The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1867-06-25

Iions OF the greatest offenders, are abb
solved BY pardon, either absolutely or
upon conditions prescribed by the gov
eminent
These principles, common to all civ
iIiEed nations, are those which regula-
ted the government of the United States
during the war OF the rebellion, and
have regulated its action since the rebel
lion laid down its arms. In some re-
spects, the forbearance and liberality
OF the nation exceeded all example.
While hosti Titles were yet fragrant, one
act of Congress practically abolished
the death penalty for treason subse-
quently committed, and another proYt-
ded mode in which citizens OF rebel
States maintaining loyal adhesion 70
the Union, could recover, after the war
the value of their captured or abandon
ed property. The national government
mas steadily sought To facilitate resto-
ration with ADEQUATE guarantees OF
union, order and civil rights.
On no occasion, however, and by no
act have the United States ever re-
nounced their constitutional 1uTisoiS
tfon over the whole territory or over al!
the citizens of the republic, or conceded
70 citizens in arms against their coun-
nv the character of alien enemies, or 10
their pretended government, the char
actet of a de IGetO government In the
prize cases the Supreme Court simply
asserted the right Of the United States
70 treat the insurgents as belllgerents'
and TO claim from foreign nations the
performance of neutral duties under
the penalties known to international
law. The decision recognised, also the
fact of the exercise and concession OF
belligerent rights, and affirmed, as a
necessary consequence, the proposition
that during the war all the Inhabitants
OF the country controlled by the rebel
al inha hitanta nI the
country loyal 10 the Union, were enc
mics reciprocAlly each to the other. But
there is nothing in that opinion which
gives countenance To the doctrine which
counsel endeavor 10 deduce from II,
that the insurgent States, by the act OF
rebellion, and by levying war against
the nation, became foreign States and
their inhabitants alien enemies.
This proposition being Denied 1t must
result that in compelling debtors to pay
10 receivers, for the support OF the re-
bellIon, debts due TO any citizen OF the
United States, the!insnrgent authorities
committed illegal violence, by which
no obligation of debtors 70 credi-
tors could be cancelled, or in any re-
spect affected.
Nor can the defence in this derive more
support from the decisions affirming
the validity OF confiscations during the
war for American independence. That
DtRduR uOuDLAE65e 4lhG khG AGIcuL
civil WARM rebellion. Had II ter
minated unsuccesfully, and had Eng
lish tribunals subsequently, affirmed
the validity OF colonial contiscation and
sequestration OF British property and
of debts, due to British subjects, those
decisions would be in point.
No student of International law, or of
history, needs to be informed how inn
possible il is that such decisions could
nave been made. Had the recent re-
bellion proved successful, and had the
validity of the conhscations and seques-
tra;ious actually enforced by the insur-
gent authorities, been afterwards ques-
TONED in Confederate courts, 1t is not
improbable that the decisions of the
state courts made during and after the
war might have been
cited with approval. But it hardly
needs remRrking that those decisions
were made under widely different cir
from those which now ex-
ist. They were made by the courts of
states which had succeeded in their at
tempt to sever their colonial connection
with Great Britain, and sanctioned acts
which depended for their validity
wholly upon that success and can
have no application to acts of rebel
seeking the severance OF
Constitutional relations of states to the
Union but defeated in the attempt and
Those who engage in rebellion must
expect the consequences. If they sue.
coed, rebellion becomes revolution, and
the new government will justify its
founders. If they fail, all their acts
hostile to the rightful government are
of law, and originate no
rights which can be recognized by the
courts OF the nation whose authority
and existence have been alike assailed.
We hold, therefore, that compulsory
payment under the sequeStration acts
Of the rebel receiver of the debt due to
the plaintiffs from the defendant was
no discharge.
It is claimed, however, that whatever
may be the right of the plaintiffs to re-
cover the principal debt from the de-
fendant, they cannot recover interest
for the time during which war prevents
ed all communication between the
States in which they respectively re-
sided. We cannot think SO. Interest
is the lawful fruit of principal. There
are, indeed, some authorities to the
point that the interest which accrued
during The war between independent
nations cannot be afterwards recovered,
though the debt, with other interest,
may be. But this rule, In our judg-
ment, is applicable only to such wars.
Nor do we perceive anything in the act
of the 18th of July, 1861, which sus-
pended for a time the intercourse be-
tween the loyal and insurgent portions
of the country, that warrant Its appli-
cation to the case before us. Legal
rights could neither be originated nor
defeated by the action OF the central
authorities of the late rebellion.
The plaintiff must have judgment for
the principal and interest of his debt,
without deduction.