Weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1858-1865, 1864-02-17
For the standard.

SUBSTITUTES, WnHe yet the term OF SuOStItuteU Set.
rice wss unexpired, ia before the public and will
will receive due consideration. It is entitled for
the impottaDc Of the question to be thoroughly /
studied and freely canvassed. 1t ID manifest from
the authorities cited that the Judge has made much
researchs and his decision ought therefore, to be
treated with every respect Ipropose, very briefly
to examine it u .,q.4 .-.--.'' .':a -
Many of the positions laid down by his Honor, as
the basis On which he builds his argument anc con-
clusion, are almost Constitutional axioms., It is
true as he says that il is slight implication
and vague conf lecture that the Legislature IS TO DC
pronounced to have transcribed its powers, and Its
acts to be considered void" -
1t is true also that "there is nothing in the Con-
.stiution of the Confederate States which forbids
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 Invested 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 great hardship ON the clt'.
and natural Justice" is not necessarily an act
"against the Constitution ofthe Confederate States"
1t is likewise unquestonaby true that our Declare
ton of Rights, securing the most invaluable human
Liberties constitutes no part of the Constitution OF
the Confederate States 1t is undoubtedly true Also
that arguments founded upon hardships will be 4
entitled to great weight when the words Of statute
are obscure and open to construction, but can never
sanction construction at variance with the mani
fest meaning Of the Legislators, expressed in plain
and unambigu9us terms" =. i. 80.
1t is equally true that tho phase post acto, in
the Confederate Constitution, "is confined to GRIM
inal cases exclusively" 1t has long been the UNI
questioned Interpretation Of that phrase in this
State. So long indeed that The humblest lawyer
would not NOW confoat IA alS0 tril0 that the
States may pass laws retro active provided they do
not impair the obligations of contracts. This doc
trnes equally familiar to the profession Of the State.
After laying down these axioms of judicial inter-
probation, the learned Judge proceeds to the case 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 was paid
to substitutes under the act which gave them au-
thority to employ them, or to make some coupen
saton for what is lost to them by the act in ques
ton but this view, though an equitable one can
| not have a controlling influence" This is an 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. ps.
Schooner Peggy, CT. 1OS How far this case is
opposite to that before his Honor, will be seen by
brief synopsis of the case ITSELF
During the existence of bostilities in 1900 be-
tween France and the United States, the ship Trum.
bull, duly commissioned captured the Peggy, a
| French armed vessel and brought her into port
She hbelled in the District Court Of Connect.
cult, and, being declared to be not lawful price
was ordered to he restored The government on
behalf Of itself and captors appealed to the circuit
court, where, on the 23d Sept 1900, the former de-
cree was reversed and the vessel, &C., was decreed
to be prize. Upon this Judgment writ of error
q n~k1l ~
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
the 18th article of which provided that proper
ty captured, and not dsnitiosy 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 September, 1900,
the schooner Peggy could be considered as detini
tively 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 he restored this vessel
is not considered as being de6ntively 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 be admitted "
If the law" THAT 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 prl-
vate cases between individuals, Court viii and
ought to struggle hard against a 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 ought always to receive construction
conforming TO its manifest import; and if the ma.
ton has gwen up the vested rights of its citizens,
1t is not tor the Court out for tbs government to
, consider whether it be case for compensation"
The last remark was made in reference to the
hardship upon the captors, who claimed if the YES
sci were lawful prize, one half Of her and cargo
1t is very common for two nations at war to make
peace upon the terms that the acquisition Of each
, shall be mu'u.ily restored; yet no one ever sup
posed that the injunction against taking private
. property, except upon just compensation, was in
tenied fer, or embraced case Of mutual restc
ration II captured property, upon the close Of 8
war. The case before the Court concerned the Oh
ser.ance by one nation towards another of con
s.itutional treaty which involved the sacrifice O
sindividual rights by r" the constitutionaljty
Of the treaty was not questioned or questionable
= II restored to France what had been acquired BY
arms. All such acquisitions are regarded as tn,
acquisitions Of the nation, and universally in all
ages, subject 70 the conditions of peace But sup
pose peace had been made without such terms ant
,, open the principle Of ato popiditis and Congress
after peace and the aHai condemnation of the YES
sci and cargo, had enacted that the share Of tn
captors should Se given up to France, or to tn
COMMANDER alone, most clearly the law had beer
unconstitutional by law ii had been transferre'
to the public stores for public purposes, withou
providing just compensation, the Courts xoul,
have enjoined the agents of government from exc
cutting the act. 2, KeAts Com, 39s and note, (stl
edtion) In The nsutter Of lstaes, decided by Judg
Lyons, Of Virginia, in March, 1868. In tho matte
Of Goa and Hill, decided by the Supreme Court o
Georgia in July, 1858. 49, -
y After disposing Of the ease Of the Peggy, hi
Honor proceeds as follows: ''' q
> "The Congress shall have power to raise and sup
no1f armies II, rr,aixa fnlas for the ctnvernmen