his authorities, to overthrow the error into which those Senators had fallen.

"I am delighted, sir, to see that the President has indicated a desire to regard the Constitution in this measure. I pray God that he will do it in all cases, and I am sorry he has not heretofore done it more resolutely than he has. I now ask the clerk to read the manuscript that I have placed in his hands." The Secretary read as follows:

Forfeiture-Confiscation.-"Personalty, by the English law, was never forfeited by an attainder of treason. It was the realty, and the realty only, that the attainder acted on; and when they say no attainder sball hereafter work a forfeiture, they mean it shall not hereafter work a forfeiture upon the same estate *that it heretofore acted upon. An attainder never did act upon the personalty at all, never touched it; it affected the realty only, leaving the personalty to be dealt with as the wisdom of Congress might see fit." -Senator Browning, Congressional Globe, 2171.

"It is admitted by Senators that the words of the Constitution do not forbid the forfeiture of personal estate; so that a person attainted of treason would be made to forfeit all his personal estate, no matter what its amount."-Senator Sumner, Congressional Globe,

2190.

To prevent a repetition of such gross, pernicious blunders, the attention of those Senators and others is invited to the following citations from so familiar and accurate an authority as Blackstone's Commentaries : "By attainder for treason or other felony, forfeiture

of lands and of whatsoever else the offender possessed,

was the doctrine of the old Saxon law."- Vol. 2, 251. "Upon judgment of outlawry or of death, for treason or felony, a man shall be said to be attainted.". Vol. 4, 351.

"The forfeiture of goods and chattels accrues in every one of the higher kinds of offence: in high treason or misprision thereof, petit treason, felonies of all sorts, whether clergyable or not," &c.- Vol. 4, 386.

"There is a difference between the forfeiture of lands

and of goods and chattels. Lands are forfeited upon attainder and not before; goods and chattels are forfeited by conviction. Because, in many of the cases where goods are forfeited there never is any attainder; which happens only where judgment of death or outlawry is given. The forfeiture of lands has relation to the time of the fact committed, so as to avoid subsequent sales and conveyances; but the forfeiture of chattels has no relation backwards; so that those only which a man has at the time of conviction shall be forfeited. Therefore, a traitor or felon may, bona fide, sell any of his chattels, real or personal, between the fact and conviction, for no buyer could be safe if he were liable to return the goods he had fairly bought, provided any of the prior vendors had committed treason or felony."- Vol. 4, 387.

Therefore the Constitution, in saying "no attainder of treason shall work forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted," includes personal as much as

real estate.

Therefore, also, Congress can in no way, directly or indirectly, punish treason by emancipation, for quo ad the punishment of treason the owner of a slave has only a life estate, and the owner of such life estate has no power of emancipation. Or, at most, all that Congress could do in the way of penalty, would be to emancipate during the life of the owner; but this would be so manifestly unjust to the remainder-man that no fair-minded person would contend for that mode of exercising the power.

There is still a stronger reason against such exercise of the supposed power. Senator Sumner, in the same speech (page 2190) admits: "Congress has no power under the Constitution over slavery in the States." Congress has no direct power over slavery in the States so as to abolish or limit it." Now, all the slave

States prohibit emancipation, except in the manner their statutes specially prescribe. Congress can rightfully, legally, do nothing in reference to this peculiar property, whether by way of punishment or otherwise, in violation of this necessary settled policy of those States. Congress may forfeit and hold, or forfeit and sell slaves by due process of law in punishment of treason, but the Government or its purchaser must take and hold the property subject to the State law.

This equally disposes of all claim of power in the President, or of one of his sub-military commanders, to emancipate by proclamation. They can have in that particular, or any other no power not given by Congress expressly or impliedly. As Congress cannot give such power directly, it cannot be implied. If claimed as an incident to the right of eminent domain, then it becomes private property taken for public use, for which just compensation must be made to the owner according to the recent precedent of emancipation in the District of Columbia. If claimed as an incident to the power of carrying on the war, then it is met by that highest authority, the Declaration of Independence, denouncing it as contrary to the usages of civilized warfare. It therefore cannot be implied in the silence of the rules and articles of war, nor can Congress rightfully make it part of them. Respectfully submitted by S. S. NICHOLAS.

The amendment moved by Mr. Powell was rejected.

Mr. Harris, of New York, thus explained the proposition before the Senate: "Mr. President, the bill in question, as it has passed both House demnation of the property of rebels in two of Congress, provides for the seizure and conways: first, where the traitor has been proceeded against personally and convicted. In that case, the first section of the bill provides that a fine may be imposed upon him, and that his property may be sold for the payment of that fine. His whole estate in the realty may, ed. The Senator from Illinois thinks that prounder the provisions of that section, be divestvision is unconstitutional, and yet he has supported the bill and desires to have it a law. He thinks that, under the provisions of that section, only the life estate can be divested. So the President thinks. Thus far they agree.

"Now there is another provision of that bill which the Senator from Illinois does not seem to understand. He has stated that it is provided in the bill that the real estate of the rebel may be seized by the army, and made a prize or capture of war. The Senator is mistaken about that. The seventh section of the bill

provides that where the proceeding is not against the rebel in personam, where there are no personal proceedings against him, his estate may be seized by the Government by a proceeding in rem, and condemned and sold. The President thinks that that proceeding in rem against the property instead of the person is equally unconstitutional with the other; and I am not sure that the Senator from Illinois

would not think so. It is accomplishing indirectly what the first section accomplishes directly, in my judgment. The one is a judgment in rem against the property, the other is a judgment in personam, accompanied with a fine under which the property is sold. The Senator from Illinois and the President differ

widely in respect to this. The principle is the same. The Senator has entirely misapprehended, at least it would seem so from the remarks he has made, the scope and extent of the provisions of this bill in regard to proceedings in rem. If I understand the bill, the seventh section of the bill provides for the seizure of rebel property where there are no proceedings against the person, not by the army merely, but by proceedings instituted on behalf of the Government by the executive department of the Government. It seems to me that the Senator from Illinois is of all others the last person who should object to this explanatory provision by which the bill is made to conform to his own principles."

The joint resolution, with the amendments, was subsequently passed in the Senate and approved by the House.

The bill and joint resolution were signed by the President, after which he sent the following Message to the House.

Fellow Citizens of the Senate and

House of Representatives:

Considering the bill for "An act to suppress insurrection, to punish treason and rebellion, to seize and confiscate the property of rebels, and for other purposes," and the joint resolution explanatory of said act, as being substantially one, I have approved and signed both.

Before I was informed of the resolution, I had prepared the draft of a Message, stating objections to the bill becoming a law, a copy of which draft is herewith submitted.

July 12, 1862.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN.

[Copy.]

Fellow Citizens of the House of Representatives:

I herewith return to your honorable body, in which it originated, the bill for an act entitled "An act to suppress treason and rebellion, to seize and confiscate the property of rebels, and for other purposes," together with my objections to its becoming a law.

There is much in the bill to which I perceive no objection. It is wholly prospective; and it touches neither person nor property of any loyal citizen, in which particular it is just and proper.

The first and second sections provide for the conviction and punishment of persons who shall be guilty of treason, and persons who shall "incite, set on foot, assist, or engage in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States, or the laws thereof, or shall give aid or comfort thereto, or shall engage in or give aid and comfort to any such existing rebellion or insurrection." By fair construction, persons within those sections are not punished without regular trials in duly constituted courts under the forms and all the substantial provisions of law and the Constitution applicable to their several cases. To this I perceive no objection; especially as such persons would be within the general pardoning power, and also the special provision for pardon and amnesty contained in this act. It is also provided that the slaves of persons convict

ed under these sections shall be free. I think there is an unfortunate form of expression, rather than a substantial objection, in this. It is startling to say that Congress can free a slave within a State, and yet if it were said the ownership of the slave had first been transferred to the nation, and Congress had then liberated him, the difficulty would at once vanish. And this is the real case. The traitor against the General Government forfeits his slave at least as justly as he does any other property; and he forfeits both to the Government against which he offends. The Government, so far as there can be ownership, thus owns the forfeited slaves, and the question for Congress in re

gard to them is, "Shall they be made free or sold to new masters?" I perceive no objection to Congress deciding in advance that they shall be free. To the high honor of Kentucky, as I am informed, she is the owner of some slaves by escheat, and has sold none, but liberated all. I hope the same is true of some other States. Indeed, I do not believe it will be physically possible for the General Government to return persons so circumstanced to actual slavery. I believe there would be physical resistance to it, which could neither be turned aside by argument, nor driven away by force. In this view I have no objection to this feature of the bill. Another matter involved in these two sections and running through other parts of the act will be no

ticed hereafter.

I perceive no objections to the third and fourth sec tions.

the

So far as I wish to notice the fifth and sixth sections, they may be considered together. That the enforce ment of these sections would do no injustice to the per sons embraced within them is clear. That those who make a causeless war should be compelled to pay cost of it is too obviously just to be called in question. To give governmental protection to the property of per sons who have abandoned it and gone on a crusade to overthrow that same Government is absurd, if consid ered in the mere light of justice. The severest justice may not always be the best policy. The principle of seizing and appropriating the property of the person embraced within these sections is certainly not very objectionable, but a justly discriminating application of it would be very difficult, and, to a great extent, inpossible. And would it not be wise to place a power of remission somewhere, so that these persons may know they have something to lose by persisting and something to gain by desisting? I am not sure whether such power of remission is or is not within section thirteen. Without any special act of Congress, I think our military commanders, when, in military phrase, "they are within the enemy's country," should, in an orderly manner, seize and use whatever of real or per sonal property may be necessary or convenient for their commands; at the same time preserving, in some way, the evidence of what they do."

What I have said in regard to slaves while comment. ing on the first and second sections is applicable to the ninth, with the difference that no provision is made in the whole act for determining whether a particular individual slave does or does not fall within the classes defined in that section. He is to be free upon certain conditions; but whether those conditions do or do not pertain to him, no mode of ascertaining is provided. This could be easily supplied.

To the tenth section I make no objection. The oath therein required seems to be proper, and the remainder of the section is substantially identical with a law already existing.

The eleventh section simply assumes to confer dis cretionary power upon the Executive. Without the law, I have no hesitation to go as far in the direction indicated as I may at any time deem expedient. And I am ready to say now, I think it is proper for our military commanders to employ, as laborers, as many persons of African descent as' can be used to advantage.

The twelfth and thirteenth sections are something better than unobjectionable; and the fourteenth is entirely proper, if all other parts of the act shall stand.

That to which I chiefly object pervades most part of the act, but more distinctly appears in the first, second, seventh, and eighth sections. It is the sum of those provisions which results in the divesting of

title forever.

For the causes of treason and ingredients of treason, not amounting to the full crime, declares forfeiture extending beyond the lives of the guilty parties; whereas the Constitution of the United States declares that no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood or forfeiture, except during the life of the person attainted. True, there is to be no formal attainder in this case; still, I think the greater punishment cannot

I may remark that the provision of the Constitution, put in language borrowed from Great Britain, applies only in this country, as I understand, to real or landed estate.

Again, this act, in rem, forfeits property for the ingredients of treason without a conviction of the supposed criminal, or a personal hearing given him in any proceeding. That we may not touch property lying within our reach, because we cannot give personal notice to an owner who is absent endeavoring to destroy the Government, is certainly satisfactory. Still, the owner may not be thus engaged; and I think a reasonable time should be provided for such parties to appear and have personal hearings. Similar provisions are not uncommon in connection with proceedings in

rem.

ARTICLE. All officers or persons in the military or naval service of the United States are prohibited from employing any of the forces under their respective commands for the purpose of returning fugitives from service or labor, who may have escaped from any persons to whom such service or labor is claimed to be due, and any officer who shall be found guilty by a court martial of violating this article shall be dismissed from the service.

The act for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia emancipated all persons of African descent held to service in the Disstrict immediately upon its passage; loyal owners of slaves only were allowed ninety days to prepare and present to commissioners appointed for that purpose the names, ages, and personal description of their slaves, who were to be valued by the commissioners. No single slave could be estimated to be worth more than three hundred dollars. The amount of these claims was to be paid to each owner after the final report of the commissioners at the end of nine months. One million of dollars was appropriated to carry the act into effect. The sum of one hundred thousand dollars was appropriated to colonize any of the liberated slaves, who might desire to go to Hayti, Liberia, or any country beyond the limits of the United States, as the President might select.

A department of agriculture was established, the design and duties of which are to acquire and to diffuse among the people of the United States useful information on subjects connected with agriculture in the most general and comprehensive sense of that word, and to procure,

propagate, and distribute among the people new and valuable seeds and plants.

sand dollars, and a chief clerk, with a salary of A commissioner, with a salary of three thoutwo thousand dollars, are the officers of the department.

An act to secure homesteads to actual settlers on the public domain, provides that any loyal citizen of twenty-one years of age or upward, or one who has filed his intention to become a citizen, may enter one quarter section or a less quantity of unappropriated public land upon which such persons may have filed a preëmption claim, or is subject to preemption. The applicant must file an affidavit that the said entry is made for actual settlement and cultivation, and not for the use or benefit of any other person. No certificate is given or patent issued until the land has been occupied and cultivated for five years by the applicant. No land thus acquired can become liable for the satisfaction of any debt contracted previous to the issue of the patent. No individual can acquire title to more than one quarter section

under the act.

The first section punishes with a fine of five hundred dollars and imprisonment not exceeding five years, any person convicted of bigamy in any Territory of the United States.

SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That the following ordinance of the provisional government of the State of Deseret, so called, namely: "An ordinance incorporating the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints," passed February eight, in the year eighteen made valid by the Governor and Legislative Assembly hundred and fifty-one, and adopted, reenacted, and of the Territory of Utah by an act passed January nineteen, in the year eighteen hundred and fifty-five, entitled "An act in relation to the compilation and revision of the laws and resolutions in force in Utah other acts and parts of acts heretofore passed by the Territory, their publication, and distribution," and all said Legislative Assembly of the Territory of Utah, which establish, support, maintain, shield, or countenance polygamy, be, and the same hereby are, disapproved and annulled: Provided, That this act shall be so limited and construed as not to affect or interfere with the right of property legally acquired under the ordinance heretofore mentioned, nor with the right "to worship God according to the dictates of conscience," but only to annul all acts and laws which establish, maintain, protect, or countenance the prac tice of polygamy, evasively called spiritual marriage, however disguised by legal or ecclesiastical solemnities, sacraments, ceremonies, consecrations, or other

contrivances.

SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, That it shall not be lawful for any corporation or association for religious or charitable purposes to acquire or hold real estate in any Territory of the United States during the existence of the territorial government of a greater value than fifty thousand dollars; and all real estate

acquired or held by any such corporation or associa tion contrary to the provisions of this act shall be forfeited and escheat to the United States; Provided,

That existing vested rights in real estate shall not be impaired by the provisions of this section.

Every person hereafter elected or appointed to any office of honor or profit under the Government of the United States, either in the civil, military, or naval departments, except the President, is, by another act, required to take the following oath before entering upon the duties of such office:

I, A B, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I have never voluntarily borne arms against the United States since I have been a citizen thereof; that I have voluntarily given no aid, countenance, counsel, or encouragement to persons engaged in armed hostility thereto; that I have neither sought, nor accepted, nor attempted to exercise the functions of any office whatever, under any authority or pretended authority in hostility to the United States; that I have not yielded a voluntary support to any pretended government, authority, power, or constitution within the United States, hostile or inimical thereto. And I do further swear (or affirm) that, to the best of my knowledge and ability, I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God.

The Confiscation, Tax, Tariff, and Militia Laws are noted elsewhere in these pages.

This session of Congress closed on the 17th of July, 1862. It was marked by industry on the part of the members, and a disposition not only to sustain the Executive in the conflict with the Confederate States, but to urge him to all such measures as should tend to liberate the slaves in those States. It is a singular fact that not a proposition for conciliation or one that looked to a redress of any conceived grievance on the part of the South was entertained in either House. One was offered by Mr. Saulsbury, of Maryland, on the second day of the session, and immediately laid on the table. It does not appear to have been alluded to afterward, nor was any other offered. The resolutions expressing the sense of Congress on the object of the war adopted at the previous session were repudiated, and bills providing for the emancipation of the millions of slaves through the confiscation of all the property of disloyal owners in those immense Southern States, were passed into laws.

Slavery, and the laws regulating it, were abolished in the District of Columbia. Slavery was forbidden in all the Territories of the United States. Liberia and Hayti were recognized as independent republics, and as belonging to the family of nations. A new treaty, relative to the slave trade, was ratified with Great Britain, which allowed to her the liberty of searching American vessels under certain circumstances. All persons in the army or navy were prohibited from returning slaves, or sitting in judgment on the claim of their masters. The slaves of disloyal persons in the Confederate States were declared to be emancipated on coming within the lines of the Federal army. A reso

lution to tender compensation to loyal masters on the voluntary emancipation of their slaves was also adopted by Congress.

CONNECTICUT, one of the Eastern or New England States, first settled in 1633. Area 4,674 square miles. Population in 1860, 460,147. Governor till first Wednesday in May, 1863, William A. Buckingham, of Norwich. Secretary of State, till same date, James HamState officers takes place on the first Monday mond Trumbull, of Hartford. The election for of April. At the election of April, 1862, the total vote was 70,430, of which William A. Buckingham received 39,782, and was elected. The Legislature consists of 21 senators, and The Senate was unani251 representatives. mously Republican. The House of Representatives had 195 Republican members, and 56 Democrats. The State expenditure for the year, aside from school-fund revenue, was $2,148,257, of which about $1,866,097.52 was for war purposes; two thirds of this amount The valuation of the State, as returned by the would be refunded by the general government. assessors, which does not include State or other property exempt from taxation, and estimates real estate much below its true value, was $254,742,695. The census valuation in 1860, which probably comes nearer the actual prop erty of the State, was $444,274,114. The resources and liabilities of the banks of the State in April, 1862, amounted to $39,211,643, the capital of the banks being $21,790,987, their circulation, $8,023,681, and the specie their vaults $1,518,317. The assets of the savings banks of the State (forty-five in number) were $20,539,758.55, showing a surplus of $556,799.11 over their liabilities. The railroad property of the State (twelve railroads) cost about $26,000,000, and seven of the twelve roads paid dividends during the year, varying from two to twelve per cent. The total expen diture for common-school purposes during the year was $486,000, of which $130,850.40 was from the revenue of the school fund. The State has a normal school, with 9 teachers and 174 pupils, and three colleges, with 55 professors and instructors and 809 students. There are also an asylum for the deaf and dumb, at Hartford, the first founded in the United States, with 18 teachers and 222 pupils, and the Connecticut School of Imbeciles, at Lakeville, Litchfield county, with 2 teachers and 19 pupils, and a State reform school at West Meriden, with 148 inmates. The Retreat for the Insane, at Hartford, is an incorporated institution, founded in 1824, and had in April, 1862, 221 patients. It is under the charge of John S. Butler, M. D. The State had increased its population during the decade ending in 1860 by 89,355 inhabi tants, or 24.10 per cent; but this increase was almost entirely in the cities and large towns, the increase of New Haven county being 31,757, of which 18,922 was in the city of New Haven, and nearly 6,000 in the city of Waterbury, while the remainder was distributed

through the large manufacturing towns of the county; Hartford county had increased 19,995, of which 15,599 was in the city of Hartford, and most of the remainder in the towns of New Britain and Windsor Locks; Fairfield county had increased 17,701, almost entirely in the large towns along the Sound shore; New London county had gained 9,910, of which 4,905 was in her two cities, New London and Norwich; while the other four counties, which were mainly agricultural, and contained among them but one city, and few considerable towns, had gained but 9,992 in the aggregate, though embracing about of the population of the State. The State is largely engaged in manufacturing, its aggregate industrial products being stated in round numbers at $83,000,000. The cash value of its farms and farming implements was $93,169,486. Connecticut had furnished to November 10, 1862, 28,551 men for the volunteer army. They constitute twenty-seven regiments of infantry, one regiment of heavy artillery, two batteries of light artillery, and one battalion of cavalry. At the close of the year, six regiments, one battery, and the battalion of cavalry were at different points in Virginia, one regiment in Maryland, six in North Carolina, two and a battery at Hilton Head or its vicinity, three in New Orleans, and the remainder in camp awaiting orders, or recruiting. The quota required to fill the two calls of July and August, 1862, being short about 2,000 on the 10th of September, Governor Buckingham directed a draft to be made in the towns where there was a deficiency on that day. In New Haven, Hartford, and some other towns, the deficiency was made up by volunteering before the day closed, bounties of large amounts being offered by patriotic citizens to volunteers. In other places the draft was made. Slight opposition was offered in Fairfield and Newtown, but it was soon quelled, without any injury. In all, 1,212 persons were drafted, but of these only 218, of whom 142 were substitutes, were mustered into the service of the United States, 81 having deserted after reporting at camp; 623 were exempted by surgeons and selectmen, 10 had previously volunteered, 34 were not subjects of military duty, and 166 were unaccounted for on the 12th of December, 1862. The number needed was, however, made up by volunteers.

At its regular session, in May, 1862, the Legislature passed a militia law, or rather revised and modified that of the previous year, which had proved objectionable in many particulars. This law divided the able-bodied males of the State between the ages of eighteen and fortyfive, except the usual State and United States exempts, into two classes, the active and inactive militia; the first to consist of all the vol

unteer companies then in existence, or who might be organized under the act, and to constitute one division of such number of brigades and regiments as the commander-in-chief (the governor of the State) should direct; the second class (inactive militia) to be composed of all other able-bodied persons not exempt, to be enrolled, and (except minors) to pay a commutation tax of one dollar per annum, and not to be liable to serve except in case of rebellion or invasion of the State, when they might be drafted by the commander-in-chief to fill up the ranks of the active militia. The organized, or active militia, were required to be properly armed and equipped, arms being furnished by the State, and a sum allowed for the rent of an arsenal. They were to be paid two dollars a day and mileage when mustered for drill and camp duty, and if belonging to a cavalry corps were allowed two dollars more for horse hire per day. They were also exempted from the commutation tax and jury duty. The officers were obliged to assemble once a year for officers' drill, under a competent drill master, and were compensated for the time thus spent. The law does not seem to have been perfect in its operations, much complaint being made in regard to it.

The expense of fitting out and providing for so large a number of troops as was called for by the President's proclamations in July and August, 1862, having drained the treasury, and causing a large prospective deficit, Governor Buckingham deemed it necessary to call a special session of the Legislature, which met in Hartford on the 9th of December, 1862. In his message, addressed to them, the governor stated the inefficiency of the draft, showed the defects of the militia law, and advocated the extension of suffrage to the soldiers in the field. He also recommended that the State bonds be issued for a definite number of years, and that the towns be allowed to issue bonds. The funded debt of the State was $2,000,000, and the unfunded debt amounted, on the 1st of December, to $1,212,800. Exclusive of this unfunded debt, and of new appropriations, the estimated necessities of the treasury to the 31st of March, the close of the financial year, were $768,333, and the estimated receipts only $642,580, leaving a deficiency of $125,753, which, added to the unfunded debt, made the entire indebtedness to be provided for $1,338,553. Nearly one half of this was for bounties to volunteers. The Legislature passed an act authorizing a loan of $2,000,000, which was taken in February, 1863, at about twelve per cent. premium. They also passed a law permitting the soldiers in the field to vote for State officers, but this was subsequently pronounced by the judges of the supreme court of the State unconstitutional. They also made some modifications in the State militia law.