Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1864-02-12

which 1t was declared
That in this nationaiemergency Congress will for
u all feeling of mere passion resentment, and vii
recolect only its duty to the country that the
not waged on our part in any spirit Of oppression no.
In any spirit OF conquest or subugatOn, for tn,
purpose OF overthrowing or interfering with the right
or institutions Of those States but TO de-
fend and maintain the supremacy Of the Constitu-
tion, and preserve the Union with all the dignity
equality and rights of the several States unimpared
and as soon as these objects are attained the war
ought to cease.
/ understand now, from the action on the
other side of the House, and by the action
of the President of the United States, that
all these public pledges and solemn declara-
tions are repudiated, and that this war is to
be waged for conquest and subjugation,' .
and sfOr the purpose of overthrowing and
interfering with the rights and established
institutions of the States.n
/ wish to inquire where the President
finds power to accomplish that which Mr..
Seward, in the letter already quoted, said
would "be unconstitutional" It will not, I
suppose, be pretended by the other side of
the House that the President has any con-
stitutional power to interfere with slavery
or private property or the local institutions
of the States.
Sir, | desire to state it as my deliberate
opinion that if the principles declared in
the resolution of that wise and lamented
statesman, Mr.. Crittenden, had been in good
faith adhered to and maintained, the rebel
lion would have been subdued before this
and the Union restored. How is this power
of emancipation exercised? On the theory
of the President and by that of the learned
gentleman from Pennsylvania Mr.. Stevens
1t is one of the legitimate powers of war,
which one belligerent may exercise against
another. Well Mr.. Speaker, l take issue
on that question. assert it here's 'as prin-
ciple, recognized and enforced at least on
one memorable occasion by this country.
that private property OH land is not subject
to seizure and confiscation by an enemy.
Sir, do not defend slavery. / am not its
advocate or friend. / have no interest
whatever in the institution. If it must die
as a legitimate result of the organization of
the rebellion, let it perish; but | beseech
you let not the blow be struck by this Gov
ernment in violation of the organic law
and the rights of the States. | am now ar
guing a question of power, the exercise of
which l believe unwarranted either by the
Constitution of the United States or by the
law of nations, and which believe can on:
ly result in prolonging this unfortunate
contest. Well, If this power to emancipate
slaves can not be found to be authorized by
the Constitution, as l apprehend no man
will contend who is at all acquainted with
the provisions of that instrument, can it be
deduced from the war power as belliger-
ent right under the theory of the gentleman
from Pennsylvania Mr.. StevensP l insist
that it can not.
respectfully submit to this House that
this Government has already fully discussed
this question, and, so far as it could do so,
has committed itself to the doctrine "that
the emancipation of enemy's slaves is not
among the acts of legitimate war; | refer
to the question growing out 'oS the treaty
of Ghent, and the discussion Of this precise
question, which was conducted on our part
mainly by John Quincy Adams.
In the war of 1872, which was waged by
us In vindication of "free trade and sailors
rights one Of the means employed by
Great Britain to cripple and weaken the
United States was by seizing and emanci-
pating slaves in the Southern States.
Admiral Cochrane issued proclamations
to induce the desertion of slaves from their
masters, and British Generals in the army
took possession of large numbers. AT least
three thousand were carried away, besides
which ten times that number who had been
enticed from their masters died of disease
In British camps, and it became question
of great interest whether an enemy under
the law of nations had the right to emanci-
pate the slaves of q belligerent. The ques-
tion led to long and able discussion, and
resulted in fixing an obligation on the part
of Great Britain to pay for the slaves she
had thus seized and emancipated, amount
ing to about q million and quarter of dol
lars; and this payment was made on claim
set up by this Government, and think sue
cessfully maintained, 'thdt the emancipation
Of enen,ys SLAVES is not among the acts Of legit-
mate lDdr."
The question had been referred by the re-
spective Governments to the arbitration of
the Emperor of Russia; and Mr.. Adams, as
Secretary of State, in the instructions
which he prepared for our minister at st.
Petersburg, under date of July 8, 1920, as
serts broadly the doctrine that slaves be-
longing to private individuals are private
property, and could not be lawfully
taken.
He writes:
With the exception of maritime captures, private
property in captured places is by the laws of nations
none could lawfully be taken. -
The British nation, as well as the United States. con-
slider slaves as property slaves belonging to private
as private property.
Again, in writing to Mr.. Rush, then at
London, on the 7th of July, 1920, Mr.. Adams
asserts the doctrine in clear and distinct
terms. lie says:
The principle is that ne emancipation Of enemys
sldpes Is not among the acts of legitimate aodr. AS
relates to the owners it is destruction Of private
property nowhere warranted by the qsages of war.
This principle must think, be peculiarly familiar
to the Emperor of Russia, and may be pressed upon
his attention in the case Of reference with effect.
But in a letter written by him to Mr..
Middleton on the same subject, bearing date
October 1S 1890, the Secretary of State, Mr..
Adams, urges the same doctrine with still
greater force and eafnestnes:
He says: m
In the statementof the British ground Of argument
upon the claim in the submission, thcy have broadly
asserted the right of emancipating slaves-private
legitimate right OF war. This Is ut
tery incomprehensible on the part of nation whose
treaty recognized them as private property such
rght Is acknowledged as law of war by writer's who
admit any limitation. The right Of putting to death
ali prisoners in cold blood and without special cause
might well be pretended to DO aiaw Of war, or the
right TO use poisoned weapons. or to assassnate.
think the Emperor will not recognize the right Of
emancipation legitimate warfare, and am persuad-
ed you,will present the arguments against it.
Mr.. Benton, speaking of the result of this
in his Thirty Years in the Sem
ate, declares that m
/, The indemnity exacted carried along with il the
Of the practice as spoliation Of pri-
yate property TO be atoned for and was both COM
uensation for the past and warning Tor the futre
II implied responsibility which no power or art or
time could evade, and the principle Of which being
established there will be no need for arbitrations.
NN I . Il f" a. .