The Bolivar bulletin. [volume] (Bolivar, Hardeman County, Tenn.) 1865-1888, 1868-01-04
SUPREME COURT DECIsIoN.
Liabilities of Confederate Officers for
Acts Done Under Orders During the
War-Very Important Decision by
the Supreme Court of Tennessee

War-Very Important Decision By
the Supreme Court of Tennessee
The following highly important decision
was made by the Supreme Court at Knox
vile at the late September term. Itis given
as officially reported by Attorney General
Caldwell:
e. a Yost, ct ais, rs. @. ~. Stout
This is an action brought in the Circuit
Court of Roane county, by @. W. Stout
against g. A. \ ost, ct. as, TO recover. tho
value of a 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
necessarily to be stated to understand the
principles involved are as follows:
Ia the fall Of 1868, G w Stout was en-
ployed by q. ". Wells, a citizen Of Rnane
county, with his wagon and mules, to haul
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 Confeder-
ate forces. The wagon and mules were
worth about 5000. During the day on which
he was thus employed, information was
given that the Confederate forces were an
preaching Stout attempted to escape with
his wagon and team, but was pursued bv
ost and other Confederate soldiers bv
orders Of the commander of the force, and
captured-by them, he was held as prisoner
and his wagon and mules taken and CON
yerted. That portion Of his Honor's charge.
which it Is insisted there is error, is sub
stantially as follows:
E" If the jury believe, from the proof, that
Stout was q citizen engaged IN his ordinary
pursuits, aHd using his property in his usual
and Legitimate business, and that Y0st and
the other plaintiffs in error, seized and ap
propriated said property, or aided or abetted
in such seizure, they would be liable" A
judgment was rendered fer Stout for the
value of the mules and wagon. A new trial
was moved for, which motion was overruled.
from which there was an appeal in error to
this court.
The only question presented for our con-
sideTatlOn is, whether Yost and others being
soldiers in the Confederate service having
arrested Stout and taken his property by
order Of their superior officer can be held
liable in this action, The. SEIZURE and ar
rest is attempted to be justified on the
ground that the plaintiffs IN error were Con-
federate soldiers that they belonged to
belhgerent force; that he was within the
territory claimed to be within the Rebel
lines, and as such, their acts were in ae-
cordance with the laws of war This is a
question of much difficulty, and one Of
grave Importance, and upon which no di-
rect authority can be found After the com
mencemeHt Of hostilities between the insur-
gent forces of the revolted States and the
Federal governments, the political power Of
that government awarded to those IN arms,
beIigerent rights. That Is, they exchanged
: prisoners, made cartels, and passed flags Of
truce. This was done from motives of hu-
manity and public policy or to prevent retalia-
ton, 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 com
mencement to the suppression of the rebel
lion, recognize the existence Of the COnfed-
crate government; it was alone with the
military power they held intercourse. Ii
was policy pursued from day to day, held
under the direction of the political power Of
the government liable to be changed OF
abandoned at discretion; the according tc
1 those in arms biiligerent rights gave them
nc authority or right to arrest or take the
/ property Of private citizens" the common
/ laws of war, those maxims of humanity
moderation and honor, which should char
acterize other wars. Vattell says book
! Sd, chap 8th, section 294, ,295, ought to be
! observed by both parties in every civil war
Under modern and Christian civilization
you cannot needlessly arrestor make war or
/ husbandmen, or mechanics, or women and
children book Sd, chap. SEh, section 149
'tThe T ghts of war are against enemies
open and armed enemies, while enemies dur
/ ing war but, no longer The force used i
injure private property, nor disturb privat
dwellings,, and their peaceful inmates,
Vattell, book Sd, chap. 8tA, section 48
The rigth to arrest. private citizens, no
engaged IL arms, and to seize and apprOpri
ate their property in civil feudes ike thi'
cannot be tolerated; 1t will open the door, i
future domestic dissensiOns, TO series o
butchery, rapine, confscation and plundeI
unparalleled in history, and destructive o
the rights Of the people. The plaintiffs Il
error were engaged in an unlawful combIna
ton to overthrow and destroy the govern
ment, their acts were therefore illegal, an
those who were present, aiding and abettlne
are liable for the trespass.
The right Of belligeTents, as recognize
by international law between two independ
ent sovereign powers do not apply to th
case under consideration, Stout was
private citizen not IN arms, but engaged j
his ordinary occupation. dis arrest and th
seizure of his property, was unlawful q
was a citizen of the State and of the Unite
States. and though the laws Of the legit
mate government were for the time suspended
2 the occupation of the country by those
3 revolt to the power of the Federal govern
NAE~+-
They we're not recognized as belligerents {
jure, but practically as beligerents dc factl
? the distinction is plain; q recognition
belIigerenb rights dc jure would have bee
an acknowledgment on the part Of the 90
, ernment Of the United states, Of the revolt,
States, as that Of a sovereign and indepen
ent power, the legal effect Of which won
t have, according TO the well settled pFincipl
i Of international law, transferred the tel
n pOrary allegiance Of the citizens living with
= the territory thus occupied to those vi
held armed occupation Of it, 4th Nheat'
e 246
But treating them as belligerents dc taei
the government reserved the power to y
II pose such terms and conditions upon those
IS arms on the suppression Of the rebellion,
n the future peace and security Of the count
might demand This view Is not inconsiste
g with the principles settled by the supreI
e Court Of the United States in the cases kno'
as the Prize cases, ID Black.
Upon an examination Of the principles
m those cases It will be found they were {