Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1868-12-14
LATE DECIsION OF JUDGE c.


LATE DECEsION OF JUDGE CHASE.
We publish Ia another column q
Judgment Of Chief Justice CHASE, rem
dersd In the case OF the administrators
/ Of CATHERINE G. KEPPEL against the
Petersburg Railroad Company. In the
~reasonings presented by the Chief Jus
tice during the delivery OF the opinion,
ne seems to have felt constrained to say
( that the "Confsderate States " did not,
during the existence OK the late civil
war, have the attributes Of q de fGct0
government. We fear that the learned
| Chief Justice, In this matter, was care
less, and, Ike ali gentlemen If the wool
sack, who acquire the hsbit Of much
talking, has committed one ~ those ja-
diolal Icux pas thst destroy the repuss-
ton OF even excellent Judges that is,
while settling the rights between the
parties correctly, he has assigned the
worst OF reasons for his judgment.
The case, as 1t win be perceived, was
a suit by the personal representatives. Of
Mrs. KEPPRL, & stakeholder Ia the rail-
road, for the recovery Of dividends ac-
cruing on lisF stock during tbs var, she
being q resident Of tbs SO called "loysi
Ststes," Rdhering 10 the Ualted States.
The stock Of Mrs. KE?PeL was
seized by the Confederate States
authorities, oondscsted as tke prop.
eCty Of an alien eaemy-so.d under
the orders Of the Confederate su-
thOrities-Rnd the dividends arising sub.
ssqusntly paid over to the purchaser Of
the stock at this c~OnlscstiOn saIe. Jupi-
ter sometimes node, and so Gld tks Chief
Justice in disposing o. this cause. How
efficiently the counsel for the railroad
made ~ ths record With & vi5w OF
shielding their client under thu doctrine
OF Guress, which really was the only
question in the case, We are ubatie 70
state, ba. suspect thst possibly they Gid
not PIT this point ~ evidence as strongly
as they might. aowe7er this may bp,
we are veil satisfied that the question, as
to the de Jdoo nature Of the Confederate
Government did not properly arise 10 the
record. AL the distinctions between
de Jdet0 and dc juTs government dis
cussed by the Court. related simply, Is
any lawyer will perceive, to dynsstic or
party contests for tbe control OF the Uhole
country ~territorlaliy and clyiily, ana lot
q thoroughly organized efforts on behalf
of great fragment Of 8 country 10 acquire
separation aud independence, nor 20 COZ
djets between recognized States % escape /
q federatige bond. Hence the
Illustrations used by the Chief Justice
have no sort Of application TO the late
civil wsF IN this country. II Is simply
stupid 10 Insist on their relevancy 20 our
great civil wsr. The juFist who is unable
TO adapt the principles OF isw TO the ex-
~traoTdinaTy coDlun0tufe presented ia u
national Affairs by the war, so 81 to en- |
brace historic truth, and the conclusions |
OIL cOmmon sense, cannot be rated higher
than a p~ettiiogger.
But the main difficulty In the reason
ing Of the Judge consists, as we humhiy
conceive, ia the isct thst the right OF
c~oalscstion has nothing TO do with the
de Jdcto or de jlsre status Of the authority
10 enforce It during tee eSistenee Of gaT.
The title acquired under conGscation
during 3 wal depends for It's validity en-
tirely on the success ultimately Of the
party enforcing eooEscation, whether
that party claim under a de fGc+O or de
jurc authority. In this particular there
is DO difference between the old and the
new Government. Their con6scation |
sets in the disputed territory can
alone be supportei By success 10
the armed struggle. All rejecting
minds will at ono appgehe2d this.
The old Government, 10 the mat.
ter Of oOnfiscstion, iabors uader an en-
barrassment that does not attach TO the
new, as AZ insurgsnt power. This co.,
slsis Ia tbs constitutional or municipsl
laws previously established, aud The OBJ
servsncs Of which is &c necessary 70 the
legal 81 to the rebellious citizen or sub
lect. This obstruction to the full sweep
OF vengeance, or punishment, 90 the
part Of the old Government, grows cut
OF the title by which Il claims to war on
the iDsurreotionsFy authority. II IL he
burden Of legitimacy, and upright courts
will enferos It. With this saving, thsn,
there is no difference between the de jsre
and dc J0ot0 organizations as 30 coDds-
10 the disadected territory. In
each case success 10 srns can alone 1r.
hold the c~onfscstion.
The truth is that on this point Il would
have better sustained the CHEF Justice
for him to have admitted that the Con.
States WA a ds gaco govern
msnt, but nothing more that II was
compelled TO yield 70 the dc tVrs bsfcrs
tcoT closed, therefore lie con6sea~
ton sots could give no title as against
sdheFsnts OF the dc Jurs power.
.OnascAtlon is no part Of ths war
making power-it does not sppsrtai1 to :
the belligerent right; seizure and can
tores do. To c0niscste Is Only the ssser-
ion by the civil authority OF the right to
for presumed crimes. Singular :
% say, MIR, CHASE 10 this opinion 50 re- (
II, yet commits the egregious c
Of making ths exercise of this osY0
depend on the ds Jqcto Instead :
the SS fsFs sSsssRss Of the govern, Z