nessee or Georgia, or South Carolina even, a loyal subject of the United States, "faithful among the faithless found," the Government is not at war with him. I am aware, that, as to property taken on the high seas, some of the district courts of the United States have held otherwise; but I venture to predict, that the court of last resort will affirm the doctrine, stated by Mr. Justice Nelson of that court, to be good sense and sound law:

"On the breaking-out of a war between two nations, the citizens or subjects of the respective belligerents are deemed by the law of nations to be the enemies of each other. The same is true, in a qualified sense, in the case of a civil war arising out of an insurrection or rebellion against the mother-government. But, in the latter case, the citizens or subjects residing within the insurrectionary district, not implicated in the rebellion, but adhering to their allegiance, are not enemies, nor to be regarded as such. This distinction was constantly observed by the English Government in the disturbances in Scotland, under the Pretender and his son, in the years 1715 and 1745. It modifies the law as it respects the condition of the citizens or subjects, residing within the limits of the revolted district, who remain loyal to the Government."

The difference between a war and a rebellion is clear and vital. War is the hostile relation of one nation to another, involving all the subjects of both rebellion is the relation which disloyal subjects hold to the nation, not involving or impairing the rights of loyal subjects. The law may fail to protect obedient subjects; but it never condemns them. As between the Government, and its subjects in arms against it, the legal relation is not that of war, notwithstanding the war-power is used to subdue and reduce them to obedience. Though the Rebellion has assumed gigantic proportions, and the civil power is impotent to repress it, the array of numbers,

and extent of physical force, do not change its essential legal character. It is still treason,—the levying of war against the United States by those who owe to it allegiance. For this exigency the Constitution has provided. The war-power of the Government may be evoked "to execute the laws of the Union, and to suppress insurrection." In levying war against the United States, the rebels do not cease to be traitors, but are doing the thing in which the Constitution declares treason to consist (art. 3, sect. 3).

While using the powers and appliances of war for the purpose of subduing the Rebellion, we are by no means acting without the pale of the Constitution. We are using precisely the powers with which the Constitution has clothed us for this end. We are seeking domestic tranquillity by the sword the Constitution has placed in our hands. In the path of war, as of peace, the Constitution is our guide and our light, the cloud by day, the pillar of fire by night.

While using the powers of war for executing the laws and subduing rebellion, we are, of course, bound and restrained by the laws of war. It is our duty and our privilege to respect the maxims of humanity and moderation by which the law of nations and of Christian civilization has tempered the spirit of modern hostilities. During the war, we may recognize in the rebels the rights of belligerents; may send them flags of truce; may make with them capitulations, cartels for exchange of prisoners; and extend to them the courtesies which mitigate, to some extent, the iron rigor of war. These things were done in the earliest stages of our Revolution, not only before the separation of the Colonies was declared, but before the idea of inde

pendence had fairly taken possession of the public mind. But it was never supposed, that, by adopting the usages of civilized warfare, Great Britain was relaxing her hold upon the Colonies, or elevating them into independent powers. Nothing is, I think, plainer in principle, than that the recognition of these rights and the observance of these usages- flagrante bello- cannot affect the legal relation of the parties; does not divest the sovereign of his power, or release the subject from his duties, when the strife of arms ceases. It is only when rebellion has ripened into successful revolution, that the permanent legal relations of the parties are changed. The recognition of the "belligerent rights" of the rebels by foreign powers, can, as between the sovereign and his subjects, have no other or further effect. Such recognition (if known to the law of nations) proceeds upon the ground, that the revolution is not accomplished, and that the connection is not dissolved. Had this been done, the recognition would have been of their separate national existence.

In my humble judgment, Mr. Chairman, the "seceded States" (so called), and the people of those States, are to-day integral parts of the Union, over whom, when the conflict of arms ceases, the Constitution of the United States, and the laws made under it, will resume their peaceful sway. Traitors may perish; some institutions may perish the nation will remain; and the States will remain, essential parts of the body politic. "The body is one, and hath many members; and all the members. of that body, being many, are one body."

With this brief and imperfect development of the principles involved in this great controversy, I proceed to a more direct consideration of the subjects of confiscation and emancipation.

In seeking to know what this Government ought to do in relation to the confiscation of private property, or the emancipation of slaves, in the "seceding" States, the obvious question presenting itself to every mind at the threshold is, What is the end which the Government and the people are seeking to attain? There can be but one loyal answer to that question. It is to preserve the Union and the Constitution in their integrity; to vindicate in every part of this indivisible Republic its supreme law. No purpose, however humane, beneficent, or attractive, can divert our steps from the plain, straight path of sworn duty. What is writ is writ. In seeking to change it by force of arms, we become the rebels we are striving to subdue.

It is a plain proposition, that, in seeking to enforce the law, we are, as far as possible, to obey the law. We are not to destroy in seeking to preserve. The people do not require a bitter and remorseless struggle over the dead body of the Constitution. We We may raise armies and navies, and pour out as water the treasure and life-blood of the people; but we can neither think nor act wisely, live well, or die well, for the Republic, unless we keep clearly and always in view the end of all our labors and sacrifices, the Union of our fathers, and the Constitution, which is its only bond. No thoughtful man can believe there is a possibility of reconstructing the Union on any other basis; or that it is within the province of Congress, in any other but the peaceful way of amendment, to make the effort.

The bills and joint resolutions before the House, propose, with some differences of policy and method, two measures, the confiscation of the property of the rebels, and the emancipation of their slaves. Some of

the resolutions propose the abolition of slavery itself, with compensation for loyal masters. It is my duty to examine, as briefly as I may, the wisdom, the justice, and the constitutionality of the measures proposed. And, first, of confiscation.

The propositions for confiscation include the entire property of the rebels, real and personal, for life and in fee. Within the class whose estates are to be confiscated are included not only those personally engaged in the Rebellion, in arms against the Government, but also those who adhere to them, giving them aid or comfort so that within the sweep of the bills would be brought substantially the property of eleven States and six millions of people.

The mind instinctively shrinks from a proposition. like this. It relucts to include in one "fell swoop whole people. It asks anxiously, if no consideration is to be had for different degrees of guilt; if the same measure is to be meted to those who organized the Rebellion and those who have been forced into it; if no consideration is to be given to the fact, that allegiance and protection are reciprocal duties; and that, for the last ten months, the National Government has found itself incapable of giving protection to its loyal subjects in the "seceding States," - neither defending them, nor giving them arms to defend themselves; and that, deprived of our protection and incapable of resistance, they have yielded only to superior force; if a wise Government is to forget the nature of man and the influences of birth, of soil, of home, of society, and of State, by which his opinions are insensibly moulded; and that this pestilent heresy of the right of secession, fatal as it is now seen to be, not only to the existence of good