Semi-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1853-18??, 1864-02-16
For the Standard.

will receive due consideration. 1t is entitled for
the importance Of the question to be thoroughly
studied and freely canyaSsed. It is manifest from
the authoreties cited that the Judge has made much
research, and his decision ought therefore, to be
treated with every respect lPropose very briefly,
! to examine it
Many of the positions laid down by his Honor as
the basis On which he builds his argument and con-
clusion are almost Constitutional axioms. 1t is
true he says that sit is not on slight implication
and vague conjecture that the Legislature is to be
pronounced TO have transcribed its powers, and its
acts to be considered void"
1t is true Also that there is nothing In the Con-
stitution of the Confederate States which iorbids
Congress to pass laws violating the obligations of
contract though such power is denied to the seve
raj States; nor which forbids the Legislature of
State to exercise judicial functions; nor which ap-
plies to State law which dvested rights vested by
law in an individual provided its effects be not to
impair the obligations of contract.
1t is equally true that an "act which, in some
view may seem to be a great hardship on the citl-
zen, or against our preconceived notions of right
and natural justice" is not necessarily an act
against the Constitution of the Confederate States
1t is likewise uneuestonaby true, that our Decara
ton OF Rights, securing the most invaluable human
liberties constitutes no part of the Constitution of
the Confederate States Ii is undoubtedly also,
that arguments founded upon hardShips will be
entitled to great weight when the words of statute
are obscure and open to construction, hut can never
sanction construction at variance with the mani
fest meaning of the Legislature, expressed in plain
and unambiguOus terms"
1t is equally true that the phase e1 post tIct0, in
the Confederate Constitution, q" is confined to GRIM
inal cases exclusively" 1t has long been the un-
questioned Interpretation of that phrase in this
State. So long indeed, that the humbleSt lawyer
would not now contest it 1t is also true that the
States may pass laws retro active, provided they do
not impair the obligations of contracts. This doc.
iS tn oft
After laying down these axiOms of judicial inter-
rretatlon the learned Judge proceeds to the in
hand and says" Principals and others will say,
that it would have been but justice in Congress to
restore the amount or some portion. which paid
to substitutes under the act which gave them au-
thorlty to employ them, or to make some compen-
sation for what is lost to them by the act in ques
tion; but this view, though equitable one, can
not have controlling influence" This is ad-
mission that principals have been denied justice at
the hands of the government unless compensation
is made to them for what has been lost to them by
the promise of the government The excuse for
not rendering it through the judiciary is set forth
by his Honor by referring to the case of U. S. ca
Schooner Peggy, Or. 103. How far this case is
apposite to that before his Honor will be seen by
briefsynopsis of the case itself
= During the existence of hostities in 1900 be-
tween FRANCE and the United States, the ship Trum.
bull, duly commissioned, captured the Peggy, o
French armed vessel, and brought her into port
She was hbelled in the District Court of ConneGti-
cutt and, being declared to be not lawful prize
was ordered to be restored. Tbe government on
behalf of itself and captors appealed to the circuit
court, where, on the 23d Sept ISOO the former de-
cree was reversed and the vessel &c, was decreed
to be prize Upon this Judgment writ of error
was sued out on I'd October, 1900, to the Supreme
Court of the United States, and while it was pend.
ing, and before any decision had thereon, treaty
was concluded between the two governments by
fhal ia aof, h,oI
ty captured, and not denitiUely condemned shall be
mutually restored"
Two questions were presented TO the Court the
second only is material to the point before US
that Is, whether the sentence of condemnation
by the Circuit Court on the 23d SeItember 1900
the schooner Peggy could be considered as detfai,
tlUety condemned within the meaning of the 4th ar
tice of the Convention" The opinion of the Court
was that the schooner was within the provisions
of the treaty, and ought to be restol ID this vessel
is not considered as being defnitively condemned"
In giving the opinion of the Court, Chief Justice
Marshall said: 1.-The Constitution Of the United
States declares treaty to be the supreme law of
the land; OF consequence, its obligation on the
Courts Of the United. States must bc admitted"-
If the law" Uhat is the treaty. be constitution
al, and OF that no doubt in the present case has
been expressed l know of no Court which can
contest its obligation. 1t is true that in mere pr
vate cases between individuals, Court will and
ought to struggle hard against n construction
which will, BY Retrospective operation, affect the
rights Of parties, but in great national concerns
where individual rights, acquired by war, are sac
rifced for national purposes the contract making
the sacrifice ougtt always to receive construction
conforming to It's manifest import; and if the no
ton has gwen up the vested rights Of its citizens
1t Is not iUr the Court out for th1 government to
consider whether it lie case for compensation"
The last remark made in reference to the
hardship upon tho captorS, who claimed if the ves
Cpl yCpF Ia ftlI TnrI1 holf fofh har
1t is very conmon for two nations ut war to make
peace upon the trims that the acquisition of each
shall be mutually restored; yet 70 one ever sup
posed that the inju0ctOn against taking private
property, except upon just compensation was in
tenued for, or embraced a case of mutual restC-
ration OF captured property, upon the close of
war The case before the Court concerned the OBJ
servance by ono nation towards another of q con-
stItuIiOnal treaty which involved the sacrifice of
individual ri ghts by war )" the constitutionaity
of the trea y vas not questioned or questionable.
1t restored 10 France what had been acquired by
arms. AL, such acquisitions are regarded As the
acquisition IS of the nation, and universally, in all
ages, subject to the conditions of peace But sup
pose peace had been made without such terms and
upon the principle of utO PopiditiS and Congress
after peaC and the final condemnation of the ves-
sci and ca Igo, had enacted that the share of the
captors SHOULD be given up to France or to the
commander alone, most clearly the law had been
unconstitutional; by law il had been transferred
to the pub Ec stores for public purposes, without
providing just compensation, the Courts would
have enjo' ned the agents of government from exc
cutting tne act 2, Kent's Com, 399 and note, (sth
edtOn) In the matter Of iSadcs, decided by Judge
Lyons, of Virginia, in March, 1868. In the matter
Of Coz an d HiH decided by the Supreme Court Of
Georgia, in July, 1865
AfIer dIspOSmg of the case Of the Peggy, his
Honor pl 'oceeds as follows:
The Congress shall have power to raise and sup
port arm les. To make rules for the government
and reg ulason of the land and naval forces"
And ~ o make all laws which shall be necessary
and pro- Der for cnryng into execution the foregoing