The Nashville daily union. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1862-1866, 1862-06-28

No citizen can hold any title or inter.
est in any vessel engaged in the slave
trade aud il he do, il is forfeited by
proceedings against the vessel and the
owner is liable TO penalty beside. The
United States vessels are authorized TO
seize vessels engaged in the traffic, and
the vessel and everything found on her is
forfeited, except the slaves. They cannot
be claimed by their owner even though
really slaves by the law Of the owners
country. 1t would seem that the slaves
re,freed by The laws for the owner cam
not claim them, and no one else can show
title TO them. These laws do not APP
ply merely to the African slave-tradc,
but the same penalties and iOrfeiturcs
attach to transporting from Brazil or
Cuba into The United States persons who
are slaves by the laws Of those countries.
The owner loses his vessel, the master
his 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 condem-
nation Of the vessel or the discharge Of
the slaves.
In some cases persons engaged in the
slave trade are guilty of piracy and suf-
fer death; yet in those, rs in other cases,
the vessel aud cargo are conhscated by
process against them and wholly ire
spectiye of any conviction Of the guilty
persons.
The precedcnts Of the slave trade laws
are of special interest in relation TO the
conlscation of the slaves of rebels The
necessary form of conGscation is enamel
patton. The temper of the country would
not tolerate the sale Of slaves by the
United States still less would il tolerate
the exemption Of this species of proper
ty from any consequences the law may
attach to any property of the rebels.
Slave property is the pretcNt Of the re-
bellion and the chief instrument by which
the revOlutionists have cOcrced submits
sion to their will. Sound policy requires
that q weapon Of such power be broken
or wrcsted from the hands Of the enemies
of the government, and nothing ought to
arrest the blow but the plain prohibitions
of the Constitution; for subordinatiOn TO
the supreme law is the condition of ma
tional existence. Fortunately its wise
provisions strip the government of no
power which free government ought TO
WELD least of all does it forbid the con
liscation Of slaves, and emancipation is
an inscparable incident Of ownership. Oh
course, they who call coniiscation laws
| bills of attainder, will cell emancipation
! ufronGscated slaves abolition of slavery
in the States by Congress. But no loyaI
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.. Elliott's bill is in one particu-
lar wholly indefensibIe. II violates al
Constitutional principles of American
law in requiring persons 70 prove theil
innocence. IL places the title TO Negro
property Of loyal people at the mercy o
the government, for it strips the owner o
| powertO prevent cOnfscatiOn unless he car
prove that he has not aided the rebellion
and that is impossible for any one {,
prove. Require an oath that he has no
been so engaged, but do not stain Amer
lean law with a provision that a maj
shall be presumed guilty!!
The bill is defective in another particu
lar. II gives the freedman no legal pro
lection He can, the bill says, plead tn,
law: but the master will never sue him
but seize him. The freedman must b
the actor, and the law gives him no stand
ing in court The United States is il
duty hound to extend TO him the habea
corpus In a United States court whic
now no law gives him; aud il these b
not done the act of emancipation vii
give no real freedom, but will be merel
a source of endless confusion. Men free
by the law Of the special session are nov
suffering in Maryland for want Of sue
provision.
The slave trade laws were passed i
1894 1900, 1907, 1873, 1919 and 1872
in the Administration Of Washington
Adams, Jefferson and Monroe. The
involve every principle now assailed
the conGscation bills-irom the conhsca
ton Of property for criminal acts Of tn
owner, without conviction Of the guilt
person, by process Of law against I'll
thing, and not against the person, to I'll
freeing Of slaves for the violation OF la
by their owners.
/
laws on the ground Of unconstitutional
81 IT, II ny principle is settled by I'll
D uniform practice of the government, n
D this principle Of coniiscation for crlmll
e al acts by direct process against the pr,
8 perry conGscatcd, and wholly without n
, gard 10 the conviction or prosecution
Z the guilty person.
This review of congressional cnac
I ments may well increase our astonisl
?. mcnt al the hardihOod Of the assallan
- Of these laws. They treat theprecedcu
n of the founders Of the government wi
( no NOSE respect than they do the consl
e tuition they made Their objections
n the bills are plausible only when q
;, language Of the constitution is peryert
- or misapplied aud that distortion C
p only escape exposure by carefully a
# staining from all consideration Of I
l. contemporary exposition of the consht
10 ton by its authors
# Il appears, therefore, from this inyes
10 cation;
l. l. That there is no prohibition ia
8, Constitution against making coniiscau
W a penalty Of any crime.
IT. There ls nothing ~ fh' '"hH'
Ie tption which makes cOnhscatiOn
lc pendrnt on the conviction Of the per.
M ON indictment.
be- TIT. There is nothing On the Consti
IA ton which limits an conHscations 90
O. life Of the guilty person.
r. ~. The only clause relating 10
Isl subject simply iorbids Congress 10 mI
or forfeiture beyond the life Of the convi,
a consequence of oaJr.d.0u for tm7a.
c- v. Butt does not say that Cougr
be may not by law conbscate absolutely
.te whole property Of persons who do the
. ...r. a a. A. lIIs a.UDrfsH i,y