Page images
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]

1. An election will be held on Monday, the 27th day of March, at 9 o'clock, A. M., in each of the election precincts established by law in this State, for the choice of delegates to a Convention to be held for the revision and amendment of the Constitution of Louisiana.

2. The several parishes shall be entitled to elect the number of delegates herein assigned to each upon the basis of white population exhibited by the census of 1860, to be chosen in each parish on one ticket by the qualified voters of the parish, except in the parish of Orleans, in which parish the election shall be held in the several representative districts established by law, for the number of delegates herein assigned to each district, to be chosen on one ticket, by the qualified voters of the district. *

*

3. Any parish not now within the limits of the army shall be entitled to select delegates as herein specified, at any time before the dissolution of the Convention, should such parish be brought within the lines of the army.

4. Every free white man, twenty-one years of age, who has been a resident of the State twelve months, and six months in the parish in which he offers to vote, who is a citizen of the United States, and who shall have taken the oath prescribed by the President in his proclamation of the 8th December, 1863, shall have the right to vote in the election of delegates.

5. Citizens of the State who have been expelled from their homes by the public enemy on account of their devotion to the Union, and who would be qualified voters in the parishes to which they belong, will be allowed to vote for delegates in the election precincts in which, for the time being, they may reside.

6. Citizens of the State who have volunteered for the defence of the country in the army or navy, and who are otherwise qualified voters, will be allowed to vote in the election precincts in which they may be found on the day of election.

7. The Commissioners of Election appointed to superintend the polls at the election of State officers, February 22d, 1864, are authorized and directed, in the absence of other orders, to fulfil and discharge all the duties of Commissioners of Election in their respective precincts, for this election.

9. The Commissioners of Election, at any election precinct, are authorized to administer the oath of allegiance, as prescribed by the President, to any person otherwise qualified to vote, and to register the name of each voter in New Orleans, where a register is required, or to receive it in other parishes where no register is required, at any time before the polls are closed on the day of election.

10. The commissioners in the several parishes will make prompt returns of the votes given to the sheriff of the parish, as provided by law, or in his absence to the Provost Marshal, who will immediately return the same to the Secretary of State in the same manner and form as for members of the

General Assembly.

11. The sheriff's of the several parishes, and in their absence the provost marshals, will take especial care that the polls are properly opened, and that suitable judges of election and other officers are appointed. It is desirable that all persons properly qualified shall vote, but it is more important that the integrity of the election shall not be vitiated by illegal or fraudulent acts.

12. The delegates duly elected to the Convention shall meet at Liberty Hall, Executive Building, in nesday, the 6th day of April, 1864. the city of New Orleans, at 12 o'clock, M., on WedIn case any vacancy occurs by resignation or death after the organization of the Convention, a writ of election shall be issued by the Convention to fill the vacancy. By command of Major-General BANKS. RICHARD B. IRWIN, A. A. General.

On March 16th Governor Hahn issued his

proclamation to the sheriff's, authorizing the election. He said:

Whereas, By General Orders No. 35, under date of March 11th, 1864, Major-General N. P. Banks, commanding the Department of the Gulf, has ordered that an election "be held on Monday, the 28th day of March next, at 9 o'clock, A. M., in each of the election precincts established by law in this State, for the choice of delegates to a Convention to be held for the revision and amendment of the Consti tution of the State of Louisiana," and has directed that the several parishes shall be entitled to elect the number of delegates herein assigned to each, upon the basis of the white population exhibited by the census of 1860, to be chosen in each parish on one ticket by the qualified voters of the parish, except in the parish of Orleans, in which parish the election shall be held in the several representative districts established by law, for the number of delegates herein assigned to each district, to be chosen on one ticket by the qualified voters of the district.

*

Now, therefore, I have thought proper to issue this my proclamation, notifying the qualified electors throughout the State of the election aforesaid, and commanding all sheriffs, commissioners of election, and other officers therein concerned, to hold said election for delegates in their respective parishes, and in the parish of Orleans, in the Representative districts as aforesaid, and to give the proper public notice thereof; and I enjoin upon them care that said election be held and conducted at the places and in the manner designated by law and the General Orders aforesaid, and that the returns be promptly made to the Secretary of State at New Orleans. For all of which this proclamation, without further notice, will serve as authority. Given under my hand and seal of the State, at the Executive Building, city of New Orleans, [L. s.] this 16th day of March, A. D. 1864, and of the Independence of the United States of America the eighty-eighth.

By the Governor:

MICHAEL HAHN.

S. WROTNOWSKI, Secretary of State.

The election was held on the 28th. The number of members returned as elected was ninety-seven, of whom two were rejected because of irregular returns. No return of the votes was published. A Committee of the House in Congress, on the application of the persons from Louisiana for seats in Congress, reported that the Parish of Orleans was represented by sixty-three members, leaving to the country parishes thirty-two:

"From all that is known of the balloting it appears that the Parish of Ascension, within the Federal lines, and neighboring to New Orleans, and which in 1860 had a white population of 3,940, elected her delegates by sixty-one votes; that Plaquemines, with a white population in 1860 of 2,529, cast 246; and in the Parish of Madison, Montague was elected by a vote of 28.

"Elections were held only in the parishes

included within the Federal lines, and these lines were the Teche on the one side and the Amites on the other, comprehending the parish or city of Orleans, and the neighboring parishes on the Mississippi. To a question propounded to Gen. Banks as to what portion of the State voted, his reply was:

"All as far up as Point Coupee, and there were some men from the Red River who voted at Vidalie.'

"And in his statement he announces that: The city of New Orleans is really the State of Louisiana.'"

In 1860 there were 367,629 whites in the State, of whom 149,063, or much less than one-half, were in New Orleans.

The Convention assembled on April 6th, and was organized on the 7th by the election of E. H. Durell, president, by the following vote: Durell, 43; R. K. Howell, 42. After a session of seventy-eight days the Convention adjourned on July 25th. A proclamation was immediately issued by the Governor appointing Sept. 5th as the day upon which a vote should be taken on the Constitution. The vote was as follows: yeas, 6,836, for its adoption; nays, 1,566, for its rejection. The vote of New Orleans was: yeas, 4,664; nays, 789. The most important feature of the Constitution was thus described by Gen. Banks:

In a State which held 331,726 slaves, one-half of its entire population in 1860, more than three-fourths of whom had been specially excepted from the Proclamation of Emancipation, and were still held de jure in bondage, the Convention declared by a majority of all the votes to which the State would have been entitled if every delegate had been present from every

district in the State

Instantaneous, universal, uncompensated, unconditional emancipation of slaves!

It prohibited forever the recognition of property in man! It decreed the education of all the children, without distinction of race or color!

It directs all men, white or black, to be enrolled as soldiers for the public defence!

It makes all men equal before the law! It compels, by its regenerating spirit, the ultimate recognition of all the rights which national authority can confer upon an oppressed race!

It wisely recognizes, for the first time in constitutional history, the interest of daily labor as an element of power entitled to the protection of the State.

At the same election the following persons were chosen members of Congress: 1st district, M. F. Bonzano; 2d, A. P. Field; 3d, W. D. Mann; 4th, T. M. Wells; 5th, R. W. Taliaferro. A legislature was chosen at the same time, the members of which were almost entirely in favor of a Free State. By this body seven electors of President and Vice-President were chosen.

Notwithstanding this formal adoption of a reorganized State government its authority was quite limited. At the end of the year there was more than three-fourths of the State to which it was not safe to send military supplies. On Dec. 27th the following order was issued:

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

3. Upon the official report of the Attorney-General of the State of Louisiana, that the ordinary courts named by him, and in consideration that the State of justice are insufficient to punish the offenders government and courts of Louisiana owe their present existence to military authority, it is ordered that Michael De Courcey, Benjamin Orr, E. McShane, Y. M. Robinson, A. G. Pierson, and B. Wadsworth, fore the Military Commission now in session in the for peculation and other offences, be sent for trial becity of New Orleans, and of which Brig.-Gen. B. S. Roberts, U. S. Vols., is president, and that the Attorney-General of the State of Louisiana be admitted to appear before said commissioner as public

prosecutor.

[blocks in formation]

By command of Maj.-Gen. HURLBUT. (Signed) C. S. SARGENT,

1st Lieut. 3d La. Vols. and A. A. A. Gen.

The Provisional Court established by an order of President Lincoln, issued Oct. 20th, 1862, Judge Peabody presiding, still continued in operation. The validity of the proceedings of this court was called in question both before and after the reorganization of the State Government. The opinion of the Court itself on the question thus raised will be found at the end of this article.

The condition of persons of African descent continues the same as in 1863. A bill was introduced in the Legislature under the new Constitution to give suffrage to such persons, but it was rejected by a large majority. The clause of the Constitution relating to the subject is in these words: "The Legislature shall have power to pass laws extending suffrage to such other persons, citizens of the United States, as by military service, by taxation to support the Government, or by intellectual fitness may be deemed entitled thereto."

The views of Gen. Banks on granting suffrage to these persons, while he was in command at New Orleans, are thus stated by himself:

It was with much hesitation that the mass of people entered into measures for the organization of government. Some were ready, but others reluctant. Revolutions make the mass of men timid. It required the strongest representations of public advan tage to induce them to venture again into the stormy sea of politics. Had it been announced that the negroes, who were largely in the majority, against of the Government, were to be admitted to the right the example, advice, and instructions of all branches of suffrage by military order, it would have resulted in an exclusively negro constituency. You might not object to this; but I know perfectly well that, while a Government formed, as heretofore, by white men, may clothe negroes with the right of suffrage, a Government, organized by negro voters, that should give the elective franchise to white men, would not be acceptable to the Administration, to Congress, nor to the country, nor any part of it. Such would have been the result in Louisiana, beyond question, under a general order conferring the right of suffrage upon negroes. It would not have secured to colored citizens, now or hereafter, that right. It would have deferred, if not defeated it.

long and serious reflection, weighing the whole I did not decide upon this subject without very subject in every light, with a desire to effect the

extension.

My plan was consistent with my orders, and would have been as successful in this as in other respects. It was to obtain from the United States Court-following the judicial example both of free and slave States a decree, fixing the standard of citizenship as to color, and declaring that a man, with a major part of white blood, should possess all the rights of a white man. Upon this decision I should have ordered all persons of that class embraced within the decision of the court to be enrolled as voters. This was the way and the only way to begin. It would have given the right of representation to 30,000 colored people, and have led, without contest, to the immediate extension of the franchise of the race.

I had arranged this with Judge Durell, who was ready to give the case a hearing in the United States Circuit Court, and with one of the most eminent conservative lawyers to argue the question for the Government in favor of the negro; but a few men, who wanted to break the bundle of sticks without loosening the band, defeated it. The President gave me too much to do more than any other major-general in the army-or it would have been accomplished. My belief is now, that the question of suffrage will be settled sooner in Louisiana than in any other State.

impossible to prevent a very early change in the ownership of the plantations, and they are even now preparing to give way to new capital and new proprietorship.

In regard to the treatment of the freedmen, the old planters have, as a general rule, paid them more promptly, more justly, and apparently with more willingness than have the new lessees from other parts of the country.

Early in May Maj.-Gen. R. G. Canby was ordered to assume command of the forces west of the Mississippi and to relieve Maj.-Gen. Banks. The department was reorganized; some regiments were recruited from the plantations, but no extensive military operations took place within the State during the remainder of the year. (See ARMY OPERATIONS.)

The receipts of Western produce from September 1st to March 8th, in the respective years, compare as follows:

Flour, bbls..
Wheat, sacks..

Oats, sacks..
Pork, bbls..

A board of education for freedmen was established by Gen. Banks, whose duty it was to establish one or more common schools in each school district that has been or may be defined Corn, sacks.. by the Parish Provost Marshals under orders of the Provost Marshal General, to erect schoolhouses, employ teachers, and in all respects exercise the same powers as school officers in the Northern States.

In order to provide the requisite funds for this work the board is empowered to assess and levy a school tax upon real and personal property, including crops of plantations, in each school district. The taxes so levied shall be sufficient in amount to defray the cost and expense of establishing, furnishing, and conducting for the period of one year, the school or schools so established in each district.

In the performance of all their duties the board is to cooperate, as far as practicable, with the Superintendent of Public Education, and the current school year is to be estimated from Feb. 1st, 1864, to Feb. 1st, 1865.

The Superintendent of the Bureau of Free Labor in the Department of the Gulf, for the year ending Feb. 1st, 1865, states that the number of freedmen (orphans, infirm persons, &c.) supported by the Government during the year was 1,416, and the cost $113,426. The number of freedmen on the plantations who were managed by the bureau was 50,000, and the number of plantations under cultivation by military orders, 1,500. On twelve plantations it has been found necessary to seize property for the purpose of securing the payment of the freedmen working them. It having been an exceed ingly unprosperous year the planters have found it very difficult to pay their laborers.

The disaster of the past season by the failure of the crops has been so great as almost to ruin nearly every planter in the department. Their estates are so heavily mortgaged that if the crops again fail, as last year, they cannot save themselves, and the old planting aristocracy will disappear. Even with fair crops it will be

[blocks in formation]

Bacon, pkgs...

[blocks in formation]

Lard, bbls, and tierces.

[blocks in formation]

6. kegs.

[blocks in formation]

Beef, bbls, and tierces.
Whiskey, bbls........

The receipts of cotton at New Orleans in 1859-'60 were 2,255,448 bales; in 1861-22 they were 38,882 bales; from Sept., 1862, to March, 1863, 7,865 bales; in 1863-4 the receipts have increased to 84,402 bales.

A large amount of this produce was bought on Government account, and has been moved by the military authorities. New Orleans is thus not even a shadow of its former self. The receipts of Louisiana staples are only a moiety of what they were. The state of trade is thus reported: "Our trade for the supply of the interior with dry goods, hardware, groceries, etc., has fallen off in like proportion with the rest of our commerce. The whole volume of the year's business will barely reach the monthly record of the olden time. Most of our old population is scattered. New firms and new faces meet one at every corner. The memory of our former riches is almost all that remains to remind us of what New Orleans should be, and we may hope will be, after the termination of the war." Shreveport, in the northwest part of the State, was the seat of the former government, and there a Legislature assembled during the year, but nothing is known of its proceedings.

The validity of the organization of the Provisional Court of Louisiana as well as that of its proceedings, was brought before that court in the cases of the United States vs. Augusta Reiter, and the United States vs. John Louis. The following are the points of the opinion of Judge Peabody, in deciding the questions raised:

These two cases may without inconvenience or danger of confusion be considered together, although

they have in fact no connection with each other. The same objection to the proceeding of the Court to pronounce sentence upon the accused and in arrest of judgment, is made by both the defendants, and although the objection is urged on different grounds in the two cases, still the objection is proper to be considered on all the grounds in each case.

It is urged that this Court is not authorized to try these defendants, and that its proceedings have not the sanction of law in the premises. The accused have been indicted separately and tried separately on charges wholly different and having no connection the one with the other, and the consideration of their cases together rather than separately, now, is a matter of convenience solely. One of the accused, Reiter, has been indicted for murder. The other has been indicted for arson. Each has been tried before a jury of this parish and been duly convicted of the offence charged in the indictment, and each is now before the Court on a motion in arrest of judgment, and in each case the arrest is urged on the ground that the Court is not authorized in law, and has not jurisdiction to try the case.

The first question to be considered is whether the Court has ever had, from the nature of its origin and constitution, authority to try cases like these, and if this question shall be decided in the affirmative it will remain to examine

The second question, namely, whether the power to try or the jurisdiction over such a case, once possessed by this Court, has been withdrawn or lostwhether the Court in fact has been in any way deprived of it by subsequent events.

It must be conceded that the Court, in its origin and structure, is quite out of the usual course and novel. It has not its origin or foundation in any constitutional or legislative enactment-is not the creature of any regularly organized constitutional or legislative body. This Provisional Court depends for its existence on the law of nations, and on that part of the law of nations relating to war-the law by which parties and neutrals are guided in their treatment of each other in a state of war; and that portion of it which relates to and determines the rights and duties of a belligerent, a conqueror in the territory of an enemy and holding it in armed occupation. On that law must depend the decision of the question presented by this motion, of the validity in law and the powers of this Court.

It was in that law that the President of the United States, pressed by the urgent wants of the community here, found his warrant for the establishment of this Court in the midst of the country of an enemy held by him jure belli in armed belligerent occupation.

The authority of this Court is derived from the President of the United States, the Chief Executive of the nation, and Commander-in-Chief of its forces, military and naval. It is conferred by an order, "Establishing a Provisional Court in Louisiana," dated Oct. 20, 1862. See AMER. CYC., 1863, p. 770. Provisional Court for Louisiana.

This order, by its terms, no doubt embraces cases like these under consideration, as indeed it does, perhaps, all others which can occur in life, or become the subject of judicial investigation. The President then sought to give power to this Court to try and determine cases of this kind, and having made an order to that effect, has given it that power, if he himself had authority to confer it. The authority of the President of the United States to create this Court, and invest it with powers which should embrace these cases, depends, to some extent at least, on the Constitution of the United States, which creates the office exercised by him, and determines its functions. That Constitution, article 2, section 1, paragraph 1, declares as follows:

The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America."

It also provides, article 2, section 2, paragraph 1: VOL. IV.-31 A

"The President shall be Commander-in-Chief of the army and navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States when called into the actual service of the United States."

As President, Chief Executive, and Commanderin-Chief of the army and navy, he would not ordinarily have power to establish tribunals for the determination of questions civil and criminal, arising in civil life. Was there any thing in the condition of affairs existing at the time the order was made which could give him the power to establish them, and if so, what was there in the condition of affairs then existing to give him power in this respect not ordinarily possessed by him as one of the attributes of his office?

Between the Government of the United States and a people inhabiting a portion of country lying on the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico, and extending north beyond the northern boundary of the territory in question, and embracing within its borders that section of territory theretofore known, and still most conveniently designated as the State of Louisiana, a war had for some time been waged. It is a matter of public knowledge and notoriety that this war had been pending, and that the country over which the jurisdiction of this Court is in question, had been for a long time previous to, and also since the commencement of this war, inhabited, cultivated, and owned by the same people who had entered into and carried on war with the Government of the United States, and that it was still so inhabited by a people whose relations with the Government of the United States had for some time been and were still those of enmity. That it had, in the course of the war, been by force of the arms of the United States wrested from the enemy, and was at the time the order establishing this Court was made, held by the forces of the United States in armed belligerent occupation..

These institutions having been formed, established, and administered by the Government existing previous to and at the time of the conquest confess edly hostile to the Government of the United States, were the only institutions found there at the time the military authority of the United States was by force of its arms established there. By the conquest of the country, in this case as in others, the previously existing Government and the power by which it was administered were subverted and swept away, and those of the conquering power were substituted in their places. This is the necessary consequence of a conquest of a country-a transfer of the control, government, and sovereignty of it from one party to another. They may be transferred to and adopted by the new governing power and may be used and operated by it. However there may be retained in use by the new governing power some of the features or institutions of the Government which has been supplanted, it is nevertheless wholly another Government, and derives its life and all its vital quali ties from a new source-the new sovereignty installed by the conquest. A conquest necessarily operates the extinguishment of the power of the party conquered in the country which is the subject of conquest, and the establishment there of the power of the conqueror. Without this there is no conquest of a country, and there can be none.

When the power previously dominant in a country has been extinguished by that of another party, and rendered incapable of governing it further, and a new one has been established in its stead, it is both the right and the duty of the party thus coming into power to see to it that a Government wholesome and salutary shall be established and administered; and as in such a case there is only one power, that of the new party succeeding, capable of giving and ad. ministering the Government, it follows that it is the duty as well as the right of that power to do it.

So the Government of the United States having conquered and expelled from the territory of country

theretofore known as the State of Louisiana, the power by which the Government of it had been theretofore administered, and having established there its own power, was bound by the laws of war, as well as the dictates of humanity, to give to the territory thus bereft a Government in the place and stead of the one deposed or overthrown, such an one as should reasonably secure the safety and welfare of the people thus reduced to subjection; in some manner, not inconsistent, to be sure, with the proper interests of the governing power, and the maintenance of it in its supremacy there.

The power established there was the military power of the United States, and the President of the United States, as we have seen, the Commander-inChief of the forces, military and naval, of the United States, was at the head of that power, and had the right and duty to exercise and direct it. It was incumbent on him, representing for this purpose the Sovereignty of the United States, to see that the duty devolving on his Government should be properly performed. He acted in obedience to this duty, and in accordance with this right, when he attempted to establish there a judicial tribunal capable of deciding controversies and administering justice.

But how does this question stand on the authority of adjudged cases. In the case of Cross et al. vs. Harrison, in the Supreme Court of the United States, in 1853, reported in 16 Howard, at page 164, the Court held that a civil Government formed in California, under the direction of the President of the United States, as Commander-in-Chief of the army and navy, shortly after the conquest of the country, and while it was held in military occupation by the forces under him, was an act warranted by the laws of nations, and that the formation of such a civil Government was the rightful exercise of a belligerent right over a conquered country.

The decision covered the whole ground, that the Provisional Government of the United States there was rightful and legal, and that it continued in force a legal, rightful Government through the time the country was held in military occupation, and after that occupation ceased, and that it was, in fact, in force until some other system was provided according to law to supersede it.

For the doctrine that a conqueror in a conquered country may establish a Government, and courts for the administration of justice, the case of Leitensdorfer et al. vs. Webb, decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, in 1857, reported in 20 Howard, 176, is an authority directly in point. In that case the conduct of the Government of the United States by General Kearny, the officer in command of its forces there, was brought in question. It appeared that after the conquest of that country by the arms of the United States, General Kearny in command of the forces there, established a Government and provisional courts for the administration of justice. Those courts, in the case referred to, were adjudged to be legal, and their decisions obligatory as warranted by law. The power to establish the Government and the courts was directly in question, and was directly passed upon by the Court, and was sustained on the ground of the right of conquest.

In that case, moreover, it appeared that the country conquered was subsequently, by treaty, ceded to the United States, and it was claimed that by the act of cession the rights of the United States to govern the country and enforce the laws made by the Provisional Government while it was held in military occupation, was terminated.

The Court say: "Of the validity of these ordinan

ces of that Provisional Government there is made no question with respect to the period during which the territory was held by the United States, as occupy ing conqueror, and it would seem to admit of no doubt, that during the period of their valid existence and operation, these ordinances must have displaced and superseded every previous institution of the

vanquished or deposed political power which was in compatible with them. But it has been contended, that whatever might have been the rights of the oc cupying conqueror, as such, these were all termi nated by the termination of the belligerent attitude of the parties, and that with the close of the contest, every institution which had been overthrown or suspended would be revived and reestablished."

"The fallacy of this pretension," the Courtroceed to say, "is exposed by the fact, that the conquered territory never was relinquished by the conqueror, nor restored to its original condition or allegiance, but was retained by the occupant until possession was matured into absolute, permanent dominion and sovereignty." The Court then proceed to decide when the institutions of the Provisional Government would terminate.

They say: "We conclude, therefore, that the ordinances and institutions of the Provisional Government could be revoked or modified by the United States alone, either by direct legislation on the part of Congress, or that of the Territorial Government, in the exercise of powers delegated to it by Congress." The question there presented was the validity of an ordinance of the Territorial Government, authorizing attachments of property of debtors, enacted by the Provisional Government, while the country was held in military occupation, and before the cession of it, but sought to be enforced by the Provisional Territorial Court after the cession of the country to the United States, and after the military occupation had ceased. The Court upheld the law in its origin, and also in its continuance in force, and the administration of it by the Provisional Territorial Court after the cession of the country, and after the military occupation had ceased.

In the case of Jecker vs. Montgomery, 14 Howard, 498, decided in 1854, the same Supreme Court of the United States incidentally recognize the legality and powers of those Provisional Courts, and while deciding that, for reasons peculiar to cases of prize, and not at all applicable to any others, they could not legally act in cases of that class, the Court admit their powers and jurisdiction in other cases: making three decisions of the Court of last resort of the Government of the United States quite in point. Either of these should be sufficient authority for such a principle, if indeed a principle so plainly proper and necessary, can be thought to need authority of precedent at all.

But at the risk of being tedious and doing work of supererogation, which charges I am persuaded might well be maintained against me, I will add to these authorities already commented on, still another one, which has a bearing quite material on this case at more than one point. I mean the case of the United States vs. Rice, 4 Wheaton, 246. That case, as well as those already cited, decides that, by the conquest and military occupation by one nation of a portion of the territory of another, the portion so acquired passes from the operation of the laws and government of the nation to which it had previously belonged, and comes under the laws and government of the nation making the conquest. It also decides that while such territory is held by the conqueror, it is the right of the party so holding it to govern it, and for that purpose to make laws by which to govern it. In short, that, by conquest, the sovereignty and right to rule of the conqueror are introduced and established, and the sovereignty and right of rule in the party expelled are extinguished; and that the duty of allegiance in the people remaining there is transferred in like manner from the vanquished to the victorious party; in fact, that by such an act the change in the sovereignty and allegiance are complete, and new rights and duties in both parties are created accordingly. I think that all these conclusions certainly follow from what is decided, if, indeed, they are not all actually decided there.

The right, therefore, of a conqueror in a con

« PreviousContinue »