The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1867-07-16

sufficient reason can be assigned for it,:
but on the contrary, reason and Justice
require otherwise.
Upon this principle it is also clear
that the concession of belligerent rig hts +,
SUB mOdO, and to limited and particu-
| lar extent, did not extend their opera
ton either in effect or duration further
than the reason and necessity required.
Therefore, an exchange and discharge
of culprit, did not, like pardon, dis
charge the guilt of the prisoner, nor bar
the government from prosecuting and
punishing the insurgents, or such OF
Them ns it might choose to make an ex-
ample of, after the insurrection was
suppressed.
And with this view accord the writers
on national law, and likewise the prac-
tice of all nations; for instance: Eng
land in her domestic wars with the
Scots, and Irish and Canadian Fenian
rebels. So the United States in putting
Davis on his trial for treason and rebel
lion, and in pardoninE all the rest OF
their guilt, in that behalf For why par
don il not guilty (and if not trueH VINO
OF all the high spirited and chivalrous
thousands, would have accepted the
boon and acknowledged it with AN oath,
if il had been an insult and Il falsehood,
and they as innocent without it as with
it?
Since writing the above l have seen
the newspaper reports of the speech OF
Hon. Reverdy Johnson, delivered before
the Supreme Court of the United States,
in the case of Virginia rs. West Nir-
ginin, and the opinion of Chief Justice
Chase, concurred in by the district
Judge, Brooks, at Raleigh, n. c., de-
livered in the case of Shortridge ~ Co.,
Us. Macon.
And MIR. johnson in the speech re-
ferred to, states to the court that made
] Ith IN, Tri.y "a -
understood that decision to mean, with
out correction or suggestion of error in
his construction from the court; and
since it so acCords with the views L have
| long entertained of that case, and as
bearing on this case, it may be referred
to as tending to show the proper and
recognized construction of the Prize
cases, which have been pressed and
strained very hard to countenance
the rebel pretensiOn to belligerent
rights and personal immunity. He
said "NIy impression is that the deci-
sion in this respect has been mlsunder-
stood. L understand the court as hold
ing that if the war terminated in the
success of the Government, that the par
ties engaged in it, although treated as
enemies during the conflict in order to
mitigate its horrors, might then be treat
ed as traitors"
Again, "All I suppose that the court
meant was, that upon grounds of hui
manitv during the progress of the war,
the insurgents were to be considered as
enemies, but that when defeated by the
total suppression of the rebellion, they
became subject to the laws of the coun-
try and might be punished under
them"
The opinion of Chief Justice Chase
also corroborates many OF the views
and conclusions above expresses:
among others, that the Government at
no time acknowledged or recognized
the self-styled Confederacy.
That the national Government con.
stantly asserted sovereign rights and
jurisdiction over the people and States
in insurrection; that the belligerent
rights were concessions by the Govern
ment TO the rebels, by cartel, &c, for
the sake of fhumanity-the Chief Justice
says;
"Those who engage in rebellion must
expect the consequences. II 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
violations of law, and originate no
rights which can be recognized by the
courts of the nation whose authority or
existence have been alike aSsailed.
We hold therefore that compulsory
payment under the sequestration acts
to the rebel receivers of the debt due
to the Plaintiffs from the defendant, was
no discharge" And he also distin-
guishes between international and
civil war, in respect to the suspension
of interest on Il debt-admitting the
suspension in the former, but not in the
latter.
He also controverts the construction
given there and here to the decision in
the prize cases, and asserts there is
nothing in that opinion which gives
cOuntenance to the doctrine which
counsel endeavOr to deduce from il;
that the insurgent States, by the act ol
rebellion, and by levying war against
the nntiOn, became foreign States, and
their Inhabitants alien enemies"
"This proposition being denied, II
must result that in compelling debtors
to pay to receivers, for the support OF
the rebellion, debts due to any citizen
of the United States, the insurgent
by which no obligation OF debtors to
creditors could be cancelled or in any
respect affected"
From the foregoing, am led to the
conclusion that the plaintiff in error is
not justified by the facts stated in his
pleas, or in either of them, in commit
ting the trespHss complained OF; that
his acts were unlawful and violation
of the rights of the defendant in error,
who, being under the protection OF the
Government and laws, is entitled TO
! the redress which the laws afforded Tor
the injury sustained, as in all other
cases of like character arising between
two citizens; and that these facts,
however formally pleaded, cannot jusE
tify the trespass, nor bar the action:
/ am of opinion, therefore, to affirm
the judgment, with costs and damages,
to the defendant in error.
| E;.4a.Ir;uI