Indiana State sentinel. (Indianapolis, Ind.) 1861-1865, 1862-05-26
geetttO 9flistrIIanp,
THE CONFISCATION SCHEME.

An able Speech from Senator BrOwning, of I'LL
nOis-A Constitutional Ldcyers ReUiep Of
TTumbuPs Pettiogging.
We have in the Globe the official report of
Senator BRowNINe's speech in the Senate. on
Tuesday, April 29th, in opposition to TRuMBULLs IS
con6scatiOn bill:
THE GENERAL GROUNDS OF HIS OPPOSITION TO
THE BILL.
Senator BROWNING states in the following
extract, in general terms, his opposition to the
bill:
If were satisfied its passage would tend to
subdue the rebellion; to restore peace, harmony
and fraternal regard between the people of the
different sections of this unhappy lan6; to bring
back erring and disobedient citizens to their al
legiance and to restore the now contemned au-
thority of the Government in every part of the
country, even then | should feel constrained to
pause and inquire whether, compatibly with the
very solemn obligation /, in common with all
other Senators, am under to observe and main
tain inviOlate the Constitution, could give il
my support. But when the strong conviction
of my mind is that its passage will be attended
with precisely the opposite results; that it will
strengthen rebellion instead of subduing it,
widen the breach instead of closing it up, alien
ate instead of cOnciliating, and weaken instead
of re-establishing the power and authority OF
the Government; and when, in addition to all
this, believe its enactment would be gross
violation of the Constitution, l can not hesitate
as to my duty.
CONGRESS UsURPING UNCONSTITUTIONAL POWERS.
Senator BRowNING then proceeds to show that
the bill strikes at all the property of every kind
and character of all the citizens of the seeded
States, with scarcely an exception; and that this
is done, not by any judicial process, in accord
ance with law, but by summary act of Congress,
that body assuming not only to make the law,
but to execute it. Said Mr.. BRowSIxG, in reply
to TRUMBULL:
The difference between my colleague and my
self upon this branch of the subject, as l under
stand him, is, that he claims for Congress the
power not only to make but to execute laws,
while, according to my views of the Constitution,
the powers of Congress are legislative only; and,
when it attempts either to adjudicate or execute
laws, it usurps powers not delegated to it, and
subverts the Constitution. Congress may declare
by law, within the limits prescribed by interna-
tiOnal law, what property OF an armed enemy
shall be subject to seizure and cOntiscation; but,
when it undertakes to execute that law it breaks
away from its legitimate orbit of power, and in
vades the prerogative of the. President.
THE LAW or NATIONS GIVES AMPLE AUTHORITY FOR
ALL NECESSARY MEASURES.
Mr. BRowNING concluded that, under the law
of nations the requisite power to suppress the
bellion existed, and by that code we must be gov
erned. He said:
What insist upon is, that Congress shall not
legislate upon subjects which are not to be regu-
lated by legislation and that it shall not execute
nor attempt to execute, laws upon any subject
Resort must be had to the law of nations 70 de
termine what property of belligerent-a public
enemy-is subject TO conhscatiOn, and the cir.
cumstances under which il may be confscated
and then the executive and not the legislative de-
partment of the Government must carry the law
into force and effect. 1t will be understood oil
course. that l speak of enemy's property on land
and within the territory occupied by the enemy
and not Of maritime captures, which rest upor
different principles, and are subject to different
rules, from captures on land; but neither OF then
are subject 70 the control of municipal law.
unless such municipal laws conform tC
the laws Of nations, and then they are o
force only because of such conformity. The law
of nations comes in and takes coenizance of th,
whole subject Of captures and belligerent rights
both on sea and land.
In the prosecution of the war emergen
cies may be developed which will impose
necessity, Tor the attainment OF tne just ends
the war, to ravage the enemy's country, and con
hscate his property, to a greater extent thai
is nov proposed. Ii may become necessary be
fore this war, so needlessly and so wickedll
forced upon the country. is ended, to proclaim
maI'.nissi0n Of the slaves of rebels to a creates
extent than this bill eoBsemplates; ard, II sucl
necessity should arise. the power to meet il IN
der, and in harmony with the Constitution, Is II
nay judgment undeniable. But who IS to judg
OF the necessity and decide when we are authori
Zed 10 resort 10 these extreme measures 70 secur
the just object OF the war. and To proceed TO exc
cute the law which justihes themr Is it Con
gressf Has Congress anything whatever to d
with III just as well might Congress claim th
right TO tell the general ON ,he field of battl
when to advance and when TO withdraw a col
umn, and when the bayonet should be substitu
ted for the musket and the rife These are no
legislative functions but executive. So i tn
seizure and confscation Of the property of pub
lie enemy on land in time Of war, executive. 7
il not the making, but the ezeeufing of law
The law already exists, and settles both wha
kind Of property is subject to seizure, and th
circumstances under which it shall be lawful {
make the seizure Whether the circumstances
have arisen which justify the act, and II so,
what extent; whether the capture and confisc'