Ashtabula weekly telegraph. [volume] (Ashtabula, Ohio) 1853-1873, 1864-02-27


nant. bloody iends, carrying death in their
course; and yet we are told they cannot be
punished nor can their ancient rights be
invaded. The people of the South, under
tho direction OF these phantom States, are
moving the powers of earth and hell to de.
stroy this government They plead the or
der Of their States as their shield from
punishment, and the States plead the i'm
punity of soulless corporations.
But the American people will not be de.
pded by these theories, nor waste time in
discussing them They are striking through
all shams with the sword and are finding
q practical solution as England did. And
what is that practical soluton2 The Su.
preme Court Of the United States has aid.
ed us, at this point in one of the prize cases
decided March 3, 1868. 1t is there deci.
ded in effect
"That since July, l3, 1861, the United States
have full belligerent rights against all persons
residing in the districts declared by the Pres.
dents Proclamation to be in rebellion"
THAT the laws of war, whether that war be
civil or inter gentes convert every citizen of
the hostile State into public enemy, aud treat
him accordingly, whatever may have been his
| previous conduct"
"That all the rights derived from the laws
of war may now, since 1861, be lawful and
constitutionaliy exercised against all citizens Of
the dristrcts in rebellion"
They decided that the same laws of war
which apply to hostile foreign States are to
applied TO this rebellion. But in so deci.
dug they do not decide that the rebellous
States are therefore foreign people. l
do not hold it necessary TO admit that they
are foreign people do not admit it.
| claim on the contrary that the obliga.
tioDs of the Constitution still hang over
them; but by their own act of rebellion
they have cut themselves off from all rights
and privileges under the Constitution.
| When the Government of the United
States declared the country in q state Of
war, the rebel States came under the laws
OF war! BY their acts of rebellion they
swept away every vestige Of their civil and
political rights under the Constitution of
the United States. Their obligations still
remained; but the reciprocal rights which
usually accompany obligations, they had
forfeited.
The question then lies open before US.
In q state of war, under the laws of war.
is this resolution constitutional and wise?
[ insist, Mr. Speaker, that tine only consti.
tutional questiun involved in this resolution
is whether this government, in the exercise
of its rights as belligerent, under the
laws of war, can or cannot punish armed
rebels and confscale their estates, both
personal and rea for life aud forever This
| tho hof
| US.
Gentlemen have learnedIy discussed the
constitutional powers Of Congress to pun
ish the crime of treason. 1t matters not
how that question is decided; in my jndg
ment 1t has no bearing Whatever on the res.
aluiou before the House. / will only say
in passing that the Supreme Court has
never decided that the clause of the Con
stitution relating to treason prohibits for
feiture beyond the lifetime of persons at.
tainted No man in this House has found
any decision of the Supreme Court giving
the meaning to the Constitution which gen.
tlemen on the other side of the Chamber
have given to it. They can claim no more
than that the question is res non adj@d1cata.
The arguments we have heard are sufficient
evidence TO me, at least, that the trainers
of our Constitution intended that Congress
should have full power to define treason,
and provide for itspunishment; but the rule
of The English common law which permitted
attainder, corruption of blood. and forfeit
ure to be declared after the death of the c.
cused, should not prevail in this country.
To me, the clause carries an absurdity on
its face, if it be interpreted to mean that
treason, the highest crime known to law,
shall be punished with less severity, so far
as it regards the estate of the criminal,
than any other crime or misdemeanor what.
soever But, as before said, the present
law of coDfscation is based on the rights
of belligerents under the laws of war.
The gentleman from New York Mr..
FERNANDO WooD] few days since, iu his
address to the House, give us history OF
the rebelions which have occurred in this
country. l wish to call his attention TO
one OF our rebelions, very important Que,
, which he did not notice, and in which the
question of confscation was very fully
aud very practically discussed. This fact
has not, | believe, been brought 10 the at
tention of the House. Do gentleman for
get that the Union had its origin in revo
luton, and that confscation played an i'm
portaut part in the war of that Revolution
1t was civic war; and the colonies wer'
, far more equally divided on the question
of loyalty than the States Of the Soutl
! now are on the question of to day -
Many of the thirteen colonies had almos
9 equal parties for and against England i
4 that struggle. Ia New York the parlie
were Of nearly equal strength. 10 Sout
4 Carolina there were probably more ROya
q lists than Wings. Twenty thousand Amc
II rcan Tories appeared in the armies again'
\ us in the revolutionary struggle. Thirt
;. tory regiments served in the British lint
% Our fathers had to deal with these mel
4 aud with their estates. How did they solv
the problem? have looked into the his.C
a ~ OF its sallution and ind it full of instru,
d tion. Every one of the thirteen colonie
e with single exception, cou6scated Ii
E. real aud personal property of Tories
n arms. They did it, too, by the recon
Is mendaton OF Congress. Not only so, br
% they drove Tory Sympathzers from II
n country; they would not permit them
" remain upon American soil. Examine Il
IF statutes of every colony. except Ne