LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 012 028 270 
 
 
E 458 
 .2 
 
 .S54 
 Copy 1 
 
 CONDUCT OF THE MAR. 
 
 srinicii 
 
 Ol' 
 
 HON. W. P. SHEFFIELD, 
 
 OF HIlODi: ISLAND. 
 
 Dolivorod in tho IIoiiso of Roprosentutivos, January 27, 1602. 
 
 BoiiRo lu-lug In CbmniiUoo of Uio Witnle oo tho Rtiit« ] 
 
 Ulliull — I 
 
 r. SHICKFIELD Pfiid : 
 r. Chamiman : All of us believe that thi- 
 ng down of this rebellion ia the hi^^hf st 
 ical, niid ii very hi;:li moral, duty. All ol 
 .'sire to accomplish that object more than 
 jther earthly objects That wo should diller 
 (the means which we are to employ in the 
 mplishmetit of this purpose, is not at all 
 rising •, but I must confess that I have bet-u 
 iwhat surprised at the means which some 
 lemen upon this floor express their willing- 
 to invoke in the attainment of this end. 
 •\ somewhat surprised at the views presented 
 be gentleman who has just taken bis seat, 
 KiuuLE.] I was surprised the other day 
 ic views which were presented by the geii- 
 an from P'-nnsylvauia, [Mr. Stkvkxs,] the] 
 rman of the Committee of Ways and Means, 
 derstood him to announce what seemed to I 
 o be the extraordinary doctrine that this j 
 Be has power, by a simple enacfroent, to 
 ncipate all the slaves that are held under! 
 laws of the several States. After hearing ; 
 anrouncement, 1 was not at all surprised | 
 ear the further announcement laat in cer- 1 
 exigencies Congress even had the power 
 jclare, and it might be their duty to declare, i 
 ;tatur to control this Government, 
 was somewhat surprised, too. when I first | 
 d the views presented to the House by the I 
 leman from Ohio. [Mr. Binguam,[ when I 
 lid that it was in the power of Congress, by | 
 mple legislative enactment, to emancipate ] 
 ilaves ot all rebels in arms against the Gov- , 
 aeut. From these views, I need scarcely 
 that I entirely dissent. I feel the embar- 
 ment of my position. This is a forum to 
 :h I am unaccustomed. I know that these i 
 lemen have long enjoyed a national repu- i 
 
 tation ; but, sir, I have been accuatomed, in 
 laying down rules for the governuK'nt of my 
 own action, to form my own opinionii, to de- 
 duce my own conclusions and to follow thone 
 opinions and those conclusions to their legiti- 
 mate result. But it is only when I rtlluci that 
 these <li8tin];uished gentlemen disuiTce with 
 one anoilicr, that I take heart an! to 
 
 throw mystiU' upon the indulgence ■ 
 while I present some views with 
 the subject of the power of Congo 
 cate property ; to the end that ii • 
 are erroneous, they may be correc ' •.'. 
 
 if they are correct, they may stand '. :. 
 
 Uur Constitution has been presented u> the 
 people in two lights. Two views of it have been 
 taken. One is, if I understand it, that the na- 
 tional Government is an extreme central power : 
 that it is superior, no matter where it acts, or 
 upon what it acts, to all other constitutions and 
 all other legislatures in this country. Another 
 view is, that the Constitution is a confederacy 
 which, as I understand now to be interprete<l 
 by some gentlemen, means a kind of unilateral 
 contract, binding on the Government, and, ac- 
 cording to the legitimate result of the argu- 
 ment of gentlemen, binding upon no cneelse. 
 Kroni these views I dissent. I believe that the 
 Constitution of the United States is a form of 
 Government, the effect of which is a covenant 
 between every individual and the whole people, 
 and the whole people and every individual, by 
 which the Government is bound to afford pro- 
 tection, and the people are bound to n-nder 
 obedience, upon the tf-rms and on the conditions 
 set out in that Constitution. 
 
 With this general confession of faith. let as 
 open the Constitution and look into it for a 
 monwnt, and sec what it means, and what 
 powers it confers upon Congress to !i'ei.«>atc 
 with reference to the confiscation o( property. 
 
t^l 
 
 .%^^ 
 
 The Constitution defines the orime of treason 
 to be the levyinj)^ of war against the United 
 States, or* adhering to their enemies, giving 
 them aid and comfort. It limits the power of 
 Congress to punish that oCFence, if the punish- 
 ment includes a forfeiture of estate, to forfeit- 
 ures for the life of the offender ; and therefore 
 no forfeiture can endure beyond the life of the 
 offender. 
 
 There is another provision to which I wish 
 to call the attention of the House: 
 
 *' Congress shall pass no bill of attainder." 
 
 And yet there is another clause : 
 
 " No man shall be deprived of his property 
 except by due process of law." 
 
 With these propositions before us, legal defi- 
 nitions become of some importance. " Attain- 
 der" I understand to mean a consequence upon 
 the conviction of crime, which corrupts the 
 blood and forfeits the property of the persan 
 attainted. The child of the attainted felon In- 
 comes a stranger and an outlaw in the land of 
 his fathers. It was so in the English law. A 
 bill of attainder is an attainder by a legislative 
 act. 
 
 In reference to due process of law, I desire 
 the attention of the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. 
 BiXGiiAM.] who attempted the other day to 
 give a definition of this clause of the Constitu- 
 tion to which I do not assent ; arjd, of course, 
 we both desire to be right. As I understand, 
 " due process of law " is the pi'ocess of law era- 
 br.icing the opportunity for defence with the 
 incidents of trial which were in force at the 
 time of the adoption of the Constitution ; sub- 
 ject, however, to such modifications as may 
 from time to time be made by law, but which 
 do not impair the right as it then existed. 
 That definition the gentleman will find in the 
 case of Green and Briggs, reported in I Cur- 
 tis's Reports. We cannot call treason by an- 
 other name and avoid the limitation prescribed 
 in the Constitution in reference to the punish- 
 ment of the offence. Let us call it by what 
 name we will, it is treason still, and comes 
 v/ithin the constitutional definition. We cannot 
 take property without due process of law. Con- 
 gress cannot confiscate property by its own 
 act; for it has no authority to pass an act de- 
 claring anybody's property confiscated, because 
 property cannot be taken except by due pro- 
 cess of law. These propositions are so plain 
 that it seems to me that I need not delay to 
 consider them. 
 
 The doctrine of the gentleman from Penn- 
 sylvania, the distinguished chairman of the 
 Committee of Ways and Means, is that Con- 
 gress has this power of confiscation, derived 
 from two other clauses of the Constitution. Pie 
 says that by the oath of the President of the 
 United States he is bound to preserve, protect, 
 and defend the Constitution ; that he is to see 
 that the laws be faithfully executed; and that 
 undoi" that general clause of the Constitution 
 
 conferring general powers upon Congress to 
 enable it to pass such laws as may be neces- 
 sary to carry into effect the specific powers 
 granted in the Constitution, Congress has the 
 power to enact this extraordinary law. From 
 that proposition, as I have already stated, I dis- 
 sent, because that Constitution is to be taken 
 altogether. Those clauses are not to be ex- 
 tracted and taken separately from the rest of 
 the instrument. Congress is to pass only such 
 laws as they have authority for passing. All 
 the laws which they may enact must be limit- 
 ed by the provision which sajs that no person 
 shall be deprived of property except by due 
 process of law, and by that other projjision 
 which prohibits it from passing any bill of 
 attainder. This I understand to be substan- 
 tially the view which was taken by my valued 
 friend from Massachusetts, [ Mr. Eliot,] by his 
 resolution offered at an early period of the ses- 
 sion, and in his argument in support of it. 
 
 The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Bingham] 
 finds the magic words from which he draws his 
 authority for confiscation in another clause — ■ 
 the clause a^Ithorizing Congress to impose 
 taxes for the purpose of providing for the com- 
 mon defence. I say that the gentleman, in 
 my judgment, if he should insert in that clause 
 the words, " According to the provisions of 
 this Constitution," would take away the force 
 of his argument, and it would fall at once. By 
 the rule of construction applicable in this case 
 these words are impliedly annexed to every 
 provision of the Constitution. All its parts are 
 to be taken together. Thus, therefore, inas- 
 much as Congress cannot take property but by 
 due process of law, or provide for a forfeiture, 
 but as the result of an adjudication before a 
 judicial tribunal, the basis of the gentleman's 
 argument is taken away, and with the base 
 gone, the argument falls at the same time. I 
 think the gentleman was as unfortunate in ref- 
 erence to his authorities, if 1 understood tbem, 
 as he was in quoting the Constitution for the 
 purpose of sustaining this extraordinary prop- 
 osition, or which seems so to me. Let us look 
 at this patter a moment. He quoted from the 
 case of the United States vs. Brown ; that was 
 decided 'tong ago by the Supreme Court of the 
 United Stotes, and was a case where property 
 was broaPht into the country upon the faith of 
 the laws of the country, and was here at the 
 breaking out of the war between Great Britain 
 and the United States, in 1812. This property 
 was seized at the instance of some private in- 
 dividual in a city in Massachusetts, with a view 
 to its confiscation. The case finally came to 
 the Supreme Court of the United States, and 
 that tribunal decided that inasmuch as the 
 property was lawfully brought here, and upon 
 the faith of the then existing laws, and was here 
 at the time of the breaking out of the war, it 
 could only be confiscated under an act of Con- 
 gress. And in reference to that case there is 
 another suggestion which I wish to make, and 
 
that is, that it sppeare<1 ..•,.,; .. .1 .. 
 
 Executivo hud not <lir. 
 under which the Hiiit u . 
 coiifiacutiuii of thai [.rontTty; and 
 tations uiaio Iroiu tho bi>ili^rnlii«t, 1 
 the Kxi'culivo wa« cuupleil with Cungrv 
 the exotutioii and cOTuluct <.f n wnr. 
 But it ia said by variuu 
 
 ffress dorlvt's Homo auth 
 nw8 of rmtioii'> . ' 
 to lue to h(» ail 
 supposed th;U ( •• : 
 the Coii4tlmti.)n. I 
 of its powers fwm ll.r ■ 
 pie, when they tVaiiiecl this I' 
 the Hewilution, parceled out 
 powers which appertained to t 
 of all of the people of alt of th«- 
 egatod them to the (i>-iieral Guvirnii'Mii. and 
 had reserved certain other powers m thf S«n!>«; 
 and that to these two povernmcnin th« 
 granted all the power in the Government . 
 was ijot reserved to the people. And 1 
 supposed that these governmenta might i>] 
 in complete harmony, each within it.i n; 
 and while each kept within its sphere 
 impossible for them to come in colli-' •■ 
 power which waa granted hy thin ( 
 was all tiiAt the people delegated t . 
 I had supposed that the laws of nations and ot 
 war existed independent of ConpreJW, and that 
 they were made up of treaties and of the usages 
 and customs of civilized nations, an that Con- 
 gress was not an element in the treaty makin- 
 power even under our Constitution ; that w. 
 had no power to take from and no power to 
 add to the law of nations, and that if we at- 
 tempted to embrace any law of nations in a le 
 gislative act, the moment we did so, if the ac 
 was in accordance with the Constitution we de 
 graded t!ie provision from a national to a mu 
 nicipal law. Rut still the law of nations would 
 be the same, (or Congress cannot chanire that 
 law without the consent of other Powers. 80 
 far as I have been instructed in reference to 
 the meaning of the Constitnlion, I understand 
 that the powers of Congress are civil and not 
 military ; that they are municipal and not mar 
 tial. It \^ true, Congiess has the pow. 
 and support armies, to provide and • 
 navy, and to provide fjr callin ' • • 
 to suppress insurrections and • 
 It is also trne that we have \.. 
 limit the war power in one partici. 
 third article of the amendment to tli 
 tion, which recognises the existence ot ih" wi*: 
 power as being beyond the control of CongrM.s, 
 except so tar as it is restricted by the Consti- 
 tution. The clau<e reads : 
 
 " Soldiers shall not in lime of peace be • 
 ' tered in any house without the consent ■ 
 
 * owner, nor in lime of war, except in the mun 
 
 * ner to he prescribed by law." 
 
 That recognises the power, and puts a limi- 
 tation upon the exercise of ita authority. 
 
 •■ III 
 
 liy ibo rx 
 
 
 ■«» «rr. a 
 
 Con 
 1 th.. 
 
 
 ■ I J I » 1:. ».: ■. 1 i 111' ' , 1,-r «i <v ft 
 
 ri« ('• 1) i< r •.ti*iili<r..' 11.1 .1' «ti 
 
 luniil. l<'>nif mgo ' >i id th* ii0wrri 
 
 of ftvrrfiTimt w . 1 by n 1< -toati 
 
 ■ tn.. Uwit id« ' :i 
 
 . tolf in oor >, 
 
 ...1 
 
 to . 
 
 
 pr< 
 
 
 of 
 
 iho I'nilrd SlAt4-a. 
 
 !.- 
 
 n^ !o->k into lh«« t 
 
 
 he is to p' ' 
 
 
 ■•• and a 1: 
 
 . ClTl I 
 
 of 
 
 pHsh by • 
 th« arm . 
 
 E laced at hii 
 "nder it h" M . 
 and acndn foriit Uie rt-/ 
 pa«8e.4 th** eonfinM of i- 
 state of war. H.' ' 
 war upon tlmae wK 
 ' . ■fp«'»ce uni; 
 
 in« V (iji) in Tf> ;t.c civi. 
 
 »hi''h i* 
 
 .. la 
 - who 
 
 :. 1411) t(<<.i«ur«) oi juvtiCv 
 
 a •tAt« of war. The two caoool vsut tog<.-(k«r. 
 
They must each cjive way to the other in turn. 
 When llio enemies of the country are subdued, 
 and made subordinate to the law, then the civil 
 ma<;i.s(rate is in the ascendant, and he executes 
 his^civil jurisdiction according to the provisions 
 of the civil law. 
 
 What is the law of war? I will tell you what 
 1 understand it to be. It is the law of self-de- 
 fence applied to a nation — that law which origi- 
 nated in the councils of Heaven, and which, by 
 the linger of God, is impressed on all created 
 things. It is that law which authorizes me to 
 resort to the strength which slumbers in my 
 own right arm, to repel an assault upon my 
 person. It is the law which is inalienable in 
 every individual ; which exists jn each, and 
 may" be exercised by all. It is possessed by 
 every member of the State, and inherent in the 
 State itgelf. It is not deiined, say the gentle- 
 men. In one sense it is not. It is the law of 
 necessity. The gentleman from Ohio, who ad- 
 dressed the House many days ago, [Mr. Pen- 
 dleton,] said that necessity was always the 
 plea of tyrants, and that this war power was a 
 dangerous power. But I ask this committee, 
 who ever knew a state of war where there was 
 no danger ? I believe that even on the banks 
 of the Potomac there is some danger. If a 
 man, under the guise of martial law, undertakes 
 to do any act for the gratification of malice or 
 revenge, he is amenable to the civil tribunal on 
 the return of a peace, precisely like the man 
 who abuses the law of self-defence for the pur- 
 pose of inflicting punishment on tlie man who 
 assaults him. It is the duty of the President to 
 execute a war. So savs the Supreme Court in 
 the caseof the United States and Brown. I will 
 read an extract from the opinion of Judge Story 
 in that case : 
 
 " The sovereignty as to declaring war and 
 
 * limiting its effects rests with the Legislature. 
 ' The sovereignty as to its execution rests 
 ' with the President. If the Legislature do 
 
 * not limit the nature of the v,-ar, all the 
 
 * regulations and rights of general war attach 
 
 * upon it. I do not, therefore, contend that 
 ' modern usage of nations constitutes a rule 
 ' acting on enemies' property, so.as to produce 
 ' confiscation of itself, and not through the 
 ' sovereign pov/er; on the contrary, I consider 
 ' enemies' property in no case whatsoever cou- 
 ' fiscated by the mere declaration of war ; it is 
 ' only liable to be confiscated at the discretion 
 ' of the sovereign power having the conduct aud 
 
 * execution oi the war. The modern usage of 
 ' nations is resorted to merely as a liraitatidu 
 
 * of this discretion, not as conferring the author 
 
 ' ity to exercise it. The sovereignly to execute 
 
 * it is supposed already to exist in the President 
 ' by the very terms of the Constitution ; and I 
 
 * would again ask, if this general power to con- 
 
 * fiscate enemies' property does not exist in the 
 ' Executive, to be exercised in his discretion, 
 
 * how is it possible that he can have authority 
 ' to seize and confiscate any enemies' property 
 
 ' coming into the country since the war, or 
 ' found in the enemies' territory? Yet I under- 
 ' stood the opinion of my brethren to proceed 
 ' upon the tacit acknowledgment that the Ex- 
 ' ecutive may seize and confiscate ^uch proper- 
 ' ty under the circumstances which I have 
 ' stated."' 
 
 Mr. BINGHAM. Whether Judge Story un- 
 derstood it so or not, I beg leave to say that 
 Chief Justice Marshall excludes any such coa- 
 clusion by the very words of his opinion. 
 
 Mr. SHEFFIELD. That I deny. 
 
 Mr. BINGHAM. Well, read that. 
 
 Mr. SHEFFIELD. The gentleman can read 
 the case. 1 have it here. 
 
 Mr. BINGHAM. I have read it, and set it 
 out too. 
 
 Mr. SHEFFIELD. The gentleman took an 
 isolated clause of that opinion. The opinion 
 of the court is, that the execution and direction 
 of a war is with the President. There was no 
 difference of opinion on that point. The point 
 on which the court did differ was precisely as 
 if the property of a gentleman from the State 
 of South Carolina had been in the State of New 
 York before the rebellion, and was seized and 
 sought to be confiscated in New York after the 
 rebellion, without act of Congress or the direc- 
 tion of the Executive. Upon the authority 
 of this case, the execution of the war is with 
 the President, and not with Congress. Will 
 auy gentleman attempt to say, then, that we 
 can pass a law to-day directing the President 
 to fight the enemy to-morrow at Manassas ? 
 Certainly not. He is to execute the law ac- 
 cording to the rules of war and according to 
 his conviction of duty, aud he is to determine 
 when a state of war exists. On that point I 
 desire to call the attention of the committee to 
 the declaration of Chief Justice Taney, in the 
 case of Luther and Borden : 
 
 " It is said that this power in the President 
 ' is dangerous to liberty, and may be abused. 
 
 * All power may be abased if placed in un- 
 ' worthy hands. It would be difficult to point 
 ' out any other hands in which this power 
 ' would be more safe, and at the same time 
 ' equally effectual. When citizens of the same 
 ' State are in arras against each other, and the 
 ' constituted authorities unable to execute the 
 ' laws, the interposition of the United States 
 ' must be prompt, or it is of little value. The 
 ' ordinary course of proceedings in courts of 
 
 * justice would be utterly unfit for the crisis. 
 ' And the elevated olfice of the President, 
 ' chosen as he is by the people of the United 
 ' States, and the high responsibility he could 
 
 * not fiii'i to feel when acting in a case of SO 
 ' much moment, appear to furnish as strong 
 ' safeguards against a will'ul abuse of power 
 ' as human foresight and prudence could well 
 ' provide." 
 
 Congress can pass no law now that it could 
 not as well pass in times of profound peace, 
 for the Constitution is the same now and always. 
 
As to the exercise of those powert by the 
 Execufivo, I desire to call the allcntion of the 
 commilteo to aiiotlier ca«.', with which le^^al 
 f;cDtlemeii are 4ainiliar, the case of CruHH aiitl 
 Harrison, whero it was decided by the Supremu 
 Court that aHer tho hiws had been extended 
 over the Territory o( California, and before the 
 oflicers of the law had arrived there, the mil 
 itary authoriticH had the ri^t to execute the 
 laws. Now, 1 ask gentlemro to show mc tJie 
 distinction between that case and tlie ca.se 
 which arose in the city of Halliinore, where 
 the civil pDWor was overborne, aiid the lawa 
 made eilent, and where the President undtir- 
 took to execute the laws. In the one caa<! 
 there was nobxiy who had the power to execute 
 the civil laws ; and in tho other case there woji 
 no one who had the ability or disposition to do 
 it. It appears to me that the principle is pre- 
 cisely the same. Now, if this is ho, the i'res 
 ideut, of necessity, must execute the laws of war, 
 and to a certain extent determine when and 
 where he will execute those laws, holding him- 
 self responsible to the public for any abuse of 
 the power, and to individuals for any wrong 
 which he may recklessly or maliciously inllict 
 upon them. The President is justified in de- 
 termining the measure of justice which, accord- 
 ing to those laws, he is' to administer. 
 
 Now, what is he to do about confiscating 
 property ? lu regard to that subject there is an 
 ancient rule and a modern practice. It is 
 very well set forth in the excellent book of Mr. 
 Wheaton on international law. The ancient 
 law of war, he says, puts the persons and prop- 
 erty which the fortunes of war had put within 
 toe power of the victors completely at the dis- 
 posal of the victors. But the modern practice 
 of belligerents has been to regard the persons 
 and property of non-combatants as exempt 
 from seizure and capture. 
 
 That authority sets out both the ancient rule 
 and the modern practice. Here I may Remark, 
 that it appears that in England there has been 
 no attempt to confiscate the lands of enemies 
 since the time of the Norman conquest; and 
 the confiscations which took place in this 
 country after and during the Revolution were 
 before the adoption of the Constitutions of the 
 United States and of the States. And while 
 I am upon this subject, I will say that I am 
 not without my apprehensions that if Congress 
 attempts to confiscate the property of rebels, 
 the effect of such attempt may be to impair 
 some of the remedies which loyal citizens may 
 have for wrontrs which have been done to their 
 property by the rebels.' 
 
 I have no doubt myself that the President, 
 in marching the array into the country occu- 
 pied by the rebels, may order the capture of 
 any property belonging to rebels which he may 
 find. As I understand the law of nations, it 
 justifies the administering of the same measures 
 of justice against those who are engaged in 
 civil war as independent nations in a state of 
 
 { solemn war may admiuiotcr butwoen oneanotber. 
 
 I have no doubt <>t tlint. Ii in too well Mttlcd 
 I on authority to ui. »i«o any ({UmUod 
 
 I at this time on th . >ni. 
 
 Now, gentlemen may oak roe wbut I would 
 I do in Congrcu in reforeuc to jui'tiiig «!own 
 'this rebellion. I frankly tt' ■ <-n 
 
 ; what I would not do. I w< 'J10 
 
 I Constitution I had sworu i and to 
 
 maintain which my fvllow-< . '. friends 
 
 were n(»w endaii, ' i|Hin the 
 
 I battle field, I w. h.^ time of 
 
 I this House in Iryii.^ ./ .,■. ,.i'- the eflfortji 
 I of the Administration and of the army in 
 I putting down the rebellion, or in making io- 
 ! ilammatory appeals against thi; horrors of 
 
 the institution of sluviry, or against those 
 I men who are battling with us for the Union. 
 I Now, I will tell these gentleman what I wonld 
 I do. I would direct the atteiilioa of Congress 
 
 to providing the means and the men to pat 
 ] down the rebellion. We cannot otherwise le- 
 ' gislate a^'ainst it elTeclively. I wo'ild pot it 
 ; down in this only way in which it can be pot 
 j down ; I would fight it down. I would move 
 •I on the army ; and as the arm; '• •. » ■ • [ would 
 I capture ana send to the rear person 
 
 ' I could find. If slaves were f .i«' those 
 
 j loyal persons, I would capture them, and, by 
 
 the laws of war, as I understand them a.<i per- 
 I taining to captured properly, the proprietorship 
 I of such slave would immediately vest in the 
 ' United States. I would allow the shves to re- 
 ' main the property of the United Stivtes in the 
 ' rear of the 'army until treason had been pot 
 , down, and until the rightful jurisdiction of the 
 1 civil authorities was extended over the whole 
 j Union; and then I would treat the slaves and 
 I their masters as I, in view of the light which 
 : then appeared, should deem to be just to those 
 j interested and to the country. 
 
 I am no apologist for slavery ; I hate the ac- 
 I cursed institution. I believe it is, as was de- 
 i dared by Wesley to be, " the sum of nil vil- 
 I lainies," but that it is aquestion with which this 
 j House has nothing to do in the legislation it is 
 I called on at this time to initiate. Other gen- 
 ! tlemen may think otherwise, and they have as 
 
 fcgwi right to their opinions as I have to mine, 
 he responsibility is with them ; I will have 
 nothing to do with it. 
 
 But, Mr. Chairman, there is one other propo- 
 ' sition, closely allied to this, to which I wish for 
 a moment to ask the attention of tho committee. 
 It is whether we can at the same time extend 
 over those persons in arms our municipal laws 
 and the laws of war. That question was long 
 ago mooted in the Supreme Court, and was at 
 that time settled. Rose vs. Himley was the 
 case. The question in issue was as to the pow- 
 er of Fnince toexlend her municipal laws over 
 one of the West India Islands— perhaps that of 
 San Domingo — and whether she could at the 
 same time extend her municipal laws over that 
 colony and treat its cili.:un3 as belligerents. 
 
"xiie coart decided that in such cases bellige- 
 rent rights rai^xht be superadded to municipal 
 ■ rights; and in view of that decision, the people 
 in rebellion, even while there exists an open 
 war between us, are bound by our laws, even 
 though we may be treating them as belligerents; 
 but we cannot change the definition of the 
 crime of treason ; nor can we, when we arraign 
 ihem before our judicial tribunals, deprive them 
 of the benefit of our Constitution and laws. The \human nature to Team the secret springs which 
 
 cite a great many men so to fight who are now 
 lukewarm or for the Union. 
 
 Gentlemen say that it ought not to be so; 
 that is true ; it is perfectly trfffe ; but the men 
 who stand upon this floor to argne this ques- 
 tion, as if men were always governed by reason, 
 by principle, by the highest rule of moral con- 
 duct which shoi^ govern men in their action, 
 in settling this (^|)ther questions, have studied 
 
 status thpy have gained as belligerents in the 
 eyes of England, France, and Spain, may enti- 
 tle them in those countries to be considered as 
 belligerents, but cannot change their relations 
 to us or our rel \ti0n3 to them. Before they can 
 be punished by any act of Congress, they must 
 be convicted by a verdict of a jury from the 
 State and district where the crime was com- 
 mitted. That, sir, is the form and mode of 
 tyal prescribed by the Constitution under 
 ■which we live. How are you going to convict 
 traitors before a jury of traitors? This is a 
 practical difficulty which gentlemen do not 
 seem to toresee. 
 
 Men, in their earnestness, may talk about ac- 
 complishing large results in putting down the 
 rebellion by the passage of confiscating acts. 
 They want to do something, and I have great 
 respect for their zeal ; but I fear if they suc- 
 ceed that it may be said of them as it was of 
 him of old, "the zeal of mine house hath eaten 
 me up." Men may be pardoned for making 
 passionate appeajs to the people in an excited 
 - political campaign ; but now whei> the State is 
 in danger of being overwhelmed in revolution, 
 the grave of empires, a higher duty is imposed 
 upon us. We must now take counsel of our 
 calm judgments, an?i decide the great ques- 
 tions which are pressing upon us in the light 
 of reason and of law. Upon this subject of con- 
 fiscating property my duty is plain. I believe 
 that the people whom I represent, with the 
 other people of the United States, have not 
 clothed Congress with the power to act in this 
 matter. The Executive, to whom the people 
 have committed the conduct of war, undoubtedly 
 has the authority to take from the enemy, in the 
 execution of the war, that property, the taking 
 of which will either weaken the enemy* or 
 strengthen the Government. But I doubt very 
 much the expediency of the President issuing 
 any proclamation of emancipation. For such 
 a proclamation could only be carried into the 
 country of the rebels at tlie point of the bayo- 
 net, and in its march would only keep pace 
 with the progress of the army, and it would not 
 find its wav to those to whom it was directed 
 
 control human action to but little purpose. 
 
 Mr. WICKLIFFE. Will the gentleman from 
 Rhode Island permit me to state a fact ? 
 
 Mr. SHEFFIELD. With pleasure. 
 
 Mr. WICKLIFFE. I wish to state that there 
 would be no trouble in sending such a procla- 
 mation of the President for emancipating slaves 
 as he mentions, to the rebels. They already 
 have it in circulation among their people, by 
 way of producing the same result the gentle- 
 man supposes it would produce. > They al- 
 ready have it in print, signed with the name of 
 Mr. Lincoln, (of course, forged.) 
 
 Mr. SHEFFIELD. That fact does not affeCt 
 the conclusion, for I suppose the proclamation 
 is circulated among the rebels, but not among 
 the slaves. They will whisper it in the ears of 
 the whites, but they will take good care that it 
 does not reach the ears of the blacks. It 
 seems to me that our duty is plain in reference 
 to this matter. We should turn our attention 
 to putting an end to this war ; we should aim 
 our blows at the enemies of our country. In- 
 stead of quarreling among ourselves and en- 
 deavoring to produce division in the minds of 
 the friends of the Government, we should eji- 
 deavor to divide and subdue its enemies. I 
 regretted to hear some things which I have 
 beard said by men from the border States in 
 this Hall to gentlemen on this side of the 
 House, and I have also regretted to hear some 
 things which have been said by men from this 
 side of the Chamber to gentlemen from the 
 border States. 
 
 It is a very easy thing for men living in the 
 northern States to be loyal, because all there 
 are loyal ; but it is another thing- in the border 
 States. It is not to me at all surprising' that 
 men should hesitate soraev/hat there — that the 
 claims of nature should bear heavily upon 
 those of duty. I am not surprised that the 
 father should hesitate before he raises his arm 
 to strike down even his recreant son ; that the 
 brother should hesitate a little before he under- 
 took to take arms against his brother ; that 
 friends should hesitate^ little before they de- 
 termined to dissolve their friendly relations in 
 
 until those persons were within the control of blood upon the battle-field. And when the de- 
 the forces of the Government. And thus the cision is once taken, it is not at all surprising 
 proclamation would "return to him void" — no, ' that they should again yearn for the return of 
 not quite void, for the rebel leaders would get I the friendship which has been severed ; that 
 bold of it and use it for the purpose of inspiring [ the father should yearn for the return of the 
 the men who are with them to fight with the 1 prodigal, and should rejoice when he came 
 energy of despair; they would fight as if they | back, even though he came starving and 
 were lighting for their property. It would ex- 1 naked. It is a very different thing to b.e a 
 
\ ^ 
 
 loyal man where yon hsivo to li^'ht aguiiiHt llio to olicy tl . • 
 
 claim^ul imtiiro unJ of frieiiilHhip. The loyiil intMi iiiUi 
 
 men of Teniituseo aro heroea today, uinl wo down. 1 ■,.... ..,,ii.,i,,i ...... .i ^ „ ,,, , „.. . .• 
 
 ou'»ht to 8tr»-leh out to them tho haml of fel- it will comI ; for popular Kovrrrimf-Dl in imw on 
 
 lowahip and of svrnpathy. And Kentucky, too.' trial, and i'n buccokh in involved in Hh h t. : •■ ■ 
 
 YeS) Kt'ntucK v. '^ •love her, Mr. Chairman, for uanco of the I'nion. It would b< ^r 
 
 the sake of hti riivorili' son. The only politi- bttler, that fvcry lov.il iii;i:i ut tho .N i 
 
 cr.l idol that 1 ever had has been entombed in bo iilain than that t! ii should nut b« 
 
 her soil, and I cannot bift admire tho conduct BupprenHed. Th<> /• of future centa> 
 
 of those gallant men who at^^atljing around ric8 will look baek to ihin iMiruHl of our hiMtory 
 his grave to keep it in this l^Bbn. ' and calculate tho effocl of our conduct upon 
 
 Thia is a wicked reliellion.^n my judgment human civilization. It matl»rrn little win-:!, <t 
 it has no parallel in iniquity. It recjuires our you or I may die today or ton yearn henci*-. but 
 coolest, ripest judgment to be brought to con- it in a malt«>r of coi 
 aider the nnsms which wo are to take to put world, not only to n 
 it down. I would pi^t it down at all hazards to the men of all fului. ldj. ... i.i 
 and at all costs. The love of virtue is stronger nienl shouhl not be overthrown. * 
 
 than the lova of life, and the love of country . desire it to be put down. They wi 
 should be stronger than tho fear of death. I have all of their property consumed in one 
 would take, if need be, for that purpose, by grand conllagratiou, and every man of^us slain 
 conscripting every loyal man-of every loyal and upon the battle field, than that w»; should bow, 
 of every disloyal State. I would take all the ignobly bow, the knee — which wo have been 
 means I could command which seemed to me 1 taught only to bend in prayer — to the lawless 
 to be necessary to put it down. Tho men who ' power of rebel hosts, or that this tidal flow of 
 are in arras against this Government should treason and rebellion should not be rolled bftck 
 submit, and they should submit without a bribe, ' to its native hell. 
 
 WASHINGTOK, D. C. 
 
 SCAliyELL & CO., l-niKtfeRB, COHHEn OV nvxoyv street » IXDIAXA IVKXCE, TfllBt) FLOOR. 
 
 18G2. 
 
LIBRftRY OF CONGRESS 
 
 012 028 270 
 
 k 
 
 h 
 
\ 
 
 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 III III; I; ill 1 IM llllll Mill li I 111 I 
 
 012 028 270 
 
 t)6nnulilj6«