Daily union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1865-1866, 1866-10-20

So'1sAoo "y the Suprem
Court Of Tennessee.
AT the September Term Of our Suprem
Court at Knoxville, the following higbI
important and interesting decision Wa
made;
WILLIAM GALBRAITH as. B. F. M'FARI.Ag Agr
ef al.
The Chancellor in this case AT Dandridos
pronounced decree IN favor of the com
plainant, from which one Of the defendant
MARIAB J.. HoLsToS, PRAYED an appeal n
tins Court. Subsequently il was agreed tba
the record should be filed by both partie,
LOT error and that the case should stand n
tne same condition as il both the complain.
ant and defendants had appealed.
he iacts necessary to be noticed are as
ioiiows; On the 4th Of October. 1864. the
complainant, WILLIAM 9 GALBRAIrH. ,rouoI,t
hls bill against B. +. MoFARLAxD. ID. *.
LIVINGSTON and wife, and MARIAH L.
ioLsroN' IN which it is alleged that the de-
lendant, MCFARLAND, was indebted 10 The
complainant IN the sum Of S4,059 ~. and in
part satisfaction Of this sum, he, by deed. on
, tne Sd oi November, 1868, conveyed to com
Piainant two tracts of land in Jefferson
county, mentioned aud described in the deed
oi conveyance, which was shortly thereafter
duly proven and registered. ITvrNasrox
and wife and MARIAH /. HorsTo,. clair,od
also 10 be the creditors of the defendant
MckARLkND, and By attachments AT law are
seeking 70 subject the same lands to the SAT-
isfaetion Of their debts.
The complainant claims title under his
deed, which appears 70 have been executed
and registered, prior TO the date OF the at
taehment; but he insists, if the Chancellor
shall be of the opinion that his deed is in
operative TO pass a valid title to the land
that he, as a creditor Of the defendant. No
fARLAND, is entitled to priority Of salts
iaction. Mrs. HOIsRON answers and insists
that prior 10 the execution Of the deed by
MCFARLAND TO the complainant, the for
mer was guilty Of treason against the Gov
ernment Of the United States, and that the
voluntary conveyance Of his lands 10 the
complainant was, under the act Of Congress
approved July 18th, 1862, commonly known
as the "Conhscation act an absolute nulli-
ty, and wholly imperative and void, and
that she, as an attaching creditor, prior in
time, is entitled TO priority Of satisfaction.
LIVINGSTON and wife failed to answer. and
Judgment pro oonfesso was regularly entered
against ihem
The Chancellor held the deed executed
10y the defendant, McFARLAND. 10 the COM
plainant, utterly void under the act of Con-
gress, declared the proceedings at law bv at
iachment irregular, and directed a sale Of
lands 70 satisfy complainants debt.
/. The controlling question presented in
this record arises on the construction Of the
9th section Of the act Of Congress, approved
July l7th, 1862 which is as follows, viz:
That If any person within any State or
Territory Of the United States, other than
those named as aforesaid, after the passage
OF this act, being engaged in armed rebellion |
against the Government Of the United States. |
or aiding or abetting such rebellion, shall |
not, within sixty days after public warning |
and proclamation, duly given and made by |
the President Of the United States, cease to |
aid, countenance, and abet such rebellion, /
and return 10 his allegiance to the United /
States, all the estate and property, moneys, /
stocks and credits of such person shall be /
liable 10 seizure as aforesaid, and il shall be
the duty of the President to seize and use
them as aforesaid, or the proceeds thereof
And all sales, transfers, or cOnveyances of
such property, after the expiration Of sixty
of the said DAYS from the date of such warn
ing and proclamation, shall be null and void;
and il shall be n sufficient bar 10 any snit
brought by such person for the possession or
Use Of such property, or any Of it, to allege
and prove that he is one of the persons de-
scribed in this section"
The object and purpose Of this act of
Congress, as declared in lis caption, is "to
suppress insurrection, 10 punish treason and
TO seize and eonfiscate the property
Of rebels, and for other purposes.'
The leading idea and central thought that
ran through the whole body Of this act, is
the speedy suppression Of the rebellion,
which was then hagrant throughout the
South. To accomplish this desired end, the
seizure and coniiscatiOn OF the property of
the leading rebels was esteemed of much
value. In the 9TH section of the act this
purpose is directly declared The language
there employed is:
"That 10 insure the speedy termination Of
the present rebellion, il shall be the duty of
the President Of the United States to cause
the seizure Of all the estate and property,
money, stocks, credits and effects of the per-
sons hereinafter named in this section, and
10 apply and use the same and the proceeds
thereof for the support of the army Of the
United States"
This being the expressed object and pur-
pose of the act of Congress, il is wholly un-
necessasy to inquire whether i was the in
iention of the Government, that it should
be executed during the contest under Its
beligerent rights; or after its termination,
under the municipal rights Of sovereignty.
IL is enough 70 know that the execution of
This law could not be enforced in the re-
volted States, until the rebellion had first
been so far suppressed by the military power
Df the Government, as TO enable the courts
of Justice TO resume the regular exercise of
heir functions within the limits Of such Sc
,eded State The enactment itself was prac-
.ically imperative in all the Tevolted States,
40 long as they were adversely occupied by
The rebel power.
The law was suspended by force, and when
hat force was displaced and tie courts of
Justice again re,opened under the authority
lf the United States, in any part Of the re-
bellious States, the act of Congress, both upon
and reason, must be held, by rela-
tion. 10 be operative over the revoted terri
tory thus regained from the date of its en-
actment
But theact itselfis, in its character highly
punitive, and, by the ordinary rules of the
common law, as we'll as by the modern rules
Of well established international law, must
be construed strictly and in conformity TO
the principles Of common humanity. The
modern usaue Of nations, which have become
laws, says Chief Justice MARSHALL in the
ease Of the United States, vs.. PERCHEMAN,
Z Peters, 50. Even in cases of conquest
for the conqueror 20 do more than TO dis
place the sovereign and assume dominion
over the country, would be violated, and
hat sense Of Justice and right which is ae-
and felt by the whole civilized
world would be outraged, il private proper
.y should be generally confscated and pri-
vate rights annulled,
If this be the modern rule in case of con-
quests. il would seem that its application in
eases Of rebellion-when the Government
has reeained its former dominion over its
revolted subjects, should not be rigorous.
In the one case, eonquesis Of foreign coun-
trv. gives absolute and unlimited sovereign
RIGHTS. But in the other-the case OF rebel
lion. no nation can make any conquest of Its
own territory Il suppresses hostilities, and
merely regairs the possession Of which It had
been temporarily deprived. No new sover-
eientv is acquired, bot all the rights which
existed are maintained; why
then. either in morals or reason should the
rule be more rigorous in the one case than
The otherY Ia both cases, dominion Is
gained over the country, and control oi 3ts
pounlation by force Of arms, and the same
reason Influences the population Of con-
ouered country 10 obey the laws Of the con-
oueror. that impels the inhabitants OF 2 re-