Year: 1862




bill under consideration. They stand
precisely upon the same ground, and ws
have exactly the some power in the ono
case that we have in the other. We are
to pass this bill against the rebels be-
cause thcy are citizens Of the United
States who have committed treason
against the government, and are tempor-
arily beyond the reach of process. This
is the basis upon which my colleague
places II. 1t has no other Foundation,
as is shown by the portions of his speech
already quoted He repeats the same
proposition in other parts of his speech.
Ho reiterateS il whenever he attempts to
demonstrate the possession Of power by
Congress to pass the bill. / again quote
his own language:


"rhis bill provides for the forfeiture
of estates in certain cases, as a punish
ment for crime hereafter to be commit
ted, when the person of the individual
committing the offence cannot be reach
ed.n


And again.


"fhe right to conlscate the property
OF rebel or traitor attaches without any
conviction Of the offender"


There, sir, it is boldly announced, asa
general principle of Congressional power
that the right to coniscate the property
of & traitor attaches without any con
viction of the offender Now, if we have
this right 10 confscate the property of a
traitor without conviction, why have we
not the same right of eonfscation for
murder, or larceny, or any other offence
known to the law, without trial or con-
victon! How can we possess such pow
er in regard to treason without having
il ia regrrd TO all other offences; aud
where do we get it i'll respect to any Of.
fence? This is not explained by any Of
the Senators who advocate the passage
OF this bill


Let me bring the statements OF nay
colleague in juxtapostion with the state
meDts of the constitution upon the Same
subject. He says:


The right to confscate the property
OF a rebel or traitor attaches without any
conviction Of the offender"


The constitution Gays:


"No person shall be held to answer for
capital, or otherwise Infamous crime, un-
less on preseutment or indictment eta
grand jury, except in cases arising in the
land or naval forces, or in the militia,
when in actual service in time of war or
public danger; nor shall any person be
subject for the same offence to be twice
putin Jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall
he be compelled in any criminal case to
be witness against himself nor be deprv-
ed of life, liberty, or property without due
process of law"


And yet, in the face of these safe.
guards which the constitution has en-
deavored to throw around person and
property, il is confidently announced as
a general principle that the right to
confiscate the property of a rebel or trail
tor attaches without any conviction Of
the offender" and this by &C parte legis-a
lative proceeding, without indictment,
trial, or opportunity of defence.


Can such things bo,


And overcome us like a summers cloud,


Without our special wondcrl'


If the right to punish for treason by
NhO VI HiODtaNJ otsaSHNo
without the conviction of the offender,
why does not the same right attach, in
the same way, in respect to every other
offence? What distinction does the con.
stitution make in the mode Of proceeding
for the punishment of treason and other
offences? Does not this newly invented
lnda-rubbcr, IA rem proceeding for tho
punishment of offences committed by the
person, and in which the property was
not implicated, stretch itself over the en-
tire category of crimes, and cover them
all? And, if so, what becomes of the
provisions of the constitution to which
have referredY To what end and for
what purpose were they made? What
does the constitution mean, if anything,
when it declares that no person shall be
held to answer for crime, unless on
presentment or indictment of a grand
Jury? That in all criminal prosecutions
the accused shall enjoy the right of trial
by jury, and that he shall not be deprived
of his property without due process Of
law? After laundering blindly and stu
pidly along for three-quarters Of centu.
ry in the belief that these provisions were
mutations upon the powers of tho gov
ernment, and guarantees of individual
right which we could not disregard, the
scales have asw suddenly fallen from our
eyes, and we perceive that they were in
tended to apply only in the event OF the
arrest of the offender; bu; that, when he
has fed from justice, nothing is easier
than to proceed to punish him without in
dictment, without trial, without due pro-
cess of law, simply by arresting his horse
aud COW, instead of himself, and proceed.
ing against them in rom by some newly
invented military machinery. True, tho
constitution makes no such exception; but
now it is discovered that we may shoot
enemies in battle without indictment or
trial, and therefore the same principle Of
punishment without indictment or trial
may be applied to all offenders who fco
from Justice. How long Wilt be before
this patent is SO improved as to embrace
all offenders, whether they flee or not?


Can it be necessary to pursue this
L l a. r Al. r. -