Daily union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1865-1866, 1866-07-24

her laws, belong not to the courts, but to the
people alone IN their sovereign capacity. Courts
cannot release penalties created BY law and
| annexed to the violations of its provisions,
because the offender acted under a dclusi0a
that he had right Of some sort TO commit
an unlawful act
But if there had been room to doubt on
this question before, now we regard it rs
fully settled in several cases before the Su-
preme Court Of the State, at its last term in
Nashville. In the case Of WRIGHT q CANT
RELL vs.. OVERALL, the Court, in speaking
Of the powers claimed for the Confederate
Government, say that the very object that
the Confederate States had in view was to
establish a separate, independent national
existence. And falling to accomplish this
| object, the Courts Of the country can afford
no relief They are bound as well upon
! principle as authority to recognize the an
Gent state Of things as remaining unchanged"
| The case of DAVIDSON VS.. MANLOvE is TO
the same effect. There the defendant ha
| gone with a party of Confederate soldiers,
| who had orders 10 impress horses. They got
| the plaintiffs mare. The Court declared
that they were all engaged in an unlawful
pulpose-all wrong dOeTs and the defendant
was held liable for the price of the mare.
JUs IL Us luILAttL AAicl5lEu AOA q part Vi the
defendants-thOse who are charged with on
ly adrising the removal of the assets Of the
Bank, that they are not liable even if the
act be unlawful, because they are too remote
from the transaction, and because it is not
charged that the act was done for their benefit,
and 2 HILLYARD on tors. 442 is referred
in support Of this position. The correct
ness Of this doctrine may well be question
ed, even when applied to private torts or
injuries, but is certainly unsound when APP
piled to acts in violation of p1l6lic Tar,
and this is the light in which the bill pre-
sents this case.
The act complained of although commit
ted by trustees and in relation TO a trsst
fund, is in the nature of tort, and charged
20 have been committed in furtherance Of a
great public wrong. The general doctrine on
this subject, applicable to accessories before the
fact, is that, he who, in anywise commands,
counsels or advises another to commit an
unlawful act, is accessory to all that ensues
upon that unlawful act. Bla. Cour. 81.
In determining this case on Demurrer, we
are confined strictly to the case made by the
statements in the bill, and it would seem
unnecessary now 10 decide whether the pO-
sition maintained by the counsel for the de-
tense is correct or not. The bill charges
that these defendants had joined in the re-
bellion against the Government and that the
removal Of the assets of the Bank was for
thepurpose of aiding that rebellion. Every
man Joining the rebellion staked his all
upon the issue of battle, and that which was
done in aid of the rebellion, was done for
the benefit, lin that sense, of every man en-
gagged in it. So that, it being sufficiently
charged in the bill, that the act done was for
the benefit of these defendants, it must be
taken now as true, and if the facts charged
be put in issue it will be proper 70 decide
the question Of law on the final hearing of
the cause after answer, if the parties choose
to take that course.
What has been said, however, think,
does not apply to the case made by the bill
against A. l. lands. He is not charged
with committing the act complained of, nor
ddUistnq its commission, or in any way being
an accessory before the fact, but is sought to be
held liable as an eT post fdctO accessory, l
do not think that this can be done upon the
single charge that he gave the assent Of his
mind to the unlawful act, after 1t had been
completed TO make him liable he must be
charged with doing some act IN cOnneriOn
with the unlawful act complained of or the
act must have been done for his special ben
ent, anu aiIeT ne hhO"S ~ iO mus SiNS W
sanction, approve, and adopt it as mis- own.
No such allegations are found in the bill,
and therefore, as to him, the demurrer is
sustained, and as to all the other defendants
it is overuled And if they choose to an
swer the BIZ they have leave tc rely on all
the grounds for demurrer in their answers,
except as 10 the jurisdiction Of the Court
which the law denies them. If the parties
do not desire to answer, decree will be en-
tered in accordance with the views any
| nounced, and am glad to know that the
can, and intend to have the action Of the re
vising and highest tribunal in the State GU
| this important and difficult lawsuit.