CONFISCATE THE PROPERTY AND FREE THE SLAVES OF REBELS. 
 
 SP^EIECH 
 
 OF 
 
 HON. I. N. ARNOLD, OF ILL., 
 
 1-^ TEE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 9 ^V 
 
 May 23, 18G2. /l.V^ 
 
 The House having under consideration the bills to confiscate the property and free from 
 servitude the slaves of rebels — 
 
 Mr. ARNOLD said : Mr. Speaker, I listened on j-estcrdiiy with great 
 respect to the ehjquent argument of the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Gri- 
 DEu] against this hill. He made an affecting appeal to the foibeavunce and 
 magnanimity of this House in behalf of traitors whose hands are red with 
 'the blood of the brave and patriotic soldiers of Hlinois and Kentucky, killed 
 'in this most wicked war. He appealed to uS in behalf of those who drop 
 poison in the cup which they hand to the famishing soldier ; who treacherously 
 hide torpedoes in abandoned fortifications to murder the brave men whom they 
 dare not meet in open, honorable warfare. Towards such men, treacherous, 
 cruel, reckless, restrained by no law, human or divine, serking to kill, mur- 
 der, and destroy every loyal man, and to take the life of the nation, we 
 are asked to extend " magnanimity and forbearance." Sir, we have all along, 
 since the beginning of this rt.'bellion, been too magnanimous and forbearing, 
 until our very kindness and forbearance to the rebels and traitors has been 
 regarded by them as an indication of our weakness and covvardice. They 
 must be made to feel our power. They must be made to respect the majesty 
 of that justice which punishes crime. It will be time to be magnanimous and 
 forgiving when they throw down their arms and appeal to the mercy of that 
 Government they have failed to destroy. 
 
 SLAVERY, DEFEATED AT THE BALLGT-BOX, APPEALED TO THE SWORD AND BROUGHT ON THIS 
 
 WAR. 
 
 In the face of the stupendous events transpiring in our midst, the slavery 
 question cannot be ignored. It is idle to seek to ignore it. It will vot doivn 
 at the bidding of any. We must grapple and meet it. The skilful physician 
 might as well ignore the existence of a terrible disease threatening the death 
 of his struggling patient, as the statesman seek to ignore or disregard the dis- 
 ease of slavery, now threatening the life of the nation. No man has spoken 
 more wisely, cautiously, philosophically, on this subject than the President of 
 the United States. Listen to the words of Abraham Lincoln, spoken at 
 Springfield in 1858. He said : 
 
 " A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe that this Government cannot en- 
 dure permanently ha!f"slave and half free. I do not expect the house to fal'. I do not expect 
 the Union to dissolve, but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one 
 thing or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it and 
 I-lace it where the public mind will rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate ex- 
 
,z 
 
 2 Cc^Z 
 
 tinction, or its advocates will push it forward, until it shall become alike lawful iu all the 
 States, the old as well as the new, North as well as South." 
 
 When Abraham Lincoln uttered these sentiments, sagacious and truthful 
 as the)' are, he did not dream of any conflict between liberty and slavery but 
 a moral one. That contest was fought out in 18(j0 at the ballot-box, and 
 freedom triumphed. The weapons of freedom by which that victory was 
 achieved were the press, free speech, the lecture, the pulpit, the newspaper, 
 the school-house, the church, above all, the free, honest ballot. We fought 
 against tlie encroachments of the aristocracy of slavery with ballots and not 
 with bullets. We believed 
 
 " There was a weapon firmer set, • 
 And better than the bayonet ; 
 A weapon that comes down as still 
 
 As snow-flakes fall upon the sod, 
 But executes a freeman's will, 
 
 As lightnings do the \vill of God." 
 
 Slavery, like all great wrongs, has always resorted to violence. It used the 
 bowie-knife of the border-ruffians in Kansas. Its weapons have been lynch - 
 law and mob violence to silence tlie freeman's tongue and shut the patriot's 
 mouth. It was a peaceful moral conflict, where reason should contend against 
 wrong, which the late Senator from New York termed the " irrejiressible con- 
 flict.'' 
 
 Freedom having triumphed at the ballot-box, slavery appealed to the sword, 
 and brought upon the country this terrible desolating war. The contest still 
 rages. It is idle to seek to disguise it ; we fight for liberty and the Constitu- 
 tion. The rebels fight for slavery and the subversion of constitutional liberty. 
 It is liberty against slavery, right against wrong, civilization against barba- 
 rism. The rebels, fighting for a barbarous institution, fight like inhuman 
 barbarians. 
 
 Commencing the contest with perjury, with robbery, with larceny, they have 
 disgraced the American name by their unparalleled brutalities. They poison 
 wells and springs ; they hold out to the famishing soldier the food charged 
 with arsenic. The cup of southern hospitality, in rebel hands, has become 
 the cup of death to the confiding soldier. They murder wounded men on 
 the field of battle ; they violate the sanctity of a flag of truce ; they dese- 
 crate and mutilate the remains of the galhint soldiers who fall in a manner 
 more infamous than the savages of those barbarous islands where the light 
 of Christianity has never penetrated. 
 
 I ask what lias transformed the noble, humane, generous, Christian gentle- 
 men of the South into such barbarians 1 How is it that the land which pro- 
 duced a Washington, a Henry, a Jefferson, a John Marshall, now produces a 
 Floyd, a Wise, a Jefferson Davis 1 Wlience the degeneracy of this noble 
 race? It is true we recognise many noble exceptions to this degeneracy. No 
 ' more patriotic and unselfish men ever lived than some of the Union men of 
 the slave States. 
 
 TUK I'RESIDENT SEEKS TO I'OXTKOL THE WHIRLWIND SLAVERY HAS RAISED. 
 
 I hare quoted the words of Abraham Lincoln uttered in 1858 ; listen to the 
 •words of the President of the United States to-day, still calm and cautious, 
 seeking " to control the whirlwind and direct the storm." In the light of the 
 past, hear his utterances of to-day. 
 
 On the t)th of March last the President solemnly proposed to Congress the 
 inauguration of a gradual system of emanoipation. His proposition was heard 
 with delight, and adopted by large majorities of both Houses of Congress. 
 
His proposition was welcomed by the world as " an autlientic, definite, and 
 solemn proposition of the nation" gradually and peacefully to terminate the 
 existence of human slavery. It was a proposition which will culminate in 
 making freedom not only " national," but universal, wherever the flag of our 
 Union floats. This message struck the key-note, and gave form to the grand 
 idea of liberty throbbing for expression in the popular heart. Tlie institution 
 of slavery, having the sin of this rebellion on its head, must, in process of 
 time, cease to exist. Its prolonged life is incompatible with the national life, 
 and it must die. " I believe," says Abraham Lincoln, " this Government 
 cannot endure permanently half slave and half free." 
 
 The President desires the inevitable change to be peaceful, gradual, con- 
 stitutional. Hence he says to the loyal slaveholders : 
 
 " I do not argue, I beseech you to make tlie argument for yourselves. You cannot, if you 
 would, be blind to the signs of the times. The proposal makes common cause, for a common 
 object, casting no reproach upon any." * * * * ''The change it contem- 
 
 plates would come gently as the dews of heaven— not rending or wrecking anything. Will 
 you not embrace it ? So much good has not been done by one eftbrt in all past time, as, in 
 the providence of God, it is now your high privilege to do. May the vast future not have to 
 lament that j-ou have neglected it." 
 
 To this earnest appeal of the President every lover of liberty throughout 
 the world responds, " amen." And thus, and to this end, the President ab- 
 rogates the proclamation of freedom issued by the blunt and gallant Hunter, 
 and gives to South Carolina even, her hands dripping with the blood of this 
 civil war, one more chance for submission and gradual change. 
 
 HAVE FAITH IN ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 
 
 Lovers of liberty, and patriots, impatient of this delay in striking at the great 
 criminal, I pray you trust Abraham Lincoln. Have faith in the President. He 
 will not neglect the opportunity which the providence of God has given him. 
 Peacefully, " gently as the dews of heaven," will come the blessings of lib- 
 erty — if it may be. Like the bright beams of the mori^ng sun, dispelling the 
 darkness, clouds, and exhalations of black night, so will freedom dispel the 
 darkness and barbarism of slavery. " You cannot," men of the border 
 States, patriots of the border States, " be blind to the 'signs of the times." I 
 beg you to join hands with the President; help to make this one great, homo- 
 geneous, free people. " So much good has not been done by one effort in all 
 past time." Look at this capital, now free, but so long paralysed by slavery ; 
 look across yonder noble river to Arlington House, crumbling to ruin ; take 
 your melahctioly way to Alexandria and Mount Vernon ; go down yonder most 
 magnificent Chesapeake bay to the ancient city of Norfolk; see those great tribu- 
 tary rivers, the Potomac, the Rappaliainiock, the York, and the James ; sir, on 
 the' banks of these waters, now so lonely and desolate, should have been the 
 seat of empire. Virginia was, should have been, would have been, the 
 empire State of this Union but for slavery. I have lately sailed over these 
 magnificent waters, seen their beauty, their natural advantages, and— their 
 desolation. There is no more melancholy spectacle than the material decay 
 and moral degeneracy of the." Old Dominion." Oh, border State men and 
 men of the free States, why stay the hand that strikes down the great cause 
 of this ruin and desolation'? Why will you seek to restore to life and vigor 
 this cursed institution of slavery, now dying by its own hand ? Why not let 
 the suicide of slavery be consummated ? Democrats of the free States, if you 
 warm this insidious viper again into life, if you take it to your bosom and re- 
 store its power, be sure, like the serpent in the fable, it will sting you to 
 death. Remember, I beseech you, its treatment of your idol, Douglas. 
 
In urging tlie passage by Congress of these acts the suggestions which I 
 beg leave to present for consideration naturally range themselves ander one 
 or other of the following heads : 
 
 I. The right of Congress to pass such a confiscation law. 
 
 II. The justice and expediency of such a law.* 
 
 Fir§t. The right of Congress to pass a general confiscation law. 
 
 The right of Congress to pass an act for the confiscation of the property 
 of persons engaged in the existing insurrection has, to a certain extent, al- 
 ready received the sanction of Congress. The act to " furtlrer provide for 
 the collection of duties, approved Ju-ly 13, 1861," authorized the seizure and 
 condemnalion of all goods and chattels- in transitu between the loyal and in- 
 surrectionary States, together with the vessel or vehicle conveying the same, 
 and the act of August 6, 1861, authorized the confiscation of property used 
 for insurrectionary purposes, and forfeited the claim of the master to the ser- 
 vice of imy person held by him to service when the slave was employed by the 
 master to aid the insurrection in the manner therein stated. 
 
 The preceding legislation rests for its legality upon the same basis as the 
 law now proposed. The extent to which Congress will go in the exercise of 
 its power is a question of policy ; the nature and source of the power is the 
 same. It is a right belonging to the Government, under the law of nations, 
 in time of war, and which is included in the power to declare war conferred 
 by the Constitution. The right to confiscate and condemn enemy's property 
 in time of war was very fully considered and settled in the case of Brown vs. 
 The United States, reported first in 2 Gallison's Reports, and decided oh ap- 
 peal in the Supreme Court, in 8 Cranch. In that case the property libeled 
 consisted of a quantity of lumber belonging to a British subject, and found 
 after the declaration of war in New Bedford, Massachusetts. In the case 
 below. Judge Story, after the most learned review of all the authorities, ar- 
 rived at the following conclusions : 
 
 1. That a nation nftiy lawfully confiscate the debts of her enemy during wai" 
 or by way of reprisal, and cited Ware vs. Hylton, 3 Dallas, 199. 
 
 2. That the right of confiscation of the goods of an enemy found within the 
 dominions of a belligerent Power is universally adraittedj citing all the lead- 
 ing writers on public law. 
 
 3. Story held that, without any act of Congress, the mere declaration of 
 war did ex vi termini authorize the capture of all enemy's property wher- 
 ever, by the law of nations, it could be lawfully seized, and that where no act 
 of Congress was made on the subject, the benefit of all such captures must 
 inure to the use of the Government. He adhered to this opinion in the ap- 
 pellate court, and maintained that " the right of confiscation resulted not from 
 the express provisions of any statute," but " from the very state of war 
 which subjects the hostile property to the disposal of the Government." 
 '' The power to declare war includes all the powers incident to war and 
 necessary to carry it into effect." " He was at a loss to perceive how the 
 power existed to seize and capture enemy's property which was without our 
 territory at the commencement of the war, and not the power to seize that 
 which was within it at the same period." " Neither are expressly given or de- 
 nied ; and how can either be assumed except as an incident of war on national 
 and public principles 1 That if the legislature did not limit the nature of 
 the war, all the regulations and rights of general Avar attach upon it. 
 
 ♦ I have druwn freely in these views from a very able brief in favor of conflscation prepared by E. Lahsed 
 Esq., L'EitcJ tjtulcs District Allorney for Illinois. 
 
In tbe opinion of tlie majority of the court, given by Chief Justice Marshall, 
 it was held — 
 
 " That, respecting the power of the Government, no dou))t was entertained.'' " That war 
 gives to the sovereign full right to take the persons and confiscate the property of the enemy 
 ■wherever found, is conceded." 
 
 But that the mere declaration of war did not, of itself, enact a confiscation of 
 property within the territory of the belligerent. That the power of confiscat- 
 ing enemy's property is in the legislature, and that an act of Congress is ne- 
 cessary to authorize proceedings for the condemnation of enemy's property 
 within the country at the commencement of the war. This authority conclu- 
 sively settles the power of Congress to confiscate the property of enemies in 
 time of war,»aM(l the necessity for the passage of an act of Congress to author- 
 ize such condemnation. 
 
 I beg leave to read, in confirmation of these views, the following extract 
 from a work on The Laws of War, by General Halleck : 
 
 " The necessity of self-preservation, and the right to punish an enemy, and to deprive hira 
 of the means of injuring us, by converting these means to our own use against liini. lie at the 
 foundation of the rule, and constitute the right of a belligerent to enemy's property of any 
 kind ; and it is difficult to see why this right should be restricted to a particular species of 
 proiierty, to cattle, horses, money, ships, goods, and not include lands and immovables," &c. 
 
 I add, why restrict to horses or lands especially if " contrabands," negroes, 
 are more hurtful to us in the hands of the enemy, and more useful if under our 
 own control ? The slave States live, to a considerable extent, on the labor 
 of their slaves. Like the Jew, the traitors would be forced to exclaim, " you 
 take my life when you do take from me the means whereby I live." 
 
 The only remaining question is, whether there is any diflerence in respect to 
 the power of Congress to confiscate the property of enemies, growing out of the 
 fact that the enemies whose property is to be affected are not citizens of a 
 foreign country which is at war with the United States, but citizens of the 
 United States who are in insurrection against and waging war upon their own 
 Government 1 
 
 This subject received the most elaborate and thorough exatnination in the 
 case of the United States vs. The bark Hiawatlia, and the United States vs. 
 Bark Octavia, and other vessels, recentij' decided by Judge Betts in the 
 southern district of New York. Li these cases Judge Betts held : 
 
 "That under the law of nations, the rights incident to a war waged by a Government to 
 subdue an insurrection or revolt of its own subjects or citizens are the same in regard to neu- 
 tral Powers as if the hostilities Avere carried on between independent nations, and apply equally 
 in captures of property for municipal offences as prize of war, citing Rose vs. Nimely, 'LCrancli, 
 241-2^3 ; Appendix, 509 ; 7 Wheaton, 306. 
 
 '• That the insurgents, so far as their own acts can make them, are as alien and foreign 
 from the United States Government as if they assumed the names of citizens and subjects of 
 Mexico and South America. 
 
 " They thus make themselves armed enemies, and wage war against the United States to 
 accomplish its dismemberment and destruction. It can be of no consequence under what name 
 or appellation these enemies unite and act, whether as State secessionists, southerners, or 
 slaveholders. They are in every just contemplation of our system of Government insurgents 
 and rebels against a common Government, and waging war for its overthrow. 
 
 " I consider the outbreak in particular States, as also in the confederate States, as an open 
 and flagrant civil war waged against the United States. That citizens of the United States 
 levying war against the United States are enemies of the Government notwithstanding their 
 residence within the Union, and that the property possessed and held by them in a state of 
 war, out of and against the authority of the United States, becomes thus the property of ene- 
 mies of the Government, subject to confiscation when arrested at sea, and persons continuing 
 within the authority and dominion of such enemies are clothe<l with the character and respon- 
 sibilities of enemies because of their residence, without regard to their private sentiments." 
 
 It is conceded that the words " arrested at sea " were used simply with 
 reference to the facts of the cases before him. There is no difference in prin- 
 
ciple between the right of confiscation of enemies' property on sea or on shore. 
 The only diiference is in respect to the admiralty jurisdiction. This case 
 establishes the position that the rebels are public enemies in war against this 
 Government, and liable to the same penalties, in the way of confiscation of 
 property, as the alien enemies of a foreign Government Avith which we were 
 in a state of war- (For full opinion of Judge Betts in this case, see New 
 York Evening Post of Octol)cv, 1801.) 
 
 Civil war is called by Grotius '' a mixed war, public on the side of the es- 
 tablished Government, and private on the part of the people resisting its au- 
 thority, and gives belligerent rights against the rebels and other nations 
 aiding them." (Wheaton's International Law, p. 4, chap. 1, sec. 7 ; Vattel, 
 book 3, chap. 18, sees. 292-295.) ' 
 
 The law, as pronounced in the above opinion of Judge Betts, is similarly 
 stated in the opinion of the district court of Pennsylvania for the eastern 
 district, in the case of The United States vs. Ship Gt'neral Parkhill, which 
 was, in that case, condemned as being the property of citizens of Cliarleston, 
 enemies of the United States ; also in the case of The United States vs. 
 Schooner Tropic Wind, in the admiralty court in the District of Columbia. 
 The opinions in these cases review the whole law, and arrive at the same 
 conclusions above stated. 
 
 The power of Congress to confiscate the property of all persons engaged 
 in the present insurrection, and to pass an act for that purpose, conferring 
 authority upon the proper tribunals of the country to enforce such riglit, may 
 be considered as settled. It is res adjudicafa. It is based alike upon reason 
 and authority, ^nd cannot now be considered as an open question. 
 
 II. The justice and expediency of such a law. 
 
 1. If in the case of ordinary war between- foreign Powers, the property 
 of alien enemies is subject to be confiscated, how much more should that 
 of these, who are not only enemies but rebels, who are not°only belligerents 
 but traitors, and not only so, but rebels and traitors to the best, mildest, and 
 most benignant Government which exists on earth. What can be said or thought 
 in extenuation of the crirai; of men who are plotting the overthrew of the Ameri- 
 can Union and the destruction of American liberty 1 The atrocious wicked- 
 ness of this rebellion is beyond all expression, and its utter want of all suffi- 
 cient justification or excuse makes it the more unparalleled in its criminality. 
 The annals of the world furnish no counterpart to it. In time of profound 
 peace and prosperity, with no just cause of complaint, no evils or wrongs of 
 any kind beyond the reach of legislation, these men have rushed this great 
 countrj' into this terrible and desolating civil war. They are seeking fo de- 
 stroy the great Republic in which the hopes of humanity are centred. Surely 
 there shouhl be no half-way measures with such men ; there should be no sym- 
 pathy for such treason; there should be no disposition to deal softly in such a 
 case. Justice demands that these rebels and traitors to the Republic should 
 be dealt with as such. The citizens of the loyal States demand that'these 
 men, Avhile acting as rebels and traitors, should in every possible way be made 
 to feel the consequences of their crimes ; that they should be made to suffer as 
 much as possible in every way in which it is in our power to aftect them so 
 long as they remain in arms against us, and there is no more potent and effect- 
 ive method than through the loss of their property. 
 
 2. Not only do justice and right demand such a measure, but it is neces- 
 sary as a measure of retaliation. For months these people have been seizing 
 and confiscating the property of the citizens of the loyal States. They did so 
 for a long period without even any pretence of law or authority of their own, 
 
and tliey liave since attempted to give to their proceedings tlie pretended 
 sanction of law bj^ enacting in their pretended congress a general sweeping 
 act of confiscation of all the property of citizens of the loyal States. It would 
 be hard, indeed, for the citizens who are loyal to the Constitution and the 
 Union to be compelled to submit to the confiscation of their property by these 
 rebels for no other reason than because they remain true to the Government of 
 their fathers, while these rebels and traitors are permitted to retain all which 
 belongs to them in the loyal States. This is in trutli a reward for treason. 
 Tiie traitors are allowed all their own property, and also all the spoils of that 
 of loyal citizens found within their reach. 
 
 In the border States, where victory and defeat alternate, and whole sec- 
 tions of country are alternately in possession of the contending parties, the 
 present system is a premium on treason. Its effect is to throw the powerful 
 influence of the property interest on the side of rebellion. For if a man in 
 these States declares for the Union, and the confederates are victorious, all 
 he has is swept away by them ; while if he declares for the confederates, and 
 the Unionists sacceed, his property is entirely safe under the existing legisla- 
 tion. The property of Jeff. Davis himself could not lawfully be interfered 
 "with as the law now stands, unless it could be made to appear that it had 
 been used directly in aiding the rebellion. 
 
 3. Such a measure is demanded to meet the wishes of the loyal American 
 people at this time. They demand in every quarter of the country that these 
 men should be dealt with as they deserve ; that they should not only be termed 
 rebels and traitors, but made to feel the punishment which belongs to such 
 crimes. The unanimous voice of the country demands such a measure, and 
 it will be hailed in every section with entire approval. 
 
 4. No measure would give to the country more satisfactory assurance that 
 the Government was in earnest in its design to suppress this rebellion. It 
 would evince the firm, determined spirit which the people expect and demand. 
 
 A PAKTY IN SYMPATHY WITH TRAITORS IS ORGANIZING TO DIVIDE THE NORTH. 
 
 Mr. Speaker, I have seen with regret that- there is a party in the country 
 seeking to divide the North ; a party which is the especial guardian and pro- 
 tector of slavery ; a party that is industriously sowing the seeds of discord 
 and division, seeking to create distrust of their Government in the minds of 
 the people ; men who exaggerate and magnify the frauds and corruptions of 
 subordinates, and proclaim and use them, not to secure purity, retrenchment, 
 and economy, but simply to make political capital. These men hate a black 
 loyalist, however brave and patriotic, more than a white traitor. Tiiey Avill 
 split hairs on technical quibbles to save rebels. They seem to think it is bet- 
 ter that ninety-nine traitors should escape, rather than have one negro go free. 
 They are ever holding up the Constitution as a shield to protect the traitors, 
 while sucli traitors are making war upon it. Sucli men attack the President 
 and attack the Secretary of War. Why is Mr. Stanton so bitterly assailed 
 by those men'? Simply because he is in earnest, and means to crush the 
 rebels and punish the traitors at any sacrifice. He is for his country, and 
 has no remote sympathy with traitors. His offence has " this extent, no 
 more." 
 
 Slavery is the corner-stone of this rebellious Confederacy. Can you have 
 permanent peace with slavery the dominant power in the land? Has not our 
 country sacrificed enough for this institution '? Turn over the pages of the 
 last year's history. How many noble, gallant spirits have passed away. 
 Their names and memories will live in oar hearts ; they will brighten our coun- 
 
try's history, nnd hallow forever our national songs. But for slavery they would- 
 have all boon living to-day: Lyon and Winthrop and Ellsworth and Baker and 
 Wallace, and a host of other gallant patriots, all martyrs in this cause ; but 
 the undistinguished, brave privates and subordinates, hurried into nameless 
 graves. Let us remember that each has left a vacant place around some 
 hearthstone in some family circle. Go anywhere in the West, into any church, 
 in town, city, village, or country, and the dark habiliments of mourning meet 
 your eye. Tlie sad faces of widows, mothers, and sisters tell how wide-spread 
 are the victims of this treason. There has fallen no gallant soldier in all 
 this year of desolation, but, if there had been no slavery in our land, would 
 to-day have been living each in his own family circle. When you see a wounded 
 soldier on his crutch, Avhen you see him with an arm or a leg shot away, 
 struggling, with his impaired powers, to gain a livelihood, you remember, and 
 be sure that he will never forget, that slavery caused his wounds. 
 
 Now, who arc the conservatives who would preserve an institution so de- 
 structive? There are those who adopt the name of conservatives to preserve 
 slavery from, destruction, rebel property from confiscation, and rebel necks 
 from the halter. From all such conservatives " Good Lord deliver us." 
 There is another class who wish to preserve the Constitution, the life of the 
 nation, liberty, and all which is dear to us — to preserve these by destroying 
 through peaceful, constitutional means the great enemy of all — slavery : of 
 this class of conservatives the noblest type, in my judgment, is found in hon- 
 est Abraham Lincoln. 
 
 Mr. DIVEN. I wish to inquire of the gentleman from Illinois whether he 
 referred to the case decided by Chief Justice Marshall, where the property of 
 a British subject was taken, he not being present. 
 
 Mr. ARNOLD. Yes; it is the case of a British subject whose property 
 was found in tliis country. 
 
 Mr. DIVEN. I know the case. I ask the gentleman if he knows of any 
 case in modern warfare where the property of private citizens has been taken 
 for the public use ? If the gentleman has such a case, I should like to hear 
 it. I have looked in vain for such a case. 
 
 Mr. ARNOLD. There are plenty of such cases. I ask the gentleman to 
 listen to the comments of Chancelior Kent on the case of Brown. 
 
 Mr. DIVEN. I have read them. 
 
 Mr. ARNOLD. I will read. In the Commentaries of Chancellor Kent, 
 (vol. 1, p. 67,) after commenting on the case of Brown, the case referred to 
 by the gentleman from New York, he says : 
 
 '• "When the case was brought up, on appeal, before the Supreme Court of the United States, 
 the broad principle was assumed that tear gave to the sovcreii/n full right to take the persons 
 and conjhcate the property of the enemy, wherever found; and that tlie mitigation of this 
 rigid rule, which the wise and humane policy of modern times had introduced into practice, 
 might more or less atf'oct the exercise of the right, but could not impair the right itself." 
 
 Commending this declaration of the great judge of New York to the con- 
 sideration of the gentleman, I yield the floor. 
 
 WASHINGTON, D. C. 
 
 SCAMMELI. k CO., PUINTERS, CORNER OF SKOOVU STREET & INDIANA AVENUE, TBlllB FLOOR 
 
 1862.