aspect in which the law of nations has usually considered them in modern times; and in fact, as we have already seen, it is impossible to lose sight altogether of their human character, even when treating them as property.

There seems to be no doubt that while the hostile occupation lasts, all the laws and institutions of an invaded nation stand or fall, in whole or in part, within the district occupied by the invader, at the will of the latter. This is the necessary result of that substitution of martial law for civil law which attends every invasion. The military leader of the conquering army becomes, for the time being, the autocrat of the country over which his occupation extends, and the only rule of action of all persons within that district is his will and command-" Sic volo, sic jubeo-stet pro ratione voluntas." But from the very nature of its origin, personal rights acquired during the existence of this anomalous state of things, are of a temporary character merely, and cease with the restoration of the suspended jurisdiction of the invaded nation. And therefore, although there can be no doubt that during the time while the hostile occupation lasts, every slave must be considered as a freeman if the military commander so orders, it seems equally evident that in order to entitle himself to a permanent enjoyment of his freedom, the newly made freedman must take care to keep himself under the protection of

that law from which his freedom is derived, and out of the reach of that law under which he was a slave, and whose temporary suspension changed his status. This he can only accomplish by leaving the invaded territory, which he may do, either while the occupation lasts, or by accompanying the invading army, with the permission of its commander, when it shall return to its own country. At whatever time he may thus expatriate himself, he will still be under the protection of military law until he reaches the territory of the invader, and upon his arrival there, his title to freedom will become complete by the permanent cessation of the operation of that law under which he was a slave.

I am saved the labor of examining or citing numerous authorities to sustain these different propositions by the compilation made by Dr. Francis Lieber, and entitled "Instructions for the Government of the Armies of the United States in the Field," which were "approved by the President," and promulgated to the army by an order dated April 24, 1863. As this manual of martial and military law was specially designed for the present emergency, and "revised by a board of officers" after its preparation by its distinguished author, it unquestionably states the law as strongly in our favor, as the most liberal construction of doubtful precedents will warrant. I refer the reader, who wishes to examine the subject in detail, to para

graphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 10, 14, 15, 20, 21, 22, 23, 31 32, 37, 38, 42 and 43 of these instructions. It will be sufficient for me to copy paragraph 32, which reads as follows: "A victorious army, by the martial power inherent in the same, may suspend, change or abolish, as far as martial power extends, the relations which arise from the service due according to the existing laws of the invaded country, from any citizen, subject, or native of the same to another. The commander of the army must leave it to the ultimate treaty of peace to settle the permanency of this change."

Our own history furnishes us two memorable instances of the temporary character of emancipation under martial law, not followed by transportation of the freedman to the country of the emancipator. In both of our wars with Great Britain, that of the revolution and that of 1812-15, our country was invaded, and numbers of negro slaves took refuge within the British lines, attracted by military proclamations offering them freedom. It was, in each case, made one of the terms of the treaty of peace which followed, that such of the refugees as had not left the country, should be delivered up to their masters, and this result wa accomplished simply by an agreement on the part of the British that they should not be taken away The provision to that effect in the treaty of Paris dated Sept. 3, 1783, and bearing the signatures of

John Adams, Benjamin Franklin and Jonn Jay, was as follows: "Article 7. His Britannic majesty shall, with all convenient speed, and without caus-. ing any destruction, or carrying away any negroes or other property of the American inhabitants, withdraw all his armies, garrisons and fleets from the said United States, &c." The treaty of Ghent, dated Dec. 24, 1814, and signed by John Quincy Adams, James A. Bayard, Henry Clay, Jonathan Russell and Albert Gallatin, provides in like manner: "Article 1. All territory, places, &c. .

shall be restored without delay, and without carrying away.... any slaves or other private property." The negroes thus left behind were at once reclaimed by their masters, and no doubt has ever been suggested that, whether they were considered as property or as persons, the relation formerly existing between them and their masters was at once restored.

Thus it will be seen that the military power of the President, as commander-in-chief of the army, would extend no further than to proffer TEMPORARY freedom to such slaves as should be found within any territory occupied by our forces; and if deemed expedient, such safe transportation beyond the limits of the slaveholding States, as would ensure them against being reduced again to slavery, after the cessation of the war. Whether such protection could be secured on this side of the Canada line,

need not now be considered. For no suggestion of the expatriation of the slaves, in any form or at any time, is made in the proclamations, and none of the preliminary measures have been taken by executive or legislative action, which such a gigantic task would require. On the contrary, the evident and openly acknowledged purpose of the proclamations is permanently to guaranty to the negroes their freedom and continued residence within the limits of the slaveholding States.

The proclamation of September, 1862, declares that on the first of January, 1863, "all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward and forever free”—that such freedom will be maintained by the whole power of the United States, and that in due time the Executive will recommend that loyal citizens should be compensated by Congress for the loss of their slaves. The proclamation of the first of January, 1863, recites that of the preceding September, designates the States and parts of States within which all persons held as slaves "are and henceforward shall be free," renews the promise to guaranty such freedom by the whole military and naval force of the naţion, exhorts the freed negroes "to labor faithfully for reasonable wages," and finally, "upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice, warranted