Wilmington journal. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1844-1895, 1861-10-24


sale and retail, by ". Il. LIPPITT,
Feb l6 DrurOist
From the Charleston Mercury. 18th inst.
COURT OF THE CONFEDERATE STATEs.-HOn. A. g.
hagrath, presldIng-MONDAY, October l4.-The
gument OF the interesting question of the legality of
the writ of garnishment, to which Messrs James L.
Petigru, William Whaley and Nelson Mitchell had de-
murred, had been set for this day
Mr.. Whaley opened the argument. After some elu-
sons to the feelings OF respect and emotion with which
he approached The subject be said that he stood there
as one who had been served with process which be be-
heved to be wrong according to the dictates of his own
conscience and according to the laws of the land He
wOnid in the first place, briefly examine the nature and
character OF the Act OF SeqQestration and OF the writ
he act clearly act Of retaliation, for indemnity.
he writ was an lnquistlOn, which human power
had the right to place upon the citizen 1t in
QUESTION because it broke off those udnciary trusts
which might be said to have been respected ever since
the opening OF the Christian He would next
slider the effect OF the Act and Writ upon those called
upon to give information to the Receiver This the
part Of the subject in which be was mostly concerned
IL called upon him, attorney, to violate the conf
deuCe OF bis client. He claimed his privilege as an at
orney, and conended that by the law Of the land, be
entitled to keep the secrets that ent usted
HIM (GrteLleat on Evidence, Vol. l. 328.) This
the law of South Carolina law which be had
toned by bis cath, when be into that court
qualify as an attorney In like manner the writ
called upon trustees administrators and agents to
violate their several trusts, and this too, without
at1ordIng them any protection from responsibility
With regard TO merchants, who were calltd up
on to discover debts due aliQn enemies he de-
MED that it possible for the merchant state
whom he indebted for goods obtained from
alien enemies lnasmuch mercantile paper floats all
over tie commercial world and the debtor has means
OF knowing whether his notes will, at maturity turn up
in London, Richmond or New Orleans. he hoped that
be might live SEE the day when the 5equesra ioo Act
would be held bad plea against b0nG de DEBT due
any where The writ, besides was not issued in
ormty with tie terms of the SequestIation Act 1t was
not issued upon any proceeding before Grand jury
but was, itself, Urinary pOCeedlDg and could not,
under the terms CT the Act, be, purported to he,
rercspf ctve il lis character. Lastly, be agreed that
TIE whole proceeding was contrary to the law o TIE
and AID void accOrdng to the law O nations lie eX-
planned tie bardshp8 which lis Operatl; subjected
merchants, compelling them to pay cash which they
had never received suffer execution ufOn tbeIr
properly. This he said, worse than war; 1t was
starvation and perpetual ruin. He hoped that tie Act
might be construed in accordance with the law and that
the citizen l2h be relieved from these dsIesses which
must Inevitably, follow arbitrary enforcement CT It's
provisions.
Mr. Mitchell followed on the same side. lie prOpo-
sed first to impach the Sequestration LaW,-to show
that, though it stood upon the Statute BOOK 1t was 40
laW-that it wanted the truth and reality OF law and
that wanted the authority on which it might be
aced Unless this authority grante't by tle Con-
stuon, it did not exist. He would ask, thrD where
is the character in which this extraordinary right
granted? 1t must be derived from tie making
power or it existed nowhere If the making pow
er incIudtd all other powers which might advance the
objects of the war; the question would be solved. But
10 objection had ever yet been held, he
then prUce ded argue that the power could not he
claimed under the right to make captures by and or py
water.
He admitted that SeQuestratOn was an attribute Of
sovereigny but be denied that it necessarily or
usual y war power South Caroiiua had always re-
gardcd this as of the attributes of her sovereignty
not delegated to the Federal Government. lie reviewed
Mr.. BENJAMIN's construction Of the Act in interpret
inc it as a general writ OF attachment thing unknown
to the law There was wide difference between the
witness and the informer The Court nlEht sumuon ALL
except professional to the witness stand but could
not 90 out into the streets and call upon every to
turn nlormer Society could ask from the citizen his
fortune and his life: but it could not ask him for his
personal honor The general night order his men to the
forOrn hope; but, when be wants spy, he must 60 TO
volunteers.
Mr. MILES replied 10 behalf of the Government in an
able speech of considerable length He qnoted coDousy
from WHEATON, kent, and other authorities to prove
the existence of the right to Sequester claiming 1t as an
incident to the making power residing tn the Legs-
ative Department of the Confederacy.
The argument will be continued today by Mr.. PETI-
CRU against the law, and MIR. HAYNE in its favor
COURT OF THE CONFEDERATE STATEs-Hon. A. g.
Magrath presiding October l5.-The argu-
ment Of the cousttutonaity of tie Sequstraton Act
and of the Writ of Garnisbment under its provisions
was resumed.
Mr. Petigru said that be would sustain his demurrer
first upon the ground that the proceeding was irregu
lar and unconstitutional; that no man had the right to
purge the conscience of another unless in some suit IN
which he called witness, or in some proceeding
ip which, party, he was bound to answer to the call
of his sovereign for the oath of allegiance or oath o
Office. These exceptions he acknowledged. He was
never famous for opposition to authority No one was
more ready than he render unto Caesar all that Caesar
could in decency demand. But obedience to this Writ
which REQUIRED the violation of all confidence or the
purpose of discovering the enemys property be did re-
fuse The reason of this refusal was, as ST. Paul says
because be was "born free-because he had inherited
freedom from his mother. If the Confederate States
bad no right to institute such proceeding as this they
had no right complain of his not answering it. his
was not mere invitation, calling upon all men well
dspost towards the Government, to come forward ano
give such information as they might have. Such a
course of proceeding would have been regular and war
ranted, at least, by precedent But this was writ
writ is command 1t assumes that the party to whom
is directed owes certain obedience it answered te
show that the party 80 answering subject And II
was because it was command and because 1T presum
ed to circumscribe the liberty of him upon whom it wa
served that it was now resisted.
He would not deny that the writ was in accordance
with the Sequestration Act and il be chose to obey It