The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1861-10-18
RI. L...il., = T q. W,is yfsUsv.,.,.,,,.

I'VE Ae9atlsv - the WsN VI U9rWtsoment.
Monday was the day set asias by the
Cohfederata Court In Charleston for the
argument Of the interesting question OF
the legality of the writ OF punishment, to
which Messrs. james l.. Petttgru, VIM.
Whaley, and Nelson Mitchell had demurresi.
The courtroom WAS crowded. The Courier
gives the following report Of the days pro-
csedings:
VIM. Whaley, Esq, asked of the court, as
the return made by HIM was the same In sub
stance, almost the same in FORM as that of
mr. fetugru, that the two demurrers be
taken up together.
MIR. Miles, District Attorney. made no obiec-
tion, put suggested as matter of form, he
should hear the argument of both Of tho
counsel before called upon to reply
Nelson Mitchell, ESD, also proposed. II
convenient to the court, that the demurrer
filed by him, though somewhat different in
form from the other two be taken up with
the subject ma tier at the same time
MIR. Miles In terposed no objec tion but asked
that he might hear MIR Mitchell, also, be-
fore reply wing.
Mr. Miles notified the court that he had
asked the assistance of Attorney General
Hayne, who would be heard On the same side,
in behalf of the Government
Mr.. VIM. Whaley opened the argument to
the court by saying tnatit was with feelings
OF profound respect That he approached the
discussion OF this qEestion-respeet for the
Legislative Assem- from winch the law
has emanated, respect for the tribuha III
which 1t is to be administered-at the same
time that he approached 1t with feelings of
no common emotion, so far rs he himself was
concerned.
He stood before the court rs enc who had
been served with process which he believed
before God to be wrong, according to the die
tates OF ms own conscience, and according TO
the laws OF the land. When he said laws of
the land, he meant laws OF the land in con-
tradis'inction to this act of the Congress vi the
Confederate States, and when any one is
forced 10 assume Il position of that kiud,
amidst the roar OF cannon and the clash OF
arms, when our citizens are row upon tue
banks OF the Potomac, ready to seal with their
blood the revolution which we have inausu-
rated, and which, from lS!4 to the present mo-
ment, he has diligently tried to accom- lish-
With all these circumstances around him,
and IN the posi- ton W hich he had always occu-
pea, both politically and as member OF the
bar, he trusted the words that would flow
from his lips would be received rs coming
from II sincere aud honest desire to act ac-
cording TO the best OF his judgmen. and con-
victions of right and duty.
With these preliminary remarks Mr. VIVA
ley proceeded with his argument, and laid
Gown the course he would pursue.
first. Inc discussion OF the nature aud
character OF the act.
Second. Tie effect of the act aud writ unon
those called upon to give information to the
Receiver.
Third. The efectof the act upon those called
money, and goods in their possession to the
Receiver
Fourth. He would contend that the writ of
punishment is contrary to the writ OF seques
tration.
/ Fifth. That The whole proceeding is con
rary to the laws OF the land and VOID under
the laws OF nations.
As the questions which have brought out
tins bTllil;int array Of legal talent involves
Considerations OF more than ordinary i'm
portance We have deemed it proper to post
pone an extended report ios the present, with
the view OF laying these arguments before our
readers IN fun iii another Issue.
Nelson aitcheil ESD, followed, and after
ofiel explanation OF the position he occu-
pied, proposed to show First, That there is
no reality III this process, that it wanted vi
tality, that it is Il writ not found in Common
Law nor III anything having legal obiiga-
ton upon himself or any member of this
community Therefore 1t was the solemn
outy OF all VINO took that view of the subject,
TO bring il 10 the test and sanction OF the law
lie proposed i'll the first place to ilnpeach This
law itself. 1t is not Il law, has no validity or
existence. lie conteEded that it was not on
the statute books OF the State. 1t has the sym
bols and seal and every thing else but the true
royalty of law, the authority under which his
Honor was to Sit here and administer justice,
under the State which recognizes sovereignty
IN It's true principle
Mr.. Mitchell contended that the writ was
not conformable to the act, and that the act
was derived from no grant iii the Constitu-
ton, and was also con Trajectory of common
night. lie urged that he was ca He'd upon by
the process to disclose The ri lights even of luna
ties, women, and infants; that the most
cred condolences engendered by natural ties
We're to be- violated that nowhere, at any
time, had il been judicaily decided that-such
power WAS included in The war making an
thorty. II stsi pre- rctiOfe r0ianiGs the
code under which the court sat, the advocate
was silent, save as to the clearest in terpreta-
ton of that despotc Will but it was not So
The Confederate Jurisprudence was one of
strict construction. The question was, did
such a power lie i'll the clause Of the Consu-
tuition!
He showed that the treaties Of the United
States expressive Of the law, which, so far
as consistent with all altered relations, was
now ours,) declared such sequestration I'M
lawful and un1us tiiiabie moreover, that the
law OF Isl contains "a request of Congress to
the several States that they would pass laws
relative to the sequestration of alien rights.
lie based his objections on ground of techni-
cal Objection of the construction of the law
and the conformity OF the writ Of the law, of
that To the Consti tn ton and the contradic-
ton of common right.
Mr.. AttOrpeyANlilas replied Wi h a most fe-
Hcitous aliusion TO the q bsence of the District
Attorney, Major James Conner. Iii eloquent
terms he alluded to that gentleman, illus
tratlng with Roman virtue the field and TO
ram ; he further said that he would pursue
the argument on no technical ground. 1t
might nave been enough when the learned
jurist who first moved this opposition stated
that he had nothing TO show, to have received
this nre ten8s as a return it were possible to
show that a demurrer was remedy whereby
to Quash Il writ, but he met the grounds Of
constitutional and legal right.
MIR. Pettgru will begin his argument this
mo rning, and be followed by Mr.. Hayne in
reply, when the case will be submitted to the
Judge.