East Saginaw courier. (East Saginaw, Mich.) 1859-18??, 1862-05-27

W tic law o. la lbus, inca TX would DS
only declai atory, but it would give uC
additional farce or eiiieiancy to the pre-
existing law,
Now, sir, if we were at war with Great
Britain, the passage OF q law by US Il
coniiscate the property of the citizens oi
Canada to the same extent aud in the
same manner that this bill proposes e
couhScate the property of the citizens
OF the rebel States would bring upon u,
the ridicule OF the world; aud il we exc,
cutcd the law, as it could ony be eXecu
ted, by marching al army into the enc
my's country, and, by the strong hand
of war, robbing and plundorins NIL Tbs
people, in the language Of the bill, oI
"ali the property real and personal, OF
every kind whatsoever, aud wheresOevel
situated and reduced them to abject
poverty, to the pinchlngs of want, To the
horrors of famine, we would bring upon
ourselves the deserved execrations OF
mankind. Could we do it? Will any
one contend that we would have the
power to do itY And would our own
people consent TO such an act OF bar.
barism i: we had the power?
And now, Sir, / respectfully ask Of
my colleague, and all other Senators
who support this bill, whether if we re.
gard the rebels as belligerents and public
enemies, we are not bound to deal with
them under the laws of nations as long
as the war continues precisely as we
would be bound TO deal with a foreign
nation with which we might he at war
aud further, whether if we were at war
with foreign nation, we could pass such
bill as this in regard to its people, and
whether we would have any right to ex-
ecute it upon them even ii we did pass
ItY A correct answer to these inquiries
will dispose of the questions before us,
provided we recognize the rebels as bel.
lIgerehts aud public enemies.
But If we do not recognize them as
belngerents and public enemies, then the
law oi nations will have no application,
hut we will be obliged to treat them as
insurgent citizens, and deal with them
under the constitution and municipal
laws made to carry into effect the pio-
Visions oi the constitution. And what,
III that event, would we have power to
do IN respect to the conliscation of their
property! ii they were shot down on
the battlefield, nothing; there would be
an end OF 1t. ii they were captured alive
they would be subject to immediate trial
and punishment for treason without wait
my tor the end of the war, according to
the provisions of the constitution and
laws III that regard, ana in no otter way
and TO no greater extent. Aud what
would that punishment be? The second
clause Of the third section of the third
article ot the constitution derlares:
lhe Congress shall have power to
declare the punishment of treason, but
no attainder OF treason shall work cor
ruption Ut blood, or forfeiture, except du
nng the hle of the person attainte l."
The law declares that the punishment
OF the person shall be death. Forfeiture
oi property may be superadded but the
Instant the sentence of the law is execu-
ted upon the person it is remitted against
the property, which descends to the heir
precisely as If the ancestor had never
committed treason at all. Thus, when
you treat the rebel as citizen, and in
dict, try, aud convict him OF treason, you
cannot forfeit or conhscate his property
absolutely. The constitution forbids it,
But tins bill attempts to do that very
thing-to forfeit the property, and all
the property, both real aud personal, of
every kind aud character, aud wherever
situated, aud that forever.
THE PROPOSED LAW BILL OF ATTAINDER.
But it is said this is not bill of at.
taiuder, and is not, therefore, obnoxious
to the constitutional objection which has
been urged. | am not fastidious about
names. | am at the substance Of the
thing. Call it what you will, it is bill
to forfeit, absolutely and forever, prop
erty for treason, to punish citizens for
treason by the forfeiture of their prop.
erty in perpetuity. Now, suppose, for
the sake of argument, it be admitted tina,
this is not bill of attainder, is the
difficulty got over by the admission?-
Surely not. The constitution not only
declares that "no bill Of attainder shall
he passed." but also that ono attaindel
Of treason shall work corruption of blood
or forfeiture. except during the life o.
person attainted." And it matters not
whether the treason is ascertained by in
dictmen,, trial aud conviction before tho
indicials, or whether it is determined by
legislative enactment, the prohibition o
forfeit,rc is equally imperative in either
case. Is not the offence by which yor
are seeking to enforce this sweeping for
feiture treason? Ii it is not treason
what is il? Will Senator'S who urge th'
passage of this bill tell us? Aud if it i
treason, does not the constitution posi-
lively forbid you to declare such for
feiture for such cause?
Will it be answered that this bill j
not within the constitutional inhbi io'
because the persons against whom it i
levied have not been convicted Of tres
son? Then you are brought to the mon
strous proposition that, by assuming
guilt, you may punish with severit
which the constitution absolutely forbid
when the assumed offence has been as
certained by proof and judicially estat
E.lul frlx .,o,t,tntinn ,ntando1 4