, 1862-06-21

can show title to them. These laws do not
| apply merely to the African slave-trade, but
| the same penalties and forfeiturcs att4ch 10
| transporting from Brazil or Cuba into the
the United States persons who are slaves by
the Laws OF those countries. The owner loses
his vessel, the master bis slaves on the vessel,
and the persons engaged in the traffic or IN
navigating the vessel commit a crime for which
they are punishable On conviction; but their
conviction is not essential to the condemns
ton OF the vessel or the discharge Of the
slaves,
In some cases persons engaged in the slave
trade are guilty Of piracy and suffer death
yet in those, as in other cases, the vessel and
cargo are connscated BY process agaiust them
and wholly irrespective Of any conviction OF
the guilty PERSONS
The precedents Of the slave trade laws are
Of special interest in relation to the coufisca-
tion Of the slaves Of rebels The necessary
form Of confiscation Is emancipation. The
temper OF the country would not tolerate the
sale OF slaves BY the United States still less
you'd ittolerate the exemption Of this species
OF property from any consequences the Law
nay attach to any property Of the rebels.
Slave property is the pretext Of the rebellion
aud the chief instrument By which the revolu-
tloDlsts have coerced submission to their will,
Mound policy requires that q weapon Of such
power be brokeo or ~'rcsted from tue hands of
the enemies Of the government, and nothing
ought to arrest the blow but the plain pro-
hlbitions Of the constitution for subordina-
lion to the supreme law is the condition of
national existence. Fortunately its wise pro-
which a free government ought to Wi.ld
lcast Of all does it forbid the con6scatiou OF
slaves, and emancipation Is an inseparable in
cident Of o~nership. OF course, they who
call confscatlon laws bills of attainder, will
call emancipation of confiscated slaves aboll-
tion Of slavery in the States BY Congress But
no loyal people will confound the release Of
the governments title in the slaves confisca-
ted, with prohibition against holding any
slave in the State.
But Mr.. Eliot's bill is in one particular
wholly indefensible- Tt violates all constitu-
tsoual principles Of American law in requiring
persons to prove their innocence. It places
the title to negro property Of loyal people at
tue mercy Of the Government, for it strips the
owner of all power to prevent confisca.ion
unless he can prove that he has not aided the
rebellion, and that it is impossible for any one
to prove. Require an oath that he has not
been SO engaged, but do not stain American
law with provision that man shall be pre-
sumed guilty!!
The bill is defective in another particular.
It gives the freedman no legal protection He
cal, the bill says, plead the law bat the mas
ter will never sue him, but seize him. The
freedman must be the actor, and the law gives
h1m no standing in court. The United States
is in duty bound to extend to him the habeas
corpus in q United States court which now no
Ian gives him and If these be not done the
but will be merely a source Of endless con,
fusion. Men freed By the law Of the special
session are now suffering in Maryland for want
Of such provision
The slave trade laws were passed in 1874,
1850, 1907, 1918, 1919 and 1820-ip the admin
istra!ious OF Washington, Adams, Jefferson
and Monroe. They involve every principle
| now assailed in the confscation hil1s-from
the confscation Of property for criminal acts
OF tue owner, without conviction Of the guilty
1y%x3 1.,%
and not against the person, to the freeing 81
| slaves for the violation Of law by their owners
1t is therefore frivolous to assail these laws
| on the ground Of unconstitutionality, Ifdnu
principle is settled by the Uniform practice i
cation for criminal acts by direct process
| against the property contiecated, and wholly
| without regard to the conviction or proseeu-
| tion OF the guilty person
This review Of congressional enactmente
may we'll increase our astonishmcnt at the
| Ia ha1dlhood Of the assai}ants Of these laws:
i1ey treat the prcedents OF the founders Of
| the government With no more respect than
the5 90 the constitution they made. Their
| op]scuons TO tae bsus are plausible only when
the language OF the constitution is perverted
| escape exposure oy carefully sustaining from
al consideration OF the contemporary e1posi-
ton OF the constitution by its authors.
1t appears, therefore, from this lnTestign.
| t1 ~, =, ,... ,.,,,,
| l.. Ihat there If no prohlbitlon IN the con-
sulnllon against nahlu5 conhscatlon pen-
atty q any crime.
Il. There is nothing IN the constitution
wnlcn MAKES eonnscal1on dependent Oh the
conYlcnon OF the person on Indictment,
III; II: lhsfe Is nol6lng N INC constitution
which limits all contiscat1ons to the lie OF the
gliIty person.
| Nv: The only clause relating to the subject
anp slmpl! fnrh1as , 11 Congress to make forfeiture
pe5ono Inc me OF The CONVICT consequence
VI 9ohSaetaoat 1 ?a 1of lFedson- ..-..
Y, huh II oocs not SAT that congress may
! not ny law conhscate absolutely the whole
| property OF persons VINO 40 the acts speclhed
| 70 INC Oils reported by Mr. Eliot, oy proceed
lnGs against thc properly, ana nos IN conse-
! que1ce Oh conFlction OF Inc person:
~ Ana Tue "hole course OF iegislatlon OF
tce country mas sanctioned the dlsunctlon by
1--we passed under the auspices OF the fathers
Of the constitution.
II any one ask, Hhy prohibit confscatlon
in pursuance of conyigsion, and allow it with.
out copyictious
reply: The burden of showing the IN.
coustitutianality Of the law lies on fbose who
affirm it. They cannot defeat it by showing
that tha constitution has forbidden it in cases
not now contemplated The question Is what
the constitution says against coniscatior
is silent, Il limits copdscatiou as the consc
ouence If conyiction. and ther, n stons
Il is possible a reason nav be found for thjs
1imitnt!on in connecrin1 with a conr;otion -
: :s;.sated the dsf,nit;on' - :,
rne splr,. ru..u e. to ii,
treason wh3ia othos s",-;-. o-;,,. w LILY
| dnA,ftior ~ rosS. et4n'eo rete 'SN