Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1863-10-13
IL - ID shs Fs.llmenr.

/ We yes-eTisy Animadyerted on tha hold. or
II rot bold. ths ignorant sttsnBt thas has ben
made bY Mr. Whiting and one OF tF0 others %
press the recent decision Of the United S.stes
| supreme C5urt IN the pdzs cases recently
brG1 ybt before it for sjiud,eai0n 81 its last term
into the service of psstiIant political heresy.
| equally opposed to tia theory Of the Co1stiiu
ton and tbep-se.iee Of the present Admiaistrs-
| 5ion- We have shown that all vino bold this
herasy ars brought in direct conhcs with the
/ organic law Of the land, and We shall hereafter
! AXE occasion 10 show. IT, indeed Is benecassarv,
! that they make themselves equally smanabls 70
4 the charge Of cFasting schsm in the Aiminis-
tration, which, IL al its past political &C 8n has
assumed that the ordinances Of secession and al
| proceedings under them are null and void, hav-
ing no legal effect 10 impair the rights of tie
/ United atas, or to disturb the constitutional
relations which exist between the Udiied States
and the several ) abes or people thereof This
IS the Presidents d0etUins, - It is the doctrine
of Congress aad every truly loyal man
This attempt TO misconstrHe sud pervsrt the
recent decisions OF the supreme court il admi
rally Is without excuse in law or reason, for the
5weeDiug political deductions sought 30 be de-
rived IRON them are excluded By ths arguments
OF the court and by the limited range Of the
subject matter under consideration By that high
tribunal And not enly 80, but as if 20 prevent
Just such 3 misre presentation where it might
spring from ignorance on the part Of some per
sens not familiar with the principles o. admi-
rally law aud iis technical application IN prizs
cases, the distinguished Judge Spragus, OF the
United States district court, sitting a. Boston, in
April, 1852 in the case Of at5s Amy Warwick
and her cargo" distinctly defined the beigerent
rights Of the Government as against its own
Subjects 10 a civil war and drew the diserrnins-
tions between these rights as regards espturss st
sea, snd the rights acquired by the nation IN
regsining the possession Of its own territory,
temporarily wrested from It by either foreign
or a domestic enemy IF thst territory has
been Wrested from It by any power, and is re-
covered, the Old rights and relations Of sever
eighty revive, but no new title is acquired and
no new relations can be crested between the
States and the National G0yernment Ohsr-
wise il might follow thai the life Of a S.s'e
could be extingu shed, without even It's own set,
but merely by the conquest of some foreign
power, and a reconqUest by the National Gov
erdmenE
These points ars admirably elueidsted by
JUjge Sprsgue in delivering hs opinion IN the
case Of the Amy Warwick, and the radical
consequence" which are attempted 70 be drawn
froin the decisions Of the United States supreme
ecurt have, by sn6eiDasiOn, received at his
hands a treatment which is equally iudicious
and effective It is not necessary, of course, to
enforce these discrimins tiOBs on professional
readers, skilled in the interpretation OF Judicial
decisions, but the uuwsrrantsd Uss which is
sometimes made Of them. aud which has been
specially illus Fat9d IN the case of the recent de-
cislous Of the supreme court, will be suffi ficeut
spUl0Ey for the citation Of so much of Judge
Sprsgus's opinion in tba case Of the Any War
wick as sufices to explode the sophisuy of Mr.
Whiting, and a few others who bsvs iBcsut0us-
y committed themselves 90 a dogma as unsOaH3
n isgv y IA ra7alufangssrN IN, r,ranrsao IA,
these pOlats Judge SpragUs held the following
eKBli,it language:
An OBJ ction 70 the priz9 dscisi0as Of the [
district courts has arisen from an apprehension
Of radical eonseq q1ences. Il hss been supposed I
that If the Government have the rights Of a bel |
igeren5, then, slter the rebellion is suppressed 4
II viii have the rights of conqUest that State (
and its inhabitants may be permanently divsat- !
cd OF all political privileges, and treated as Or-
sign territory acquired by arms. T1is is an I
error-a grave and dangerous error.
Conquest OF foreign country gives s5B6- /
luse and unlimited sovereign rights. But no 1
nation ever makes such a conquest Of its own I.
territory. IF s hostile power, either from with /
out or within I nation, takes possession and /
holds absolute dominion over any portion Cf iss I
territory, and the nation by force Of arms exBsls
OF ovarthrows the enemy and suppresses hostil- /
tes, Il ACC uirss no new title but merely Fsgaius
deprived. The ustion acquires no new sove-
regntyr but merely to MAINTAIN its previous !
rights.
Another objection to these decisions of tbe /
district court is founded upon the apprehension I
that they NAV lead 10 or eountsnsnee cruel and /
ImpOliue eor6scatioHs Of private proparty found I
on land. This apprehension is Uufnunded No /
such consequences esn legitimstsly follow
Those decisions undoubtedly assert that tho 4
TrffaH Gfaeou hara he, -,r, L.rfs
But the extent Of those rights on land, or the
msnDer in which they are TO be exercised, was
not discussed. They were not even advertsd TO-
except 70 say that eDsmy's property found by
on land, within his own country on
the breaking out Of the wsr, will rot be con-
1smued By the urts although il could be if
found at ses. This distinction, as far IS it goes
tends to show that the doctrine Of maritime
captures Is not TO be applied to seizure on lard
Bat the danger upon which this objection Is
0unded does net arise from the administration
Of the przs laws by the courts, or the exercise
Of beligersnt rights by military commanders
lpOn military exigeneios
The objection really arises from fear of the
sgissii0n of Congress. Itis apprsheniei that
hey may pass sweeping or general acts Of con
iscation to take actical effect only after the
ebellicn shall have been suppressed; the whole
states, real and personal, which have not been
eized during the war, may bs taken aud eonis- II
.aied upon coming within reach OF the Govern.
nent, sitter hostilitie8 shall have ceased Thig,
IS we have seen, woHld not be The exercise Of
rights, the war being at an end
cou6scstions take effect only uron Z
property OF which possession is taken during the
var. As agsinst property which continues m Z
.er tae control OF the enemy, they are wholly ]
Imperative If possession be acquired By or Z
liter the peace, then previous legislation may !
axe ef'ct, bnt It will be by the right Of sew /
feignty, not as an act Of war. Under desDohC {
governments, the power Of mum cipal confscs- I
ion may be unlimited; but under our Govern
nen', the right Of Sovereignty over any portion Z
4 State is given and limited by the Constitu- I
ion, snd will be the same after the war as It {
vas before. When the United States take
possession Of any rebel district they acquire no Z
lew title, but merely viBdicste that which ore
'i0usly existed, ana are to do only what is
ecessarY for that purpose
"ConhscAtIonS Of property, not for anv use j
hat has baen made Of It, which 20 not against I
% offending thing, bat arc inflicted for the Der- J
oRal delinquency OF the owner. sre pupitive. !
nd punishment 5hould be indicted oniv upon {
ne conviction Of personal guilt. What affsnses c
hall be created and what penalties affixed must !
% left TO the jusries sud wisdom of Congress i
within the limits prescribed BY the CJnsdt0ton A
,nch penal eDaetments have 40 connection i
Fhatsver with the decisions Of prz5 c0Hrts en- II
orcing beliigerent rights upon property cap a
uTed at sen daring the war" s
The supreme court, ia re-afh ming the de- q
isions rendered in sdmiralty By the United r
,latss district couris has merely Tssffirned the II
lrineslos 50 lncldly explained and dsfQed by | o