Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1863-09-24
THE LAW AND THE TESTIMONY.


been made by Mr.. Whiting and one or two others
to press the recent decisions Of the United States
Supreme Court in the prize cases brought before
it for adjudication at its last term into the service
of pestilent political heresy, equally opposed to
the theory of the Constitution and the practice of
the present Administration. We have shown that
all who hold this heresy brought into direct
fct with the organic law of the land, and we shall
hereafter take occasion to show indeed it be neoes
sary, that they make themselves equally amenable
to the charge Of creating schism in the Admins
tration which in all its past political action has as
sumed that the ordinances Of secession and all pro-
ceedings under them are null and void, having no
legal effect to impair the rights Of the United
States, to disturb the constitutional relations
which exist between the United States and the Sc
veral States or the people thereof" This is the
Presidents doctrine, it is the doctrine of Con-
gress and of every truly loyal man.
This attempt to misconstrue and pervert the re-
cent decisions Of the Supreme Court in admiralty
is without excuse in law or reason for the sweeping
political deduct ms sought to be derived from them
are excluded by the argument of the court and by
the limited range Of the subjeot-mater under consi
deration by that high tribunal And not only 50,
but as if to prevent just such Misrepresentation
where it might spring from ignorance on the part
of some persons not familiar with the principles Of
admiralty law and its technical application in prize
cases, the distinguished Judge Sprague, of the
United States District Court sitting at Boston in
April, 1852, in the case of !" the Amy Warwick
and her CARGO" distinctly defined the belligerent
rights of the Government as against its own sub
jects in a civil war, and drew the determinations
between these rights, as regards captures at sea,
and the rights acquired by the nation in regaining
the possession of its own territory, temporarily
enemy. If that territory has been wrested from
it by any Power, and is recovered, the old rights
and relations of sovereignty revive, but no new
title is acquired and new relations can be crea-
ted between the States and the National Govern
ment. Otherwise it might follow that the life of
a State could b. extinguished, without even its
own act, but merely by the conquest Of some for,
eign Power and reoonquest by the National Gov
eminent. These points are admirably elucidated
by Judge Sprague in delivering his opinion in the
case Of the Amy Warwick, and the "radical con-
which attempted to be drawn from the
decisions of the United States Courts in Admiralty
have, by anticipation, received at his hands treat
ment which is equally judicous and effective. It is
not necessary, of course to enforce these dscrmina
tions professional readers skilled in the inter-
probation of judicial decisions, but the unwarrant
ed use which is sometimes made Of them, and
which has been specially illustrated in the case Of
the recent decisions of the Supreme Court, will be
sufficient apology for the citation of SO much Of
Judge Sprague's opinion in the case of the Amy
Warwick as sufioes to explode the sophistry of
Mr.. Whiing and few others who have incau-
tiously committed themselves to a dogma un-
sound in law as it is revolutionary in practice. On
these points Judge Sprague held the following ex-
plicit language:
An objection to the prize decisions of the District
Courts has arisen from apprehension of radical conse
queuce 1t has been supposed that If the Government
have the rights Of begerent. then after the rebellion is
uppressed 1t ioH hare he rights Of eorgues Tint Slate
ea prpieqs and treated foreign territory acquired By
arms. This IS an error-a grape and dangerous
Conquest of foreign country gives absolute and I'M
limited sovereign rights But nation makes such
conquest of territory If hostile Power either
from without within naton takes possession and holds
absolute dominion over portion of it's territory, and
the nston by Of expes overhrows the enc
N.Y. and suppresses hostites, it acquires no new title
but merely regans the possession of which il had been
temporarily deprived The nation acquires no new sove-
reignty, bat merely to maintain its previous rights
Another objection to these decisions Of the District
Courts founded upon the apprehension that they may
lead to eoance cruel and lmpotc con6scaons Of
private property found land This apprehension lie I'M
founded. No such consequences leemately follow
Those decisions undoubtedly that the United States
have the rights OF bellgere,t But the ertent of those
rights land the ,ohieh they Be ezer
cised discussed They adverted TO-
except to that enemys property found by beigsrent
land, within his country, the breaking out of
war, will not be condemned by the courts although it
could be if found at This distinction far as 1t
goes tends to show that the doctrine Of arme captures
to be applied to seizures land But the danger
upon which this objection s founded does arise from
the administration OF the prize laws by the courts or the
exercise OF bgerent rights by military commanders upon
military exgences The objection really arises from fear
of the legislation Of Congress Is apprehended that they
may pass sweeping general acts of to take
practical effect only after the rebellion shall have been
suppressed that whole Estates real and personal which
have not been seized during the war; may be taken and
cnfscated upon coming within reach of the Government
after hosties shall have cea.ed This we have seen
would not be the exercise Of begerent rights the war
upon property Of which 10 taken during the war
As against property which continues under the control of
the enemy they wholly imperative IL possession be
acquired by after the peace then previous legislation
may take effect but it will be by the right Of sovereignty
not an act Of war. Under despoic Governments the