Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1870-03-08
THE HICKMAN CASE.
Decision OF the supreme Court of che
aiAited states.

BAited states.
James Hickman, Plaintiff In error, vs.. Edward
Belts Thomas S. AIcCaley. et al.-In error to Il
District Court Of the United States for the Nortl
| ern District of Alabama.
Mr.. Justice Swayne delivered the opir
ion of the court.
This is writ of error TO the Distric
Court of the United States for the North
ern District of Alabama
4 The plaintiff in error sued defendants i
error for naliciously causing him to b
arrested, imprisoned, and prosecuted for
criminal offence without probable cause
| The facts disclosed in the record, SO IA
as it is necessary to state them, arc as fol
lows:
| During the late civil war the Rebel gov
ernmeut established court known as The
''District Court of the Confederate State.
of America for the Northern District oil
Alabama. In that court the plaintiff il
error was indicted for treason against The
Confederate States The indictment al
legged that troops of the United States
were in the Northern District Of Alabama
engaged in hostile enterprise against the
| Confederate States, and that Hickman
ibid traitorouslythen and there assemble
and continue with the said troops of the
said United States in the prosecution of
their said expedition against the Confed-
crate States; and then and there, with
| force and arms and with the trailOrOus in
tention of cooperating with the said
troops of the United States in effecting
the object of the said hostile expedition,
did array and dispose himself with them
in hncfsl1
said Confederate States; and then and
there, with force and arms, in pursuance
of such his traitorous intentions, lie,
the said James Hickman, with the said
persons, so aforesaid, assembled, armed,
and arrayed in manner aforesaid, wickedly
and traitorously did levy war against the
said Confederate States
Upon this Indictment a warrant was
issued for the arrest of Hickman. He
was arrested and Imprisoned accordingly.
He applied to the defendant, Jones, who
assumed to act as Judge OF the Court, to
be allowed to give bail. Jones rejected
the application and remanded him to pri-
son. He was subsequently tried, acquit-
ted, and discharged. He alleges that the
proceeding was witout probable cause and
malicious. Moore was the clerk of the
pretended court. The name of Regan is
signed to the indictment as District At
tOrney, and he conducted the trial. Robert
w. Coltart was Deputy Marshal, and
Clay ~as the eoiscr and publisher of the
Huntsville Confederate, a newspaper
through which it was alleged he melted
the prosecution by means of malicious
attacks upon Hickman designed to pro-
duce that result.
The other defendants were members of
the Grand Jury by which the Indictment
was found.
Testimony was given tending TO show
that the plaintiff sympathized with the
rebellion and participated in it while the
Rebel power predOminated in North Ala
bama, both before and after its first inva.
sion by the forces of the United States
The court instructed the jury, among
other things, as follows:
'lf, In the case at the bar, you believe
that the acts and speeches of the plaintiff,
upon which the defendants rely to prove
his completely with the rebellion, were
the result of anything less than fear
that if he did not so speak and act, his
life or his liberty or his property would
be sacrificed to his silence or his omission,
you will find verdict for the defendants.
eff, on the other hand, you believe
that these acts of apparent completely with
the rebellion were performed by the
plaintiff under the influence of an honest
and rational apprehension that to do 9TH
erwise would expose him to persecution
or prosecution, or 10 loss of life, liberty
or property, and that nOtwiti standing
these acts of utilization with the Rebe
community in which he lived, he was al :
ways at hesrt honestly and truly loyal TO
the government of his country, ne is enti-
tied to your verdict"
The jury were further instructed that
il was their duty to acquit the defendants,
II. w. Coltart and Clay.
Exceptions were duly taken by the
plaintiff, and the case is brought here for
review.
We have to complain in this case, as
we do frequently, of the manner in which
the bill of exceptions has been prepared.
1t contains all the evidence adduced on
both sides and the entire charge of the
court. This is direct violation of the
rule of this court upon the subject. We
have looked into the evidence and the
charge only so far as was necessary TO
enable us TO fully comprehend the points
presented for our consideratiOn-thu in
effect reducing the bill to the dimensions
which the rule prescribes. No good re-
suit can follow in any case from exceed
ing this standard. Our labOrs are unnec-
essarily increased, and the case intended
to be presented is not unfrequently OBJ
scured and confused, by the excess.
The rebellion out of which the war
grew was without any legal sanction. In
the eye of the law it had the same prop
critics as if it had been the instruction of
a county or smaller municipal territory
against the State to which it belonged.
The proportions and duration of the strug-
gle did not affect its character. Nor was
there rebel government de .fdctO in such
a sense as to give any legal efficacy to its
acts. 1t was not recognized by the ma
tional, nor by any foreign government. 1t
was not at any time in possession of the
capital of the nation. 1t did not for
moment displace the rightful government.
Ddt EOfElui1Cub was always III CAiSlN nJNg
always in the regular discharge of its
functions, and constantly exercising all its
military power to put down the resistance
TO its authority in the insurrcctionary
States. The union of the States, for all
the purposes of the Constitution, is as
perfect and indissoluble as the union of
the integral parts ofthe States themselves;
anG nothing but revolutionary violence
can, in either case, destroy the ties which
hold the parts together. For the sake of
humanity certain belligerent rights were
conceded to the insurgents in arms. But
the recognition did not extend to the pre-
tended government of the COnfederacy.
The intercourse was confined to its mill
tary authorities. In nOinstance was there
intercourse otherwise than of this charac-
ter. The rebellion was simply an armed
resistance to the rightful authority of the
sovereign. Such was its character i'll its
rise, progress, and downfall. The act of
the Confederate Congress creating the tri-
bunal in question was void. 1t was as If 1t
were not The court was nullity, and
could exercise no rightful jurisdiction.
The forms of law with which it clothed
its proceedings gave noprotection to those
who, assuming to be its officers, were the
instruments by which it acted. In the
case before us trespass would have been
the appropriate remedy, but the authOri-
ties are clear that case also may be main
tanned. Each form of action is governed
by Its own principles. 1t is needless to
consider them, as none of the exceptions
taken relate to that subject. Our opinion
will be confined to those which have been
specifically mentioned.
m LII u,