Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1863-03-21

=
judicial authority even though they were assented
q by Congress and the people. 49,. >
Mark you, these are declarations made b
Secretary Seward after the rebellion had com
menced. And what more has the Demoorau
party said2 Nothing more Chan that, Bnt tb
statement OF Mr.. Seward in relation to In,
President, "that his actions in that direction
(vlz: toiinterfere with slavery would be pre
vented by the judicial authority" proves tba
Mr.. Seward was not prophet. The President
. has endeavored to interfere with slavery in vic
lation of Mr.. Stewards assurances to Europear
nations, and the judicial authority has not VET
interfered to prevent it. Such was the declared
and avowed policy of the Administration at
the time to which have referred; and, in nv
Judgment, the army Of the United States can.
not be used for any other purpose than that Of
the suppression OF the rebellion and the execu
tion of the laws. II cannot interfere; neither
can the executive, he.legislative, or the ud.
olal department OF the Government interfere
with any OF the rights of the States whateyer
But why this serious division among our peo-
pie? We all know that il exists, and il wond
be folly to endeavor to conceal il
Do you believe that il q call were made tn.
day fot twenty thousand volunteers in Ohio. il
would be responded to with that sIacrity
which characterized our people one year ago1
Would our Republican friends volunteer to
make up that number in Ohio?
Nobody dreams of reaorting TO the system of
volunteering. Why2 | tell you, Senators, that
this hesitancy, this division, this lurking ana.
piclon that all Is not being carried on properly,
not only pervades the Democratic party but It
also pervades every class of society and ali
parties Why Ia it7 | say it is because the
Administration and Congress have 60 changed
the plighted faith as to the policy which should
obtain In the conduct of the war, as to weaken,
If not destroy the public confidence
What did Mr.. Lincoln say on the 18th of
September, 1862, to the Chicago preachers?
He said some wise things, but he said some
unwise things also. When they urged him TO
Issue proclamation of emancipation, he re-
sisted their appeals, and said It would do no
good. He told them that General Butler had
scores of these contrabands at New Orleans,
and that all they could do was to eat. He said
his proclamation would be of no benefit But
mark you what else he says to these gentlemen
Of the gospel who better have been at home
attending to their congregations. He aays:
understand, raise no objection to doing Il
on legal or constitutional grounds, for as Com.
ma ider-in Chief, in time of war, suppose
have the right to take any measure which NAV
best subdue the enemy"
Contrast this with what Mr. Seward ssid on
the 22d of April, 1861, only seventeen months
previous:
The case, however, would not be fully presented II
were to omit to say that any such effort bis part would
be and all his actions In that
would be prevented by the judicial authority even
though they assented to by Congress and the
pie. "....
l tell you, when the President urged his OBJ
jections against proclamation to the Chicago
preachers, he spoke wisely; but alas, how un.
wisely he acted, when in eight short days there
after, he issued his famous proclamation of
September %, 1862. You knowit Every can.
did and reasonable man must admit il.
Men went to Mr.. Lincoln and presented their
policy. Greeley had his policy, Phillips his,
all the fanatics of the country had their policy
to present. Would to heaven that the President
had been more firm, and resisted the policy Of
these mad fanatics.
Now say, divisions serious and alarming
exist among the people of the North 10 regard
to the policy of the Administration.
trust, however, that this unwise policy NAV
yet be changed, and that We may vet be sue
oessful in the preservation of the Union and the
Constitution. But | say here, that the procls.
nation Of September %, 1862, is unwarranted
under our Constitution, and is opposed to the
law OF nations and cannot be sustained. IL ia
In bad faith to the men who have volunteered
In the army of the United States, and in bad
faith to every man who stood upon the Critten.
den resolution of July, 1861.
Now, Mr.. President, propose to show to this
Senate, by American authority, and by the law
of nations as We have insisted upon its applica-
tion in our intercourse with other nations, that
there ia no right residing in any of the nations,
known among christian and civilized nations,
to Issue a proclamation to emanclpate the slaves
of another nation.
/ call the attention of Senators to the oues-
ton which grew out of the war of 1912. with
Great Britain. One of the means which that
nation employed to "subdue" us, was an at
tempt to seize and emanciplte slaves 10 the
Southern States. '
Admiral Cochrane issued his proclaim alton, ,
by which he instigated the desertion of slayes
from their masters. The Generals in the Brit.
ish army took possession of large numbers.
aud by one means and another, they had ac.
tually deprived the masters 10 these States of
q large number of slaves. They carried away
at least three thousand, besides which ten times
that number, who had been enticed from their
masters, died of disease in British camps =
| Aud it became serious question In the treaty.
with Great Britian, whether an enemy had the
| right to seize the slaves OF belligerent This
question was fully examined and ably discuss.
ed, and IL wRs successfully presented and dis
cussed on the part of the United States, by no
less parsonage than John Quincy Adams, one
| of the most profound statesmen and accom-
cished scholars which this country has pro.
duced '..'
Thenegotiation lasted long while, and We did
not finally succeed in procuring indemnity from
Great Britain for the slaves thus seized by her
armies until 1897. But the discussion OF this
question established beyond all controversy.
the doctrine that slaves are private property,
and that the private property of an enemy can
not be taken in war.
| The authority Of Mr.. Adams will not be dis.
puted here, and il Ia hardly necessary to refer
this Senate to the case of the United States va
Peroheman, in Peters. In which Chief Justice
Marshall also lays down the same doctrine, that
private properly is not subject to be seized and
confscated BY The modern ussges Of nations, by
| an enemy.
| You remember, no doubt, the able CORES.
/ pondence which was carried on by Mr.. Marcy.
when Secretary of State under President
Pierce, with Count Sartiges, relating to the
propositions of public law laid down by the
Congress OF Paris, in which 1t ia not only claim
ed that this principle OF the Law OF nations,
that private property on land ia exempt from
seizure by the enemy, but also ably argued and
insisted on our part, that the same rule should
also be applied to property on the aea. This
correspondence OF Mr.. Marcy, like all his
State papers, is marked with an ability which
has rarely, it ever, been excelled by any of oul
State pspere .fr4 .Tta -r7