The daily phoenix. [volume] (Columbia, S.C.) 1865-1878, 1867-03-26
COLUMBIA.
Tuesday Morning, March 26, 1867
Connscation.

contiscation bill Of Stevens in Con
gress has been postponed until mex
December, which, we think, mean.
its final shelving for the fortietl
Congress. During the war, we wer,
very imperfectly posted on the legis
lation of Congress, and of course
many Of us We're ignorant of the
laws enacted by that body. On this
subject, the montgomery -n,tl states
that Congress has already passed an
Act Of confscation as sweeping in its
terms as any that could be passed by
the present or any succeeding Con
gress. It is Che Act Of 1862, which
has never been repealed. This Act
freed the slaves and coniscated all
the property of persons assisting,
engaged with o. giving aid or COM
fort to the rebellion.
This law being in force, the iMul
says it is asked why may not Con
gress put it into effect the moment
Alabama Tor any other State) rejects
the constitutional amendment and
univeral suffrage The answer is
plain and direct-bccause he Su.
preme Court has passed ,pon the
Law and declared how far the Presi-
dent shall execute it, because the
President will execute it so far as the
Supreme Court has declared it to be
good law; and because the Congress
has not dared to declare itself hostile
TO the Constitution, which is the
supreme law of the land. Congress
has violated what q large majority of
she people Of the United States be-
lreve to be the just construction of
the Constitution, but Congress has
not dared, and probably will not
dare, to violate plain and palpable
construction of the Constitution bv
the Supreme Court.
The Mail says that the Supreme
Court has laid down the law of CON
tlscatlon, under the Act of 1862, so
plainly that there need be no doubt
ON the subject. The points estab-
iished by that court are:
q. Confscation can only follow bv
she laws OF war acting upon bellige
rent enemies-or
SO. From some statute of the
United States furnishing individual
insurgents or traitors. -
On these points, our cotemporary
says:
81. 1t cannot follow from tho laws
OF war, because the law of nations
does not permit the confiscation or
destruction OF private property. 1t
was adjudsel by the Supreme Court
OF the United States, in the case OF
Brown vs.. the United States, (Cranch.
Sthl that enemy's property found on
land was not liable to coniscation bv
the mere fact Of the hostile character
OF the owner and without an Act of
Congress expressly subjecting it to
contiscation.
But the Act OF Congress exone-
rates from con!iscation all who have
taken the prescribed oath of ale
glancc and received the pardon of the
PRESIDENT. Ii Congress should at
tempt to set aside ;he oaths and par
dons. in order 10 reach our people
with new Act more stringent than
that OF 1852, is would be an e.c most
Jucto law, which the Constitution de-
clares, and the Supreme Court has
repeatedly declared to be no law
AS an explanation of the law as the
Supreme Court decided it, the fol-
lowing circular was issued to the
United States District Attorneys, bv
order Of President Lincoln:
'WAsHISGToS, Feb. 21, 1864.
'SSIE: Many persons against whom
property proceedings, under the con-
tlscatlon laws, are pending in the
courts OF the United States, growing
out OF the participation of such per
sons IN tho existing rebellion, have in
good faith taken the oath prescribed
by the proclamation of the President
of December $, 1868, and have,
therefore, entitled themselves to the
full pardon and restoration of all
rights OF property, except as to
slaves, and where the rights Of thirl