Glasgow weekly times. (Glasgow, Mo.) 1848-1861, 1849-07-05
under the law as we obtained it from

uuuSi Tue law Us we ODldlnCu IL from
Mexico.
In order that you may have before
you the reason for the opinion which
entertain, will cite a few authorities
on the point, with this single remark,
that never undertook the investigation
ofa legal question in which found
such concurrence of authority all ten
ding 10 the same point. In Puffcndorfs
laws ofnature and of nations, Book 8,
chap. 9Th, and also in Vattell you find
this principle: "The conqueror lays his
hands on the possessions of the State
conquered which belongs 10 the public
while the rights property among pri-
vate individuals is permitted to remain
the same" In LIST Black. Com. page
LOG, he treats the subject thus: "Bu,
in conquered or ceded countries that
have already laws oftheir own, the King
may indeed alter and change these laws
but until he does actually change them
the ancient laws of the country remain
unless such as are against the law of
God, as in the case of an nfdel country.
In Isl. Cowpers Rep. 200, you may find
what the highest judicial tribunals in
England say upon this point of national
law. The court in their decision lay
down six propositions in which they say
oil parties are perfectly agreed, and
which indeed the court say are too clear
to be controversial. The 5lh propo.
sition is, THAT the laws of a conquer
ed country continue in force until they
are altered by the conqueror, the absurd
exception as to pagans shows the uni,
versatility and antiquity of the maxim,
for that distinction could not exist be-
fore the christian era" These are En-
glish authorities, and might cite many
more beginning with Sir Edward Coke.
Bnt let US come TO our own country
and our own courts, and see what they
have said. Like the English authorities
they express but one opinion: The au-
thori,ies are numerous-l refer you to
but few. In LIST Peters reports, SAG,
you find this question deliberately trea-
ted by the Supreme court of the United
States. II originated in Florida while it
was territory ofthe United States, and
upon question of property dependent
upon right acquired and held under
Jaw Of Spain while Florida was prov
ince of that country. The court say,
The usage of the world is, if nation
be not entirely subdued, 10 consider the
holding of a conquered territory as a
mere military occupation until its fate
shall be determined by treaty of peace.
lfit be coded by the treaty, the acqui.
sition is confirmed, and the coded ter
ri.ory becomes part of the nation TO
which it is annexed, either on the terms
stipulated in the treaty of cession, or on
| suSh 40 ho hS" HhihiStei shal iihpose'
On such transfer of territory it has
neuer been held, that the relation of the
inhabitants with each other undergo
any change. Their relations with their
former sovereign are dissolved, and new
relations are created between them and
the government which has acquired
their territory. The same act which
transfers their country. transfers the al
legiance of those who remain in il, and
the law which may be denominaled po-
htical. is necessarily changed, although
that which regulates the intercourse
and general conduct of individuals re-
mains in force until altered by the new
ly created power of the State" The
court 60 on further TO say. ut has al.
ready been stated that all the laws in
force while province of Spain, those
excepted which were of a political char.
acter, which concerned the relationship
between tie people and their severe gn
remained in force until altered by the
government of the United States" In
IL Peters Reports, 436. we find the
same principle laid down by the same
. court: "The laws, whether in writing
or evidenced by the usage or custom.
of the conquered or coded country, con
} tinue in force until altered by the ne "
sovereign" Again in 7 Peters Report.
, 81, we find The same doctrine, thus:-
! "The people change their allegiance
but their relations to each other ane
their rights Of property remain undis
.