Western Reserve chronicle. [volume] (Warren, Ohio) 1855-1921, 1864-02-10

the laws of war, cannot punish these reb
els and confiscate their estates, botE
personal and real. for life and forever
That is the only question before US.
Gentlemen have learnedly discussed
the constitutional powers of Congress tC
punish the crime of treason. 1t matter:
not how that question is decided; 1t has
no bearing whatever on the resolution be
fore the House / will only say in pass
ing that the Supreme Court has never de
cided that the clause of the Constitution
relating to treason prohibits forfeiture
beyond the lifetime of persons attained
No man in this House has brought de
cision of the Supreme Court giving the
rendering to the Constitution which these
gentlemen on the other side of the Cham
Der have given to it. They can claim nc
more than that the question is res non ad
Udicata. The arguments we have heard
are sufficient evidence TO me, at least
that the trainers of our Constitution In
tended that Congress should define trea-
son, and provide for its punishment; but
the rule of the English common law
which permitted attainder, corruption oi
blood, and forfeiture, after the death OF
the attained, should not prevail in this
country. To me the clause carries an alb
surdity 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 es-
tate of the criminal, than any other crime
or misdemeanor whatsoever. But, as
before;said the present law of confiscation
is based on the rights of belligerents un-
der the laws of war.
The gentleman from New York, Mr..
Fernando Wood, few days since, in his
address to the House, gave us history of
the rebellions which had occurred in this
country. wish to call his attention to
another rebellion in this country which
he did not notice, and in which the ques-
| ton of confiscation was very fully and
very practically discussed. The fact has
not, believe, been brought to the atten-
ton of the House. Do gentlemen forget
that this Union had its origin in revolu-
ton, and that confscation played a very
important part in the war of that Revo-
/ luton? It was a civil war: and the col
onies were far more equally divided in
reference TO the question of loyalty and
| independence than the States ofthe South
now are on the question of to-day Many
of the thireen colonies had almost equal
{ HdItlCs ttl anu against L@liSAdhu III kl4sAb
struggle In New York the parties were
of nearly equal strength. In South Caro-
lima it is claimed that there were more
Royalists than Wings. Twenty thousand
American Tories appeared in the armies
against us in the revolutionary struggle.
/ Thirty regiments of them held their
places in the British line.
Our fathers had to deal with these men,
and with their estates. How did they
solve the problem | have looked into
the history, and find it full of instruction.
Every one of the thirteen colonies, with
q single exception, con6scated the real
and personal property of every tory in
arms. They did it, too, by the reeommen-
dation of Congress. Not only so, but
they drove Tory sympathizers from the
country they would not permit them to
remain upon American soil. Examine
the statutes of every colony, except of
New Hampshire, which the tide of battle
never reached, and you will find confsca-
ton laws of the most thorough and sweep
ing character. When our commissioners
were negotiating the treaty of peace, the
last matter of difference and discussion
was that of confscated property.
The British commissioners urged the
restoration of confseated estates, but Jay
and Franklin and their colleagues defend
ed the right of confiscation with great
ability, and refused to sign the treaty at
all if that was to be a condition. While
these negotiations were pending, the col
onies memorialized Congress TO guard
against any concessions on the point In
dispute. On the 18th day of December,
1882, the Legislature passed the following
resolution:
THAT the laws of this State confisca-
ting property held under the laws OF the
former Government (which had been dis
solved and made void) by those who have
never been admitted into the present So
cisl compact, being founded on legal
principles of common justice, demand
that, if virtuous citizens, in defense of
their natural and constitutional rights,
risk their life, liberty, and property on
their success, the vicious citizens who side
with tyranny and oppression, or who cloak
themselves under the mask of neutrality,
should at least hazard their property, and
not enjoy the benefits procured by the
labors and dangers of those whose des-
truction they wished.
"That all demands or requisites of the
British Court for the restitution of prop
erty confscated by this State, being nei-
ther supported by law, equity, or policy,
are wholly inadmissable, and that our
Delegates in Congress be instructed to
move Congress that they may direct their
deputies, who shall represent these States
in the General Congress for adjusting a
peace or truce, neither to agree to any
such restitution or submit that the laws
made by any Independent State of this
Union be subjected to the adjudication of
any power or powers on earth"
This resolution was passed unanimous
ly by the Legislature of Virginia. Simi-
lar resolutions were passed by other
States, and our commissioners were in
structed by Congress to admit no condi-
tions which could compel the restoration
of confiscated estates. The commission
ers compromised at last on the fifth arti-
Gle of the treaty of peace as it now stands
shall recommend to the several colonies to
restore confscated property; but it was
well understood by both parties that it
would not be done. Congress passed the
resolution of Recommendation as matter
of form; but no State complied, nor was
it expected. 1t was, however, provided
that no further confiscations should be
made, and that Tories should be permit
ted to remain in America twelve months
after the treaty.
Mr.. Jefferson, when Secretary of State,
in 1892, and writing upon that subject,
held the following language to the Brit
ish Government through its minister; and
] wish my colleague Mr.. Finck who last
occupied the floor to notice this extract
so far as it relates to the rights of bellig
erents:
"SEc 3. 1t cannot be denied that the
state of war strictly permits nation to
seize the property of its enemies found
within its limits, or taken in war, and in
whatever form it exists, whether in action
OF possession. This is so perspicuously
laid down by one of the most respectable
writers on subjects Of this kind, that
shall use these words: Since it is con-
dition of war that enemies may be de-