Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1864-02-12
SPEECH OF ftls
HON. WILLIAM E. FINCK
ON CONFIsCA ATION:
Deliuered in The House Of Congress on the 2Sth
Of January 1864.

Ity OF the men, women and children OF tn
ienemy, as claimed by the gentleman from
Pennsylvania Mr.. Steyensl, is one on whicl
the United States has never acted, but ha
expressly repudiated, and is principl
which its people will be slow to ADOPT
But the rule could not be applied, even ifi
existed, as claimed by the honorable gentle.
man, to the war now existing between this
Government and those infebellion agains,
1t, for the plain reason that this war cannot
result in such conquest as that claimed by
1.-THE honorable gentleman Mr.. Stevensi
The usurped or de Jdcto government has fol
the time being excluded the United States
from the exercise Of their legitimate juris-
|diction within certain districts of coun-
try; but this de Jacto power is merely a
usurpation, and has no legal title to any OF
the territory over which it now exercises
jurisdiction, and holds by the mere naked
right OF possession. 1t has no such legal
and firm rights as, on the complete success
Of this Government in regaining its uris-
diction, will vest any additional right in this
Government which it did not possess prior
to the rebellion. We merely come again
into the possession and exercise of the rights
! and jurisdiction cf which we have been de-
priyed by the unlawful organization of the
'Confederates; and when we so regain that
jurisdiction we can only exercise it under
and by virtue of the Constitution Of the
United States, and not in the character of
cOnqueror. n =
| But ask gentlemen on the other side how
they regard those whoare within the juris-
diction of the de. .tdctO government, and who
have aided in the rebellion? Do they con-
eur in the views of the distinguished gentle
man from Pennsylvania Mr.. Stevens?
| Are they to be regarded as citizens of the
United States, and subject to our laws. or
as citizens of belligerent Power? If as
citizens subject to our laws, then it is clear,
as already stated in this debate, that they
can only be punished and deprived of their
property under the provisions of our laws,
passed in conformity with the Constitution
of the United States. The Constitution
provides what shall constitute treason, how
1t shall be proved, the place where, and how
the accused shall be tried.
Congress has been limited in its power to
legislate upon the subject of treason, as it
has been on many other subjects. The pun
ishment which may be inflicted by way of
forfeiture has been limited by express pro-
vision.
Now, Icontend that the Constitution hav-
ing defined what shall constitute treason,
Congress cannot by legislation make it some
thing else, and impose penalties prohibited
BY the Constitution; because If Congress
may by some new name provide for the
punishment of levying war against the
United States by imposing new and addi-
sional penalties and q different mode of
trial from those provided for in the Con-
stitution, the, limitation upon Congress
referred to becomes q mere idle .prohibi-
tion.
Having thus briefly considered the ques-
tion of the confiscation as to real estate, let
us for few moments examine the right of
one belligerent to seize and confscate the
personal property belonging to private per-
sons of the other belligerent; and in this
connection it will be proper to consider the
proclamation of the President in relation to
Emancipation, and in relation to the mode
by which he proposes to bring this war to
O close.
In the publication of the proclamation of
December 8, 1868, understand the Presi-
dent has concluded that the period had ar
rived when it would be proper to propose
some terms of adjustment for our difficult
ties which might result in the restoration of
peace. This proposition is founded upon
the theory of the Emancipation 'Proclama-
tion, and requires Of that class of persons
1t is intended to embrace an 'oath to sup
port the Emancipation Proclamations; and
1t thus becomes legitimate in this connection
TO examine the power of this Government
to emancipate slaves, either as power un-
der the Constitution or as war power. Un-
der the Constitution of the United States
we clearly have no power to interfere with
slavery in the States. This has been re-
peatedly declared and announced by every
department of the Government, by the Ex-
ecutive, by Congress, and by the Supreme
Court
Congress as early as 1890 declared by res
Olution-A 0
That Congress have no authority to interfere in the
emancipation Of slaves or in the treatment Of them
In any Of the States, 1t remaining with the several
States alone to provide rules aud regulations therein
which humanity aud true policy may require.
And on the 18th of February, 1851, a
similar resolution was adopted by the House
of Representatives without one dissenting
vote.
On the 4th day of March, 1861, Mr.. Lin
coin declared in his inaugural address:
have no purpose directly or indirectly, to inter-
fere with the institution of slavery in the States
whore it exists believe have no lawful right to
do so, and have no inclination to do so.
And after the rebellion broke out, when
Fort Sumter was attacked, the President, in
the proclamation which he issued for seven
ty-five thousand men, after reciting that
combinations against the execution of the
laws too powerful to be suppressed by the
ordinary course of judicial proceedings ex-
listed, he calls on these men ITO SUPPRESS said
combinations and cause the laws to be exc
cuted." He further states:
The utmost care will be observed, consistently with
the object aforesaid to avoid any dovasatons, any
destruction of or any interference with property,
or disturbance Of peaceful citizens in any part Of the
country.
But these declarations do not end here.
Let me add the plain and complete state
ment made by the Secretary of State, Mr..
seward, in his letter of 22d April, 1861,
written to Hon. William L. Dayton, our min
ster at Paris. This letter, it will be OBJ
served. was written after the commencement
If hostilities, and after the call had been
made for the seventy-five thousand men; and
it seems to me to leave no doubt as to the
opinions then entertained'by the President
fof his powers in relation to the institutions
; of the States:
Moral and physical causes have determined in
Hexibly thecharacter Of each one Of the Territories
over which the dispute has arscn and both parties
Federal laws required for INSTRUMENTATION. The
Territories will remain in all respects the same,
whether the revolution shall succeed, or shall fai,.
The condition Of slavery In the several States viii
remain Just the same whether y succeed Of ta
the dsatfected States are to be conquered by the
United States IL tho revolution fall for the rights OF
the States. and the condition Of every human being
in them, will remain subject 10 exact!y the same
avs anr loums 2. sbs, XII In