Knoxville weekly chronicle. [volume] (Knoxville, Tenn.) 1870-1875, 1870-10-26

a4euV, Shdh impress lle necessary S1ppucS
which any person may have for the con-
sumption of himself his family, employees,
or slaves or To- carry on his ordinary me-
chanlca', manufacturing OF agricultural en-
p,oymant.
In the Constitution Of Jhe United States.
Art Wit is provided TINT private property
shall Hot Pc taken Cor public use withou
l,t compensation. and the seine provision
was contained III Che con tu.ioa Of the
ConiaderH e States Art. !. 81 o.
II viii thus he cen that both bcllirerents
acknowledged, in their fundamental laws
the duty of making compensation; and this
ha, always been considered as an atirmauce
Of q great doctrine established by the COM
mon law, laid down by iurists as q principal
Of universal law and founded on natural
equity. Story's Coust. S. 1890 But while
the lawful Government of the United
States and the de fJc'0 Government Of the
Confederate State-, mutually. acknowl-
edged at least in theory, the application of
this principle to their own citizens, the
stern and vigorous doctrine recognized in
the law of nations that all movable proper
ty Of the enemies. including private prop
ertv may be seized, or destroyed, was prac-
-ically adopted, by both belligerents; and
has been already announced, we hold that,
in the late civil war, each party beligerent
was entitled to the same belligerent rights.
This doctrine is fully recognized, not only
in the authorities before cited, but in Law
rence's Wheaton j2l, 522, text, and 523 in
the notes and is incidentally in Hal
leck's Int Law PIP. 4jS, $50, AGA. 1t
was declared, III another form, by the
Supreme Court OF the United States, long
before our civil war. in the case Of the Ian
tissima Trinidad and the St Andre, I
Wheat, 2S3, 2S4, Peters Cond. r. 2S4.
There it was held that, during the exist
fence of the civil war between Spain and
her colonies, aud previous to the aeknowl-
edgement of the independence of the latter
by the United States, The colonies were
deemed by us asbelligerent nations and en-
titled, so far as concerns Us, to all the SOW
ereign rights Of war against their enemy.
And, in two cases determined by the Court
Of Appeals Of Kentucky, in 1866 the same
general principle was asserted and enforced.
In the one, it was held that the capture Of
horses for the public Use of the Conteder-
ate army, under military authority, express
0TimpGed. however wrongful IN act, was eX-
cusabe as q lawful exercise Of a balligerent
right Price Us. Poyntor, Rushs Ky;
L. 3s7. iu the other II was announced
that the admitted lag- % I'll civilized Tal-
fare entitle each party 10 q civil war to the
same RICH. Of capture ~ destruction OF
enemies property, and shoF that when
either the capture or destruction OF pro
gerty By on o. such 0al.ige. nts i lawful,
i. is equally lawfal By he other: and if IN
lawful by one, would be c4ugl 1r The
other Bell ". l.ooisgllie and Nashville
H. X. Co., Bus#s ~, H.. A.
It was declared hy this COURT, in Ham
mond vs. The State , Col1. Z5G. ,hat in the
ate civil war, the PEOPLE were separated
into two distinct and hostile societies, eaei-
belligerent pelely, standing on the same
level. and eiltfGeG, pending the confess, TO
the same Tights,of war, as against each 9th
err that they would had they both been IN
dependent sovereign; and thar they could,
take prisoners, capture properly belonging
70 each hostile party, and deal with com
ratants, for the time, wherever de armies
marched, as two sovereign and independent
states We full approve the PRINCIPAL as
there stated. The doctrine seems TO have
been grealy modified in Yost vs. Stout.
Coli. 2Jj, where it was held lo-t and rth-
n Confederate sollies, who had taken th1
wagon and mlle> Of Stout by orders of the
commander o the Rehel force. ere tres
passers. and that he order YVES !, iusulcl
ton. The case Of G0sl ", Stuu, and To,
eases OF Dawson IS 4Ja.oya , Cold
347 and Wood US Stone, Gold, 80
,.en also to be in rontllc- wih Iim-
uoa2 u.s. Tie .Siufe, and 50 fa a
they are, similar cases in COilwell's RapOrt
are opposed to the views presented ~ th
opinion, are ayerulel. The case OF Fot
trel and GorDlGn, Cold, 5Sl, in wticl
!, was held that notice executed 10y
Confederate surgeon for the rent Of a hos
3i.a! building, was not Illegal and void, a
being IN aid oil the rebellion, Is approved
rs far us it goes. and might perhaps, b
vested on former grounds. The cases o
Wright and CtultreU u.s. OcerdH, Cold
$50, and other cases In which it was helC
that the Confederate or Rebel Government
was not de tIcto government arc oyerruled
80 far as they are not in unison with th,
opinion. The doctrine that the rebel
were insurgents, merely, and tia
the Government Of the Confedelat
States Of America was not a de tttcto gov
eminent involved perhaps, the consequence
that the United States might be liable
foreign governments, and, possibly, to the
own citizens, for all their acts and liabilities
aud we are not disposed 20 yield our assen
70 a doctrine fraught with consequences q
such gravity and Importance Were it a
original question, we would, without hesita
ton, declare that a government which as
sumed to form Constitutions had Pres
dent and Cabinet in actual authority;
Congress that enacted laws, in most sui
jects Of national legislation, and pubishe
them in due form and enforced them
which was recognized, as a belliger
anr uoTvar nv trUo Cf tho ,rrnata-t nathan