Gallipolis journal. [volume] (Gallipolis, Ohio) 1837-1919, 1864-02-11

!, obedience to his orders, and for an
; failures to comply, to enforce hi
: orders or punish the offenders, H
: can also take property Of citizen.
E and compel them to co-operate wit
r the military force in defending O
: assailing d place. But it does nc
: require the existence Of marital Ia,
, to justify the taking of private proper
J ty for public use; the right to do thi
| exists Independent of the right +
establish martial law. .s,-s -.
When the declaration Of MARTA
law is withdrawn, the civil law is lef
just as it was before its declaration
Nor are rights of property in an,
way affected by it. Each one continues
to hold his title to property un
changed and unimpaired. The fac
that private property like horses
oxen, DC, have been pressed into
government service for the time be
ing, does not in the least impair the
title of the owner to them. When dis.
charged by the commander-in- chief,
they still remain the property of the
owner. What is true of this kind OF
property would be equally true OF
slave property. The employment OF
d slave in government work has
never been held to work his emanci-
patton. Nor can it make any diff
ference whether this labor of the slave
is obtained by coercion under mill
tnry authority, or by contract with
the owner. Force is only resorted
to, when the services cannot be Sc
cured by contract, but the legal eff
feet of the service must be the same
in either contingency.
We have had an illustration of this
view of the law. Gen. Wallace de-
clared martial law over Cincinnati
and Southern Ohio, when the rebels
made their move on Cincinnati; so
again by Gen. Burnside when the
Morgan raid was made into Ohio
Under this reign of martial law, l do
not believe tLat any one supposed
that their rights to property were
affected by it, or that Gen. Wallace
had, by virtue of such an order, ac-
quired any right to change the
laws Of Ohio. He had a right to
make soldiers of all that population
and govern them as such, but his
right over private property was just
what it was before, the right to take
it for public use, a compensation be
ing paid, or secured by the Govern
ment of the United States. The
same would be true, where martial
law is declared by a conquering
power in conquered territory
The civil law there in force, would
not be affected; nor would the ex-
istence of martial law in an enemy's
country give the conqueror any more
right to interfere with its civil law
than he had without it. The right
to change the Legislation of con-
quered people, is right independent
of martial law, and can by the law
of nations be exercised with or with
out it.
Again you propose another remedy.
Your words are as follows: ga
simple declaration-that all men
coming within the lines of the United
States troops shall be regarded as
freemen, will be in strict conformity
to the constitution, and also with
precedents. The constitution knows
knows no man as a slave"
/ know Of no such precedents, and
you have adduced none. Occasions
must have, often happened where
slaves could on this principle have
claimed their liberty, and yet have
never heard of this constitutional
mode of manumission, until saw it
in the speech you enclosed to me-
If your proposition is true-can be
maintained, slavery can easily be got
rid of. 1t is not necessary to wait
for rebellion; it can be got rid of
in time of peace as well as in war
Your proposition is, that slave COM
ing within the lines of our army is
free, because the constitution knows
no man as slave. This is remedy
that can be resorted to as well in q
time of peace as in time of war.
But is your proposition trueS How
did the trainers of the constitution
regard the question? We have their
understanding of the constitution in
the recognition of slavery in the Dis
trict of Columbia, and in the Terri
tories ofLouisiana and Florida. Th'
men who made the constitution ad
mitted slavery to exist under it, anC
that, too, in territory from which i
is admitted that Congress had tn
power to exclude it. According t.
your reading of the constitution, tn
men who framed it did not under
stand their own work. Besides, tn
last Congress repealed this slav
code, and made compensation for th
slaves emancipated, and in this &C
, admitted the validity of the law al
lowing slavery in the District. 1t
too late now to unsay all that ha
been said on this question by tAos
who have preceded us, whatever ma.
be our own private opinions upon tn
correctness of this construction. ]
is for the interest of the Republi
that an end should be put to disputes
questions sometime, and it wouli
seem that an acquiescence in all bran