Randolph County journal. [volume] (Winchester, Randolph County, Ind.) 1855-1862, 1861-12-19
WINCHESTER. RANDOLPH COUNTY. INDIANA THURSDAY. DE

Ni4~s ltosegtio =" pun " thC ti4ii
ltary authorities in insurrectiona-
ry districts, may still be retained
as prisoners by the military pow
er, without interference with the
courts, till their cases are finally
disposed of, Notwithstanding they
may be for purposes of safety or,
other reasons OF State, brought
within districts where the Judi
cial power is in full operation.
Having shown that the militia
ry called forth under the consti-
tuition to suppress an insurrection
may be vested with all power
necessary to the en4, consistent
with the usage of civilized war
fare, it follows that if hostile
armies may ever conGscate an
enemy's property, the rights Of
the United States to DO it in the
case OF the rebels is gnquestlona-
BILE, for surely no war was ever
more atrocious than the one now
being waged by the rebels for the
overthrow OF this Governments
They surely cannot complain Of
treatment we would have a right
to extend to foreign armies.
The right of seizure and con-
facatlon OF the property OF the
enemy as prize of war is a settled
question of international law,
which has been affirmed by our
own Supreme Court. LIN the
case of Brown VS.. the United
States, reported III the eighth
Branch, the Court says: "Re-
specting the power OF Govern
ment, no doubt is entertained.--
That war gives to the sovereign
fall right to take the persons and
confscate the property OF the en-
envy wherever iouud, is conceded.
The mitigations OF this rigid
rule, which tie humane and wise
policy Of modern times has intro
duced to practice, Will more or
less affect the exercise of this
right, but cannot impair the right
itself. That remains undimln-
iShed, and when the sovereign
authority shall choose to bring 1t
into operation, the Judicial de-
partment must give effect to its
will. Bat until that will shall
be beexpressed no power OF condem-
nation can exist in the court. =
That case also decides ''that the
power of coniiscating enemy's
property is in the Legislature. "
Wheaton, commenting on the
case says: "The property can
no: be seized and condemned as
prize OF war, without some leg
islatiye act expressly authorized
its conliScation. The Court
held that the law Of Congress de
clarlng war was not such an act.
That declaration did not, by its
own operation. so vest the prop
erty oil the enemy in the Govern
ment as to support Judicial pro
ceedings for It's seizure and con
fscatIon. 1t vested only right
to conliscate, the assertion OF
which depended on the will Of
the sovereign power" In regard
to the t.ans.er of private rights
of property, Wheaton holds this
further language: 1T is compe-
tent fo- the national authority
to work transmutation, total or
partial, of the property belong
ing to the vanquIshed party, and
if actually conHscated, the fact
must be taken for the right
Bat to work such a transfer OF
proprietary rights, some positive
and dunequlvocal act oil conhscation
is essential.
Most of the nations Of Europe
acquired title to territory they
possess by conquests, and pr-
vate persons have derived their
titles from that OF the Govern
ment thus obtained. According
70 the modern usage OF nations,
private property OF alien enemies
on land has not generally been
forfeited; bat the right OF forfeit
ure IS unquestionable, and may
be exercised, If necessary, to Sc
cure the Just ends OF the war, or
in retaliation for forfeitures by
the enemy. The. rebels, wher-
ever they have the power, have
seized and confscated the property
OF loyal men, and this, according
even to modern usage, as between
independent nations, would give
to the United States the right to
con6scate in turn. Much more
would they possess that right as
against rebels who have cause