Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1864-02-11
LU MBUs, OHIO, THURSDAY MORNING, FEBRI

assailed not only by traitors In arms, but.b
gentlemen In this House. They want al
amended Union. an amended Constitution.
Sir, If the policy Of this Administration
n and Its friends shall prevail, we never shal
have the Union as 1t was nor the Constitu
ton as 1t Is. Sir, was it for some othel
Union, some other Constitution, that mil
4 lion and O half Of brave and gallant mer
0 have been sent to the field and a debt o.
! Two or three thousand million dollars in
curredy Sir, Is all this sacrifice of blood
ana treasure to result in the dissolution OF
the old Union and the permanent change OF
the old Constitution, / trust not.
Mr.. Speaker, we stand before the world
to-day great military power. The deyel-
opment of the strength and vast resources
!. OF this country during the war, both upon
J the sea and upon the land, have astonished
the world, and are perhaps unparalleled in
history; and who doubts If this combined
strength had been used for the simple and
single purpose of vindicating the rightful
authority of the United States, and restor-
ing all the States with their rights and local
Iinstitutions unimpaired to the Union, ,ac-
lcompanied by a wise and conciliatory
course Of civil policy, but what the strug-
gle would now be closed, the Union restor-
If this war is to be continued for some
other and different purpose, If it is to be
waged against the property and local insti-
tutions of the States and for the purpose of
subjugation and conquest, as advocated by
the honorable gentleman from Pennsylva-
MIA Mr.. Stevens], it cannot fail to excite
more desperate and united opposition on the
part OF the South and continue the struggle
much longer, and finally terminate In the
permanent dissolution Of the Union. Sir,
there Is limit beyond which this war, and
beyond which no war can be continued,
without utter and complete bankruptcy and
exhaustion. 1t must sooner or later come
to an end, and it becomes us wisely and
carefully to consider whether the highest
considerations of patriotism and duty to
the people of this country do not require
that this war shall be limited to the pur-
poses announced on the part of this Govern
ment at the commencement.
Mr.. Speaker 1 cannot concur in the doc |
trine advocated here by the distinguished |
gentleman from Pennsylvania fMr. Stevensl |
on the subject of confiscation, either as ap-
Piled to real or personal property. under
stand him to maintain that by the laws ofl
war the conqueror may seize and convert
everything that belongs to the enemy, not
only public property and the territory of
the enemy, but also the private property of
individuals, men, women and children, both
movables and immovables. a nIl
Sir, no such instance has taken place since
the conquest of England by William ofI
Normandy, unless indeed the case quoted
by the gentleman from Pennsylvania fMr.
Stevens] of the conduct of England with
her subjects in India be authority.
Sir; 1t seems to me this is the last author
ity which should be quoted before this
H0ngn Af D-.A l.
ward her India possessions has been marked
by a violation of every law, public and
private, and 1 trust win never be adopted
by this country, and no such doctrine has
up to this time been recognized or assented
TO by the United States, as / will endeavor1
10 show before close. And now, first, as
TO real estate. By aconquest of an enemy's
territory the successful party does not OBJ
tain such absolute rights to the real estate
as will warrant him in disposing of the soil.
de only obtains the mere right of occupan-
cy, and the possession does not ripen into
title unless it shall be confirmed by treaty
or by the total abandonment by the con-
9uered party Of an effort to regain it. But
this doctrine does not include private prop
erty, and has reference only to the property
OF the Deiligerent enemy-tO public proper
ty. On this question Mr.. Wheaton, in his
WI
pages 596 and 597, says: , % ...-Es-lf io Il
In ancient times both the movable and immoyable
property Of the vanqushed passed 70 the conqueror
Such was the Roman law of war; often asserted with
nnrelenting severity and such was the fate Of the
ans on the decline and fall Of the western empire
large portion, from one-thrd to two-thirds Of the
lands belonging to the yalqushed proyincials. was
The last example in Europe of such conquest
was that of England by William Of Normsnay.~
Since that period among the civilized nations Of
treaty Of Peace has been followed by no general or
partial transmgtation. Of landed property. The
property belonging to the Government Of the van
also takes the place Of the former sovereign in re-
spect TO the eminent domain. In other respects pri
vate @ rights are unaffected by conquest. H.
=. This authority is direct and in point, and
the same principle of law has been recog-
nized by this Government on several occa-
sions, to which l shall refer hereafter.
Allow me again to read from Wheaton,
pages 682 and 6S3: v. lrs 1sHo9s "
We have seen that firm possession, or the sem
tence OF competent court, is sufficient TO confirm
n title to property Of %Cyabs
property or immovables. The original owner Of this
,peces of property is entitled 10 what is called the
postImily and the title occurred in war must be
.idered as completely valid. This rule cannot be
frequently applied to the case Of mere private prop
s ss usage S Modern nations
ically important In questions arising out Of aliena
tionscf real property belonging 10 the government
o tie eosa must sI
pressly confirmed BY the treaty Of peace or BY the
General operston of the eessonof territory made BY
twill be observed that this rule governs 4
,he property belonging to the "Government''
n the conquered belligerent and. does not
lpply. to wmere private. .propertvpAL u L ]