Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1862-01-28
CHE Obio 6tatesntrarn h !
T z r N .
The Louisville Journal ON oons,sca.
tlOm.

part even OF some conservative men In Con
gress 70 favor Wholesale conflscation act vhjol
snail apply TO all the property of ali person
VINO havehad any connection with the rebellior
IN any capacity, whether civil or militsrv n,
naval. We learn this With regret, The o6iec
uons against the measure or against any suct
measure are es We conceive insuperable.
IS admitted on every hand among Iowa
men tnat the object Of the war 10 not merely
tne overthrow OF the rebels, but also the re.
es!apnsnment of the government. Moreover
Nts pain from the nature of the case that the
onIotcement OF the law Of con6scation ia de.
penuent on the overthrow of the rebels, and ac.
oo.uipgiy' cannot take place until the rebels are
sc.ueny y overthrown. Now, judging from the
general motives of human action viii the cor.
seriousness Of the rebels that they are stripped
IN law OF all their possessione and that conse-
quentiy they have nothing but absolute mover.
" ana ruin to expect from defeat, render them
more or less easy to msster7 and, being mas
tereoj VIII the actual visitation upon t6em NJ
eDeoiuse poverty and ruin, judged BY the same
standard, further or hinder the acknowledgements
Oh their old and broken allegiance2 Is goad.
ing men TO desperation the way 10 make them
less formidable as adVersaries2 and Ia infiotIno o
tne greatest possible injury on defeated A. vef.
sarles the way to win back their affections and
respectf The point really seems to US too clear
lor LOT reasonable dispute. The act proposed Is in
enect . measure providing beforehand for the
utter impoVershment of our adversarles after
we snaii nave gained the ascendency over them
IN uSu snah noi1 them at our mercy. 1t Is a de
llceraIe notincation to the rebels that the door
vi forgiveness Is shut and barred against them
and that hencefortb their only choice is victorv
or ruin. The tendency of the measura is O~rc,
~ and fearfully destructive. It piles on the
back OF the government already overloaded
new olihcultes mountain high.
But the measure is condemned by the usapes
Oh modern warfare as we'll as by the clear dc
tates Oh expectancy. Indeed, whatever in gen
eral uoes not serve to promote the object of
war IS condemned by the usages OF modern
warfare The condscation of private pronertv
on land, however, 10 particularly condemned nv
such usages. And no country is more stronrlv
OF more prominently committed to this condem.
nation than our own. at is," said Mr., Seere.
tsry Marcy, in his famous letter to the Count de
earilges in le56, "a generally received rule of
modern warfare, 80 far at least as operations
upon land are concerned, that the persons and
enc SMects OF non.combatants are to be respected
lle Wanton plllage or uncompensated appro-
priauon OF individual property by an army even,
~ ~ posseSsloh OF an enemys country, is against
fe0a0lA.p
the Secretary declares elsewhere In the same
letter, "in favor of the doctrine that privsts
property should be exempted from seizure in
the operations of war are considered in this en-
ilgntened age 30 controlling as to have secured
its partial adoption by all civilized nations. -
IN tne conclusion OF the letter, he again refers
70 TINS point atHrmiug that "the principle" has
"iong mad the emphatic sanction of ali enlipht.
eneo nations IN military operations on Land. -
Toe point, indeed, Is not disputed one. Even
the radicals 10 Congress admit the point while
arguing In contempt of It.
beeides, however, the fragrant inexpedienoy
OF this Wholesale confscatlon, and besIdes ia
oirect violation of the law of nations, II has
yet another and more special title to the CON
demnation of the usages of modern warfare
Inc injustice OF the measure Ia distinguished
3y particular cruelty, including, as the measure
does' the total ruin of men and of the families
OF men who renounced their allegiance to the
government only because the Government with
ne,a lts protection OF them "a the presence of
= nosuie power, which threatened to destroy
them II they did not acknowledge 1t, and that
was strong enough aud merciless enough To car.
~ out the threat. The measure REQUIRES the
Government to blindly heap dishonor and de-
etructlon on the victims of its own neglect or
impoteucy. The measure In this ASPECT is not
only csueliy but monstrously unjust This as
peos Oh the measure is well presented at large
Dy Republican cotemporary. "The bills'n
says the New York World, commenting ON the
various con6scation bills now before Congress.
"appiy to the confscation of the property Of
rebels but fail to specify who come within
that category. Are all those who bear arms to
De includedf But there are thousands who do
tnis, VINO DO it unwillingly, having been drafted
py military authority, or been coerced BY public
opinion, which is about as hard to be resisted.
Are all who have held civil offices to be includ.
ea-magistrates, Legislators and administrative
omeialsf This would be monstrous doctrine.
Gooo men can serve With safe conscience un.
ger any de Ideto government, no matter what
its origin; for the claims of society are supreme,
and the greater the straits of society, the great
er the necessity for good public men.
Besides, the State authority of the seeded
States is just as legitimate as ever, and their
government Is not only de tacto but de jure.-
Clearly the mere fact Of holding Office in the
Confederacy does not Of itself make rebel.
Nor does the fact of voting for such function
aries 1t is the interest of all citizens, whether
under the Federal or the Confederate flag, to
vote, and to vote for the best men, and Il Ia no
less right. That alone cannot Justify confiscs.
tlon. What, then, should2 II neither the
mere TACT OF bearing arms, nor of holding Of
hce, nor OF voting in and under the Confeder.
acy does not make q rebel, what does2 Who
Is to Determined The bills supply no test
All is left indefinite. In every Confederate
state, save perhaps South Carolina, there were
tens OF thousands who opposed secession until
opposition became absolutely futile; and they
finally acquiesced simply because there was no
help These men never ned g ssbellious spirit,
vinIdAd IN ma H. T. -
be made between them and those who were
traitorous ab initio? Has the Federal Govern.
ment, which did not afford them protection. A
moral right to hold them to etrict account be-
cause they failed in allegiance2 Protection and
allegiance, In political law, are pronounced re-
clprocal duties. The government which does
not secure the one, should at least be charita.
BILE when not receiving the other--especially
when those accounted derelict could not have
been otherwise without loss of property and per.
haps of life." These reflections are strikinelv
just. Their justness must be owned by ali. Il
IL undeniable. Yet even this does not ada the
browning aggrayaton 10 the illegitimaoy Of the
measure We are considering.
In addition to ell this, the measure involves
the contingent destruction of the institution of
slave property In the South. Under the opera.
ton OF the measure nearly every slave In the
seeding States and large number In the loyal
States OF the South would be confiscated, and,
according TO the doctrine Of the party now in
possession OF the Government, coniacaton is
equivalent to emancipation. The President in
his message treats such equivaieney as fact
beyond dispute. He quietly takes It for grant
ed. "Under and by virtue of the act OF Con-
grees entitled 'An act 10 con6scate property
used for insurrectionary purposes, approved
August 3 1861 J" he says, "the legal claims Of