Brownlow's Knoxville Whig, and rebel ventilator. [volume] (Knoxville, Tenn.) 1863-1866, 1865-11-01
THE KNOXVILLE WIG
Knoxville, Tenn, November {, 1865.
Important Judicial Decision.
John kirkpatrick rs G. ~. Graka1g end Jas. MqEta

lmpUTldHt JuulCIdl DtCISlOHs
John kirkpatrick rs. G. ". Grakarl end Jas MaEta
baTgsT.
The third plea Of the defendants eonfesses th,
seizure and Imprisonment Of the plaintiff, but set
up bar to the plaintiffs right Of action, tha
sach seizure and imprisonment WAS made by virtue
Of the law and military orders Of the sOcalled Con
fsderate States Of America, and hence no recovery
can be had.
To this plea the plaintiff files his demurrer. For
the defendants it is contended that the so-called
Confederate Ststes of America was government
de facto and that any thing done under the preten
ded laws, or the orders of the pretended officers Of
such government was valid and binding, and would
form bar 70 actions Of trespass for wrongs done 20
individuals. That although the rebellion was fOun-
ded in wrong and the rebels had no Just cause Of
complaint, yet, as they succeeded so far In their
wrong as to raise armies make laws appoint officers
&c, and to hold this portion Of the country for a
time, no person has lawful complaint for injuries
done by the orders and laws of such wrongful gov
eminent.
Are the causes set forth in said pies bar in law
20 the plaintiffs right of actiOn2 is the question
raised by the demurrer in this cause. 1t is a well
settled principle Of law that citizen Cannot throw
of his allegiance to the United States, ss has been
adudicated by the highest tribunal of this country
The same doctrine has been uniformly held in Eng
land, from whence we derive our laws 1t is max
i'm in law that no man shall take advantage Of his
own wrong.
The plea Of defendants IN legal substance alleges
that they by virtue Of the laws and orders of the
rebel government, committed treason against the
United States, and then set up this treason (the
highest crime known to the laws of the land in bar
of the trespass they committed against the plain
tiff.
The defendants counsel admits that the rebellion
was brought about without the shadow Of justice
cause of complaint whatever and was wholly
wrongful; yet they insist that it grew into civIl
war even in its own wrong the rebels are to be pro-
teced in whatever they did although in rebellion i'll
their own wrong, if done in per5uance to the laws
Of the rebel government, or the laws Of war or OF
nations II time Of WAT
To adol. this rule would settle principle not il
accoTdance with justice snd right reason. The effect
Of such II Is this THAI if twenty organized Den
AXE up urDs and resist the laws OF the United
Ststes and levy WAR; they guilty Of treason ami
by the Of the land ought, and might rlghttully
be punished, and they could No; plead Justification
Tor aOy thing they dId, but if they an succeed il
thar wicked design, EGd gather TO their AID one
hundred Thousand men, and commit all the hUrrid
crimes common in cvIl wnrs Yet as they we're tn
sbled to succeed II theIE Own wrong to such great
extent they are not merely 20 be excused By elem
eacy WHEN conquered, but justified by law, and
cau stand out against the uDU1eudIng injured crt
zen, and can say, have injured you, but because
succeeded IN carrying my injury 20 such grest
length Am justified, and plead this Justification
in oar Of your action against nc for the wrong dld
70 you Is this position according TO sound reason,
and correct principles? Does il not shock the seD-
Ees Of the common honesty Of mankind? Il places
the evil doer in better attitude than the upright
and the honest man. Il protects the traitor IN his
wrongful acts against his unofending neighbor and
allows redress. Il opens the door TO wrong and
offers premium and reward for treason, and ali
the other crimes incident TO civil commotions. He
who has committed no offence against his country
who stands with 81 conscience devoid of offence to-
wards God and man in this respect, may have his
entire estate seized and consumed by traitors acting
under military orders Of their co-rebels, whose ac
tions are founded in their own wrong, and yet for
him who is without spot OF bemish there no rem
edy agains. such evil doers We are early taught
in our law books that there is a remedy in law for
every wrong or injury and that law is TO protect
rights, and redress injuries. To hold the doctrine
cOntended for in this case would unsete these very
wholesome and fundamental principles. Its urged,
that as the rebels held control, for while, Of this
part of the country, although wrongful the inhsbi-
talts owed temporary allegiance to the rebel gov
ernment, and hence, could not be held responsible
by law for wrongs committed under such rebel gov
ernment while it held control of this part Of the
country To this proposition the Court cannot as
sent. Although the power TO enforce the laws may
not for time exist yet the laws exist, and as soon
the officers Of the law are clothed with the legal
authority TO execute the laws redress viii be given
or infractions Of the law during the time there were
no officers Of the Law. For example if the Judge, .
Gle TX and all other officers Of the law die, and be-
i've On their death and the appointment Of their sue
cess97s wrong should be committed, would not
that wrong be remedied when the Judge and the (
other ocerS OF the law should be appointed? Sure
ly SO. So II the officers Of the law be driven away
for time, wrongiully by rebels engaged in civil
war, would Z redress for injuries inflicted du-ipc
the time the rebels held a portion of the conn
" be afforded when the rebels should bc drivon
way, and the officers of the law should be restored
70 their proper functions? There is a mistaken no.
ton sometimes drawn for rule OF the courts, from
what Is said BY writers on the law Of nations, 70 be
rule for the sovereign or prince who conqUers his
subjects who have taken up arms against him. The
rule OF clemency and forgiveness is laid down IS
guide for the sovereign, and can alone be exercised by
him, and not by the courts Of justice which hsve 10
amnesty OF PardOnIng power The ancient rule Of
war was that when one nation conquered It's enemy.
the c'nquerng nation had right 10 dispose of the
lives OF the conquered enemy, and could put them
to death and sell them into perpetual slavery But
Christianity having spread itself over the enliyht
eDsd nations Of the earth, sofened down this hars
rule in the laws of war; and now generally the les
ders are punished, but pardon and amnesty is ex-
tended to the erring masses not because they are
guilty, out because to punish all of the offenders
would shed unnecessary blood, and would often de-
populate whole cities and regions of country; and
would be q species of cruelty, without any good to
result from IT,
nroooeds from, 4ba