The tri-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1866-1868, 1866-06-30

can only seek, to put ~ - ~. -
bellion. That achieved, the : oIiglna 2
condition of things is at once Feslore ed
Two judicial decisions nave peen l,s,U
iiouayty which fully sustain our view In
~ that of the Amy Warbick, before the
IIa;1ted states District Court for Massdchu-
satts- Judge Sprague, referring to the sup
,,osed effect of belligerent rights which 1t
WAS conceded belonged to the government
during the rebellion, in giving it when sup
pressed, the rights of conquest, declared :
It has been supposed that If the govern
ment have the right of belligerent then,
offer the rebellion is suppressed it will have
the rights Of conquest, and that otate ah9
its inhabitants may be permanently d1Vesteo
of all political advantages ana treaIeu as
foreign territory, conquered by arms. 1ils
Is an error, grave and dangerous error
RelIigerent rights cannot be exercised where
there are no belligerents. Conquest oi
foreign country gives absolute, 'inilml i
sovereign rights; but no nation ever MAKES
such a CONQUEST of its own territory. Ii a
bostile mower, however, from without or
within. takes and holds possession and do
minion over any portion of its territory, and
the nation by force of arms expels OF over
throws the enemy and suppresses hostllltles,
it acquires no new title, and merely regalns
the possession of that of which 1t has been
temporarily deprived. The nation acquires
no new sovereignty, but simply maintains its
previous rights. When the United states
take possession of a rebel district they merely
vindicate their pre-existlng tltle: onaer
sdespotic governments the contiscatlon may
be unlimited but under our government the
right of sovereignty over any portion OF
State is given and limited by the constltu-
ton. and viii be the same after the war as 1t
was before.
In the other an application for the habeas
corpus to Mr. Justice Nelson, one OF the
Judges of the Supreme Court OF the United
States, by James Egan, to be discharged from
an Imprisonment to which he had been SEN
fenced by military commission in South
Carolina, for the offence of murder, alleged
to have been committed in that State, the
discharge was ordered, and IN an opinion
evidently carefully prepared, among other
things the Judge said =
For all that appears the civil local courts
of the Suite of South Carolina were IN the
full exercise of their judicial functions at the
time of this trial as restored by the suppress
sion of the rebellion, some seven months pre-
yiously, and by the revival of the laws and
the reorganization of the State government
in obedience to and in conformity with its
constitutional duties to the federal Union
Indeed, long previous to this provisional
government had been appointed by the
President, as commander in chief of the army
and navy of the United States (and whose
will under martial law constituted the only
rule of action), for the special purpose of
changing the existing state of things and re-
storing civil government over the people,
In operation of this appointment new con-
stitution was formed, a Governor and Legls-
lature elected under it, and the State placed
in the full enjoyment or entitled TO the full
enjoyment of all her constitutional rights and
privileges. The constitutional laws of the
Union were thereby enjoyed and obeyed, and
were as binding and authoritative over the
people of the State as in any other portion of
the country. Indeed, the moment the rebel
lion was suppressed and the government
growing out of it subVerted, the ancient laws
resumed their accustomed sway, subjectionly
to the new reorganization by the appoint
ment of the appropriate officer to give them
operation and effect. This reorganization
and appointment of public functionaries
which was under the superintendent and
direction of the the President, as commander
in-chief of the army and navy of the country,
and who, as such, had previously governed the
State from imperative necessity by the force
of martial law, had already taken place, and
the necessity no longer existed.
This opinion is the more authoritative than
it might otherwise possibly be esteemed from
its being the first elaborate statement of the
reasons which governed the majority of the
Supreme Court at the last term in their jiudg-
ment of the case of Milligan and others, for
the decision that military commissions for
the trial of civilians are not constitutional
We submit that nothing can be more con-
elusive in favor of the doctrine for which
they are cited than these judgments In the
one the proposition of conquest of State
under a war to suppress an instruction is
not only repudiated by Judge Sprague, but
because of the nature of our government it
is considered to be legally impossible. "The
right of sovereignty over any portion Of the
State will, he tells us, only be the same
after the war as it was before" In the 9th
er We are told that the suppression of the
rebellion" restores the rights of the State,
and that when her government is reorgan-
lied she is at once in the full enjoyment or
entitled to the full enjoyment of all her con-
stitutional rights and privileges.
Again, contrary doctrine is inconsistent
with the obligation which the government is
under to each citizen of State. Protection
to each is part of that obligation; protection
not only as against foreign, buta domestic
foe To hold that it is in the power of any
part of the people of State, whether they
constitute a majority or a minority, by en-
gaging In instruction and adopting any
measure in its prosecution to make citizens
who are not engaged in it, but are opposed
to it. enemies of the United States, having
no right to the protection which the consti-
tuition affords to citizens who are true to their
allegiance, is as illegal as it is fiagrantly I'M
just During the conflict the exigency may
justify denial of such protection and sub
ject the unoffending citizen to inconvenience
or loss; but the contest over, the exigency
ceases, and the obligation to afford him all
the immunities and advantages of the CON
stitution Zone of which is the right to be
represented in Congress) becomes absolute
and imperative. A different rule would en-
q able the government to escape clear duty
and to commit a gross violation of the con-
stitution. 1t has been said that the Supreme
Court have entertained different doctrine
in the prize cases. This, in the opinion of
the undersigned, is clear misapprehension.
One of the questions in those cases was
whether, in such contest as was being
Waged for the extinguishnent of the insur-
rectlon, belligerent rights, as between the
United States and other nations, belonged to
the former. The court properly held that
they did, but the parties engaged in the re-
bellion were designated in their opinion as
traitors, andliable to be tried as traitors when
the rebellion should terminate If the Con-
e. G.