Brownlow's Knoxville Whig, and rebel ventilator. [volume] (Knoxville, Tenn.) 1863-1866, 1865-11-01

masses this does not argue that they gully of nc
offence, but on the contrary it argues that they
guilty of an offence for which pardon and amnesty
has to be eztended-to be pleaded in courts of jus.
tice in bar Of their crime It would be foolish tc
say that the King will grant pardon or amnesty
when the subject had been guilty of no offence
There would be no need Of pardon and amnesty il
there was no crime TO purge by the pardon and am
nesty. Vatte lays down the rule for the prince a
follows 1t is the duty of the prince to repress thost
1ho disturb the public peace yet hes bound to show
c!emency 70 unfortunate persons TO whom just eau
T Of complaint had been given, and whose sole crime
consisted in attempt TO do themselves justice But
subjects who rise against their prince with
out cause, deserve severe punishment yet in all
cases clemency becomes duty.-Psge 422. Fur
her, if there existed no reason or cause for the in
.urrection it becomes necessary to grant pardon
| and amne-ty % the masses when the offenders are
numerous-423. When the sovereign has subdued
the opposite party, and made chem sue for peace
be may except from pardon and amnesty many
IF the lesders Of the rebellion for punishment as
win justify the Law, and render the nation safe
he should reserve them for legal trial and if found
guilty, punish them.-Same, 428. Il is also said BY
the author that it is but to keep the ofnders
till tranquility is restored and then to bring them
n legal trial.-427. For war purposes, the writer
lays down this rule that when rebels obtain power
aough to protrac: the struggle, the war should b.
c nductOd upon principles laid down by the laws OF
nations in order prevent much Of the crueltes of
.ivilv md bo
running into barbarism. But because the sovereign
may be placed under the necessity to observe she of
laws Of war for the mere purpose Of humanity when
his own subjects rise against him. it does not follow
hat they are guilty of no crime. They stand, in
The eyes Of law guilty Of treason, and all other
crimes they may have committed during the war;
and after they are subdued they stand subject to le
gal punishment, unless paTdoned. As soon as the
sovereign puts end to the civil strife, he then IN
der the rules laid down, may pardon whomsoever he
chooses, and subject 20 legal trial and punishment
if found guilty those he may select. When pardon
and amnesty is once extended then the courts of
the country can give force and effect to such pardon
and amnesty. If citizens owing allegiance to the
United States, and forced by the enemies of the
United States to take up arms against their WILL or
are forced to commit any offence against the laws of
their codntry, and if there was no chance to avoid
such offences the law would excuse them from guilt
provided they deserted on the first safe opportunity
and provided there was no chance of escape with
their lives, without taking up arms against their
country.
In case the enemy gets possession portion Of the
country and absolute control of the citizen, having
the citizen completely within his power and forcing
him to act contrary to his will, the citizen may
make the best contract he can with the enemy for
his personal safety while his own government is
unable for the time being, to give him protection.
So in this case if the rebels had seized the defen
dants by force and compelled them through peril OF
life to commit the acts alleged in the declaration,
against their will, and they committed the acts un
der such force to save their lives, they would be
guilty of no offence.
The plea in this csse contains no such statement
Of acts and hence is bar TO the plaintiff action
Even in case of pardons and amnesty to rebels il |
IS presumed no one would contend that such could |
pleaded in bar Of civil injuries. The object and
legal effect of the pardon and amnesty Is simply to
absolve the party from the legal consequences of
crime; and the pardon and amnesty does not il /
sny way affect civil injuries. The sovereign has
power 10 interfere with civil injuries in any shape
Of form, under the pardoning power.
The principles decided in the prize ard revenue |
cases referred TO- do not apply to casea ike the
before the court. Take for instance the case Of the
United States Rice the court held that the duty
On goods imported into the town Of C&stine, while
she British held the same could not after the abs-
ionment Of the place, be collected by the United !
States. At the time of theimporIStion Of The goods
n this case, the English thez at war with the Uni
ed s.a:es, held the sowD by force Of arms, and en-
,ced and forced the defendant to pay duties the
goods. At this time the United States was unable
o give the merchant protection, to have an OH
er there 20 enforce the revenue laws and il would
lave been 8 wrong to the merchant to have him in
situation tc pay duties twice for the same goOd.
nd i wa, held that the merchant was not liable to
,ay the United States the duty the goods impor-
sd under such circumstances. But while the Eng
tsh held the town, suppose the merchant had vol
intsrily joined the kings forces and had taken up
rms against the United States would the court have
leld on an indictment for treason that he was not
guilty? Clearly not. If he had been guilty OF
murder would the court have punished him. on
JAOtCAE u4 sAllOAAI AL4N 4St1I pAOOL VI LIS gum
Surely SO. If he had been guilty OF trespass on
lis noighbors property, during the period the Brit
sh held that part Of the country, would the laws of
he land reach his case and give the injured party
ief when the authorities Of the law were restored
clearly 50.
The said plea hled in this case forms no bar TO
he plaintiffs right Of action. The demurrer will
be sustained. SWAMI, Judge