The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1867-06-25
OF REBEL sEoUEs.
FRATIOgS
ReIa.Ions of RebeIIIOus States 10 Iho
GoyaPumeut

CarO1luAt OQlel y ubblC1 Ouase aellNSESA
The opinion which we print below. The
District Judge, Brooks, a native North
fully ooncurred. The case
was shortridge Il Co. against Macon:
OPINION.
This is an action for the recovery of
the amount OF promiSsory note, with
interest. There is no question Of the
liability of the defendant TO the demand
of the plaintiffs, unless he Is excused by
coerced payment ofthe note sued upon
under an act Of the self-styled Confed-
crate Congress, passed August 30, 1851,
entitled IAN act for the sequestration
OF the estates of fallen enemies" and an
act passed February IS
1862. 1t Is admitted that The plaintiffs
were citizens of Pennsylvania; that the
was citizen of North Caro-
lima; that the note sued upon was made
by the defendant TO the plaintiffs; and
that the defendant was compelled by
instituted in the courts OF
the so. called Confederate States to pay
the amount due upon II to the receiver
appointed under the sequestration acts.
Upon these facts, II is insisted that
the defendant Is discharged from his
liability TO the plaintiffs. 1t is claimed
that, while II existed, the Confederate
government was a de Jdeto government
that the citizens OF the states which did
not recognize its authority were aliens,
and, In time OF war, alien enemtesi that,
consequently, the acts of sequestration
were valid acts; and, therefore, that
payment to a Confederate agent of
debts due to such citizens, II compelled
by proceedings under those acts, re-
lieyed the debtors from all obligations
to original creditors. To maintain
these propositions, the counsel for the
defendant rely upon the decisions of
the Supreme Court OF the United States,
70 the effect that the late rebellion was
a civil war, in the prosecution of which
belligerent rights were exercised by the
national government and accorded to
the armed forces Of the rebel Confed-
eracy; and upon the decisions of the
state courts during and after the close
of the American war for independence,
which affirmed the validity of confisca-
tions and representations decreed
against the property of nonresident
colonies or states hostile TO the united
colonies or United States
But these decisions do not, in our
Judgment. sustain the propositions In
support OF which they are cited. There
is no doubt that the State of North Car
DINA, by the acts OF her convention of
May, 1851; by the previous acts of the
OF the State; by subsequent
acts of all the departments Of the state
and by the acts Of the
people at the elections held after May,
1851, set aside her State Government
and Constitution, connected under the
National Constitution, with the Gov
ernment OF the United States, and es-
"a blished u Constitution and govern
ment connected with another pretended
set up in hostility TO the
nd nnfnraH
course of active warfare against the
National Government. Nor Is there
any doubt that, by these acts, the prac-
ticable relations ofNorthCarolina to the
Union were suspended, and very seri-
Gus liabilities incurred by those who
were engaged in them. But these acts
did not effect, even for moment, the
separation of North Carolina from the
Union, any more than the acts of an
against the State by resisting its officers
and deGyIDg its authority eau separate
him from the State. Such acts may
subject the offender even to outlawry,
but can discharge him from no duty
nor relieve him from any RESPONSE
bIlity.
The national Constitution declares
that treason against the United States
shall consist only in leyyiDg war
against them, or in adhering TO their
giving them aid and comfort"
The word ''OnlY" was used to exclude
from the criminal jurisprudence of the
new republic the odiOus doctrines of
treason. Its use, howsv-
or, while limiting the definition to
plain, overt acts, brings these acts into
relief, as being always in
essence reasonable War, therefore,
evied against the United States by citi-
sens of the republic, under the pretend
ID authority Of the new state govern
nent of North Carolina, or the new
central government which assumed the
lille of the Confederate States," was
reason against the United States.
1t has been supposed, and by some
Carolina ordinance of 1851, which pur-
ported to repeal the North Carolina
ordinance Of 1889, by which the Consti-
luton Of the United States was ratified,
and to repeal also all subsequent acts
Oy which the Assenrof North Carolina
was given TO the amendments of the
did, in fact, repeal that
ordinance and those acts, and thereby
absolved the people OF the State from
all obligations MS citizens OF the United
States, and made IL impossible to COM
init treason by levying war against the
national government. No elaborate
of the theoretical question
thus presented seems now to be neces-
sary. That question, as practical
one, Is at rest, and is not likely to be
revived. 1t Is enough TO say here, that
in our judgment The answer which it
has received from events Is that which
the soundest construction of the Con-
stitution warrants and requires. Nor
can we agree with some persons distin-
guished by abilities and virtues, who
insist that when rebellion attains the
proportions, and Rssumetlthe character
OF civil war, It is purgedsOIeits tresson-
able character. and can only be pun
ished by the defeat OF its armies, the
of its hopes, and the
incident to unsuccessful war.
Courts have no policy. They can
only declare the law. On what sound
principle, then, can We say judiciously
that the levyiDg of war ceases TO be
treason when the war becomes formida-
bier That, though war levied by ten
men or 1000 men Is certainly treason,
1t is no longer such when levied by
1O, 600 or l,OOO,O003 That the armed at
tempts OF a few, attended by no serious
danger to the Union, and suppressed by
slight exertions of the public force,
come unquestionably within the Con-
definition; but attempts by a
vast combination, controlling several
States, putting great armies in the
field, menacing with imminent peril
the very life Of the republic, and de-
immense efforts and Immense
of treasure and blood for
their defeat and suppression, swell be-
You'd the boundaries of the definition
and become innocent in the proportion
of their enormity?
But it is said that this is the doctrine
of the Supreme Court. We think 9TH
erwise. In modern times it Is the usu-
al practice OF Civilized Governments
attacked by organized and formidable
rebellion, TO exercise and cOncede bel
ligerent rights. Instead of Furnishing
rebels, when made prisoners in war, as
criminals, they agree on cartels for ex-