The Burlington weekly hawk-eye. [volume] (Burlington [Iowa]) 1860-1876, 1862-03-08


SsnAsos Tranbali % Conascaesn.
The bill for the oon6scatiOn of Rebel proper
beinR under confederation In the Senate on tn,
os.h q.
.. rpr,.n
-. ! Mr, noM DULL ss.d !: D.s N.se sssms :
sMD. u ssss soles minds y me dlmculty o. 1rea'
am6 tnese men Dotn ss ciuaens cna usators.-
lness reDeis IN tns ooutnern ossse: occupy
!.st exactly tnat Posinon;a, mnen an lnsuIrec,
": ucn assumes sacn iormidsoie ProPostlons :.
.nis = mas, ana wnen armies are afrsyed sgsinsl
me uovsf9menta ana aga,nss eacn osnet. ~ ny
p1iters on intefnaaoaai iaw setee Inst tne
ns1eis are entitleo 70 % Nessso = Delue !.
ana 20 enemies, ana We nave oeen t,eaung .ne
snoosis o tne oo0tn y oehiseFents o1sang 'has
present war No have sent nags Of truee %
tnsm and taken them - PRISONERS, ana Wnen-
ever . rebellion becomes Of such magnitude as
10 be entitled to bs called civil war, the par
ties are to be governed by the ordinary rules
Of war, while It lasta and in the prosecution OF
such war the Government is bound TO observe
the same rules as would observe Il IN war
Wlth An independent nation. buttnst does not
prevent the government, aftsr the WAT y over,
rom trying g traitor any person tnst may
De in its hands, and that is the wsy' take H.
which thi53 rebellion is finally 70 % put doWn.
Nobody expects try all the 3OO,OOO men now
in arms against the Government ana hang
them though they are undoabtediy traitors
but We wlH give them the rights ot peihgerents,
and take them ss prisoners OF war, ana when
they return to their loyalty AGAIN, those VINO
have been seduced from It we will release them;
but the ringleaders of this rebellion, the insfl
gators Of j, the conspirators who have set it on
foot, will / turst, be brought to the halter, and
never be discharged unless they are discharg-
ed by Petit Jury, who shall say they ere not
guilty of treason. These are our rights IS
against these people, but our right % agsinst
an enemy Is right Of couhsestion. We have
now the right to take the person and property
Of the enemy and destroy it wholly II nscessa-
ry. 1 know that according to modern usage
Of eivilived nations, total destruction doss not
follow. know that in orr modern times pris-
oners who are captured are NOT put 70 dessh
OF reduced to slavery, and property has not
confscate property real or personal, for there
il no distinction, is undoubted. Look at the
condition Of things at Port Royal, where all
the inhabitants have fed, and left the country
desolate. Is it to remain unocupied, and .
wilderness, or shall We treat 1t - the European
nations did the places on this continent, when
sAvagss He'd and left the territory unoccuPledl
How does the conduct Of the people at Port
kopal differ from that OF the Aborigines! They
leave everything to waste, abandoning the
country and We may take possession OF that
country and apportion it out among the loyal
citizens OF the Union; and this act OF conhsca-
tion BY which We do this is not Q bill OF attain
der. Some have objected to the constltnuonai
power to pass this bill, because they say 1t 10
bill OF attAinder. 1t Is not Dill OK attalnder
at AL. It does not corrupt the blood OF per-
son; It operates upon his property. The Su-
preme Court has expressly decided, In the case
Of Brown sgt. the United States that Con-
gress has authority to pass . confiscation bill
And II Congress has the power to conrscate
the property Of an enemy, then an act OF con-
fiscation must be something different from .
bill Of attainder, for the constitution expressly
declares that no bill Of attainder shall be pass
ed. Again, Sir, II Congress declares the prop
erty OF rebel forfeited-deeiares MS estate
forfelted-l want OF know VINO is 70 controvert
that question! 1t is contended that, acoor-
ding to international law, Congress mas no
rignt TO connscate the real lestate OF neoei'
who is TO interpret international law! There
Is no common tribunal to wnicn all nations
submit their questions. International law is
nothing more than UNIFORM usage OF clvii1ed
himself, running the hazardit is true, OF bring
ing upon himself the condemnation OF other
nations suppose II q nation should violate q
well settled principle OF international law,
such as violating the rights OF an ambassador or
Of passport it would bring upon itself the con-
domination Of other nations. But to confiscate
the property OF your enemy is not violation
of the principles of international law. Sup
pose Russia. IN these interminable wars going
on between that country and Circassia, should
take the land OF the Circassians and apportion
it out among the Mobiles OF Russia, would
America think Of interfering and going to war
with Russia! And If other nations would not
interfere, who would interfere! Can our courts
give different construction to international
law from what Sovereign Power gives it,
not! The courts are bound by inter-
national law as the Nation establishes it
They cannot overrule an act OF Congress, be-
cause IN their oplnion 1t does not harmonize
with International law They have no such
power. The Supreme Court SAID IN the case
OF johnson sgt Mcintosh 10th Curtis, 5l3),
that conquest gives title the Courts cannot
deny. That is setteied by judicial decision.
1t does not lie in the power OF Congress to set
set international law. It only involves ques-
ton of policy and expedency, and that, think
is 80 manifest with regard to this bill that
need not to discuss 1t.
The second section OF TINS Dill iorfeits the
claim OF any person 70 any person neld 70 ser
wee OF labor II the person 80 claiming mas IN
any manner engaged IN TINS recehon' ana
makes the person OWING such service forever,
aiterWard iree. Lake II 'nere can oe no douot
oI Inc power o, congress 70 pass tniS isW;-
Congress has the power to raise armies and 1t
may Qr01t e0lQlere. IL may t0Ko from my