Knoxville weekly chronicle. [volume] (Knoxville, Tenn.) 1870-1875, 1870-11-02
THE POINTS IN ISSUE.


issue. We have repeatedly stated upon
what grounds we hold the opinion of our
Supreme Court at fault and in conflict with
the decisions of the Supreme Court of the
United States. We think we have made
ourselves understood TO all intelligent read
ers, if not to the obtuse minds of the ambi-
tious legal gentlemen who in turn use the
columns of the Press and Herald to make
their assaults upon us, not by proving our
criticisms at fault, but by indscriminate
comments upon the motives, purposes and
programme of the proceedings instituted
against the Supreme Court Judges, mat
ter about which we know far less than
they profess to.
But the new contributor of the organ
says the decision of Judge Nelson is sim
ply that the rebel government twas enti-
tied to equal belligerent rights with the,
United States"
We say that Judge Nelson's opinion goes
much farther than this, as we have hereto
fore shown. The Court, in their dictum
distinctly state that "were it an original
question, we would, without hesitation"
say that a government which had presi
dent, congress, armies, &C., as the Confede-
racy had, "3CdS to all intcntS and purposes
a dc fucto government" There is a wide
difference between II power entitled du-
ring the tendency of the war and for the
sake of humanity, to merely beUigerept
rights and a government to all intents and
purposes dc .fdctO."
If it were a dc fdctO government of such
q grade, its civil officers, courts and citi-
gems would be fully protected in law for all
acts done in pursuance of its authority.
But this the Supreme Court of the United
States, in the Hickman case, g Wallace, p.
20O,) distinctly state was not the character
of the COnfederacy. In that case, they
held that the Confederate Court in North
ern Alabama, organized and dispensing
laws by authority of an act of the rebel
Congress, was guilty of trespaSs in impris-
oning a citizen within the lines of its juris-
dictiOn. If the COnfederacy twas to al
intcnts and purposes q dc factO govern
ment, as Judge Nelson declares it, does not
every intelligent reader know that its
courts and lawmakers and citizens would
be protected in every act done under its
laws and in furtherance of its objects?
But again: The Press and HcraId'S
contributor accuses us of grossly misrepre-
senting the Court in declaring that "the.
murders, robberies and outrages of either
party were licensed by the laws of war;"
In the first place, we never made such Il
charge; but waving this entirely, let us
see how far the opinion does go on this
point. If, as the Court hold, the Confede-
racy was to all purposes de JdctO govern
ment then every citizen or soldier acting
legtimately under its authority would be
fully protected for every act of war, no
matter what its character or results. The
Civil Courts would, by such reasoning, be
held to have no jurisdiction of such cases,
and every such act would 90 unpublished.
But it will be seen from the Hickman case
that such is not law in the United States
Courts, though it would seem to be so from
the arguments of Judge Nelson.
An effort is made in the article which we
are noticing to show that the ease of Smith
VS.. Brazelton is not in conflict with Ham
mond VS.. The State, decided by Judge Mil
ligan and his associates.
That, ii must be remembered was n
criminal case. The property taken by
Hammond was contraband of war, and
it was an act of war" The question be-
fore the Court was, was the taking a felo-
ny? OF course it was not, because the de-
PENDANT was not free agent. He was act
ing under military authority, and he could
not be held to have acted with criminal
intent. But what did Judge Milligan in
that opinion say? Simply that the militia
ry authorities during the arwere entitled
to belligerant rights-nOt under the law of
nations, as Judge Nelson so zealously ar
gucd, but by the dictates of humanity"
That opinion, all through, treats distinct
lively of military acts and belligerent
rights, and nowhere recognizes the Con-
federacy as a de fdctO government.
These are the points at issue, and if the
Press and Herald and its corps of contri-
butOrs choose to argue them, we would
prefer to have them be pertinent, and not
wander off in mean partisan efforts to pro-
woke prejudces against the United States
Courts and its officers who are but en-
forcing its laws, or against the CHRONICLE
for its articles, which have certainly been
higher toned and fairer than its assailants.
Con. BLIZZARD is in the habit of stating
in his speeches that man cannot engage
in the dstillation of spirits unless he pos
sesscs capital of three or four thousand
dollars. There are upwards of forty dis
tillcrics in this Congressional District,
very few of which have IA capital of half