The Nashville daily union. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1862-1866, 1866-04-10

TUESDAY, APRIL 10, 1866.
United States vs.. Gen. Z. w. Rueker,
The following is the decision rem
dered by Judge Trigg on Saturday last
at Memphis, in the above case:
The defendant being under arrest Upon q
capiGs issued from the United States Circuit
Court, BY his attorney, moved the Court 10
be discharged therefrom, upon the ground
that he was one Of those embraced in the
terms Of the surrender and agreement OF
capitulation between Generals Sherman and
Johnston, by which it was stipulated that,
upon the condition of his not again taking
up arms against the Government of the
United States, and obeying the laws OF
the State where he resided, he should not
be molested by the authorities Of the United
States. The motion was discussed at con-
siderable length by the counsel Of the de-
iendant, and several authorities relied on to
sustain il. The Court said: 'HThis question
is not a new one to the Court. So far as the
convention or agreement entered into be-
tween Generals Grant and Lee, in command
of the respective belligerent forces, was con-
cerned, and the counterpart Of the same
which was made by and between Generals
Sherman and Johnston upon the surrender
Of the army Of the latter to General Sher-
man, the power of these Generals 10 make
| such an agreement could not be questioned,
and the terms capitulation provided there
in would be equally binding upon both par
ties to the tame. And, the good faith
and honor OF the United States being
pledged TO its fulhllment, it would not only
be the pleasure, but the duty Of this Court
to carry out, as far as lies in its power, the
terms Of that agreement as they were I'M
derstood and accepted at the time Of the
| surrender. But this, like any other con-
tract which a court might be called upon TO
interpret, must be subjected to a rigid Sou
tiny, and by q consideration of the subject
as well as the terms of the contract, to
ascertain what was the intention Of the
| parties contracting. In considering this
contract aud the terms of capitula-
tiOn made by it, we must look at all the
circumstances surrounding it, the particular
| points or stipulatiOns embraced in it, and
the objects and purposes for which it was
| entered into. It is unnecessary for the
| Court 10 recspitulate the unhappy condition
Of the country, or the position Of the respect
/ i've parties at the time when these e1nven-
tions or agreements were made. They are
well known to all, and form part Of the
! history Of the country. The power Of the
/
! pose Of suppressing a most formidable re-
sistance to the authority and laws Of the
| United States. The country was engaged
/ in a gigantic civil war, and it was while it
| was in this condition that these conventions
or agreements were made between the com
manders respectively of the armies of the
! Government and the hostile forces. The
! General officers in command Of the forces
| of the Government had the power 10 make
| such terms with she enemy as would the
! most speedily determine and end the con-
! flict. This power, it may be assumed, they
exercised with the approval Of the Presi-
! dent, who was their military superior, and
was purely q military power which the
| laws Of war sanctioned, and as such, could
| have no wider scope or extended effects than
| il was the province Of military command
/ er to grant. IL was the exercise Of a BEL
! ligerent right, sanctioned by the laws of
war, and not that of sovereignty as contra
distinguished from belligerent. The SOW
ereignty of the Government did not reside
| in President as the military chief of the ma
ton, and he could not delegate TO his sub
ordinate officers in the field, any right of
4 sovereignty which did not properly pertain
| to him IN his military character, under the
| Constitution and laws of the United States.
The terms OF capitulation were substanti-
ally that the insurgents should lay down
/ their arms, repair to their respec tive
| homes, and that they should not be modest
ed by the authorities of the United States
80 long as they RETAINED from again taking
up arms against the Government, and obey
| ed the laws of their respective States. This
was the convention or agreement between
the parties. Now what was the purpose
and object Of such an agreement, and the
| terms of the population embraced by i2
| Was il not to bring about cessation OF hos
/ tIlities between the parties 10 the contract,
| and eventually to terminate the war? 1t
| was perfectly legitimate for the officer in
command OF the forces of the Government,
by virtue of the military power with which
he was invested, TO propose and accept
terms of surrender, but he could only pro-
| pose or accept such terms ss came within the
scope Of hi5 military authority. He had no
authority 10 exercise the sovereign right OF
| hardening the crime which was being per
| pelrated by those in rebellion against the
| Government and not having such author
| ity il cannot be presumed that such was the
intention and understanding of the terms of
| the agreement The President alone under
the Constitution has the power of pardon,
and this power he does not possess rs Com
| mander- ia Chief of the army and navy Of
the United States, but IN his character Of
! civil magistrate. And as such Commander
/ mt mel ne NOulu uNN AtlNkdlN AAAt ltbhGA u
! pardon 10 any officer under him. But If the
| effect is 10 be given to the terms of the sur
/ render which is contended for on behalf of
| the defendant in this prosecution, then the
! capitulati0n and surrender operated as a
pardon and general amnesty TO all who had
| been engaged in the rebellion, and were
embraced in the agreement TO capitulate.
IA could not have been intended By the
officers who made this agreement that it
! should have any such effect as is claimed
! for it, for we cannot suppose that they in
| tended TO do that which they had no power
or authority to do, and which could only be
done By the President in the exercise Of a
sovereign right conferred upon him by the
Constitution in his character Of civil magis-
trate.
| We must regard this agreement, then, as
il seems 10 the Court, in no other light than
as a military parole upon the terms stipu
| lated, and which the parties contemplated
| should terminate with the war if its terms
! remained unbroken, by the parties accept
/ ing il, until that time. That this is the
! true Interpretation of the contract, and
that it was so understood by the parties ac-
cepting the terms Of the capitulston, would
seem TO be manifest from what is daily &C.
| curing in relation 70 il. How many Of
/ those who aid down their arms under the
ANA AAAo Va VIZ 1AAAAatA@AH AAN AaAAt app. LIB
| 10 the President for special pardons, and
| taking the amnesty oath, when not within
| the exceptions provided in the proclama-
ton Of the 20th May, 1867 These appliea-
tons have been made by hundreds, not to
I say thousands, Of the very men who came
1 within the terms of the agreement under
| consideration. These applicants must have
understood that the conditions OF their sur
render hSd no other or greater elect than
| we have herein given 20 them. For if hey
had thought differently, they could scarcely
have deemed it essential, and have been so
eager to obtain the additional pardon Of the
| President. With this understanding Of the
! terms Of surrender, if this deiendGut had
been arrested under the process Of this
/ Court, during the existence Cf the war, this
| Court would certainly not have perDittet
| him 10 be imprisoned, and would have seen
that an the conditions Of the surrender
we're carried out in their true spirit. But
the war is now happily Ct an end; we have
| returned 20 a state Of peace, and the power
| and authority Of the civil courts are re
| stored, and this defendant, like all other
| citizens, must be held accountable for any
| ofense whish he may have committed
arainst the laws Of the United States. The
! arbitrary power Of the military has, by
| timely proclamation Of the President, been
| removed. and the civil rights snd remedies
o! the people, through the regular end or
binary tribunals Of justice, appointed by the
constitution and tie laWs, are restored.
With the views herein presented, this
Court cannot entertain the motion Of thA
defendant TO be discharged from arrest, but
mHst override the same, and the defendant
viii be admitted to bail for his appearance
81 answer at the next term Of this Court.
4 -s-s
RAISING A REYESuE-A friend ex-
plains the present system of raising
the reysnue IS follows: "Now, you see,
in the first place, they get the hang Of
8 feller's business. That Is taxed
Then they find out how much ne earns
every month, and that's taxed. Then
they find out all about bis profits, and
on thst they lay their tax. Then they