The weekly North-Carolina standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 186?-1869, 1866-07-04

Iuent destruction OF the government.
10 suppose. that a power to preserve
may, at the option ofthe body to which
it is given, be used TO destroy, is prop
osition repugnant to common, sense; and
yet as the late instruction was PIT
down by means of that power, that
being the Only one conferred upui
Congress to that end, that proposition
is the one on which alone it can be-
pretended the Southern States are not
in the Uuion now as we'll as at first.
nc idea that the war power, as such
has been used, or could have lccl, used,
toextinguish the rebellion is, on the
judgment of the undersigned, utterly
without foundation That power was
given for a different neutrality-suspicious.
the contingency of d cortiietwith ith other.
governments /; an international conflict.
If it7had been thought that power was
to be resorted to suppress a domestic
strife, the words appropriate to that
end would have been used. Butso far
from this having beendone, i'll the same
section that confers it an express pro-
vision is inserted to meet the exigency
OF domestic strife or insurrection.-
Whether in the progress of the effort to
suppress an fnsurrection, the rights incl
dent to war as between the United
States and foreign nations may not
arise, is a question which III no way
changes the character of the contest as
between the government and the insur-
rection. The exercise of such rights
may be found convenient, or become
necessary to the suppression ofthe re-
,bellion, but the character of the conflict
is in no way changed by a resort to
them. That remains as it was at first,
and mast, from its very nature, during
its continuance, remain a mere contest
in which the government seeks, and
can only seek, to put an end to the re-
bellion. That achieved, the original
condition of things is at once restored.
Two judicial decisions have been made by
judges OF eminent ability and unquestioned
loyalty, which fully sustain our view. In
one, that of the Amy Warbick, before the
United States District Court for Massacllu-
sets, Judge Spraguc, referring to the sup
posed effect OF hcligerent rights which it
was conceded belonged to the government
during the rebellion, in giving it when sup
pressed, the rights OF conquest, declared :
1t has been supposed that if the govern
ment have the right of n beliigerent then,
after the rebellion is suppressed it will have
the rights OF conquest, and that a State and
its inhabitants may he permanently divested
of all political advantages and treated as
foreign territory, conquered by arms. This
is an error, Il grave and dangerous error
Belligcrent rights cannot be exercised where
there are no bellgerents. Conquest of a
foreign country gives ai,solute unlimited
sovereign rights; hut no nation ever makes
such conquest of its own territory. Ii a
hostile power. 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 eNpe!s or over
throws the enemy and supprcsscs hostiitieS.
it acquires no new title, and merely regains
the possession of that of which, 1t has heen
temporarily deprived The na.iun acquires
no new sovereignty. but simply maintains its
previous rights When the United States
take possession ola rebel district they merely
vind:cate their pre-cxisting title. Under
desp0tic governments the cuntiscation may
be unlimited hut under our government the
right of sovereignty over any portion of Il
State is given and limited by the constitu-
tion, and Will be the same after the war as it
was before
In the other an application for the habeas
corpus to MI. 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 bv a 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 Stute of South Carolina were in the
full exercise of their judicial functions ut the
time of this trial as restored by the suppress
sion of the rebellion, some seven months pre-
yiously, and hy 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 chiefo the army
and navy of the United States land 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 a new con-
stitution was formed, Governor and Legis-
lature elected under it, and the State placed
in the full enjoyment or entitled to the full
enjoyment of al! 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 suhverIcd. the ancient laws
resumed their accustomed sway, subjcctionly
to the new reorganization by the appoint
ment of the appropriate officer to give them
operation and effect This reorganization
ard appointment of public functionaries
which was under the superintendent and
direction of the the President as commander
in-c!lief of the army and navy Of the country,
andwho. as suclI, 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 heing the first elaborate statement of the
reasons which governed the majority OF the
Supreme Court at the last term in their judg-
ment of the case Of AIiliigan and Others, for
the decision that military commissions for
the trial of civilians are not constitutional
We submit that nothing cal 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 a State