New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1861-09-24

owned by loyal citizens Of loyal States, as well
as those owned by rebels in seeded States,
seems unnecessarily severe. To mitigate this
severity, Mr.. Chase has, as we are informed,
6airectted the TIE Collectors Of the Customs to allow
such vessels, where more than one-halt part OF
each is owned in loyal States, to load and pro-
coed on lawful voyages, on giving bonds for
their return to custody in double the value OF
the share belonging to dislOyal persons. This is
q great relief to the shipping interest, and is
pretty clear intimaton that, under the authority
vested in him by the act he will ultimately re-
lease from conscation all those shares of vessels
belonging to citizens in loyal States-a measure,
as we think, of sheer justice to them.
Mr.. Chase has also decided that the first Sec
ton of the act Of August 6, 1861, and which is
purely confscaton statute, applies solely to
property used or intended to be used in carrying
on the rebellion, and that it does not reach
property even though owned by rebels, not used
nor intended to be used for that purpose. We
think this is the plain reading and obvious aim
of the statute. Hence, the property OF South
ern rebel, lying dormant in Northern State
and neither employed nor intended to be en-
ployed in promoting the Instruction, is not
liable to seizure under this law. The Secretary
decides that seizures under the statute OF August
are to be made By United States Marshals, act
lug under the direction Of District-Attorneys
The Secretary, while stating that his Department
cannot afford any relief to parties aggrleved
under this act, intimates that District-Attorneys
may, in proper cases, give such relief by dlscon-
tinuing proceedings against the property seized.
The Secretary, not having occasion to alude
to that section of this act which relates to the
slaves of rebels. is silent on that subject. We
may remark in passing that the force and effect
of this clause Of the statute is wholly niScon'
ceived in come quarters. 1t has been said that
though this provision forever releases the slave
from all obligations to render labor or service TO
his former owner, il does not therefore eHectuhte
his manumissiOn. Ii is sufficient answer to this
sophism to say that, inasmuch as the slave owes
labor and service to no person on earth but his
master, when he is legally discharged from that
there is nobody else in the world to whom he
does owe it, and consequently he is free.
Finally though Mr.. Chase wisely puts the most
liberal construction upon these coniiscation acts,
and is ready to shield the property of loyal men
from harm, while mbjecting that Of Rebels to
the rigorous penalties Of the law, we do not
understand him as intimating any opinion which
conflicts with the views SO often expressed by us
as to the authority of a commanding general,
under the pressure Of an alarming exgency, to
seize and confscate and even burn and destroy,
any and oil property of the enemy, and to set
free his slaves, if any he have. No principle Of
martial law stands on frmer foundations than
this. The right to resort TO this extreme meas
ure Of retribution in circumstances which i'm
periously demand its infection. is familiar rule
of the sangunary code Of war.