The Bolivar bulletin. [volume] (Bolivar, Hardeman County, Tenn.) 1865-1888, 1868-01-04

sd hostile and beliisarent pe9er The
+ prfuei ples seftsad is those cases. Has not q
recogaitioa of bslliesacns igsts if tie Rebels
or q. recognition 81 legal STATES s them ~
/ beligerentss f5 was iuzmater55 the court
held, whether the owner Of sle property was
a citizen or alien, whether loyal O. atsloyal,
and what was the status Of the territory, or
It's Inhabitants as regards the Constitution
and laws Of the United States, and the as
serted constitution and laws Of the Rebels.
The prize courts locked only to the fact that
the region was IN possession and control OF
! a power capable Of carrying on hostilities
against the United States, and compelling
the government to meet them by the exer-
elSe of helllgerent rights, Dana Wheaton
29T, note 153. These cases do not sustain
and support the principles assumed for the
hplaintifs in error. We eannos assent to the
proposition that peaceful citizen, engaged
IN no act Of hostility to either party, bat IN
the discharge of his ordinary and legitimate
business, is subject to arrest, imprisonment
and seizure Of his property at the VIII Of
men, who have organized an insurTectionarY
force to overthrow and destroy their lawful
governments it IS according to those In
arms right and privileges that do not belong
20 the officers of the lawful gaFsrament-
An officer has nc right 20 impress private
property, unless forced By inevitable neees-
sitv, and an order from his superior eficer,
unless such necessity exists, is no protection
to him Mitchell Is Harmony, 18th Howard,
The court says there are, without doubt.
occasions In which private property may be
lawfully be taken possession of or DESTROYED,
to prevent it from falling IN the hands Of the
public enemy, and also when Military oii-
cer, charged with particulas duty, may iHl-
N II
or take It for public use, unq0estlonahlY IN
such cases, the government IS bound 10 mai1e
full compensation to the owner and the Off
Ger Is not a trespasser; but we are clearly of
opinion, that IN all these cases the danger
must be immediate and impending. os the
necessity urgent for the public service, and
such as viii not admit Of delay. and when
the action Of the civil authority would Be too
late in providing the means which sAe oeea-
sion called for.
1t Is impossible to define the dangers or
necessities in which this lover may BE iaq-
fully exercised every case must depend on
It's own circumstances; 1t Is the emergency
that gives the right. and the emeFEsHey must
be shown to exist before the taking can be
justified.
An officer has no right to take the private
property of any individual not in arms, to
insure the success Of any enterprise against
the public enemy, which be may deem it
advisable TO undertake. where the owner has
done nothing to forfeit his rights. The
rights Of the citizen are carefully guarded bv
the constitution and laws. and any invasion
of those rights, without authority Of 4w, Is
q trespass, Tor which the party trespassiag IS
liable in damages
The law being thus rigid as to private
rights IN cases between the lawful govern
ment its own officers and citizens, ws can
not recognize the principle that those in arms
A. n
their unlawful acts. The order of the com
mander of the Confederate forces 20 arrest
aud seize the property Of the delensapt -
error, was unlaWful and no justification 10
them. In the case referred to, the court
says, upon principles, independent Of tie
weight Of judicial decision, it can never te
maintained that q military officer can Justify
himself FOR doing an unlawful set, bg pro-
ducing the order of his superior
When the officer has not transeendea his
authority, and private rights have been in-
Yaded, the governments assumes and makes
full compensation On the termination of a
war between independent powers, a treaty Of
peace. follows, and each power assumes to pay
and Indemnify its own citizens for t6rtHous
acts of its own officers and soldiers Ha3leek,
international law, S5l.
Upon the suppression. Of the rebellion, no
treaty OF peace was made, nor was there any
power with whom such could have been
made, hence no indemnity can be had, and
the wrong. committed upon citizens, must re-
main unredressed, unless the frespassers
themselves are liable. 1t follows therefore
that the plaintiffs in error, in seizing the
property of Stout was unlawful; the orders
of their superior officers is no defense they
were all trespassers who were present, as
sistipg aiding or abetting, and must be held
liable for the consequences of their illegal
acts, 2nd Caid. Davidson US Manloye WRIGHT
& Cantrel as Overall, End Cald 337 Wood
IS Stone ID. 800. There is no erEor1 IN the
charge of the court, and the Judgment viii
be affirmed. SHAcKLKFORD, Judge.