Charles City intelligencer. [volume] (Charles City, Floyd County, Iowa) 1864-1866, 1864-06-16

But let it not be said that we hav
thus acknowledged the right of thes
States to revolt (; we have only rccog
nized the fact of revolution, and tn
great question we are now settling b.
wager of battle is whether or not thi
shall DO successful revolution.
Neither let it be said that becaus,
we have treated them as public enc
mics we cannot punish individuals al
traitors. Judge Grier, in his abb
opinion in the prize cases, says:
"The law of nations contains no sucl
anomalous doctrine as that insurgents WHIT
have risen in rebellion against their sovc
reign expelled her courts, established revo
lutonary government, organized armies, ant
commenced hostilities are not enemies because
they are traitors and war levied on tho
Government by traitors in order to disnembel
and destroy it is not a war because it is an in
surrcction."
1t follows that they can be punished
as traitors though public enemies.
But it is claimed by the Opposition
that if we treat them as revolution
lists, as public enemies, we cannot
complain if other nations recognize
them as an independent power. This
docs not follow. For while they are
to us public enemies, organized and
confederatcd as States, yet they arc
upon our territory /; they are within
our jurisdiction. They are seeking to
establish an independent government
out of part of our territory, and un.
ill we acknowledge them it is the es.
tablshed rule of international law
that the recognition of them by for.
eign Power would be an act of war.
By act of Parliament of Great Brit.
ain of l6 George III, l776, all trade
and commerce with the thirteen colo
nies was intcrdicted, and all ships and
cargocs belonging to the inhabitants
subjected to forfeiture as if tho same
were the ships and effects of open
enemies. From this time the war bo-
came territorial civil war between the
contending parties, with all the rights
of war known to the law of nations.
Yet years after she held the rccogni-
ton by France of our independence to
be an act of war, and declared war |
accordingly. Therefore, in the light
of congressional legislation, Execu-
tive proclamation, and judicial inter.
probation, We have properly regarded
those in arms against us as public
enemies, liable to all the penalties i'm.
posed by the laws of war, having no
rights under the Constitution, and at
the mercy of our Government. ] know
we have at times by our legislation
been in conflict with this view, but
Congress, the courts. and the people
are rapidly correcting the errors of
the past. The laws of war are well
defined and clearly understood.
Money and wealth, the products Of
agriculture and commerce, are said to
be the sinews Of war, and as necessa-
ny to conduct it as numbers and phys
ical force. Hence it is that the laws
Of war recognize the right of bellig-
crcnt to cut the sinews Of the power
Of the enemy by capturing his proper
ty, not only on the high seas, but on
land in the hostile territory. The
property thus taken is not confiscated
under the Constitution after convic-
tion for treason, but by virtue Of the
laws of war. Vattel, page l25, says !:
Everything, therefore, which belongs to
the nation, to the State, to the sovereign, to
the subjects Of whatever age or sex-every-
thing of that kind, say, falls under the de-
scription Of things belonging to the enemy
As to landed estate, property of this kind
docs not cease TO be enemy's property,
though possessed by neutral foreigner,
since the owner is resident in the hostile coun'
try" o o @
ave have a right to deprive our enemy OF
his possession of everything which may aug
ment his strength and enable him to make
war" page 349) q
.'In fine, we seize on the enemy's towns,
provinces, &C.
But it is claimed that under the hu-
name policy OF modern times, and by
the later decisions of our courts, the
rigid rules of confiscation of encmy's
property have been relaxed. This
grant is true to certain extent but
the law remains, and when the sove-
reign power of a nation demands the
execution of the law in its -rigor the
courts will execute that law. Chief
Justice Marshall, in the case of Brow n
as. The United States, Cranch, Ito,
says:
Respecting the power of the Government,
no doubt is entertained. That war gives to
the sovereign full right to take the persons
and confiscate the property of the enemy
wherever found is conceded. The mitiga-
tons of this rigid rule, which the humane and
wise policy of modern times has introduced
into practice, will more or less affect the exer-
else OF the right but cannot impair the right
itself. That remains undiminished and
when the sovereign authority shall choose to
bring it into operation the judicial depart
ment must give effect to its will"
This power is exercised under the
war power granted in the Constitution,
and which is without limitation.
Under this view it follows that we
may seize tho real estate in fee we
may seize all The slaves within the
hostile territory, emaDcipate them,
arm them, and use them in any way
to weaken the enemy aud strengthen
the Government.
The trainers Of our Constitution
wisely placed no restriction upon the
war powers Of the Government. When
O state of war exists the Constitution
authorizes every act that the law Of
nations iustifes toward our enemy,
even though that enemy consists
in communities who once owed and
still owe paramount allegiance to
the Constitution of the United States.
With what show Of reason or of jus
tice can it be claimed that while this
enemy is confronting us, defying our
authority and our laws, while il is
necessary for MS to sacrifice billions of
money and hundreds of thousands of
the best men in the land we shall at
the same time exert the power Of Con-
gress to preserve and protect the
property of this enemy to be turned
over to them unharmed at the end of
the war? Is there anything in the
character of this revolt that requires
Ms to exercise clemeDcy toward the
slaveholding, landbolding class who
,u,oro ite in ioo tura and svhO pn1v CON.