
ty of actual rebels, whether used in aid OF their
treason or not. The presidents complaint
was that Fremont's order in regard to slaves
did not conform to the act of congress. The
confiscation act is 'an act to contiscate proper
ty used for ilSrrectiond1y purposes" and we
understand the president to order that the op'
Grafton of Fremonts proclamation shall be
confined TO such property. He may confiscate
all slaves employed to aid the rebellion, as well
as other property SO used. Beyond this he
must not go, because he cannot go further
without transcending the provisions OF the con
fiscation act. We reprint this enactment OF
congress, which it is well to read again care
fully, in connection with the correspondence
between President Lincoln and General Ere
mont
But in adopting this view of the presidents
meaning. we find ourselves embarrassed by a
serious difficulty. 1t seems TO us that the
government itself has not confined Its contisca-
tions to property used for insurFectionary pur-
poses" but has extended them to all property
held by rebels, excepting slaves, whether so
used or not, BY order from Washington, the
property OF southern men understood to be
rebels is seized tor contiscation, whether found
in use Tor insurrecIionary purposes or not.
Government officials seize money in the banks
and in the hands of express companies. They
seize race horses belonging TO southern men,
and any other property that can be found.
We read in Lynn paper that the United
States marshal has seized an estate in that
city, belonging to one Lorenzo d. Bragg now
in Texas, and that other property there be-
longing 10 southern owners will share the
same tate. If Fremonfs error consisted in
specifying tor coniscation not only property
used to aid instruction, but also the property
of dis 3yal person. not appearing to be 50 Gsed,
on what ggo,u.a lali - { justly sach seizures
by the government those specified The
conflseaion act should be felt everywhere
alike, sl ave one constraehn2 H. ,..... ore Z,
hold that every disloyal man has devoted his
property to insurrectiouary uses, and there
fore, that the act of congress DEGREES its con-
fscation. 1t is not necessary to defect him in
the very act of traitorously using what is seized.
The fact that he is traitor shows satisfactorily
how his property is to be used and why it
should be taken from Kim. The policy of the
government has evidently been regulated by
this view Of the matter But this rule Of con.
iscation is identical with that of Fremonts
proclamation. The provisions Of the confs-
cation act are no more transcribed by his rule
than by that adopted at Washington, ami any
modification that touches one of them should
be extended TO the other. 1t is true that Ere
mont actually meant TO confscate slaves, as
well as horses, mules, and money. His inten-
NOT, oI,- IL oh l.,
it; nor was he able to discover that slave
property" has any claim to be consid red too
sacred for the touch of confiscation A SINH
lar feeling dictated the confscating act of con
gress.
Ii the president had objected to Fremont's
proclamation that it could not be the duty Of
military commanders to execute the confisca-
ton act, such an objection would have been
very pertinent, and our criticism would be
out of place. 1t is only by virtue of martial
law that military commander can undertake
the confiscation of property and Fremont
understands this very we'll 1t was on declar.
ing martial law in Missouri that he issued the
proclamation. And it will be noticed that the
president makes no objection 10 this measure
hut 10 tue prOCiduldliOu llselt save tilat II
goes little too far in the confscation of slaves
We cannot appreciate the objection, which
might well be turned against Secretary
Cameron's circular to General Butter on the
contraband question. That circular said -
"In states wholly or partially under insur-
rectionary control, where the laws of the
United States are SO far opposed and resisted
that they cannot be efectually enforced, it is
obvious that rights dependent on the execution
OF those laws must temporarily fail; and it is
equally obvious that rights dependent on the ldws
Of the states must be necessarily subordinated to
the MILITARY ExIGENcIEs CREATED BY THE
INsURREcrIoN, if not wholly forfeited by the
reasonable conduct of parties claiming them
To this general rule rights to services can form
no exception" And this circular of Mr.. Cam
eron was approved by the whole cabinet
Since the president has carefully revised
Fremont's proclamation, so far as it touches
slavery, we hope he will give some attention
to other military officers, who certainly act
on this question in disregard OF law. 1t is
stated, and not denied, that some of the officers
near Washington catch and return fugitive