Nashville union and dispatch. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1866-1868, 1867-12-27
Largest Circulation in City and State.
SUPREME COURT DECISION.


the supreme Court OfTeuneSsee.
The following highly important decision
was made BY the Sapreme Court At Knox.
vile at the late September term. II il
given as officially reported by Attorney
General Coldwell:
T. A. Yost et ais. sOs. G.. W. Stout.
This ia an action brought in the Circuit
Court of Roane county, by q. w. Stout
against f. A. ost et ais, 10 recover the
value of wagon and two mules taken
from him by them and others; the case
was tried before jury Of. Roane county,
at the July term Of the Circuit Court, 1866
the facts necessary TO be stated TO under.
stand the principles involved are as fol-
lows: r..'
In the fall Of 1863 G. w. Stout was EN-.
ployed by G. w. Wells, citizen of Roane
county, with his wagon and mules. 10 has.I
corn for him on his farm, on the south side
of Tennessee river, at the time the river
was the line between the Federal and Con-
federate forces. The wagon and mules
were worth about 5000. During the day
on which he was thus employed, informa-
ton was given that the Confederate forces
were approaching. Stout attempted to es-
cape with his wagon and team, but was
pursued by Yost and other Confederate
soldiers by orders of the commander ofthe
force, and captured by them, he was held as
prisoner and his wagon and mules taken
and converted. That portion Of his Honor's
charge, which it is insisted there il error,
is substantially as follows:
IF the jury believe, from the proof that
Stout was citizen, engaged in his ordi-
nary pursuits, and using his property in
his usual and Legitimate business, and that
host and the other plaintiffs in error,
seized and appropriated said property, or
aided or abetted in such seizure they
would be liable" A judgment was rem
dered for Stout for the value of the mules
and wagon. A new trial was moved for.
which motion was oYerruled, from which
there was an appeal in error to this court.
The only question presented for our con-
slderation Is, whether Yost and Others be-
ing soldiers in the Confederate service
having arrested Stout and taken his prom
erty by order of their superior officer can
be held liable in this action. The seizure
and arrest is attempted to be justified ON
the ground that the plaintiffs in error
were Confederate soldiers; that they be-
longed to beliigerent force; that he was
within the territory claimed TO be within
the Rebel lines, and as such, their acts
were in accordance with the laws of war.
This is question of much difficulty, and
one Of grave importance, and upon which
no direct authority can be found. After
the commencement of hostilities between
the lnsprgent forces of the revolted States
and the Federal government, the political
power OF that government awarded to those
in arms, belligerent rights That is, they
exchanged prisoners, made cartels, and
passed flags of truce. This was done from
motives OF humanity and public policy or
to prevent retaliation, and to soften the
stern features of war yet though the right
was accorded TO those in arms. the
legislative and executive powers of
the government by no act from the
commencement TO the suppression of
the rebellion, recognize the existence of
the Confederate government; ii was alone
with the military power they held
intercourse. 1t was policy pursued from
day to day, held under the direction of the
political power of the government, liable
to be changed or abandoned at discretion !;
the according to those in arms billigerent
rights gave them no authority or right to
arrest or take the property of private citi-
zens," the common laws of war, those
maxims Of humanity, moderation and
honor, which should characterize other
wars" Vattell says book Sd, chap Sth,
section 294 ,295, Ought to be abserved by
both parties in every civil war" "Under
modern and christian civilization, Won
cannot needlessly arrest or make war on
husbandmen, or mechanics, or women and
children" book Sd, chap. Sth, section I49.
''The rights of war are against enemies,
open and arIaed enemies, while enemies
during war, but no longer. The force used
is not to exceed the exigency, not wantonly
to injure private property, nor disturb prio
yate dwellings, and their peaceful inmates"
Nattell, book Sd, chap. Sth, section l4S
The right to arrest private citizens, not
engaged in arms, and TO seize and appro.
pirate their property, in civil feudes like
this, cannot be tolerated; it wall open the
door, in future domestic dissensions, to a
series of butchery, rapine, confscation and
plumber, unparalleled in history, and de-
structive of the rights Of the people. The
plaintiffs in error were engaged in an I'M
lawful combination TO overthrow and de-
stroy the government, their acts were
therefore illegal, and those who we're
present, aiding and abetting, are liable for
the trespass.
The rights Of belligerents, as recognized
by international law between two indie
pendent sovereign powers, do not apply TO
the case under consideration. Stout was
private citizen, not in arms, but engaged
in his ordinary occupation. His arrest and
the seizure Of his property, was unlawful
he was a citizen of the State and of the
United States, and though the laws Of the
legitimate government we're for the time
suspended, the occupation Of the country
10y those in revolt TO the power Of the Fed
eral government, gave no legal sanction TO
their acts. They were not recognized as
belligerents de jure, but practically as bel
hgerents de tdoto the distinction is plain;
a recognition of belligerent rights de jurs
would have been an acknowledgment on
the part Of the government of the United
States, of the reyolted States, as that of
sovereign and independent power, the legal
effect of which would have, according TO
the we'll settled principles of international
law, transferred the temporary allegiance
of the citizens living within the territory
thus occupied 10 those who held armed oc-
cupation of it, 4th Wheaton 246.
But treating them as belligerents de
tdotO, the government reserved the power
10 impose such terms and conditions upon
those in arms, on the suppression of the
rebellion, as the future peace and security
of the country might demand. This view
is not inconsistent with the principles set
tied by the Supreme Court of the United
States la the cases known as the Prize
cases, ID Black.
Upon an examination of the principles OF
those cases it will be found they were
determined upon rules of law applicable
TO that class of cases. The court said in
the determination Of those cases, "that one
Of the objects Of civil war, as of other
wars, wasI TO ooerce the enemy by cutting
off his resources; that the rules Of war,
placed in that category, commercial pro-
perry found at sea, belonging 10 any per-
son who was a resident of a place within
the actual control and de tdcto Jurisdiction
Of the enemy that the term enemy's ter
ritory, applied 10 such place, is a
technical term, looking only 10 the fact at
the time, and not 10 the question of rights
Ii is enemy's territory, because il is claimed
and held in possession by an organized
hostile and belligerent power. The prin-
- q