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

an act TO suppress insurreciion, etc.
said slaves we're captiyes Of war, and be-
came free prior 10 the hiring in 1864.
Let us then examine these acts Of Con-
grass aud see If this proposition can be
maintained. The act Of the 18th Of March,
1862, vol. ~, United States statutes at
large, 354, does notlling more than te pro.
hfbA officers OF persons in the military or
naval service Of the United States frem
employing any Of the forces under. their
respective commands for the purpose Of
returning fugitiyes from service or labor
who may have escaped from any persons to
whom such service or labor is claimed 10
be due.
This is only an additional article of war,
and was only designed 10 govern the con-
duet Of those who were in the military or
naval service of the United States, and did
not in any manner affect the rights of
property or liabilities Of other
! The provisions of TIE act Of ulys Il. 1862
relied upon are incorporated in The 9Th Sec
tion Of the act, and are as follows: "That
all slaves of persons who shall hereafter
be engaged in rebellion against the govern
ment Of the United States, or who shall Ia
any way give ala or comfort thereto, es-
Gaping from such persons and taking
refuge within the lines of the army, and
all slaves captured from such persons or
deserted BY them and coming under the
control Of the government Of the United
States, and all slaves of such persons found
on or being within any place occupied by
Rebel forces and afterwards occupied BY
the forces of the United States, shall be
deemed captives OF war, and shall be for
ever free Of their servitude and not again
held as slaves" Volume u, United States
statutes at large, 391. Il has likewise been
insisted in argument; first, that both these
acts of Congress are unconstitutional ;
second, that the act Of an administrator
In engaging in rebellion could not, in any
manner, affect the properly belonging tc
the estate of his intestate; third, that one
of several heirs or distributes could not,
by engaging in the rebellion, thereby pre-
iudice the rights of others.
We will not now stop to discuss these
several propositions or TO express any opin~
ion touching tkenl, because they do not
properly arise in the cause, and their deci~
sion is not necessary to an adjudication of
the rights of the parties. 1t is sufficient
W Say AZ AOCo nOt appear t4Ou1 klO AaNhn
presented by this record, that any person to
whom said slaves belonged or who had any
interest in them has, since the passage ofthe
act of July II, 1852, engaged in any re-
bellion against the government of the
United States, or in any way given aid and
comfort thereto, consequently the provi-
sions of the statute do not apply; neither
the status of these slaves or the rights or
liabilities Of the parties are in any manner
affected by it. ,a4 Sa~1r
But the instruction of his Honor to the
fury seems to have been based upon en-
tirely different grounds from those relied
upon in this court. Among other things,
he said to the jury:
In ruling the law in this case the
court cannot overlook the fact that on the
- day - 1866, the President of the United
States issued proclamation declaring the
negToe free. This proclamation at the time
was backed up by strong and efficient
military power, both upon land and sea,
which certainly increased up to the fermin.
alton of the war.
II affected the independence Of inliyiau
ais, tended 10 overthrow institutions and
eonventionalisms, States for the time be-
ing shorn Of their prerogatives all because
subordinated to this power and as mecca
sary and inevitable consequence, the rela
ton of master and slave pending the latter
| years of the war, was in point of fact sus-
| pended, which terminated by consent Of
master and States into absolute and fixed
change going in fact to the extreme o
making the negro's legal status freeman
| So 1t is that after the relation Of master anC
slave was suspended or deranged, the mas
| tiers as q class never recovered their con
troll and authority over the slave, but in th,
end by the national will and decree, lost /
forever. Thisreyolution, although rapid
was regular, and perhaps in point Of fact
the emancipation of slavery by States wa
only a ratification of the proclamation o
emancipation, or putting the seal to tn
deed.
II is not necessary that we enter full,
into discussion of the principles stated b
his Honor, in this portion of his instruC
tions to the jury, for as we conceive the
are based upon an erroneous assumption 0
fact, and consequently have no applicatio
whatever to the case under consideration
They seem 10 have been based upon tn
belief of the fact that the President of th
United States had at some time issued
proclamation declaring all slaves in th
| United States free, when in fact no sucl
proclamation was ever issued.
Fl is true that the President as Com
mander-in Chief Of the army and navy {
| the United States, did, on the first day {
January, 1868, as a war measure, and fC
the suppression of the then existing rebe
lion against the authority of the govern
ment of the United States, issue procl'
nation by which he declared that all pc
sons held as slaves in certain designate
States and parts of States, should theme
forward be free. But Tennessee was nj
one Of the designated States, nor was an
part thereof designsted. Therefore Ii
status of persons held as slaves in the Sta
of Tennessee was not changed, nor wei
the rights of parties in reference to tn
species of property in Tennessee affecte
or proposed to be affected, by this procli
nation. 1t had no reference whatever
either. Ea a 41
Then il cannot be said that the emanc
patton of slaves in Tennessee by an arnen'
ment of the constitution of the Stat
adopted and, d,rati6ed by the people of Il
State on the 22d Of February, 1865, "
| either ratification of the proclamation
the President, or putting the seal to d
J deed" For as we have before shown, q
proclamation did not offer freedom TO 81
person held ss slave in Tennessee; cons
ouently no ratification of that proclaim
ton could have green freedom 10 any su'
person. There was then no deed Of enA
; cipation of the slave in Tennessee to whi
! | seal could be attached.
The amendment Of the constitution
the State. ratified on the 22a Of Februar
1865, is itself the deed of emancipation
which the bonds of slavery were dissolve
> and that class of persons held as slaves
Tennessee were emaucipated.
! Il was argued, and PerhaPs TO some 6
! tent his Honor, the Circuit Judge, reco
, uized the correctness Of the propositio
1 thai inasmueh as during the stormy stru
gle through which we have recently pass
= in many instances masters were unable
! control their slaves, who assumed 10
I free. and have been since emancipai'
!. Therefore they were in legal couiemplaii
> free. in fact from the time their mast
/ | lost the control Of them, and from that iii
henceforward, the owner no longer had
right Of property 10 the slaye. We canr
4 assent to the correctness Of this propo
. | ttoo Now had the contest been betwe