ford v. surget.rtf

8/10/2019 Ford v. Surget.rtf

1/47

11/28/2014 Ford v. Surget :: 97 U.S. 594 (1878) :: Justia U.S. Supreme ourt e!ter

EnterSearchTerms

Search

JustiaU.S.LawU.S.Case LawU.S.Supreme CourtVolume 97Ford v.SurgetCase

Ford v.Surget

97 U.S.594 (1878)Annotate this Case

Sylabus|Case

U.S.Supreme Court

Ford v.Surget,97 U.S.594 (1878)

Ford v.Surget

97 U.S.594

ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT

OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

Sylabus

1.The courtreafirmsthe doctrine inW iliamsv.Brufy,96 U.S.176,thatanenactmentofthe

Confederate States,enforced asa law ofone ofthe statescomposing thatconfederation,isa

statute ofsuchstate withinthe meaning ofthe actregulating the appelate jurisdictionofthis
https://www.justia.com/https://www.justia.com/https://law.justia.com/https://law.justia.com/cases/https://supreme.justia.com/https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/97/https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/97/594/https://accounts.justia.com/?destination=http%3A%2F%2Fediting.justia.com%2Fannotations%2F1970028https://accounts.justia.com/?destination=http%3A%2F%2Fediting.justia.com%2Fannotations%2F1970028https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/97/594/index.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/97/594/index.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/96/176/case.htmlhttps://law.justia.com/https://law.justia.com/cases/https://supreme.justia.com/https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/97/https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/97/594/https://accounts.justia.com/?destination=http%3A%2F%2Fediting.justia.com%2Fannotations%2F1970028https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/97/594/index.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/96/176/case.htmlhttps://www.justia.com/


2/47

Courtoverthe judgmentsand decreesofthe state courts.

2.A.,a residentofAdamsCounty,Mississippi,whose cotonwasthere burntbyB.inMay,

1862,broughtanactionforitsvalue againstthe later,who setup asa defense thatthatstate,

whereofhe wasatthatdate a resident,wastheninsubjectionto and underthe controlofthe

"ttps://supreme.#ustia.$om/$ases/%edera&/us/97/594/$ase."tm& 1/24


3/47


"Confederate States;"thatanactoftheircongress,approved March6,1862,declared thatit

wasthe dutyofalmilitarycommandersintheirservice to destroyalcotonwhenever,intheir

judgment,the same should be aboutto falinto the handsofthe United States;thatin obedience

to thatact,the commanderoftheirforcesinMississippiissued anorder,directed to hissubordinate

oficersinthatstate,to burnalcotonalong the MississippiRiverlikelyto fal into the handsofthe

forcesofthe United States;thatthe provostmarshalofthatcountywas charged withexecuting

withinitthatorder;thatA.'scotonwaslikelyto falinto the handsofthe United States;thatthe

provostmarshalordered and required B.to burnit;and thatB.did burnit inobedience to the said

actand the ordersofthatcommanderand the provostmarshal.Heldl. thatthe said act,asa

measure oflegislation,canhave no force inanycourtrecognizing the Constitutionofthe United

Statenasthe supreme law ofthe land;2.thatitdid notassume to conferupon

Page 97 U.S.595

suchcommandersanygreaterauthoritythanthey,bythe lawsand usagesofwar,were entitled to

exercise;3.thatthe orders,asanactofwar,exempted a soldierofthe Confederate army who

executed them from liabilityto the ownerofthe cotonwho,atthe time ofitsdestruction, wasa

voluntaryresidentwithinthe linesofthe insurrection;4.thatthe plea should,upon demurrer,be

deemed assuficientlyaverring the existence ofsuchrelationsbetweenB.and the Confederate

militaryauthoritiesasentitled him to make the same defense asifhe had beensuchsoldier.

Ford filed hiscomplaintagainstSurgetinthe CircuitCourtofAdamsCounty,Mississippi,on the

2d ofOctober,1866,aleging thathe,

"athisplantationinsaid county,onthe fifthdayofMay,inthe year1862,waspossessed,asof

hisownpersonalproperty,oftwo hundred balesofcoton,averaging inweightfourhundred

poundsperbale,and ofthe value of$600 perbale;and thathe being so possessed,Surget,at

the place aforesaid,and uponthe dayand yearaforesaid,did wilfulyand uterly,and against the

consentand wilofthe plaintif,destroyoffire the said two hundred balesofcoton,"

to the plaintif'sdamage inthe sum of$120,000.

The defendantpleaded notguilty,and also filed numerousspecialpleas.


4/47

The defense,althoughpresented bythe specialpleasindiferentforms,isinsubstance

embraced bythe folowing alegations,namely:

Thatatand before the time the aleged trespasseswere commited,the people ofMississippi,"ttps://supreme.#ustia.$om/$ases/%edera&/us/97/594/$ase."tm& 2/24


5/47


and ofVirginia,NorthCarolina,SouthCarolina,Florida,Georgia,Alabama,Louisiana,

Arkansas,and Texas,had confederated togetherforrevoltagainst,and withintheirterritorial

limitshad entirelysubverted,the governmentofthe United States,and inplace thereof,and

withinand fortheirterritoryand people,had created a new and separate government,caled the

Confederate StatesofAmerica,having executive,legislative,and judicialdepartments;that

onthe 6thofMarch,1862,and from thatdate untilthe time whenthe aleged trespasseswere

commited,a warhad been,and wasthen,waged and prosecuted byand betweenthe United

Statesand the Confederate States,and againsteachother,asbeligerentpowersand nations;

thatthe Confederate States,forthe prosecutionofthe warand the maintenance

Page 97 U.S.596

ofitspowers,thenand before had maintained initsservice,inthe State ofMississippi,an

armyofwhichGeneralBeauregard wascommanderwherebythe territory,property,and

inhabitantsofthatstate were held insubjectionto and underthe controlofthe Confederate

States;thatonthe 6thofMarch,1862,and byanactonthatdayapproved and promulgated by the

Confederate Congress,itwasdeclared to be the dutyofalmilitarycommandersinthe service

ofthe Confederate state to destroyalcoton,tobacco,and otherpropertythatmightbe usefulto

the forcesofthe United Stateswheneverintheirjudgmentthe same should be about to falinto

theirhands;thatafterwards,onthe 2d ofMay,1862,GeneralBeauregard, commanding the

Confederate forces,inobedience to thatact,made and issued a general ordered,directed to

oficersunderhiscommand inthe State ofMississippiand inthe service ofthe Confederate

Statesto burnalcotonalong the MississippiRiverlikelyto falinto the handsofthe forcesofthe

United States;thatbefore and atthe date lastmentioned,and afterwardsuntilthe time the

supposed trespasseswere commited,AlexanderK.Farrarwas acting asprovostmarshalofthe

CountyofAdams,charged withthe duty,among others,of executing,withinthatcountythe

ordersofmilitarycommandersinthe State ofMississippiinthe service ofthe Confederate

States,and inpursuance thereofwascommanded bythe Confederate militaryauthoritiesto

burnalthe cotonalong the bankofthatriverlikelyto falinto the handsofthe forcesofthe United

States;thatthe cotoninthe complaintmentioned was nearthe bankofthe

Mississippiwithinthatcounty,and was,whenburned,likelyto falinto the handsofthe

federalforces;thatthe defendantwasthenordered and required bysaid Farrar, acting


6/47

asprovostmarshalunderthe ordersaforesaid,to burncertaincoton,including the

cotonincontroversy;and thatafterwardsthe defendant,inobedience to the actofthe

Confederate Congressand the ordersofsaid militarycommandersand provostmarshal,did

burnFord'scoton,whichisthe supposed trespasscomplained of.

To eachofthe specialpleasthe plaintifinerrordemurred,assigning numerouscausesof

demurrer.The demurrerswere

"ttps://supreme.#ustia.$om/$ases/%edera&/us/97/594/$ase."tm& '/24


7/47


Page 97 U.S.597

overruled and replicationsfiled.The cause,being atissue,wastried bya jury.Verdictforthe

defendant.Judgmenthaving beenrendered thereon,the plaintifremoved the cause to the

supreme courtofthe state.Uponthe afirmance ofthe judgment,he sued outthiswritoferror.

Page 97 U.S.602

MR.JUSTICE HARLAN,afterstating the case,delivered the opinionofthe Court.

W e cannotice onlythe ground ofdemurrer,whichsuggeststhatthe defendantinhispleas

soughtto rely

"forjustificationofthe trespasscommited byhim uponmatersinthemselveswholyilegal,

againstpeace and good policy,and contraryto the Constitutionofthe United States,the

supreme law ofthe land,and the governmentthereof."

Inview ofthe decisioninW iliamsv.Brufy,96 U.S.176,butlitle need be said uponthe

preliminaryquestionofthe jurisdictionofthisCourt.W hatisthere decided would seem to be

conclusive inthiscase uponthe pointofjurisdiction.Thatwasanactionofassumpsitforgoods sold

inMarch,1861,bycitizensofPennsylvania to one Brufy,a citizenofVirginia.The

administratorofBrufyclaimed thatthe estate wasnotliable forthe debtsued forbecause,

pending the recentwar,hisintestate paid the debtto a receiverofthe Confederate States,in

pursuance ofa decree ofa Confederate districtcourtinVirginia,rendered inconformitywith the

provisionsofanactofthe Confederate Congresspassed Aug.30,1861,sequestrating the

lands,tenements,goods,chatels,rights,and creditswithinthe Confederate States,and of

everyrightsand interesttherein,held byorforanyalienenemyafterMay21,1861.That defense

wassustained inthe state courts,and,uponerror,itwasinsisted thatthisCourthad no

jurisdictionto review the finaljudgmentofthe Supreme CourtofAppealsofVirginia.Referring to

the provisioninthe statute conferring appelate jurisdictionuponthisCourt,

"where isdrawninquestionthe validityofa statute of,oranauthorityexercised under,any

state,onthe ground oftheirbeing repugnantto the Constitution,treaties,orlawsofthe United

States,and the decisionisinfavoroftheirvalidity,"
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/96/176/case.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/96/176/case.html


8/47

and referring also the provisionconferring suchjurisdiction

"where anytitle,right,privilege,orimmunityisclaimed underthe Constitution,oranytreatyor

statute of,orcommissionheld orauthorityexercised under,the United States,and the

Page 97 U.S.603



9/47


decisionisagainstthe title,right,privilege,orimmunityspecialysetup orclaimed byeither

partyundersuchConstitution,treaty,statute,commission,orauthority"

--thisCourtdecided thatitsrightto review thatjudgmentcould be maintained uponbothof

those clausesofthe amended JudiciaryAct.

Some ofthe groundsofourdecisionare thusstated inthe opinionofthe Court:

"The pleasaverthata confederationwasformed byVirginia and otherstates,caled the

Confederate StatesofAmerica,and thatundera law ofthisconfederation,enforced inVirginia,

the debtdue to the plaintifswassequestrated.Now the Constitutionofthe United States

prohibitsanytreaty,aliance,orconfederationbyone state withanother.The organization whose

enactmentispleaded cannottherefore be regarded inthisCourtashaving anylegal

existence.Itfolowsthatwhatevereficacythe enactmentpossessed inVirginia mustbe atributed

to the sanctiongivento itbythatstate.Anyenactment,from whateversource originating,to

whicha state givesthe force oflaw,isa statute ofthe state withinthe meaning of the clause

cited relating to the jurisdictionofthisCourt....Bythe onlyauthoritywhichcanbe recognized

ashaving anylegalexistence --thatis,the State ofVirginia --thisactofthe unauthorized

confederationwasenforced asa law ofthe commonwealth.Itsvaliditywasdrawn

inquestiononthe ground thatitwasrepugnantto the Constitutionofthe United Statesand the

decisionofthe courtbelow wasinfavorofitsvalidity."

1W e do notperceive thatthiscase,uponthe questionofjurisdiction,canbe distinguished from

2W iliamsv.Brufy.The defendant,Surget,justifieshisburning ofthe cotonundermilitary

orders,issued bya Confederate general,inpursuance ofauthorityconferred byanactofthe

Confederate Congress.Ifwe regard substance ratherthanmere from ortechnicalaccuracy,the

defense rested uponthatact,the validityofwhichwas,interms,questioned bythe several

demurrersto the specialpleas.The generalordersofthe state courtoverruling the demurrers

mustbe accepted,ineveryessentialsense,asanadjudicationinfavorofthe validityofanact ofthe

Confederate

Page 97 U.S.604


10/47

Congress,recognized and enforced aslaw inMississippi,and whichact,according to the rule

laid downinthatcase,mustbe,therefore,regarded byusasa statute ofthatstate withinthe

meaning ofthe provisionsofthe actdeclaring the appelate jurisdictionofthisCourt.Itresults

thatwe have powerto review the finaljudgmentofthe Supreme CourtofMississippi.

W e come now to the considerationofthe meritsofthe case so farastheyseem to be involved

inthe demurrersto the specialpleas.



11/47


The principlesofpubliclaw,asapplicable to civiland internationalwars,have beenso

frequentlyunderdiscussionhere thatwe shalnotavailourselvesofthe opportunitynow

aforded to renew thatdiscussionorenlarge uponwhathasbeenheretofore said.The

numerousdecisionsofthisCourt,beginning withthePrizeCases,2 Black635,and ending

withW iliamsv.Brufy,supra,andDewing v.Perdicaries,96 U.S.193,renderanyfurther

declarationasto these principleswholyunnecessaryforthe purposesofthe presentcase. W

ithoutatempting to restate althe reasonsassigned inadjudged casesforthe conclusions

thereinannounced,we assume thatthe folowing propositionsare setled byorare plainlyto be

deduced from ourformerdecisions:

1.The districtofcountrydeclared bythe constituted authorities,during the late civilwar,to be in

insurrectionagainstthe governmentofthe United States,wasenemyterritory,and althe people

residing withinsuchdistrictwere,according to publiclaw,and foralpurposes connected withthe

prosecutionofthe war,liable to be treated bythe United States,pending the warand while

theyremained withinthe linesofthe insurrection,asenemieswithoutreference to

theirpersonalsentimentsand dispositions.

2.There wasno legislationofthe Confederate CongresswhichthisCourtcanrecognize as

having anyvalidityagainstthe United Statesoragainstanyofitscitizenswho,pending the war,

resided outside ofthe declared limitsofthe insurrectionarydistricts.

3.The Confederate governmentisto be regarded bythe

Page 97 U.S.605

courtsassimplythe militaryrepresentative ofthe insurrectionagainstthe authorityofthe United

States.

4.To the Confederate armywas,however,conceded,inthe interestofhumanityand to prevent

the crueltiesofreprisalsand retaliation,suchbeligerentrightsasbelonged underthe lawsof

nationsto the armiesofindependentgovernmentsengaged inwaragainsteachother--that

concessionplacing the soldiersand oficersofthe rebelarmy,asto almatersdirectly connected

withthe mode ofprosecuting the war,"onthe footing ofthose engaged inlawful war,"and
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/67/635/case.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/96/193/case.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/67/635/case.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/96/193/case.html


12/47

exempting "them from liabilityforactsoflegitimate warfare."

5.The cotonforthe burning ofwhichdamagesare claimed inthiscivilactionwas,asto the United

Statesand itsmilitaryforcesengaged inthe suppressionofthe rebelion,notonly

enemy,buthostile propertybecause,being the productofthe soil,and,whenburned,withinthe

boundaryofthe insurrectionarydistrict,itconstituted also,aswe know from the historyofthe

insurrectionitdid,"the chiefreliance ofthe rebelsformeansto purchase the munitionsofwarin

"ttps://supreme.#ustia.$om/$ases/%edera&/us/97/594/$ase."tm& /24


13/47


Europe."Young v.United States,supra,p.97 U.S.39;Mrs.Alexander'sCoton,2 W al.404.

Itwastherefore liable atthe time to seizure ordestructionbythe federalarmywithoutregard to

the individualsentimentsofitsowner,whetherthe purpose ofefectofsuchseizure or

destructionwould have beento strengthenthatarmyorto decrease and cripple the powerand

resourcesofthe enemy.

Itwould seem to be a logicaldeductionfrom these doctrines--a deductionstrengthened by

considerationsofhumanityand publicnecessity--thatthe destructionofthe same coton,

underthe ordersofthe Confederate militaryauthorities,forthe purpose ofpreventing itfrom

faling into the handsofthe federalarmy,was,underthe circumstancesaleged inthe special

pleas,anactofwaruponthe partofthe militaryforcesofthe rebelion,forwhichthe person

executing suchorderswasrelieved from civilresponsibilityatthe suitofthe ownervoluntarily

residing atthe time withinthe linesofthe insurrection.W e do notrestthisconclusionuponany

authorityconferred oratempted to be conferred uponConfederate commandersbythe statute

ofthe Confederate Congress,recited in

Page 97 U.S.606

the specialpleas.Asanactoflegislation,thatstatute canhave no force whateverinanycourt

recognizing the federalConstitutionasthe supreme law ofthe land.Itisto be regarded as

nothing more thana declarationuponthe partofthe militaryrepresentative ofthe rebelion,

addressed to Confederate commanders,afording evidence to those adhering to the rebelion

ofthe circumstancesunderwhichcotonwithinthe linesofthe insurrectionmightbe destroyed

bymilitarycommandersinthe service ofthe Confederate States.Ithoweverassumed to confer

uponsuchcommandersno greaterauthoritythan,consistentlywiththe lawsand usagesofwar,

theymighthave exercised,withoutthe previoussanctionofthe Confederate legislative

authorities,asto anycotonwithintheirmilitarylineslikelyto falinto the handsofthe federal

forces.Theyhad the right,asanactofwar,to destroyprivate propertywithinthe linesofthe

insurrectionbelonging to those who were cooperating directlyorindirectlyinthe insurrection

againstthe governmentofthe United Statesifsuchdestructionseemed to be required by

impending necessityforthe purpose ofretarding the advance orcrippling the military

operationsofthe federalforces.Ofthatmode ofconducting the waronbehalfofthe rebelion no


14/47

one could justlycomplainwho occupied the positionofanenemyofthe United Statesby

reasonofvoluntaryresidence withinthe insurrectionarydistrict.

Itisinsisted withmuchearnestnessthatSurgetshould notbe alowed to take shelterunder

these doctrines,since itisnotaverred inthe specialpleasthathe constituted anypartofor

held anyoficialrelationsto the militaryforcesofthe rebelion.Butsucha technicalnarrow

constructionofthe specialpleasshould notbe alowed to prevailina case like this.Itis



15/47


distinctlyaleged thatthe Confederate governmentwas,atthe time ofthe burning ofthe coton,

exercising althe functionsofcivilgovernmentwithinthe State ofMississippiand overits

propertyand inhabitants.Itisfurtheraleged thatthe defendantwasaninhabitantand citizenof

Mississippi,subjectto Confederate power,authority,and jurisdiction,and thathe wasordered

and required bythe provostmarshal--charged bythe Confederate departmentcommander

withthe executionof

Page 97 U.S.607

the orderto burnthe cotoninAdamsCountylikelyto falinto the possessionofthe federal forces--

to burnthe cotononFord'splantation,and thatitwasso burned inobedience to the actofthe

Confederate Congressand the ordersofthe militaryauthorities.These alegations seem to besuficientlycomprehensive to admitevidence thatthe defendantacted under

duressorcompulsion.Taking into considerationthe extraordinarycircumstancesinwhichthe

people ofMississippiwere thenplaced,especialythe absolute authoritywhichthe Confederate

governmentand itsmilitarycommanderswere thenexercising overthatportionof the

territoryand people ofthe United States,the specialpleasshould be deemed,upon

demurrer,assuficientlyaverring the existence ofsuchrelationsbetweenSurgetand the

Confederate militaryauthoritiesasentitled him to make the same defense asanysoldier,

regularlyenlisted inthe Confederate army,acting underlike orders,could have made.W hether

Surgetwasinfactrequired to execute the orderofthe provostmarshaldoesnotappear.No bil

ofexceptionwastaken,and inview ofthe explicitavermentthatSurgetwasrequired bymilitary

authorityto burnFord'scoton,we cannotassume upondemurrerthathe wasa mere volunteer to

aid initsdestruction.

Itwilbe observed thatwe have assumed from the pleadings,aswe thinkwe are justified in

doing,thatFord resided onhisplantationinthe insurrectionarydistrictatthe time hiscoton

wasburned.The contraryisnotaleged,and wasnotclaimed inargument.He doesnotpretend

thathe resided ina loyalstate oradhered to the governmentofthe Unioninitsefortsto

suppressthe rebelion.There isno intimationthathisresidence inMississippiwasinany degree

constrained ortemporary.W hetherthe redresshere soughtcould,consistentlywiththe

provisionsofthe federalConstitution,be denied to one who,bythe lawsofwar,isto be deemed


16/47

anenemyto the lawfulgovernment,solelybyreasonofresidence withinthe

insurrectionarydistrictpending the struggle,butwho,inpointoffact,wasa loyalcitizen, adhering

to the United States,giving no voluntaryaid orcomfortto the rebelion,itisnot

necessaryforusnow to decide.No suchquestionishere presented,and we forbearany

expressionofopinionuponit.Itwilbe

Page 97 U.S.608"ttps://supreme.#ustia.$om/$ases/%edera&/us/97/594/$ase."tm& 8/24


17/47


time enoughto considerand determine thatprecise questionwhenitarises.

Ourconclusion,therefore,isthatthe actofthe Confederate Congressrecited inthe special

pleaswasofno validityasanactoflegislation,and while the demurrerscould nothave been

overruled uponthe ground thatsuchunauthorized legislationaforded protectionto Surget,

neverthelessthe generalfactssetoutinthe specialpleas,considered inconnectionwiththe

beligerentrightsconceded to the rebelarmybythe governmentofthe United States,do

constitute a defense to thisaction,and uponthislastground the demurrermighthave been

properlyoverruled.

W hetherthe state court,initsinstructionsto the jury,correctlyexpounded the law ofthe case

we cannotuponthisreview determine.No bilofexceptionwastaken,eitherasto the evidence orthe instructions,and we cannottherefore determine whaterrors,ifany,were commited inthe

trialofthe case.W e have limited ourinvestigationaltogetherto the federalquestionsraised by

the demurrerto the specialpleas.

Judgmentafirmed.

MR.JUSTICE CLIFFORD concurred inthe judgmentofthe court,and delivered the

folowing opinion:

Partiesbeligerentina publicwarare independentnations,butitisnotnecessarythatboth

partiesshould be acknowledged assuchinorderto the enjoymentofbeligerentrights,aswar

mayexistwhere one ofthe beligerentsclaimssovereignrightsagainstthe other,the rule being

thatwhenthe regularcourse ofjustice isinterrupted byrevolt,rebelion,orinsurrection,so that

the courtsofjustice cannotbe open,civilwarexistsand hostilitiesmaybe prosecuted to the

same extentasinpublicwar.PrizeCases,2 Black666;Vatel425.

Two hundred balesofcotonowned bythe plaintifwere burned bythe defendantduring the war

ofthe rebelionatthe time and place aleged inthe declaration,and the plaintif,since the

restorationofpeace,instituted the presentactionoftrespassinthe state courtto recover

damagesforthe loss.Service wasmade and the defendantappeared and pleaded the

generalissue and severalspecialpleas.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/67/635/case.html#666https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/67/635/case.html#666


18/47

Page 97 U.S.609

Reference need onlybe made to two ofthe specialpleas:

1.Thatthe defendantburned the cotoninobedience to anorderofthe Confederate States,

giventhroughthe commanding generaloftheirarmyand the acting provostmarshalofthe

county."ttps://supreme.#ustia.$om/$ases/%edera&/us/97/594/$ase."tm& 9/24


19/47


2.Thatthe Confederate Congresspassed anactthatitshould be the dutyofalmilitary

commandersinthe service ofthe Confederate Statesto destroyalcoton,tobacco,orother

propertythatmightbe usefulto the enemy(meaning the militaryforcesofthe United States)

wheneverintheirjudgmentthe same should be aboutto falinto theirhands,and thatthe

defendantburned the cotoninlitigationinpursuance ofthatactand the said ordersofthe said

militarycommanderand provostmarshal.

Sufice itto sayinthisconnectionthe plaintifdemurred to althe specialpleas,and the subordinate

courtoverruled the demurrers,and the partieswentto trial.Hearing washad before the jury,and

theyreturned a verdictinfavorofthe defendant.Judgmentwasaccordingly rendered uponthe

verdict,and the plaintifremoved the cause to the highcourtoferrorsand appealsofthe

state,where the partieswere againheard,and the state appelate courtafirmed the

judgmentofthe courtoforiginaljurisdiction.No exceptionswere filed bythe plaintifineither ofthe

subordinate courts,buthe sued outthe presentwritoferror,and removed the cause into

thisCourt.

Since the case wasentered here,the plaintifassignsthe folowing errors:

1.Thatthe supreme courtofthe state erred insustaining the circuitcourtinoverruling the

demurrersofthe plaintifto the specialpleasfiled bythe defendant.

2.Thatthe supreme courtofthe state erred inrefusing to grantcertaininstructionsto the jury,

whichcannotbe considered,itnotappearing thatthere wasanytrialbyjuryinthe supreme

court,norwould eitherpartybe benefited ifitwere otherwise,asalthe materialquestions

presented fordecisioninthe prayersforinstructionare involved inthe rulingsofthe courtin

overruling plaintif'sdemurrersto the defendant'sspecialpleas.

Insurrectionmayormaynotculminate inanorganized rebelion,and itmayormaynotassume

suchaggressive

Page 97 U.S.610

proportionsasto be justlydenominated territorialwar,the universalrule being thatrebelion

becomessuch,ifatal,byvirtue ofitsnumbersand the organizationand powerofthe persons


20/47

who originate itand are engaged initsprosecution.Butwhenthe partyinrebelionhold and

occupycertainportionsofthe territoryofthe rightfulsovereign,and have declared their

independence,castoftheiralegiance,and formed a new government,and have organized

armiesand raised suppliesto supportit,and to oppose,and ifpossible to destroy,the

governmentfrom whichtheyhave separated,the world and the law ofnationsacknowledge

them asbeligerentsengaged incivilwar,because theyclaim to be inarmsto establishtheir



21/47


libertyand independence inorderto become a sovereignstate.

Historyfurnishesmanyexamplesofwarbetweenthe governmentde jureofa countryand a

governmentde factoofa seceding portionofthe same country,and insuchcasesjuristshold

thatotherpowersare entitled to remainindiferentspectatorsofthe contest,and to alow

impartialyto bothbeligerentsthe free exercise ofthose rightswhichwargivesto public

enemiesagainsteachother,suchasthe rightofsearch,the rightofblockade,the rightof

capturing contraband ofwarand enemy'spropertyladeninneutralvessels.Twiss,Law of

Nations(2d ed.)sec.239.

Rebelionsofthe kind,whentheybecome too formidable to be suppressed bythe duly

constituted civilauthorities,authorize thede juregovernmentto blockade the portswithintheterritoryoccupied bythe insurgentsand to notifythe same to foreignpowersthatthe same wil

be enforced pursuantto the law ofnations.Oficialnotice ofsucha proclamationmakesitthe

dutyofforeignnationsto conform to the internationalrulesofwarinthatregard,and the same

juristsaysthatthe foreignpowermustatonce decide uponone ofthree alternative coursesof

action.Itmayassistthe governmentde jureasanindependentpower,oritmayassistthe

insurgents,ineitherofwhichcasesitbecomesa partyto the war,oritmayremainimpartial,

stilcontinuing to treatthe governmentde jureasanindependentpowerwhilstittreatsthe

insurgentsasa communityentitled to the rightsofwaragainstitsadversary.Sucha concession

isindispensable,asthe neutralpowerwil

Page 97 U.S.611

find itimpossible to recognize the characterofone asa beligerentwithoutrecognizing the

beligerentcharacterofthe other,unlessthe warisconfined entirelywithinthe territoryofthe

contending partiesand doesnotextend inanyrespectto the highwayofnations.Id.,p.500.

Beligerentsengaged inwarmayexercise the rightofblockade,and theymaycapture

contraband ofwarand enemies'propertyladeninneutralvessels;and ifso,the contest,though

itoriginated inrebelion,mustinthe progressofevents,whenitassumessuchproportionsas to be

justlydenominated civilwar,be recognized asentitling bothpartiesto the rightsofwar

justasmuchasifitwaswaged betweentwo independentnations.


22/47

Lawfulblockade canonlybe established bya beligerentparty,the rule being thata neutral

countryhasa rightto trade withalothercountriesintime ofpeace,and whenintime ofwarthe

rightissubjected to the conditionsorrestrictionsresulting from blockade,the interruptionofthe

untrammeled rightcanonlybe justified because the partyimposing the conditionsand

restrictionsisinvested withbeligerentrightsunderthe law ofnations.Exparte Chavasse,In re

Grazebrook,4 De G.,J.& S.655;The Helen,Law Rep.1 Ad.& Ec.1;DeBurgh,Marine



23/47


Int.Law,123;The Trinidad,7 W heat.340.

Independentpowersatwarmayseize and confiscate alcontraband goods,withoutany

complaintthe partofthe neutralmerchant,and thatrightisconceded evenwhenone ofthe

partiesisnotacknowledged asade juregovernment,incase ofinsurrection,where the

contesthasassumed suchproportionsasjustlyconstitute ita civilwarinthe international

sense.1 KentCom.(12thed.)92.

Othernationsaswelasthe United Statesconceded beligerentrightsto the Confederate

States,asaladmit,whichrendersitunnecessaryto inquire whetherthe concessionwas

rightfulorpremature.Matersto be takeninto the accountindetermining sucha question,itis

said,are whetherthe insurgentspresentthe existence ofade factopoliticalorganization,suficientincharacter,population,and resourcesto constitute it,ifleftto itself,a state among

the nationsreasonablycapable ofdischarging the dutiesofsuchanorganization.

Page 97 U.S.612

Due weightshould be givento the then-existing characterofthe actualconflict,having respect

to the militaryforce oneachside and the actionofthe partiesinconducting militaryoperations

againsteachother,aswhetherornottheyconductsuchoperationsinaccordance withthe rules

and customsofwar,asbythe use offlagsoftruce,cartels,and exchange ofprisoners,and

whetherthe parentstate treatscaptured insurgentsasprisonersofwar.Inquirymayalso

properlyarise whetherthe insurgentshave employed commissioned cruisersatsea and

whetherthe rightfulgovernmenthasexercised the rightto blockade the portsofthe insurgents

againstneutralvesselsengaged inmilitarycommerce,and thatofstopping and searching

neutralvesselsengaged inmaritime commerce.Ifalthese elementsexist,saysDana,the

conditionofthingsisundoubtedlywar,and itmaybe warbefore theyare alripened into

activity.Dana'sW heaton,p.34,note.

Applythose rulesto the case,and itisasclearasanything inlegaldecisioncanbe thatthe

Confederate Stateswere beligerentsinthe sense atached to thatword bythe law ofnations.

During the militaryoccupationofthe territorywithinthe Confederate lines,the sovereigntyofthe

United Stateswasso farsuspended thatthe federallawscould no longerbe enforced there,


24/47

and the inhabitantspassed undera forced alegiance,and were bound bysuchlawsasthe

usurping governmentsaw fitto recognize and impose.United Statesv.Rice,4 W heat.254.

"Civilwar,"saysVatel,

"breaksthe bandsofsocietyand government,oratleastsuspendstheiroperationand efect,

foritproducesinthe nationtwo independentpartieswho considereachotherasenemiesand"ttps://supreme.#ustia.$om/$ases/%edera&/us/97/594/$ase."tm& 12/24


25/47


acknowledge no commonjudge.Those two partiestherefore mustnecessarilybe considered

asthenceforward constituting,atleastfora time,two separate bodies,two distinctsocieties.

Thoughone ofthe partiesmayhave beento blame inbreaking the unityofthe state and

resisting the lawfulauthority,they,the two parties,are notthe lessdivided infact....Theystand

therefore inpreciselythe same predicamentastwo nationswho engage ina contestand, being

unable to come to anagreement,have recourse to arms."

Page 97 U.S.613

Publicistsand courtsofjustice everywhere concurinthese sentimentsand incertaincorolaries

whichthe authordeducesfrom the atending circumstances,to-wit,thatthe commonlawsof

war--those maximsofhumanity,moderation,and justice previouslypointed out--oughtto beobserved bybothpartiesinsucha conflict.Vatel425.

Forthe same reasonswhichrenderthe observance ofthose maximsa materofobligation

betweenstate and state,itbecomesequalyand evenmore necessaryinthe unhappy

circumstance oftwo incensed partiesinthe case ofcivilwar.Should the sovereignconceive

thathe hasa rightto hang up hisprisonersasrebels,the opposite partywilmake reprisals,as

inthe example giveninthe note,and ifhe doesnotobserve the termsofthe capitulationsand

alotherconventionswithhisenemies,theywilno longerrelyonhisword.Should he burnand

ravage,theywilfolow hisexample and the warwilbecome cruel,horrible,and everydaymore

destructive to the nation.

W ar,itissaid,mayexistwithouta formaldeclaration,and the decisionofthe Courtisthatthe

lawsofwarasestablished among nationshave theirfoundationinreason,and tend to mitigate

the crueltiesand miserieswhichsuchconflictsproduce.PrizeCases,2 Black669.Hence,said the

Court,the partiesto a civilwarusualyconcede to eachotherbeligerentrights,forthey exchange

prisonersand adoptthe othercourtesiesand rulescommonto publicornationalwar;

norisitnecessarythatthe independence ofthe revolted province orstate should be

acknowledged inorderto constitute ita partybeligerentina waraccording to the law of

nations,and the reasongivenforthe rule isone offrequentilustration,whichisthatforeign

nationsacknowledge itaswarbya declarationofneutrality,ofwhichtwo examplesare givenin the


26/47

opinionofthe Courtfrom whichthese rulesare drawn.

1.W henthe United Statesrecognized the existence ofcivilwarbetweenSpainand her

colonies.The Trinidad,7 W heat.283,327 [argumentofcounsel--omited].

2.W henthe QueenofEngland issued herproclamationofneutralityrecognizing hostilitiesas

existing betweenthe United Statesand the Confederate States."ttps://supreme.#ustia.$om/$ases/%edera&/us/97/594/$ase."tm& 1'/24
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/20/283/case.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/20/283/case.html


27/47


Othernationsfolowed witha similardeclarationorbysilent

Page 97 U.S.614

acquiescence,and inspeaking ofthatfact,thisCourtsaid thata citizenofa foreignstate,in view

ofsucha recognition,isestopped to denythe existence ofa war,withalits

consequencesasregardsneutrals.Theycannotaska courtto afecta technicalignorance of

the existence ofa warwhichalthe world acknowledgesto be the greatestcivilwarofthe

humanrace,and thuscripple the arm ofthe governmentand paralyze itspower.

Sucha warusualyoperatesasa temporarysuspensionofobedience ofthe revolting partyto the

lawfulsovereign,butothernationsmay,untilthe revolutionisconsummated,remain

indiferentspectatorsofthe controversy,treating the governmentassovereignand the new

governmentasa societyentitled to the rightsofwaragainstitsenemy,ortheymayespouse the

cause ofthe partywhichtheybelieve to have justice onitsside.Inthe firstcase,the foreign state

fulfilsalitsobligationsunderthe law ofnationsand neitherpartyhasanyrightto

complain,provided thatitmaintainsanimpartialneutrality;butinthe latercase,the foreign state

becomesthe enemyofthe partyagainstwhichitdeclaresand the alyofthe other. Lawrence'sW

heaton40 and notes.

Beligerentrightscannotbe exercised whenthere are no beligerents.Conquestofa foreign

country,ifpermanent,givesabsolute and unlimited right;butno nationcanmake sucha

conquestofitsownterritory.Ifa hostile power,eitherfrom withoutorwithina nation,takes

possessionand holdsabsolute dominionoveranyportionofitsterritory,and the nationbyforce

ofarmsexpelsoroverthrowsthe enemyand suppresseshostilities,itacquiresno new title,but

merelyregainsthe possessionofwhatithad beentemporarilydeprived.Id.,605;The Amy

W arwickand Cargo,24 Law Reporter494.

Cotonwasthe article destroyed,whichwasthe subjectduring the warofspeciallegislationby

eachbeligerentpower.Itwastreated bythe army,the navy,and the civilarm ofeachas

possessing extraordinaryqualitiesand asdiferentfrom otherproperty,eveninthe handsof

noncombatants.Itformed the basisofthe creditwhichthe Confederateswere seeking to

establishabroad forthe prosecutionofthe war.Itsretentioninthe Southernstatesand


28/47

withdrawalfrom marketexcept

Page 97 U.S.615

whenforwarpurposeswere considered bythe Confederate authoritiesasofvitalimportance,

foritwashoped thatitswithdrawalfrom marketwould hastena recognitionofthe independence

ofthe statesinrebelionand the raising ofthe blockade whichwasdestroying



29/47


theirresourcesand crippling theirarmies.

Priorto the burning ofthe coton,the Confederate Congresshad directed bya legislative act,

asa warmeasure,thatcotonand tobacco liable to falinto the handsofthe federalforces should

be destroyed,and the historyofthe period showsthatimmense quantitiesofthese articleswere

accordinglydestroyed.Regulationsuponthe subjectwere adopted bythe authoritiesofthe

United States,and those regulations,aswelasthe decisionsofthe federal courts,show

thatboththe civiland militaryauthoritiesdeemed itofgreatimportance to prevent

itsaccumulationinthe handsofthe Confederate authorities.

Capture ofcoton,saysMr.ChiefJustice Chase,seemsto have beenjustified bythe peculiar

characterofthe propertyand bypositive legislation.Itiswelknownthatcotonconstituted the

mainreliance ofthe rebelsto purchase the munitionsofwarinthe foreignmarket,and itis

materofhistorythatratherthanpermititto come into the possessionofthe nationaltroops,the

rebelgovernmenteverywhere devoted it,howeverowned,to destruction.Mrs.Alexander's

Coton,2 W al.420.

Judicialhistoryshowsthat,earlyin1861,the authoritiesofsevenstates,supported bypopular

majorities,combined forthe overthrow ofthe nationalUnionand forthe establishmentwithinits

boundariesofa separate and independentconfederation.Pursuantthereto,a governmental

organizationrepresenting those stateswasestablished atMontgomery,firstundera

provisionalconstitutionand afterwardsundera constitutionintended to be permanent.Inthe

course ofa few months,fourotherstatesacceded to thatconfederation,and the seatofthe

centralauthoritywastransferred to Richmond.Itwasbythe centralauthoritythusorganized and

underitsdirectionthatcivilwarwasprosecuted upona vastscale againstthe United Statesfor

more thanfouryears,and itspowerwasrecognized assupreme innearlythe whole ofthe

territoryof

Page 97 U.S.616

the statesconfederated ininsurrection.Thorington v.Smith,8 W al.7.

Dificulty,saysthe ChiefJustice,would atend the efortto define the precise characterofsuch a
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/69/404/case.html#420https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/69/404/case.html#420https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/69/404/case.html#420https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/69/404/case.html#420https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/69/404/case.html#420https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/69/404/case.html#420https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/69/404/case.html#420https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/69/404/case.html#420https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/75/1/case.html#7https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/69/404/case.html#420https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/69/404/case.html#420https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/69/404/case.html#420https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/69/404/case.html#420https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/75/1/case.html#7


30/47

government,buthe continuesto remarkto the efectthatthe principlesrelating tode facto

governmentwilconductto a conclusionsuficientlyaccurate.Examplesofade facto

governmentare givenbyhim,where the usurpersexpeled the regularauthoritiesfrom their

customaryseatsand functions,and established themselvesintheirplaces,and so became the

actualgovernment.

Suchadherentsto a usurping partyincertaincasesmaynotincurthe penaltyoftreason,asthe"ttps://supreme.#ustia.$om/$ases/%edera&/us/97/594/$ase."tm& 15/24


31/47


de juregovernmentwhenrestored usualyrespectstheirpublicacts;butthe Confederate

Stateswere neveracknowledged bythe United Statesasade factogovernmentinthat

enlarged sense.Instead ofthat,itwasregarded assimplythe militaryrepresentative ofthe

insurrection,notwithstanding the durationand vastproportionsofthe revolt.Elevenstateswere

engaged init,and the priorexisting governmentswere overthrownand new governments

erected intheirstead,inviolationofthe Constitutionand the actsofCongress,and yetitcannot be

denied butthatbythe use ofthese unlawfuland unconstitutionalmeansa governmentinfact

waserected,greaterinterritorythanmostofthe Europeangovernments,complete inthe

organizationofalitsparts,containing withinitslimitsmore thanelevenmilionsofpeople,and

ofsuficientresourcesinmenand moneyto carryona civilwarofunexampled dimensionsfrom the

period ofitscommencementto itsfinaltermination,during alofwhichtime manybeligerentrightswere conceded to itbythe United States,suchasthe treatmentofcaptivesbothonland and

sea asprisonersofwar,the exchange ofprisonersasininternationalwar,theirvessels captured

recognized asprizesofwarand dealtwithaccordingly,theirpropertyseized onland referred to

the judicialtribunalsforadjudication,theirportsblockaded and the blockade maintained bya

suitable force,and notified to neutralpowersthe same asinopenand public war.Mauran

v.Insurance Company,6 W al.1.

Governmentsde factoare described byMr.ChiefJustice

Page 97 U.S.617

Chase asdivided into classes,and,afterhaving givena descriptionoftwo ofthe classes,he

remarksthatthere isanother,caled bypublicistsade factogovernment,butwhichmight

perhapsbe more aptlydenominated a governmentofparamountforce.Itsdistinguishing

characteristicsasgivenbythatmagistrate are asfolows:

1.Thatwhile itexists,itmustnecessarilybe obeyed incivilmatersbyprivate citizenswho,by

actsofobedience rendered insubmissionto suchforce,do notbecome responsible as

wrongdoersforthose acts,thoughthe actsare notwarranted bythe rightfulgovernment.Actual

governmentsofthissortare established overdistrictsdifering greatlyinextentand conditions.

Theyare usualyadministered directlybymilitaryauthority,buttheymaybe administered also


32/47

bycivilauthority,supported more orlessdirectlybymilitaryforce.

2.Historicalexamplesare thengivenofthatsortofde factogovernment,to-wit,the temporary

governmentatCastine during the warof1812 and the temporarygovernmentatTampico

during the MexicanW ar.United Statesv.Rice,4 W heat.253;Fleming v.Page,9 How.615;

The Nuestra Senora,4W heat.502.

Those were caseswhere regularenemygovernmentsacquired the temporarypossessionof"ttps://supreme.#ustia.$om/$ases/%edera&/us/97/594/$ase."tm& 1/24
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/17/246/case.html#253https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/50/603/case.html#615https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/17/497/case.html#502https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/17/497/case.html#502https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/17/246/case.html#253https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/50/603/case.html#615https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/17/497/case.html#502


33/47


territoryduring warwiththe countryofwhichthe territoryso possessed wasa part,and this

Courtadverted to thatdiference inthe case underconsideration,butdecided unanimouslythat

the governmentofthe insurgentstatesmustbe classed among the governmentsofwhichthose

are examples.Among the reasonsassigned insupportofthe conclusionwere the folowing:

1.Thatrightsand obligationsofbeligerence were conceded to itinitsmilitarycharactervery

soonafterthe warbegan,from motivesofhumanityand expediency.

2.Thatthe whole territorycontroled byitwasthereafterheld to be enemies'territory,and the

inhabitantsofthe territorywere held,inmostrespects,asenemies,and,asa finalconclusion, the

Courtdecided thatto the extentofthe actualsupremacymaintained,howeverunlawfuly

acquired,the powerofthe insurgentgovernmentcannotbe questioned.Thorington v.Smith,8

W al.11;Haleck,Int.Law,c.3,sec.21,p.74;United Statesv.Klintock,5 W heat.144,18 U.S.150.

Page 97 U.S.618

Atemptwasmade earlyinthe warofthe rebelionto maintainthe theorythatthe oficersand

seamenofthe Confederate cruiserswere pirates,and notentitled to beligerentrightsincase

ofcapture.Shipsand cargoesatsea were destroyed bysuchcruisers,and the owners,holding

policiesofinsurance,broughtsuitsto recoverforthe loss.Paymentincertaincaseswas

refused,the defense being thatthe policiesdid notcoverthe losswhere the capture wasby

pirates.Sucha case waspresented to the Supreme CourtofMassachusets,butthe court

decided thatthe personswho seized and burned the ship were notto be regarded aspirates

withinthe ordinarysignificationofthatword asused inthe law ofnationsorascommonly

understood and applied inmaritime contractsand adventures;thattheywere notcommon

robbersand plunderersonthe highseas.The courtadmited thatthe actsofthe cruiserswere

unlawful,and thattheycould notbe justified inthe courtsofjustice,butitproceeded to state that

the proofsofered showed thattheyacted undera semblance ofauthoritywhichtooktheircase

outofthatclasswhichcanbe properlytermed ordinarypiracy;thatthe proofsofered showed

thattheysailed undera leterofmarque issued bya governmentde facto,claiming to exercise

sovereignpowers,and to be authorized to clothe theiroficersand agentswiththe rightsof

beligerentsand to send outarmed cruisersforthe purpose oftaking enemy'svesselsjurebeli.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/75/1/case.html#11https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/18/144/case.html#150https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/18/144/case.html#150https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/18/144/case.html#150https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/18/144/case.html#150https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/18/144/case.html#150https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/18/144/case.html#150https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/18/144/case.html#150https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/18/144/case.html#150https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/18/144/case.html#150https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/18/144/case.html#150https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/18/144/case.html#150https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/75/1/case.html#11https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/18/144/case.html#150https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/18/144/case.html#150https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/18/144/case.html#150


34/47

Noristhatal.Itwasalso ofered to be proved thatatthe time ofthe lossthede facto

governmenthad proceeded to raise armiesand putthem into the field,bywhichanactualy

existing state ofwarbetweenitand the United Stateswascreated,whichhad led two ofthe

leading nationsofEurope to recognize the personswho had thusconspired togetheragainst



35/47


the authorityofthe United Statesasexercising the rightsand entitled to the privilegesofa

beligerentpower.Sucha seizure,undersuchcircumstances,byanarmed cruiserofsuchde

factogovernment,the courtheld wasa capture withinthe meaning ofthe policy,and thatthe

insurerswere notliable forthe loss.Dole v.Merchants'MutualMarine Insurance Co.,6 Alen

(Mass.)373;Planters'Bankv.UnionBank,16 W al.495.

Page 97 U.S.619

Two casesofa similarcharacterwere pending atthe same time inthe circuitcourtofthe United

Statesforthatdistrict,bothofwhichwere decided infavorofthe insurersuponthe same

ground.Inthe firstcase,the factswere agreed betweenthe parties,aswilbe seenbythe

reportofthe case.Dole v.New England MutualMarine Insurance Co.,2 Clif.394.Bothjudgessatinthe case,and theirunited opinionisfulyreported.Theydecided thatwhere a ship

wastakenand burned bythe commanderofa rebelprivateerduring the late rebelion,the

capture wasnota taking bypiratesorassailing thieves,inasmuchasitappeared thatthe

policywasexecuted before the rebelionbroke outand thatthe commanderacted undera

commissionindue form issued bythe governmentofthe rebeliousstates,and itappearsthat

bothpartiesacquiesced inthe decisionofthe court.

Norcould theyweldo otherwise,asthe agreed statementshowed thatthe rebelstatesbefore

the lossoccurred had organized a confederacyand a governmentforthe same,and had

established a writenconstitution;thatsucha form ofgovernmentwasinfactorganized inalits

departments--legislative,executive,and judicial;thattheyhad raised and organized anarmy

and created a navy,elected a congress,and published a legislative actdeclaring thatwar

existed betweenthe United Statesand the Confederate States,and providing measuresforitsvigorousprosecution;thattheywere carrying onhostilitiesatthe time the lossoccurred against

the United Statesbyland and sea,and were inthe exercise ofalthe functionsofgovernment

overalthe territorywithintheiractualmilitarylimits.

Pressed withthose facts,the plaintifabandoned the furtherprosecutionofthe claim inthe first

suitand sued outa writoferrorinthe second,whichwassubsequentlyheard and decided in

thisCourt.Mauran v.Insurance Company,6 W al.1.Ofersofproofinthiscase occupied the
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/83/483/case.html#495https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/73/1/case.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/83/483/case.html#495https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/73/1/case.html


36/47

place ofanagreed statementoffactsinthe other,butthe Supreme Courtafirmed the judgment

ofthe circuitcourt,holding thatthe Confederate Stateswere inthe possessionofmanyofthe

highestatributesofgovernment,suficientlyso to be regarded asthe ruling orsupreme power

ofthe countrywithintheirmilitarydominion,

Page 97 U.S.620

and thatcapturesmade bytheircruiserswere excepted outofthe policybythe warrantyofthe"ttps://supreme.#ustia.$om/$ases/%edera&/us/97/594/$ase."tm& 18/24


37/47


insured.

Questionsofthe same characterwere also presented to the Supreme CourtofPennsylvania

aboutthe same time asthose presented to the Supreme CourtofMassachusets,where the

questionswere decided inthe same way.Fifield v.Insurance CompanyofPennsylvania,47

Pa.St.166.Three opinionswere giveninthe case inadditionto the opinionofthe court delivered

bythe ChiefJustice.Hisfirstefortwasto show thatthe cruiserwasnota pirate,in whichhe

remarked thatifshe wasnota privateer,she wasa pirate,and thatifshe wasa privateer,she

wasmade so bythe commissionshe bore,the legalefectofwhichmustdepend uponthe

statusofthe Confederate States,inrespectto whichhisconclusionwasthatany

government,howeverviolentand wrongfulinitsorigin,mustbe considered ade facto

governmentifitwasinthe fuland actualexercise ofsovereigntyovera territoryand people large

enoughfora nation,and he quotesVatelinsupportofthe proposition,and finaly decided thatthe

cruiserwasa privateerand nota pirate,and thatthe losswasa capture within the excepting

clause ofthe policy,and nota lossbypirates,rovers,orassailing thieves.

Emerigon,Ins.,c.12,secs.28,412.

Mr.Justice Strong concurred inthe judgmentand gave anelaborate opinioninwhichhe stated

thathe could notdoubtthatthese revolting states,confederated astheyhad been,claiming and

enforcing authorityastheyhad done,were to be regarded asa governmentde facto.

Two objectionsto thatpropositionhad beenmade atthe bar:

1.Thattheirclaim ofsovereigntyhad beenconstantlyopposed;

2.Thattheirboundarieswere uncertainand undefined --to bothofwhichthe judge responded

to the efectthatneitherofthe objectionswere satisfactory:thattheywere none the lessa

governmentde factobecause theyhad had no intervalofpeacefulexistence,norbecause

the geographicalboundariesofthe districtoverwhichtheirpowerisexclusivelyfeltwere notwel

defined.

Antecedentto that,the same courtdecided a similarcase,whichwasalso a marine risk,inthe

same way.Two pointsruled bythe courtinthatcase are pertinentto the present


38/47

Page 97 U.S.621

investigation:

1.Thatthe losswascovered bythe policy,itbeing a case ofcapture byarmed menprofessing to

actunderand byauthorityofthe Confederate States.



39/47


2.Thatthe governmentofthe United Stateshad so conducted the contestand so treated the

Confederate Statesasto make ita warinsubstance asessentialyasitcould be between

foreignpowers.Monongahela Insurance Co.v.Chester,43 Pa.St.49;Hamilton v.Dilin,21

W al.87.

Supportto thatproposition,ofa decisive character,isfound inthe opinionofthe courtinthePrize

Cases,inwhichMr.Justice Griersaysitisno loose,unorganized insurrection,having nodefined

boundaryorpossession.Ithasa boundarymarked bylinesofbayonets,and whichcan be

crossed onlybyforce.Southofthisline isenemies'property,because itisclaimed and held

inpossessionbyanorganized,hostile,and beligerentpower.PrizeCases,2 Black674.

Corresponding litigationarose aboutthe same time inothercourts,and among the numberin theSupreme CourtofMaine,where the case wasargued bythe same eminentcounselasin thatcited

from the Massachusetsreports.Dole v.Merchants'MutualMarine Insurance Co.,

51 Me.465.Somewhatdiferentviewsare expressed bythe court,butitadmitsinconclusion

thatthe decisionmighthave beenplaced ona diferentground,and proceedsto remarkthat

warinfactexisted atthe time ofthe loss;thathostile forces,eachrepresenting ade facto

government,were arrayed againsteachotherinactualconflict.Itsexistence,saysthe court,

would nothave beenmore palpable orrealifithad beenrecognized bylegislative action,and

thoughitwasa civilwar,itwasnotthe lessa capture forthatreason.51id.478;Hornv.

Lockhart,17 W al.570.

During the late rebelion,the Confederate Statesand the statescomposing it,said the

Supreme CourtofNorthCarolina,were to alintentsand purposesgovernmentsde factowith

reference to citizenswho continued to reside withinthe Confederate lines;hence theConfederate Statesand the Constitutionofthe state and the actsoftheircongressconstituted,

asto suchcitizens,during the rebelion,the law ofthe land.Franklin v.Vannoy,66 N.C.145;

Reynoldsv.Taylor,43 Ala.420.

Page 97 U.S.622

W here cotonwasdestroyed during the late warbetweenthe Confederate Statesand the

United Statesbyorderofthe countyprovostmarshal,acting inobedience to the ordersofthe
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/88/73/case.html#87https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/67/635/case.html#674https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/84/570/case.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/84/570/case.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/84/570/case.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/84/570/case.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/84/570/case.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/84/570/case.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/84/570/case.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/84/570/case.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/84/570/case.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/84/570/case.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/84/570/case.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/88/73/case.html#87https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/67/635/case.html#674https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/84/570/case.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/84/570/case.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/84/570/case.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/84/570/case.html


40/47

Confederate commanding general,the Supreme CourtofMississippiheld thatthe agentwho

obeyed these ordersisnotliable inanactionbythe ownerto recoverthe value ofthe property,

the courtholding thatthe Confederate Stateshad the rightsofa beligerentpower,and thatitis a

legitimate beligerentrightto destroywhateverpropertyisthe subjectofseizure and

condemnation,inorderto preventitsfaling into the handsand coming to the use ofthe enemy.

Ford v.Surget,46 Miss.130.Exceptionalcasessupporting the opposite view maybe found in"ttps://supreme.#ustia.$om/$ases/%edera&/us/97/594/$ase."tm& 20/24


41/47


the state reports;buttheyare notinaccord withthe decisionsofthisCourt,and are indirect

conflictwiththe greatweightofauthorityderived from the same source.

W ithoutdue examination,itmaybe supposed thatsupportto the opposite theoryisderived

from the recentdecisionofthisCourtinwhichitisheld thatcertainconfiscationproceedings

prosecuted underanactpassed bythe Confederate Congressare void;butitrequiresno

argumentto show thatthe remarksuponthe subjectinthe opinionofthe Courtwere wholy

unnecessaryto the decision,asthe proceedingswere obviouslyinaid ofthe rebelion,the

intentand purpose ofthe prosecutionhaving beento raise meansto prosecute waragainstthe

United States.Conrad v.W aples,96 U.S.279.Authoritiesto show thatalsuchactsare void are

too numerousforcitation,no materwhatmayhave beenthe statusofthe Confederate States.

CertaindecisionsofthisCourthold thatthe actsofa bodyexercising anauthorityinan

insurgentstate asa legislature mustbe regarded asvalid orinvalid,according to the subject

materoflegislation;butthe ChiefJustice decided inthe case hereafterreferred to thatthe

governor,legislature,and judgesofthe State ofVirginia,during the war,constituted ade facto

government,giving asa reasonforthe conclusionthattheyexercised complete controloverthe

greaterpartofthe state,proceeding inalthe formsofregularorganized government,and

occupying the capitalofthe state.Evansv.CityofRichmond,Chase Dec.551.

Page 97 U.S.623

Beyond aldoubt,the Confederate governmentatthe period ofthe aleged wrong wasthe

supreme controling powerofthe territoryand people withinthe limitsoftheirmilitarydominion,

and itisequalycertainthatthe citizensresidentwithinthose limitswere uterlydestitute of

meansto resistcompliance withmilitaryordersemanating from the commanding general,

especialywhengiveninobedience to anactofthe Confederate Congress.United Statesv.

Grossmayger,9 W al.75;Sprotv.UnitedStates,20 W al.459.

Cotonduring the warwasregarded bybothbeligerentsasthe subjectofseizure and

condemnation,and asfaling withinthatclassofpropertywhicha beligerentmightdestroyto

preventitsfaling into the handsofthe enemyand augmenting hisresources.Proofthatthe

orderswere givenasaleged issuficient,asthatisfulyadmited bythe demurrer.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/96/279/case.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/76/72/case.html#75https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/76/72/case.html#75https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/76/72/case.html#75https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/76/72/case.html#75https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/76/72/case.html#75https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/76/72/case.html#75https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/76/72/case.html#75https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/76/72/case.html#75https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/76/72/case.html#75https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/87/459/case.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/76/72/case.html#75https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/76/72/case.html#75https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/76/72/case.html#75https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/96/279/case.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/76/72/case.html#75https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/76/72/case.html#75https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/76/72/case.html#75https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/76/72/case.html#75https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/87/459/case.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/76/72/case.html#75


42/47

Unlessthe Confederate Statesmaybe regarded ashaving constituted ade factogovernment

forthe time orasthe supreme controling powerwithinthe limitsoftheirexclusive militarysway,

thenthe oficersand seamenoftheirprivateersand the oficersand soldiersoftheirarmywere mere

piratesand insurgents,and everyoficer,seaman,orsoldierwho kiled a federaloficer

orsoldierinbatle,whetheronland orthe highseas,isliable to indictment,conviction,and



43/47


sentence forthe crime ofmurder,subjectofcourse to the rightto plead amnestyorpardon,if

theycanmake good thatdefense.Once enterthatdomainofstrife,and countlesslitigationsof

endlessdurationmayarise to review old animositiesand to renew and inflame domestic

discord,withoutanypublicnecessityorindividualadvantage.W isdom suggestscaution,and the

counselsofcautionforbid anysuchrashexperiment.

Viewed inthe lightofthese suggestions,Iam ofthe opinionthatthere isno errorinthe record,

and thatthe decree ofthe supreme courtofthe state should be afirmed.

OficialSupreme Courtcase law isonlyfound inthe printversionofthe United StatesReports.

Justia case law isprovided forgeneralinformationalpurposesonly,and maynotreflectcurrent

legaldevelopments,verdictsorsetlements.W e make no warrantiesorguaranteesabouttheaccuracy,completeness,oradequacyofthe informationcontained onthissite orinformation

linked to from thissite.Please checkoficialsources.

DAILY OPINION SUMMARIES

Subscribe to Justia'sFREE DailyOpinionSummaryNewsleters

Subscribe Now

SEARCH THIS CASE

In Google Scholar

GoogleScholar

On the W eb

Google W eb Search

Bing W eb Search

In the News

Google NewsSearch

Google NewsArchive Search
http://daily.justia.com/http://daily.justia.com/http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Ford+v.+Surget%22+OR+%2297+U.S.+594%22&as_sdt=2006http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Ford+v.+Surget%22+OR+%2297+U.S.+594%22&as_sdt=2006https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Ford+v.+Surget%22+OR+%2297+U.S.+594%22https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Ford+v.+Surget%22+OR+%2297+U.S.+594%22http://www.bing.com/search?q=%22Ford+v.+Surget%22+OR+%2297+U.S.+594%22http://www.bing.com/search?q=%22Ford+v.+Surget%22+OR+%2297+U.S.+594%22https://news.google.com/news/search?q=%22Ford+v.+Surget%22+OR+%2297+U.S.+594%22https://news.google.com/news/search?q=%22Ford+v.+Surget%22+OR+%2297+U.S.+594%22https://www.google.com/search?tbm=nws&q=%22Ford+v.+Surget%22+OR+%2297+U.S.+594%22https://www.google.com/search?tbm=nws&q=%22Ford+v.+Surget%22+OR+%2297+U.S.+594%22http://daily.justia.com/http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Ford+v.+Surget%22+OR+%2297+U.S.+594%22&as_sdt=2006https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Ford+v.+Surget%22+OR+%2297+U.S.+594%22http://www.bing.com/search?q=%22Ford+v.+Surget%22+OR+%2297+U.S.+594%22https://news.google.com/news/search?q=%22Ford+v.+Surget%22+OR+%2297+U.S.+594%22https://www.google.com/search?tbm=nws&q=%22Ford+v.+Surget%22+OR+%2297+U.S.+594%22


44/47

Yahoo!NewsSearch

In the Blogs

BlawgSearch.com Search

In otherDatabases"ttps://supreme.#ustia.$om/$ases/%edera&/us/97/594/$ase."tm& 22/24
https://news.search.yahoo.com/search?p=%22Ford+v.+Surget%22+OR+%2297+U.S.+594%22https://news.search.yahoo.com/search?p=%22Ford+v.+Surget%22+OR+%2297+U.S.+594%22http://blawgsearch.justia.com/search?query=%22Ford+v.+Surget%22+OR+%2297+U.S.+594%22http://blawgsearch.justia.com/search?query=%22Ford+v.+Surget%22+OR+%2297+U.S.+594%22https://news.search.yahoo.com/search?p=%22Ford+v.+Surget%22+OR+%2297+U.S.+594%22http://blawgsearch.justia.com/search?query=%22Ford+v.+Surget%22+OR+%2297+U.S.+594%22


45/47


Google BookSearch

CONNECT W ITH JUSTIA

FIND A LAW YER

LegalIssue orLawyerName

City,State

Search

Browse Lawyers

Lawyers -GetListed Now!

Geta free fuldirectory profile listing

ASK A LAW YER

Question:

Please Ask YourQuestion Here.e.g.,Do Ineed a Bankruptcy Lawyer?

Add details 12

Ask Question
https://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=%22Ford+v.+Surget%22+OR+%2297+U.S.+594%22https://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=%22Ford+v.+Surget%22+OR+%2297+U.S.+594%22https://www.justia.com/lawyershttps://www.justia.com/lawyershttps://www.justia.com/lawyershttps://www.justia.com/lawyershttps://lawyers.justia.com/lawyer-directory-listingshttps://lawyers.justia.com/lawyer-directory-listingshttps://answers.justia.com/https://answers.justia.com/https://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=%22Ford+v.+Surget%22+OR+%2297+U.S.+594%22https://www.justia.com/lawyershttps://www.justia.com/lawyershttps://lawyers.justia.com/lawyer-directory-listingshttps://answers.justia.com/


46/47

CopyrightJustia:Company:TermsofService:PrivacyPolicy:Contacts"ttps://supreme.#ustia.$om/$ases/%edera&/us/97/594/$ase."tm& 2'/24
https://www.justia.com/http://company.justia.com/https://www.justia.com/marketing/tos/https://www.justia.com/marketing/privacy-policy/http://marketing.justia.com/contact.htmlhttps://www.justia.com/http://company.justia.com/https://www.justia.com/marketing/tos/https://www.justia.com/marketing/privacy-policy/http://marketing.justia.com/contact.html


47/47



ford v. surget.rtf

Documents