The Cass County Republican. [volume] (Dowagiac, Mich.) 18??-1880, 1862-07-24

Of Veto.
The following is the Presidents mes
sage, transmitted to Congress yester-
day:
Fsllo,o Citizens Of the Senate end
House Of Representatives
Considering the bill for an act to sup
press insurrection, to punish treason
and rebellion, to seize and cOnfscate
the property of rebels, and for other
purposes, and joint resolution explana-
tory Of said act as being substantially
one. l have approved and signed both.
Before was informed of the passage
of the resolution l had prepared
draught stating objection to the bill be-
coming law, copy of which draught
| is herewith transmitted.
(Signed.l ABRAHAM LINCOLN.
July II, 1862.
THE UNSIGNED DRAUGHT OF VETO.
Fslloao Citizens Of the House of Rep
resentatives
herewith return to your honorable
body, in which 1t originated, the bill
for an act. entitled an act to suppress
treason, to seize and confiscate the
property of rebels, and for other pur-
poses," together with my objections to
its becoming law.
There is much in the bill to which |
perceive no objection. 1t il wholly
prospective and it touches neither per.
son or property of any particular citi-
zen, i'll which particular it is just and
proper. The first and second sections
provides for the conviction and punish
ment of persons who shall be guilty of
treason, and the person who shall incite,
set on foot, assist or engage in any
rebellion or insurrection against the au-
thority of the United States, or the
laws thereof, or shall give aid or com.
fort to any such existing rebellion or in
surrection.
BY fair construction the persons
within these sections are not to be pun
ished without regular trial, in duly con-
sttuted courts, under the forms and all
the substantial provisions of law. and
of the Constitution, applicable to their
several cases.
To this l perceive no objection, es-
pecially as such persons would be with
in the general par,loning power, and
also within the special provision for
pardon and amnesty contained in this
act.
1t also provides that the slaves of
persons confiscated under these Sec.
tons shall be free. think there is an
unfortunate form of expression rather
than substantial objection to this. 1t
is startling to say that Congress can
free a slave within State, and yet
were it said that the ownership of the
slave had seen first transferred to the
nation, and that Congress had then lib
Grated him, the difficulty wo!ld vanish,
and this is the real case. The traitor
against the general government foritltS
his slaves as justly az he does any 9TH
er property, and he forteits both to the
government against which he offends
The government, so far as there can
be ownership, owns the forfeited slaves,
and the question for Congress in re.
gard TO them is, shall they be made
free or sold to new masters? | see no
objection TO Congress deciding in adj
vance that THEY SHALL BE FREE. TO
the high honor of Kentucky, as / am
informed, she has been the owner of
some slaves by cscheat, and has sold
none but liberated all. hope the same
is true of some other States. Indeed
do not believe it would be physically
possible for the general government 10
Ieturn persons so circumstanced to &C.
tual slavery. believe there would be
physical resistance to it which would
never be moved aside by argument OF
driven away by force. In this view OF
it have no objection to this feature o
the bill.
Another matter in these to sections
and running through other parts of the
act, will be noticed hereafter. / per
, ceive no objection to the third aud
fourth sections.
So far as wish to notice the fiftl
and sixth sections, they may he consid
cred together, that the enforcement o.
these sections would do no injustice to
the persons embraced within them, il
clear. That those who make a cause
,, less war should be compelled to pay the
cost of 1t, is too obviously just to be
called in question. To give govern
:. ment protection to the property of per
sons who have abandoned it and gone
!, on crusade to overthrow that same
government, is absurd, if considered il
the mere light of justice.
!, The severest justice may not always
be the best policy. The principle o
seizing and appropriating the property
of the persons embraced in these sec
tons is certainly not very Objectionable
but a justly discriminating application
of it would be very difficult, and to
great extent impossible.
). Would it not be wise to place pow
>. err of remission somewhere, so tina
these persons may know that they hav,
something to save by desisting, and
am not sure whether snch power of re
}, mission is or is not within section thir
.. teen without special act of Congress
i l think our military commanders
4 when, in military phrase, they are with
in the enemy's country, should in al
!, orderly manner seize and keep what
e ever of real or personal property ma,
l. be necessary or convenient for thei
!, commands, and at the same time pre-
:, serve in some way the evidence of wha
:, they do.