Nashville union and dispatch. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1866-1868, 1868-01-22

which many bloody battles we're fought.
The government triumphed in the. ever-
throw of the rebellion and the successful
maintainanee of its authority, and as an
incident Of the struggle slavery perished
amid the expiring throes of the rebellion.
The facts disclosed in the record as ex-
isting during the year 1864, and up to the
22d Of February, 1865, certainly tended 10 !
impair the value of this woman and her
child as slaves, TO weaken the tenure by
which they were held as such, and clearly
indicated their early emancipation, but
they as certainly did not destroy the rights
Of the plaintiff, or give actual freedom to.
the slaves. sx
We have shown, IS we.think, that the
legal status of the woman Ellen and her
son Charles, was not changed by the procs
lamation of the President, or By either Of
the acts of Congress referred to. But it is
urged they were free in 1864 upon princi-
pies Of International law If this had been
so, If slavery had already been abolished
by the occupation of the slave States by
the military forces of the United States,
and the slave had become a freeman by the
Aventa Of the waf, Why. re vorlaask, VIZ
it deemed necessary afterwards to engratt
amendments upon cur constitutions, bosh
State and Federal, aboIishing slavery aud
securing freedom to the slave? II the pro-
position coutended for be true, the consti-
tutional amendments referred TO were but
work Of supererogation, but TO our minds
they furnish q conclusive answer to the
argument that the government, State or
national, regarded emancipation as accom-
plished without them. sFih
We do not think the principles of inter-
national law, as applied in times of
public war between two sovereign bellige.
rent powers, have any application to this
case, OF in any manner affect the rights Of
the parties. 81
Again, it is insisted the plaintiff is not
entitled TO recover, because, if the defends
ant had paid plaintiff the hire, the military
authority would have compelled him to
pay the negro also. gaeas 3.
Whether they would have done 80 or not,
is a matter of conjecture only. There Is
nothing in the record showing any action
or interference whatever upon thepart of
the military authorities in reference to
questions of this character, in this or any
other case. Upon this question the court
instructed the jury in substance, that if the
plaintiff could not protect the defendant
by his receipt, then the plaintiff could not
recover, and then adds: "Both alike must
be left to the consequences. over which
neither has any CONTROL s8,y
Now we have assumed that under the
law as it existed prior 10 the rebellion,
there could be no question as to the plain
tiff's right to recover, and sought in vain
to ascertain if the law had been changed or
abrogated, and if 30, when or how the same
had been done; certainly it has not been
done by statute, and il is not pretended in
argument that the municipal law of the
State upon this subject had been suspended,
altered or abrogated by the order of the
occupying military power, and we are not
advised of any such order, consequently it
continued in force and TO take its usual
course. Then by operation of the mEniei-
pal law, the owner OF the slave, or his per-
sonal representative, was entitled TO receive
the hire, and payment to the slave would
not have discharged the liability, and if
after the defendant had paid to the plaintiff,
persons engaged in the military service
had forced him to pay the woman also, such
compulsion would have been unauthorized,
! and the mere fact that the defendant aps
pretended that be might thus be compelled
| to pky the sFoElan alsa rssser bs~Aad lssld
| the plaintiff, could not operate to discharge
him from his liability to the plaintiff, and
he had no right to call upon the plaintiff
to indemnify him against the unauthorized
acts of any one, whether in the military
service or not; neither was the plaintiff
under any obligation to give such indems
nifty. The defendant voluntarily placed
himself in the attitude of hirerer; he
received the services of the slaves, and the
law raises the presumption that he promised
to pay so much as the same we're reason
ably worth.
The fact that many slaves took refuge in
side the Federal lines at Clarksville; did
as they pleased hired themselves to whom
soeyer they pleased, and received the hire
without the voluntary conseatof the owners,
and the additional fact that many of the
citizens Of ClarksVille we're forced either to
hire such negroes or do without servants,
cannot operate to defeat the rights of the
owners. Neither can the fact that it was the
common practice Of the citizens of Clarks-
Vile to hire any negro they wanted to who
would consent to hire with them, operate
to change the general laws of the land. 1t
is also argued that to hold the defendant
liable in this case would encourage the
bringing of multiplicity Of law suits, and
therefore the plaintiff is not entitled to re-
cover. Wedo not know how the fact may
, be. but if it be assumed such a result may
well be regretted, and upon grounds OF
public policy ought to be avoided by the
courts of the country when il can be done
( without violating the principles of justice
{ and disregarding we'll recognized rules oi
r law. But in our investigations, when we
find that ita Ter scripta est, it is our duty td
declare it, the result is beyoud our control
The law making power belongs to another
department of the government and not tC
| the courts.
: The judgment will be reversed and th,
{ cause remanded. HAWKINS, Judge.
: DISSENTING OPINION.
e The status of persons held as slaves in the re
e volted States was changed by inteTnetiona
q law, and all such persons were entitled to tn
rights and privileges of freemen immedlatel.
after the military power of the United State
!, was extended over them,
: cannot concur with my brother Judge
, in their conclusions in this case.
1t appears from the agreed statement o
: facts, the defendant Blackman had hire
: the negro woman and her son Charles 70
!, the years 1861, 1862 and 1868. In tn
e year 1864 he was notified by the HUSBAND
8 of the woman Ellen, not to pay the hire
n to Gholson, but TO pay them to her, whic'
e he did. This suit is brought TO recove
e the hires Of the year 1864, of the woma
e Ellen and her son Charles. 1t appear
; from the statement of facts, that the tow
!. of Clarksville, during the year 1864, was
b military post, and occupied by the Unite
+ States forces; that Blackburn lived in th
n town Of Clarksyille within the lines
that g large number of slaves came With
If in the lines and were under the control {
7, the military authorities. 1t also appear
y that the plaintiff was at one time soldie
!, in the Confederate service; that one of th
n distributes Of the iatestate for whor
Gholson Is the administrator, was also
!. soldier 10 that service. A part of the dis
4 tributes are minors, and took no part i
J. the rebellion. II is now insisted the legs
? status of the slaves was not changed by th
1, war 60 as to deprive the owner Of recover
% ing the hires until they were emancipate
be on the 22d of February, 1865.
d. Ii is insisted the provisions Of the act {