Page images
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

istration. Their appreciation of the present being at fault, their methods, their reliances, their results will be inconsequent, and without force. Witness the miserable months of projected conciliations, of harmless captures, of violated oath taking, of border State imbecilities, of Order No. Threes, of parolling guerrillas, of halting advances and wasted opportunities. Could these things have been possible to commanders comprehending either the magnitude, the characteristics or the consequences of the war that slavery has inaugurated, and that must end in slavery extinction or the abandonment of our development as a free people? Or can it be possible that the same series of incompetencies and sham-energies shall be pro longed indefinitely? No! It needs not that I should insist how surely all such must give way before the force of a public sentiment which, when once on the march, speedily refuses to trust any with responsibility who are not born of the age. It was just such a common thought of the Long Parliament that gave a new model to their army and a "self-denying ordinance" to themselves, extirpating insincerity from the former and imposing stoicism and self-sacrifice on each other. It was a similar growth of public opinion in France that set the guillotine at work to keep account of lost battles with unsympathizing Generals. The pregnant question then, of this crisis, is, how long, my countrymen, shall we wait for the "new model" and the "self-denying ordinance" and the swift punishment in this day of calamitous command and disgraceful surrenders.

[ocr errors]

THE PRESIDENT AS DICTATOR.

[ocr errors]

No one has ever read of a more touching spectacle in the life of nations, than that now presented by this people. Beyond any parallel it has made sacrifice of those things dear to its affection-I might almost say traditionally sacred from violation. All its rights of person and of property have been placed unmurmuringly at the disposal of the government, asking only in return a speedy, vigorous, uncompromising conduct of the war upon a true principle to an honorable ending. The habeas corpus has been suspended, not only in the revolted territory, but likewise in many of the loyal States. A passport system, limiting and embarrassing both travel and traffic, has been enforced with rigor. The censorship of the press not only controls the transmission of news, but curtails even the expression of opinion within restrictions heretofore unimaginable. Arbitrary imprisonment by Premiers of the Cabinet, banishments summarily notified, exactions levied at discretion, fines assessed by military commissions, trials postponed indefinitely-in short, all the panoply of the most rigid European absolutism has been imported into our midst. It is not to complain that these things are recited; for, so far as necessary, they will be, as they have been, cheerfully borne with; but to show how tragic is the attitude of this nation and yet how brave. The President of the United States, to-day, holds a civil and military power more untrammeled than ever did Cromwell; and, in addition thereto, has enrolled by the volunteer agencies of the people themselves, a million of armed men, obedient to his command. Nay, did I say the President was absolute as Cromwell? In truth I might add that of his officials entrusted with administering military instead of civil lawevery deputy Provost Marshal seems to be feeling his face to see if he too has not the warts of

the Great Protector. If this were the occasion for stale flatteries of the Constitution and the Union, it might well be asked just here, where in that much lauded parchment and league is the warrant for these things specifically? But I carp not at such technicalities. Give him rather more power if necessary-give him any trust and every appliance, only let it be not without avail. And yet with all this sacrifice, with all this effort, with quick response to every demand for men and money, what do we see? A beleaguered capital, only saved by abandoning a year of conquest and long lines of occupation; the confidence of the whole nation shaken to its very foundations by accumulated disasters and halting policies; and the grave inquiry, mooted in no whispered voice by men who have never known fear in any peril, can this country survive its rulers? I do not say the doubt is justified; but I do say that it exists in many minds that have been prone heretofore to confidence. We have seen fifty thousand soldiers, the elite of the nation, sacrificed, and six hundred millions of treasure, the coin wealth of the people, expended. We have reached the stage of assignats and conscriptions, and are now summoning the militia of the loyal States to repel invasion. And can any one cognizant of our actual condition, and not misled by false bulletins, or varnished glories, stand forth and say, with truth and honor, we are any nearer a solution in this hour of the great crisis in which we are involved than we were a year ago? I challenge a response. Or will any delude you longer with the belief that a great victory will accomplish the ending? I do not believe it.

In the presence, therefore, of such thick coming danger, and having borne itself so continently and so well, has not this nation now the right to demand of President and of Cabinet, and of Generals, that there shall be an end of policies, that have only multiplied disasters and disrupted armies, and a substitution of other policies that shall recognize liberty as the corner stone of our Republic, and write Freedom on the flag.

In conclusion let me say, that the time has passed when such a demand could be denounced even by the most servile follower of administrations, as a fanaticism, for the chief of the Republic has himself recognized his right to do so, if the occasion shall require, in virtue of being charged with the preservation of the Government. He has furthermore become so far impressed with the urgency that manifests itself, that he has ordered immediate execution to be given to the act of the last Congress, prescribing a measure of confiscation and emancipation. This day, too, is the anniversary of its enforcement, as it is the anniversary of the adoption of the original Constitution of the United States. Let us, then, in parting. take hope from the cheering coincidence. The act of Congress, it is true, is but an initial measure, embarrassed by many clauses, and may be much limited by hostile interpretation. Still it can be made an avatar of liberty to thousands who shall invoke its protection, and the instrument of condign punishment to those who have sought the destruction of all free government. And more than all else, its rigid enforcement and true interpretation will give earnest to the nation of that which must speedily ensue--direct and immediate emancipation by the military arm, as a measure of safety, a measure of justice, and a measure of peace.

THE RELATION

OF

THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT

ΤΟ

THE REVOLTED CITIZENS

DEFINED.

NO POWER IN CONGRESS TO EMANCIPATE THEIR SLAVES OR CONFISCATE
THEIR PROPERTY PROVED.

THE CONSTITUTION AS IT IS, THE ONLY HOPE OF THE COUNTRY..

BY ANNA ELLA CARROLL.

Congress has now under consideration, the question of the power and expediency of abolishing slavery, and confiscating the property, real and personal, of all, or a large class of the rebels in arms. A question of more transcendent importance, than any that ever before, engaged the attention of the American people.

With an earnest desire that the country may not be led to the adoption of a mistaken and fatal policy, I propose now to contribute my best efforts to a further understanding of this vital subject.

No one doubts the power or the duty of the Government to suppress the rebellion, to use the army and navy, and all the military resources of the country to capture the rebels, and kill them if they will not submit, and destroy their power to war upon us. But, I do not think there is any grant in the Constitution, but rather an express inhibition upon the power of Congress to abolish slavery or confiscate the property of rebels.

There are two clauses in the Constitution which especially refer to the confiscation of property. The first defines the crime of treason, and authorizes Congress to prescribe the punishment; inhibiting, however, the confiscation of property beyond the life of the offender. The second is an absolute prohibition to Congress of confiscation altogether. The first defines the crime in these words: "Treason against the United States shall consist in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court." "The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture, except during the life of the person attained."

Treason is not an offense against society, but an offense against its government; and in all ages, a disposition has been evinced on the part of the governing power, to construe everything as treason which opposed it. And this arises from the natural passion of revenge, the desire to punish for opposition to its authority, the rapac

300-2 4.212 (15) 233.

233. h.

99./15)

ity common to all in possession of political power, and the desire to obtain the money or estate of the convict.

Justice Story, in commenting on this clause of the Constitution, says: "The history of other countries abundantly proves, that one of the strong incentives to prosecute offenses as treason, has been the chance of sharing the plunder of the victims. Rapacity has been thus stimulated to exert itself in the service of the most corrupt tyranny; and tyranny has been thus furnished with new opportunities of indulging its malignity and revenge, of gratifying the envy of the rich and good, of increasing its means to reward favorites, and to secure retainers for the worst deeds.”

This feeling is so strong in all governments, that Montesqui was so sensible of it, that he has not scrupled to declare, that if the crime of treason be indeterminate, that alone is sufficient to make any government degenerate into an arbitrary power.

The history of England is full of melancholy instruction on this subject. Nor have republics been exempt from violence and tyranny of a similar character. The Federalist has justly remarked, "that new fangled and artificial treason have been the great engines by which factions, the natural offspring of free government have usually wreaked their alternate malignity on each other."

It was under the influence of these admonitions, furnished by history and human experience, that the convention deemed it necessary to interpose an impassable barrier against arbitrary construction, either by courts or by Congress, upon the crime of treason. Hence it was that the authors of our Constitution guarded the rights of the citizen by defining, specifically, in what the act of treason consists, and limiting the power of Congress in its punishment by absolutely inhibiting the confiscation of the estate of the traitor to the government, leaving it free to pass to his heirs.

The second clause of the Constitution in reference to confiscation is: "No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed."

Now, it is to me a matter of great surprise that any should doubt but that the bills before Congress are in direct conflict with this clause.

These bills assume that certain parties have committed treason, and ought to be punished; but being beyond the jurisdiction of the United States, or in States where the civil authority has been expelled; they cannot be brought before the courts of the country for trial: therefore, Congress shall adjudge them guilty of treason, forfeit their slaves and entire estates, and proceed directly to execute this legislative decree by deeds of manumission to the slaves, and seizure and absolute forfeiture of all their estates, as a punishment for the crime, and as "indemnity for the past and security for the future."

If the object had been to have drawn a bill of attainder directly in conflict with the Constitution, I do not think one could have been made more efficient or more operative than some of the bills which have been pressed before Congress.

A "bill of attainder," as used in the Constitution, is a technical term, and we must therefore look to the common law and the concurrent history for the correct Interpretation of its meaning.

Woodison in his lectures says: "But, besides a regular enforcement of established laws, the annals of most countries record signal exertions of penal justice adapted to exigencies unprovided for in the criminal code.

"Such acts of the supreme power are with us called bills of attainder, which are capital sentences, and bills of pains and penalties, which inflict a milder degree of punishment.

"In these instances the legislature assume judicial magistracy, weighing the enor.

mity of the charge, and the proof adduced in support of it, and then deciding the political necessity and moral fitness of the punishment."

Justice Story says: "Bills of attainder, as they are technically called, are special acts of the legislature as inflict capital punishment upon persons supposed to be guilty of high offenses, such as treason and felony, without any conviction in the ordinary courts of judicial proceedings. If an act inflicts a milder degree of punishment than death, it is called a bili of pains and penalties. But, in the sense of the Constitution, it seems that bills of attainder include bills of pains and penalties, for the Supreme Court have said: "A bill of attainder may effect the life of an individual, or may confiscate his property, or both. In most cases the legislature assumes judicial magistracy, pronouncing against the guilt of the party, without any of the common forms and guards of trial, and satisfying itself with proof, when such proofs are within its reach, whether they were conformable to the rules of evidence or not. In short, in all such cases the legislature exercises the highest power of sovereignty, and what may be properly deemed an irresponsible despotic discretion, being governed solely by what is deemed political necessity or expediency."

But the advocates of the policy of general confiscation, being unable to controvert this authoritative exposition of the term bill of attainder, assume the extraordinary position that the prohibition is not binding on Congress during a time of rebellion. I am unable to comprehend how any one can assume this position; for nothing is more certain than that this prohibition was inserted in the Constitution only to pre vent the exercise of this arbitrary power during a rebellion.

The authors of our Constitution never apprehended that Congress would assume to exercise judicial magistracy, except in time of rebellion. They knew well that there never was any motive in time of peace-and even if there were, that Congress would not attempt its exercise. For it is only in times of conflict between the public authority and the people that governments have ever attempted the exercise of this extraordinary and arbitrary power.

Justice Story says, "Bills of this sort have been most usually passed in England in times of rebellion, or of gross subserviency to the Crown, or of violent political excitement; periods in which all nations are most liable (as well the free as the enslaved) to forget their duties, and to trample under foot the rights and liberties of others." "Such acts have been often rseorted to in foreign governments as a common engine of state, and even in England they have been pushed to the most extravagant extent in bad times, reaching as well to the absent and the dead as to the living.

"The injustice and iniquity of such acts in general constitute an irresistible argument against the existence of the power. In a free government it would be intolerable, and in the hands of a reigning faction it might be, and probably would be, abused to the ruin and death of the most virtuous citizen."

In support of the policy of confiscation, its advocates have searched universal history from the time "when Ahab took the vineyard of Naboth, and David gave away the goods of one of the confederates of Absalom," down to the most arbitrary acts of Napoleon.

They have also cited the various penal enactments of the colonies, during the American revolution, in its justification.

It was, unquestionably, these very acts of confiscation by the colonies which led to the clauses in the Constitution prohibiting it in Congress and the States.

Story, in remarking on these acts of the colonies, says, in a note: "During the

American revolution this power was used with a most unsparing hand, and it has been a matter of regret in succeeding times, however much it may have been applauded flagrantobello."

Never were a people more jealous of liberty than our fathers were at the formation of the Constitution, and naturally so, too, as upon that Constitution depended the fruits of the independence which they had just achieved at the cost of so much treasure and blood. To guarantee this liberty, they provided in the Constitution for trial by jury in criminal cases—the definition and punishment of treason—the prohibition of bills of attainder, &c., &c.

But the people feared that these guarantees were not sufficient for the greatest protection of their liberties, and hence, the 4th, 5th and 6th amendments, restricting the exercise of these grants of power, in these words: "The right of the people to be secure in their person, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, nor shall any person be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation; the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the State," &c., &c.

Story, in his comments on the vital importance of these amendments, which he characterizes as a bill of rights, says: "It is not always possible to foresee the extent of the actual reach of certain powers, which are given in general terms. They may be construed to extend (and perhaps fairly) to certain classes of cases which did not, at first, appear to be within them. A bill of rights, then, operates as a guard upon any extravagant or undue extension of such powers. Besides, (as has been justly remarked,) a bill of rights is of real efficiency in controlling the excesses of party spirit. It serves to guide and enlighten public opinion, and to render more quick to detect and more resolute to resist attempts to disturb private rights. It requires more than ordinary hardihood and audacity of character to trample down principles which our ancestors consecrated with reverence, which we imbibed in our early education, which recommend themselves to the judgment of the world by their truth and simplicity, and which are constantly placed before the eyes of the people, accompanied with the imposing force and solemnity of a constitutional sanction. Bills of rights are a part of the muniments of freemen, showing their title to protection; and they become of increased value, when placed under the protection of an independent judiciary, instituted as the appropriate guardian of the public and private rights of the citizens."

It is sad to witness senators and representatives in the great republic of the United States, in contempt of the warnings of history, drawing their principles and precedents from the most cruel and revengeful tyrants, and displaying a "hardihood and audacity of character in trampling down the principles which our ancestors have consecrated with reverence, which we imbibed in our early education, which recommend themselves to the judgment of the world by their truth and simplicity; and which are constantly placed before the eyes of the people, accompanied with the imposing force and solemnity of a constitutional sanction."

We are not permitted to doubt, but that these bills originate in the worst and most malignant passions of the human heart; and are pressed in utter contempt, of our constitutional guarantees.

Listen to Senator Sumner's words, uttered on the 19th of the present month, in the country's Senate Chamber.

"With the provision in our Constitution, applicable to jury trials in criminal cases, it is obvious that throughout the whole rebel country there can be no conviction under uch statutes. Proceedings would fail through the disagreement of the jury, while

« PreviousContinue »