Part 4

_First._ I begin with the Rights of War over enemy property actually within the national jurisdiction. In stating the general rule, I adopt the language of a recent English authority.

“Although there have been so many conventions granting exemption from the liabilities resulting from a state of war, the right to seize the property of enemies found in our territory when war breaks out remains indisputable, according to the Law of Nations, wherever there is no such special convention. All jurists, including the most recent, such as De Martens and Klüber, agree in this decision.”[23]

This statement is general, but unquestionable even in its rigor. For the sake of clearness and accuracy it must be considered in its application to different kinds of property.

1. It is undeniable, that, in generality, the rule must embrace real property, or, as termed by the Roman Law and the Continental systems of jurisprudence, _immovables_; but so important an authority as Vattel excepts this species of property, for the reason, that, being acquired by consent of the sovereign, it is as if it belonged to his own subjects.[24] But personal property is also under the same safeguard, and yet it is not embraced within the exception. If such, indeed, be the reason for the exception of real property, _it loses all applicability where the property belongs to an enemy who began by breaking faith on his side_. Surely, whatever the immunity of an ordinary enemy, it is difficult to see how a rebel enemy, whose hostility is bad faith in arms, can plead any safeguard. _Cessante ratione, cessat et ipsa lex_, is an approved maxim of the law; and since with us the reason of Vattel does not exist, the exception which he propounds need not be recognized, to the disparagement of the general rule.

2. The rule is necessarily applicable to all personal property, or, as it is otherwise called, _movables_. On this head there is hardly a dissenting voice, while the Supreme Court of the United States, in a case constantly cited in this debate, has solemnly affirmed it. I refer to _Brown_ v. _United States_,[25] where the broad principle is assumed that war gives to the sovereign full right to confiscate the property of the enemy, wherever found, and that the mitigations of the rule, derived from modern civilization, may affect the exercise of the right, but cannot impair the right itself. Goods of the enemy actually in the country, and all vessels and cargoes afloat in our ports, at the commencement of hostilities, were declared liable to confiscation. In England, it is the constant usage, under the name of “Droits of Admiralty,” to seize and condemn property of an enemy in its ports at the breaking out of hostilities.[26] But this was not followed in the Crimean War, although the claim itself has never been abandoned.

3. The rule, in strictness, also embraces private debts due to an enemy. Although justly obnoxious to the charge of harshness, and uncongenial with an age of universal commerce, this application is recognized by the judicial authorities of the United States. Between debts contracted under faith of laws and property acquired under faith of the same laws reason draws no distinction; and the right of the sovereign to confiscate debts is precisely the same with the right to confiscate other property within the country on the breaking out of war. Both, it is said, require some special act expressing the sovereign will, and both depend less on any flexible rule of International Law than on paramount political considerations, which International Law will not control. Of course, just so far as slaves are regarded as property, or as bound to service or labor, they cannot constitute an exception to this rule, while the political considerations entering so largely into its application have with regard to them commanding force. In their case, by natural metamorphosis, confiscation becomes emancipation.

Such are recognized Rights of War touching enemy property within the national jurisdiction.

* * * * *

_Secondly._ The same broad rule with which I began may be stated touching enemy property beyond the national jurisdiction, subject, of course, to mitigation from usage, policy, and humanity, but still existing, to be employed in the discretion of the belligerent power. It may be illustrated by different classes of cases.

1. Public property of all kinds belonging to an enemy,--that is, property of the government or prince,--including lands, forests, fortresses, munitions of war, movables,--is all subject to seizure and appropriation by the conqueror, who may transfer the same by valid title, substituting himself, in this respect, for the displaced government or prince. It is obvious that in the case of immovables the title is finally assured only by the establishment of peace, while in the case of movables it is complete from the moment the property comes within the firm possession of the captor so as to be alienated indefeasibly. In harmony with the military prepossessions of ancient Rome, such title was considered the best to be had, and its symbol was a spear.

2. Private property of an enemy at sea, or afloat in port, is indiscriminately liable to capture and confiscation; but the title is assured only by condemnation in a competent court of prize.

3. While private property of an enemy on land, according to modern practice, is exempt from seizure simply as private property, yet it is exposed to seizure in certain specified cases. Indeed, it is more correct to say, with the excellent Manning, that it “is still considered as liable to seizure,” under circumstances constituting in themselves a necessity, of which the conqueror is judge.[27] It need not be added that this extraordinary power must be so used as not to assume the character of spoliation. It must have an object essential to the conduct of the war. But, with such object, it cannot be questioned. The obvious reason for exemption is, that a private individual is not personally responsible, as the government or prince. _But every rebel is personally responsible._

4. Private property of an enemy on land may be taken as a penalty for the illegal acts of individuals, or of the community to which they belong. The exercise of this right is vindicated only by peculiar circumstances; but it is clearly among the recognized agencies of war, and it is easy to imagine that at times it may be important, especially in dealing with a dishonest rebellion.

5. Private property of an enemy on land may be taken for contributions to support the war. This has been done in times past on a large scale. Napoleon adopted the rule that war should support itself. Upon the invasion of Mexico by the armies of the United States, in 1846, the commanding generals were at first instructed to abstain from taking private property without purchase at a fair price; but subsequent instructions were of a severer character. It was declared by Mr. Marcy, at the time Secretary of War, that an invading army had the unquestionable right to draw supplies from the enemy without paying for them, and to require contributions for its support, and to make the enemy feel the weight of the war.[28] Such contributions are sometimes called “requisitions,” and a German writer on the Law of Nations says that it was Washington who “invented the expression and the thing.”[29] Possibly the expression; but the thing is as old as war.

6. Private property of an enemy on land may be taken on the field of battle, in operations of siege, or the storming of a place refusing to capitulate. This passes under the offensive name of “booty” or “loot.” In the late capture of the imperial palace of Pekin by the allied forces of France and England, this right was illustrated by the surrender of its contents, including silks, porcelain, and furniture, to the lawless cupidity of an excited soldiery.

7. Pretended property of an enemy in slaves may unquestionably be taken, and, when taken, will of course be at the disposal of the captor. If slaves are regarded as property, then will their confiscation come precisely within the rule already stated. But, since slaves are men, there is still another rule of public law applicable to them. It is clear, that, where there is an intestine division in an enemy country, we may take advantage of it, according to Halleck, in his recent work on International Law, “without scruple.”[30] But Slavery is more than an intestine division; it is a constant state of war. The ancient Scythians said to Alexander: “Between the master and slave no friendship exists; even in peace the Rights of War are still preserved.”[31] Giving freedom to slaves, a nation in war simply takes advantage of the actual condition of things. But there is another vindication of this right, which I prefer to present in the language of Vattel. After declaring that “in conscience and by the laws of equity” we may be obliged to restore “booty” recovered from an enemy who had taken it in unjust war, this humane publicist proceeds as follows.

“The obligation is more certain and more extensive with regard to a people whom our enemy has unjustly oppressed. For a people thus spoiled of their liberty never renounce the hope of recovering it. If they have not voluntarily incorporated themselves with the state by which they have been subdued, if they have not freely aided her in the war against us, _we ought certainly so to use our victory as not merely to give them a new master, but to break their chains_. To deliver an oppressed people is a noble fruit of victory; it is a valuable advantage gained thus to acquire a faithful friend.”[32]

These are not the words of a visionary, or of a speculator, or of an agitator, but of a publicist, an acknowledged authority on the Law of Nations.

Therefore, according to the Rights of War, slaves, if regarded as property, may be declared free; or if regarded as men, they may be declared free, under two acknowledged rules: _first_, of self-interest, to procure an ally; and, _secondly_, of conscience and equity, to do an act of justice ennobling victory.

* * * * *

Such, Sir, are acknowledged Rights of War with regard to enemy property, whether within or beyond our territorial jurisdiction. I do little more than state these rights, without stopping to comment. If they seem harsh, it is because war in essential character is harsh. It is sufficient for our present purpose that they exist.

* * * * *

Of course, all these rights belong to the United States. There is not one of them which can be denied. They are ours under that great title of Independence by which our place was assured in the Family of Nations. Dormant in peace, they are aroused into activity only by the breath of war, when they all place themselves at our bidding, to be employed at our own time, in our own way, and according to our own discretion, subject only to that enlightened public opinion which now rules the civilized world.

Belonging to the United States by virtue of International Law, and being essential to self-defence, they are naturally deposited with the _supreme power_, which holds the issues of peace and war. Doubtless there are Rights of War, embracing confiscation, contribution, and liberation, to be exercised by any commanding general in the field, or to be ordered by the President, according to the exigency. Mr. Marcy was not ignorant of his duty, when, by instructions from Washington, in the name of the President, he directed the levy of contributions in Mexico. In European countries all these Rights of War which I have reviewed to-day are deposited with the executive alone,--as in England with the Queen in Council, and in France and Russia with the Emperor; but in the United States they are deposited with the legislative branch, being the President, Senate, and House of Representatives, whose joint action becomes the supreme law of the land. The Constitution is not silent on this question. It expressly provides that Congress shall have power, first, “to declare war,” and thus set in motion all the Rights of War; secondly, “to grant letters of marque and reprisal,” being two special agencies of war; thirdly, “to make rules concerning captures on land and water,” which power of itself embraces the whole field of confiscation, contribution, and liberation; fourthly, “to raise and support armies,” which power, of course, comprehends all means for this purpose known to the Rights of War; fifthly, “to provide and maintain a navy,” plainly according to the Rights of War; sixthly, “to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces,” another power involving confiscation, contribution, and liberation; and, seventhly, “to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions,” a power which again sets in motion all the Rights of War. But, as if to leave nothing undone, the Constitution further empowers Congress “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers.” In pursuance of these powers, Congress has already enacted upwards of one hundred articles of war for the government of the army, one of which provides for the security of public stores taken from the enemy. It has also sanctioned the blockade of the Rebel ports according to International Law. And only at the present session we have enacted an additional article to regulate the conduct of officers and men towards slaves seeking shelter in camp. Proceeding further on the present occasion, it will act in harmony with its own precedents, as well as with its declared powers, according to the very words of the Constitution. Language cannot be broader. Under its comprehensive scope there is nothing essential to the prosecution of the war, its conduct, its support, or its success,--yes, Sir, there can be nothing essential to its success, which is not positively within the province of Congress. There is not one of the Rights of War which Congress may not invoke. There is not a single weapon in its terrible arsenal which Congress may not grasp.

* * * * *

Such are indubitable powers of Congress. It is not questioned that these may all be employed against a public enemy; but there are Senators who strangely hesitate to employ them against that worst enemy of all, who to hostility adds treason, and teaches his country

“How sharper than a serpent’s tooth it is To have a thankless child.”

The rebel in arms is an enemy, and something more; nor is there any Right of War which may not be employed against him in its extremest rigor. In appealing to war, he has voluntarily renounced all safeguards of the Constitution, and put himself beyond its pale. In ranging himself among enemies, he has broken faith so as to lose completely all immunity from the strictest penalties of war. As an enemy, he must be encountered; nor can our army be delayed in the exercise of the Rights of War by any misapplied questions of _ex post facto_, bills of attainder, attainder of treason, due process of law, or exemption from forfeiture. If we may shoot rebel enemies in battle, if we may shut them up in fortresses or prisons, if we may bombard their forts, if we may occupy their fields, if we may appropriate their crops, if we may blockade their ports, if we may seize their vessels, if we may capture their cities, it is vain to say that we may not exercise against them the other associate prerogatives of war. Nor can any technical question of constitutional rights be interposed in one case more than another. Every prerogative of confiscation, requisition, or liberation known in war may be exercised against rebels in arms precisely as against public enemies. Ours are belligerent rights to the fullest extent.

Sir, the case is strong. The Rebels are not only criminals, they are also enemies, whose property is actually within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States; so that, according to the Supreme Court, it only remains for Congress to declare the Rights of War to be exercised against them. The case of Brown,[33] so often cited in this debate, affirms that enemy property actually within our territorial jurisdiction can be seized only by virtue of an Act of Congress, and recognizes the complete liability of all such property, when actually within such territorial jurisdiction. It is therefore, in all respects, a binding authority, precisely applicable; so that Senators who would impair its force must deny either that the Rebels are enemies or that their property is actually within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. Assuming that they are enemies, and that their property is actually within our territorial jurisdiction, the power of Congress is complete; and it is not to be confounded with that of a commanding general in the field, or of the President as commander-in-chief of the armies.

Pardon me, if I dwell on one point with regard to the property of rebels in arms by which it is distinguishable from the private property of enemies in international war. _Every rebel in arms is directly responsible for his conduct_, as in international war the government or prince is directly responsible; so that on principle he can claim no exemption from any penalty of war. And since Public Law is founded on reason, it follows that the rule subjecting to seizure and forfeiture all property, real as well as personal, of the hostile government or prince should be applied to all property, real and personal, of the rebel in arms. It is impossible for him to claim the immunity conceded generally to private property of an enemy in international war, and also conceded generally to land of an enemy within our territorial jurisdiction. For the rebel in arms there is no just exemption.

* * * * *

When claiming these powers for Congress, it must also be stated that there is a limitation of time with regard to their exercise. Whatever is done against the Rebels in our character as belligerents under the Rights of War must be done during war, and not after its close. Naturally the Rights of War end with the war, except in those consequences which have become fixed during the war. With the establishment of peace the Rights of Peace resume sway, and all proceedings are according to the prescribed forms of the Constitution. Instead of laws silenced by arms, there are arms submissive to laws. Instead of courts martial or military proceedings, there are the ordinary courts of justice with all constitutional safeguards. If this change needed illustration, it would be found in a memorable passage of French history. Marshal Ney, who had deserted Louis the Eighteenth to welcome Napoleon from Elba, was, after the capitulation of Paris, handed over to a council of war for trial; but the council, composed of marshals of France, declared itself incompetent, since the case involved treason, and the accused was carried before the Chamber of Peers, of which he was a member, according to the requirements of the French Charter. His condemnation and execution have been indignantly criticized, but the form of trial was a homage to the pacification which had been proclaimed. Therefore let it be borne in mind that all proceedings founded on the Rights of War will expire, when the Constitution is again established throughout the country. They are temporary and incidental, in order to secure that blessed peace which we all seek.

So completely are these rights distinguished from ordinary municipal proceedings against crime, that they are administered by tribunals constituted for the purpose, with well-known proceedings of their own. Courts of Prize have a fixed place in the judicial system of the United States, and their jurisdiction excludes that of municipal tribunals, so that no action can be brought in a court of Common Law on account of a seizure _jure belli_. It is their province to hear all cases of prize or capture,--in short, every case of property arising under the Rights of War; and although practically these cases are chiefly maritime, yet the jurisdiction of such courts is held to embrace hostile seizures on shore.[34] The hearing is by the court alone, without a jury, substantially according to forms derived from the Roman Law; and the ordinary judgment is against the thing captured, or _in rem_, pronouncing its condemnation and distribution. In every case of prize or capture, involving a question of property, and not of crime, these proceedings constitute “due process of law,” so as to be completely effective under the Constitution, and, according to acknowledged principles, they supersede the jurisdiction of all mere municipal tribunals.

Among the few cases illustrating this exclusive jurisdiction in matters of capture and prize on land is one which arose from the exercise of military power in a conquered province in India, and was at last considered and decided by the Privy Council in England, after most elaborate argument by the most eminent barristers of the time. The facts are few. Upon the conquest of Poonah, in 1817, Mr. Mountstuart Elphinstone, perhaps the most finished man, and of completest gentleness, who ever exercised power in British India, was appointed “sole commissioner for the settlement of the territory conquered, with authority over all the civil and military officers employed in it.” In the discharge of his dictatorial functions, he proceeded to appoint a “provisional collector and magistrate of the city of Poonah and the adjacent country,” whom he instructed “to deprive the enemy of his resources, and in this and all other points to make everything subservient to the conduct of the war.” After indicating certain crimes to be treated with summary punishment, he proceeded to confer plenary powers, saying: “All other crimes you will investigate according to the forms of justice usual in the country, modified as you may think expedient; and in all cases you will endeavor to enforce the existing laws and customs, _unless where they are clearly repugnant to reason and natural equity_.” Under these instructions the provisional collector seized several bags of gold, in the house of a prominent enemy. In an action before the Supreme Court of Bombay for the value of this treasure, and of a quantity of jewels and shawls taken by the military, judgment was given for the claimant. But this was overruled by the Court of Appeals in England, on the ground, that, in the actual state of warfare at that time, there was no jurisdiction over a question of prize and capture in an ordinary municipal court. At the bar it was argued:--

“No country can ever be thoroughly brought under subjection, if it is to be held, that, where there has been a conquest and no capitulation, the mere publication of a proclamation, desiring the people to be quiet, and telling them what means would be resorted to, if they were not so, so far reduces the country under the civil rule, that the army loses its control, and the municipal courts acquire altogether jurisdiction, so that every action of the officers in the direction of military affairs is liable to their cognizance.”[35]

In giving judgment, Lord Tenterden, at the time Chief Justice of England, stated the conclusion, as follows.

“We think the proper character of the transaction was that of _hostile seizure_, made, if not _flagrante_, yet _nondum cessante bello_, regard being had both to the time, the place, and the person, and consequently that the municipal court had no jurisdiction to adjudge upon the subject, but that, if anything was done amiss, recourse could only be had to the Government for redress.”[36]