The daily register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1863-1864, 1863-09-30
The Law and the lTestineny

mas ooon ihaoe py Mr. " nlpng enQ one or
: two Others to press the recent dscisions OF
the United States Supreme Court in the
prize cases brought before it for adiudica.
, tion atits last term into the service Of a
pestilent political heresy, equally opposed
: to the theory of the Constitution and the
d practice of the present administration. We
have shown that all who hold this heresy
are brought into direct conflict With the or
ganic law of the land, and we shall hereaf.
ter take occasion to show, if indeed it be
necessary, that they make themselves equal
ly amenable to the charge Of creating
schism in the administration, which in all
its past political action has assumed that
the ordinances Of secession and ell proceed.
ings under them are null and void, having
no legal effect to impair the rights Of the
United States, or to disturb "the coustitu.
tional relations which exist between the
United States and the several States or
the people thereof" This is the Presidents
doctrine, as it is the doctrine Of Congress
and of every truly loyal man.
The attempt TO misconstrue and pervert
the recent decisions of the Supreme Court
in admiralty is without excuse in law or
reason, for the sweeping political deduc.
tions sought to be derived from them are
excluded by the argument Of the court aud
by the limited range of the subject matter
under consideration by that high tribunal.
And not only so, 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 techDicsl application
in prize cases, the distinguished Judge
Sprague, of the United States District
Court sitting at Boston in April, 1862, in
the case of the Amy Warwick aud hor car
60, distinctly defined the belligerent rights
of the government as against its own sub
jects in q civil war, and drew the discrimi
naaions between these rights, as regards
captures at sea, and the rights acqui ed by
the nation in regaining the possession of
its own territory, temporarily wrested from
it by either foreign or domestic enemy.
Ii that territory has been wrested from
1t by any power, and is recovered, the old
rights and relations Of sovereignty revive,
but no new title is acquired and no new re-
lations Of sovereignty can be created be
tween the states and the national govern
ment. Otherwise it might follow that the
life of state could be extinguished, with
out even its own act, but merely by the con.
quest ofsome foreign power and areconquest
by the national government. Their points
are admirably elucidated by Judge Sprague
in delivering his opinion in the case Of the
Amy Warwick, and the radical conse.
auences" which are attempted to be drawn
from the decisions of the United States
Courts in admiralty have, by anticipation,
received at his hands treatment which is
equally judicious and effective. 1t is not
necessary, of course, to enforce these dis
ordinations on professional readers skilled
in the Interpretation Of judicial decisions,
but the unwarranted use which is some
times made of them, and which has been
specially illustrated in the case Of the re-
cent decisions of the Supreme Court, will
be sufficient apology for tho criticism Of
so much of Judge Sprague's opinion in the
case of the Amy Warwick as sufficient 10
explode the sophistry of Mr. Whiting and
a few others who have incautiously commit
ted themselves to dogma as unsound in
law as it is revolutionary in practice. On
these points Judge Sprague held the follow
ing explicit language:
"An objection to tho prize decisions Of
the district courts has arisen from an appro
hension ofradical consequences. II has been
supposed that if the government have the
rights of belligersnt, then after the rebel
lion is Suppressed, it will have the right oil
conquest: that q state and its Inhabitants
NAV be permanently diverted of all political
privileges and treated as foreign territory
acquired by arms. This is IN error grave
and dangerous error
Conquest Of foreign country gives alb
solute and unlimited sovereign rights. But
no nation ever makes such conquest Of It's
own territory. If a hostile power, either
from without or within nation, takes pos
session and holds absolute dominion over
any portion of its territory, and the nation
by force of arms expels or oyerthrows the
enemy and suppresses hostilities, 1T acquires
no new title, but merely regains the posses
sion of which it had been temporarily depr'
we'd. The nation acquires no new sover-
geinty, bulmerely TO maintain its previous
rights. -.
"Another objection 70 these decisions Of
the district courts is founded upon the sp
prehension that they may lead to or coun-
tenance cruel and impolitic confscation Of
private property found On land. This ap-
prehension is unfounded. No such conse.
quences can legitimately follow. Those de,
cisions undoubtedly assert that the United
States have the rights Of beligerent.-
But the extent of those rights on land, or
the manner in which they are To be exer-
c,sed. was not discussed. They were not
even adverted to, except to say that enemy's
property found by beligerent on land
within bis own country, on the breaking
out of war, will not be condemned by
: the courts. although il could be if found ai
sea. This distinction, so far ~ it goes
, tends to show that the doctrine Of mari
time captures is not to be applied to seizures
on land. But the danger upon which THU
objection is founded does not srjse from tb'
administration Of the prize laws BY th'
courts, in the exercise OF belligerent right
by military commanders upon military s1