The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1866-06-02

United States had the right to, and did
exercise and accord belligerent rights
during the war TO an extent Justlned
either by policy or the dictates OF hu-
manity; but in so doing they never Tor
moment surrendered the rights OF the
sovereign; and that upon the suomls-
sion of those in rebellion to the constl-
tuition and laws the right to the exer-
else of belligerent powers under the
law of nations ceased. Sovereignty
alone prevailed-had triumphed; the
constitution and municipal law of the
land attached, and the treatment
to be accorded the offenders must oe
under the provisions OF, and IN accoru-
ance with these instead OF the law oi
nations, administered by the United
States as sovereign and not as belliger-
ent. Who, until at the present time,
ever heard of sovereign power gov
erning in time of peace any portion pl
its subjects as belligerents under the
law of nations +? oh, what fools the
wise men of past generations have
been! How they must have desired to
see the things that we see, to hear the
things that we hear, to know the Things
that we know! How hard to die with
out seeing, hearing, and knowing
them.
ing the principles of law governing the
case, that loyal citizens, by being for
time overpOwered by the rebellion,
have lost none of the rights which at
tach or ever attached to them by virtue
of the Constitution of the United States;
and that consequently when they re-
store their State governments in mar
mony with that of the United States,
they are entitled toexercise all the func-
tions of State. and to all the rights of
State in the Union. l say the "loyal
citizens" for believe the disloyal are
entitled under the constitution to no
right except the right to be hung. When,
however, an amnesty or pardon for past
offenses is granted, the party having re-
ceived it may then appeal for protection,
and as of right in all matters affected or
reached by such amnesty or pardon, to
that law which, had it been enforced
against him, might have demanded even
his life. The law against which he hud
offended and by which he was con-
demned, which, while under condemns
ton, only thundered its anuthemas
against him, has, upon pardon and
reconciliation, become his friend and
the advocate of his rights which attach
by virtue of such pardon. Now, in
what do these rights conSist2 Do they
consist solely of what we term "cIvIl
rights" or do they include political
rights" also? My own impression IS
that they include just what the sover-
y
have them include, nothing more,
nothing less. And that If it is not yet
safe to trust political power in the
hands of the reconstructed, 1t should
simply be withheld from them, and
that those only who have been contin-
uously loyal should be permitted to
exercise il.
The committee, however, has failed to
give us any information as to whether
those State organizations are in the
hands of the friends or the enemies OF
tile Federal Government, or whether
those recently in rebellion, but who,
have been pardoned, may yet be safely
invested with "political rights" Where
Is the protection or orencouragement they
propose for the Union men ofthe SouthH
Where, where are the recommendations
of this committee upon the most vital
question Ofthe day, or involved in all
the issues now upon us-the reward
and encouragement ofloyalty in the sec
ton lately oveTrun by rebellion? Echo
ed hard 10 prove that the loyal are in
like condemnation with the disloyal,
because they were within rebel lines
during the war; that all are "alien enc
mics" together; that the law of nations
justities us in treating them as such,
and that we can make no discrimtna-
ton between them. Let us see how
this is. Allegiance and protection are
reciprocal duties, binding, the one upon
the citizen, the other upon the Govern
ment; and inseparably connected with
the faithful observance of all the obli-
cations of allegiance are all the rights
which attach by virtue of citizenship.
Now, when do these mutual obligations
cease2 Vattel, page SO, says:
to him without any other reserve than the
fundamental lawsj It Is their duty TO remain
RiIhful to him, as 1t is his, on the other hand,
to take care TO govern them well. Both par
ties have but one common interest; the peo-
pie and The prince together constitute but one
complete whole, one aud the same society.
II is then, an essential and necessary condt-
tion OF political society that tine subjects re-
mann united to their prince as far rs in their
power"
Am told that the late civil war dis
severed all these bonds and relieved
both parties from the observance of
these reciprocal obligations and duties?
Chitty, in his note to Vattel, page 81,
says:
mo individual can shake of his natural
allegiance until the part OF country where he
parent State has acknowledged the sever
ance."
And in his treatise on commercial
law, page 129, he elaborates the same
doctrine and assert, without fear OF
successful contradiction, that all the
authorities on public law, where
they touch upon this doctrine, con-
firm it.
government who have been engaged
in an unsuccessful rebellion may be
treated, and how loyal citizens resid-
ing within the rebellious districts
should be regarded, have never been
questions legftimately belonging to the
department of international law; be-
cause as subjects and citizens they are
the objects of the local municipal regu-
lations and laws of the country; the
law of nations ceases to operate as soon
as the state of war ceases to exist; and
when we look to works of internation-
al law for authorities or preeedents
upon these points, we become bewil-
dered because we are travelling out of
the record. have, however, some au-
thorities which, though not bearing
directly upon these points, go beyond
and cover them. These authorities
observation-disclosures because wise
men who have written upon these sub
jects, never dreamed of the application
of the principles of ofinternational law to
country bsequent TO the overthrow
of an unsuccessful rebellion. These
authorities then presuppose the success
of the rebellion and the permanent par
tition of the country. In the case of
Respublica as. Samuel Chapman,
Dallas, page So, the Court held that
''None are subjects OF the adopted govern
ment who have not freely assented thereto"
And in the case of Kelley Us. Harri-
son, Johnson's cases, page %, the
court held that
'sThe division of an empire works no for
feiture OF O right previously acquired, and as
consequence OF 1t, all the citizens OF the
United states who were born prior 70 our in
dependence, and under the allesiance OF the
King OF Great Britain, would be still entitled
in Great Britain TO the rights OF British sub
furfs