Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1863-12-30

troll and de .facto jurisdiction of enemies of
the United States, as to render Richmond,
at that time, within the meaning of prize
law, "enemy's territory" That result was
not owing to State lines, secession ordi-
nances, or any other conventional acts of
States or people. 1t was a question of de
fdcto forcible occupation. Richmond would
have been pronounced "enemy's territory
and this property condemned as 'enemy's
property" equally as well if Virginia had
never passed an ordinance of secession
And conversely, it would not have been de-
creed ''enemy's, territory" with all its, Sc
cession ordinance, If 1t had been in our pos
session; and the property could not have
been decreed "enemy's property" although
its owner, still residing there, had drawn
the ordinance himself, and every man in
Virginia had voted for the ordinance. q do
not speak of forfeiture or contiscation.-
They are matters ofmunicipal law. Ispeak
of Prize of WARY Here, again, to guard
against possible mistake on this point, the
Court says that enemy's territory is "a
boundary markedly lines of bayohets."-
1t is a varying line, depending on de facto
condition, and not on the enemy's legisla-
tion, valid.or invalid. What kind and de-
gree. of possession is necessary to constitute
a region "eneiny's territory" for the pur-
poses of the law of Prize, the Court did not
think necessary to decide; for the posses
sion the enemy had of Richmond was suffi-
cient to satisfy any possible definition. (If
the reader desires to investigate the ques-
tion of the kind and degree of possession
by the enemy which will make a region
'enemy's territory" for the time being, he
will find nearly all the law on the subject
the case of the Gerasiulo, in IL Moores
y'r. Council Reports.)
IN tn Ia n
! wing synopsis of what the Supreme Court
| dand did not decide.
4. What the court did not decide:
I l. The court did not decide that the pass
! lg of the ordinances of secession made the
| rritory of the insurgent States enemy's
erritory or its inhabitants alien enemies.
2. The court did not decide that the pass
lg of the secession ordinances terminated,
in any way impaired, the legal relations
the insurgent States, as bodies polite,
ith the General Government, or the polit-
Il relations of their inhabitants with the
eneral Government OF with their respec-
We States. .f | .rG
3. The court decided absolutely nothing
to the effect of the passing of the seces-
on ordinances on the civil or political re-
ltions of the inhabitants of the insurgent
tates with the General Government or with
ieir respective States, or on the relations of
le insurgent States, as bodies polite, with
10 General Government.
4. The court did not decide that the in
abitants of the seeding States are alien
lemies at all, or that the territory Of those
tates is enemy's territory.
What the court did decide:
|. That in case of domestic war, the
overnment of the United States may, at
S option, use the powers and rights
nown to the international laws of war,
blockade, and capture of enemy's prop
'ty at sea.
q That to determine whether property
.; ,und at sea is ''enemy's property within
le meaning of the law of prize, the same
ssts may beapplied in domestic as in inter-
ational wars.
4 3. One of those tests is that the owner of
ssie property so found has his domicil and
,sidence in place of which the enemy
whether rebel or foreign enemy has GER
lin kind and degree of possession with the
xercise of a de tacto jurisdiction.
L. Richmond, Virginia, was, at the time
{ the capture and condemnation Of those
essels, under such possession and control
{ the enemy as to render it indisputably
I enemy's territory" within the strictest
etinitions known to the laws of war. d.