Mr. KERR. Mr. Speaker, viewmg this document as a legal paper demanding a legal interpretation, proceed to say that . in myment, GenlSherman by this order juodng y accomplished this much: he took possession during war of a prescribed territory of the enemy in the exercise of a belligerent right, which he as general in command of the armies of the Government in that Dept had the right to do, and GenlSherman never attempted by anything contained in this order, because he had no power to accomplish such a result, to give to these freedmen and refugees any title to the lands in question. The act of GenlSherman was simply the exercise of a belligerent right. It could enst only so long as the belligerency existed. The moment peace was restored, the moment wai ceased, this or der ceased to have validity or vitality. I say, therefore, the moment this war terminated this order became void. It had spent its force. It had accomplished its end. It had done its full officc, and could do no more. I take it to be the law, both the international and public law of this country, that no Government can take property of this kind from one citizen and give it to another. No Government by a mere act of legislation can divest a title from one party and vest it in another. Now, in sustaining my position on that point, and to show the House and the country that l ain sustained by authority of the highest rank, I beg leave to quote 2 or 3 pertinent authorities. I will 1st cite Hallecks International Law, page 456, paragraph 12: “Private property on, land is now, as a general rule of war exempt from seizure or confiscation; this general exemption and extends even tocasesof absolute and unqualified conquest. Even where the conquest of a country is confirmed by the unconditional relinquisliment of sovereignly by the former owner. there can be no general or partial transmutation of private property in virtue of any rights of conquest. [but which belonged to the Government of the vanquished passes to the victorious State, which also takes he place of the former sovereign in respect to the right of eminent domain but private rights and private property, both movable and immovable Are in general unaffected by tbe operations of awar. whctber such operations be limited to mere military occupation or extend to comleto conquest. Some modern text WPHGISTIQUICcuille. for example contend for the ancient rule. that private property on land is subject to seizure and confiscation. They are undoubtedly correct with respectto the general abstract right. as deduced from the law of nature and ancient pruclice; but while the general right continues. Modern usage and the opinions of niodern textwriters of the highest authority. have limited this right by establishing the rule of general exemption.” I will now read a short extract from the decision of Judge S ragueof the district of Massachusetts, alrea y referred to. Judge Sprague says: “An objection to the prize defisions of tha district court has arisen from an apprehension of consequences radical It has been suppflsed that if the Government have the rights of a belligerent. then. after the rebellion is quest; that siing. tparteesasendddtitws iilnl hhaabvietathnetsri might be permanently divested of all political privileges, and treated as foreign territory acquired by arms. This is an error. it rights cannot gave exearnoidsdedimw eernotuhseerreraorre. nBoeblli erent cuts. Conquest of and unlimited sovereign igrnigidhotsu. rgryat ngoivensn aobnsoelvueter tmileak Power, h a conquest of its own territory; a hooa either from Without or within a takes possession and nation any portion of its territory and so tluhteen datmion iboyn ove of arms expels lore or overthrows the enemy, and suppresses liosilitics. it acquires none wldtle, but inercly regains the possesswnofwhinli it had been temporarnrily bde uot rmivecrde. ly [he nation acquires iio new sovereignty, war of l812 maintains its previous rights. During thd held the British took possession of Castincmnd exclusive and unlimited control over it ucred territory. Castine ascon was restored to us under a treaty of peace. but it the was never supposed thnt U.S. acquired a newtitle by the treaty, and could thoncoforwurd govern it as conquered territory and in this same connection I will cite from the same author another brief extract. I will remark, however, that upon the principles of public law, as well as the constitution of our country, when a rebellion or insurrection is suppressed by the legitimate Government. the Government itself may have the right, as against the individuals lately in rebellion or insurrection, to consider them as individual offenders against the laws of the country, and it may denounce against. them as such offenders the punishment which their crimEs deserve. But. under those principles, I say it is not competent, by a mere declaration of the Government or a mere law of Congress, to take fromtbe peolo of any section such property without proof of guilt, without proccedings to confiscate their estates, without taking any of the ste s required by the constitution, where it says t iat noperson shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. I say that when the Government desires to take from one citizen his property and give it to another, or make it the Governments own property, ” must do it by proceeding in pursuance of law against the offender himself. Judge Sprague says, in answer to this view of“ the case: Under despotic Governments the powerof municipal confiscation may be unlimited: but under our Government the right of sovereignt over any portion of a State is given and limited y the Constitution and will be them me afler the wnrnn 1! wasbefore. dWishterinctt, htehe U.S. we possession of any rebel cate that wtheh previously title. but merely vindi existed and are to do only what is necessary for that purpose. Confiscations of property. not for any use that has been made of it. winhf the chtednofonrot against any olIcndinc thing. but are the"(personal delinquency ol the owner, are punitive. a punishment: a upon mule! be inflicted only due conviction of personal guilt.” In the same connection I will invite attention to the opinion of Alexander Hamilton, one of the earliest. greatest publicists of this country. ln replying to thosewho represent the confiscation or sequestration of debts as our best means of role iation and coercion, as our most powerful, and sometimes as our only means of defense, he says: “So degradingan ideawill be raiceted with disdain by everyman whin feels a true and wellinformed na tthioantziinl pride: by every man who recollectsnnd glories a state of still greater imrnatnrity wencieved independence Without the aid of this disbunornblo. expedient. The Federal Government never assorted to it and a few only of the Ftnic governments suiiued themselves with it. "HamirlmiW orks. vol. 7, p. 329. One more authority, too pertinent to be omit ted, is from the opinion of Chief Justice marshall, in the U.S. vs. Perchcman, 7 Peters Reports, page 86: "It may notlbe unworthy of remark that it is very unusual even in cases of conquest for the conquerot to do more than to displace the sovereign and assume dtioomnsi. nwiohnicohver the country. The modern usage of nl has become law would be violated that sense of usuce and of right which is acknowledged and felt y raged. the whole civilized world would be out ifprivhte property should be generally confiscated an private rights annulled.” Now. resting my opinion on these authorities, I insist that Congress has now no legal or constitutional right in time of peace. when there are no belligerents, to into the States named in that order, or any 0t or State, and take even the possessmn of the lands of the people from the owners and give them to anybody else. Much less have we any right to take from them the fee, the absolute estate in those lands. lhi kind of legislation can only be designed to operate as a punishment, not against the thing taken. but against the landowner. The authorities say that this kind of punishment can only , be inflicted after due proceedings against the respective owners for the purpose of confiscation or punishment in some way prescribed by law under the constitution of the country. This attempt on the part of this House and of congress to out n on the assnmption that war is still fla rant in this country l look upon as being radically and wickedly wrong or does not prevail now. On the contrary, peace prevails throughout our entire boundaries. There is no army anywhere arrayed against the Federal authority. There is no individual man in this country that is now holding out a resistance to the Government. The Executive has an nounced otheially to the country, to Congress, and to the world that the rebellion is now suppressed; that the States in the South have returned to obedience to law, and that the laws are now being enforced and observed in the outline.