Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1867-05-28

f~oreseen by the Legislature. IL Is pe
elared by Parliament, and a nes0 penea@
provided for restraining A. TINS
escheat and forfeiture netOly created isl
not given to the Commissioners of the
Admiralty by the Act, s5oF coaadi IL haze
been sR tie purU5eD z their G0nszafsz
sioas. The Act is clearly, in its opera
ton, a bill OF attainder. 1t ptaeishes
,Oifho1d the forms Of judgment or con-
vieUon and evidences. All She inhabi-
tants Of the rebeHious Colonies, houDeUer
innocent, are involved, who come not
under the particular exceptions Of the
act, and their ships and goods are ess
cheated to the King 7-e a-is1u
In that case, fThe ..Dicke7soHA the
cargo Of the vessel belonged sto the
rebels OF North America, calling them
selves the Continental Congress" she
sailed February 16, 1875, from PhilsdeI-
phia, bound to Nantz in France, thence
to return to Philadelphia, loaded with
ammunition and warlike stores. On the
voyaee to Nsntz, the master opened his
instr etionsa at sea, and the mate and crew
resol ved "to take the command from
the master, and take possession of the
ship and cargo in his Msjesty's name"
They did it, and took the vessel into
Bristol, England.
One question in the case was whether
the crew had "revolted from the n
envy" Sir GEORGE HAY, the Judge,
said that they were liege subjects Of the
King, and not to be considered rs rebels,
that they were not revolving enemies,
but good subjects, non-commissioned
persons taking an enemy's ship, which
therefore was "a droit to the King in
his office Of Admiralty, and not an
escheat OF forfeiture to go into the
~exchequer." He said, REBELS goods
have always been condemned as droits
of Admiralty, when taken by non-oom-
missioned persons. Many cases OF this
sort were adjudged in the last rebellion:"
to which the Reporter replies, in a note:
q At that period there was no special act
Of Parliament declaring that rebellion,
or enactfng forfeiture to the King Of the
goods and effects of persons only vir-
tually rebels, that is, as Inhabitants
merely Of rebeIious colonies" After
wards. SAYS the Reporter, Sir GEORGE
HAY declared privately to the Kings
Advocate, that he was mistaken IN this
general decision, and was very sorry for
it. He should have held the ship for
feited to the exchequer, under the act
and then the crew would have had no
salvage, though not actually rebels.
This attainder and forfeiture, which
wss only effected in England by a very
severe an unjust and inhuman" ACT
of Parliament, has been operated in che
United states by judicial action, a a
consequence of the existence of a state Of
war. We do not SET how any lawyer can
examine the question, without becoming
satisfied that this decision was ~inezcusa-
bly, erroneous and a gross outrage on
private rights
In the Sally, II. * VI. Sc, decided in
October, l777, seven casks Of indigo,
taken with the vessel, had been restored
to two Kings officers who had been
driven away from South Carolina, Gin
consequence of refusing 10 take the oath
gbjuration Of the King and Parlis-
ment, rendered to them by the new Car
DINA pretended Government" The
Kings Advocate General, DR.. marriott,
said, that if these claims stood upon the
Of the p~rohibitOry Act, they were
not admissible, "for that it was a gen.
eral sweeping law, and made no distinc-
tons, except in a few cases and circum-
Of time and place, none Of which
were applicable to these claims" He said
that some few cases had been adjudged
the passage of the Act, in which
lenity had been shown to the officers of
the Crown, in consequence Of the Amer
lean Ordinance having afforded a ground
for some sort Of equity and latitude, in
to the damaatory clause Of the
Act. And he said, that if any thing i
could be found to justify the Court of
Admiralty, in taking the liberty Of ex-
pounding, or rather c~ontravening, the
terms Of the Act, in discriminating the
innocent from the guilty, and relieving
the numberless unhappy persons suffer
ing for their loyalty, and from their sit
uation, under the general calamity Of a J
civil war, be should see the distinction
with pleasure" No one was found TO
suggest what the Supreme Court Of the
States decided in the shameful
case we are considering, nor did it even
10 Judge or Counsel in the English
Admiralty, that the Act # Parliament
was unnecessary, and that if it were not
existence the law would be the same, {
all persons domiciled in the Colonies, no
how loyal in reality, having be
enemies as soon as the Instruction
the Colonies became a civil war. On 7
the contrary, it is perfectly evident that
al understood that if the Act could be {
got rid Of or got round, no such outra- :
consequences would follow, as
loyal men in the Colonies would be
' none the less enemies because they /
were traitors" L
Sir GEORGE HAY, on The contrary, s
held "that the Act Of Parliament was q
the rule to walk by; and the precise line Z
1eing there drawn, some judges might q
nave thought it for their own ease and
Justification that they should admit Of
20 exceptions but such limitations only
As were expressed IN the act: yet cases +
lad arisen which seemed to call for q t
humane Interpretation of such q general |
He said that the prohibition was !
,lear, declaring c~Oniscated all ships and +
foods of the inhabitants Of the rebelIious {
1olonies; butthat "the violent Ordinance 3
II the pretended Colony government" =
coming after the making of the act, had i
Afforded a ground for lenity in certain a
And in The Rebeccd, Sir JAMES I
said that a time had come, in J,
consequence Of the same ordinance, or c
he "~sbjuring and ejeeting law Of the a
American Congress, when a distinction 2
night be made. Therefore he adhered u
o the presidents which, to his convic-
ion, were founded upon justice and Z
mercy and In the very teeth Of the pro >
act restored their property lin u
Iigo and tobacco to three persons who I
lad been compelled to leave Carolina, !,
because they would not swear allegiance y
0 " the pretended States" !"
The presumption is that the Judges of 4
be Supreme Court Of the United States Il
.ad seen these decisions, and knew that
THAT they decided to be the legal conse-
uence Of an insurrection enlarged into N
war, was not only held in England not -
D be so, except by virtue of a positive 70
-ct Of Parliament making a netC law th
sfore unknown but that the Court Of
.dmirality even c~ontravened and disre- n
arded the act in certain cases where ca
and justice required it. To what, \
len, was il owing that the Supreme ~
curt held that these consequences, r.
hitch in England were not allowed to th
ow even from the positive provisions Of az
- 49, n.AHs.----G F-nH----H