Page:Hawkins v. Filkins 01.pdf/18

RhTERM, 1866.] government. An uninterrupted exercise of the powers of the state government, in all its departments, over the whole state, existed at the time the judgment, the validity of which is questioned, was rendered, and, although suspended after that, in portions of the state, on account of its military occupation by the United States troops, in other portions of the state, the administration of the state government was uninterrupted. Even in time of civil war, government and law remain absolute necessities. The people of the state had given their allegiance to the state government, and were entitled to its protection. Their only protection must necessarily come from the state government; because, for municipal government, the power existed no where else. The federal government could set up no such government, because no power to do so was delegated to it. Therefore, unless the state could govern, there could be no government, and as a necessary consequence, the whole people of the state would be left withont law, without government; life, liberty and property left to the mercy of brutal violence, and the whole society, in this age of advanced civilization, be left to the mercy of those who can only be restrained from violence by law. Such is not, and from the very nature of things, cannot be the law—not even over conquered territory, unless our most eminent judges have been greatly mistaken. In the case of the United States vs. Percheman, 7 Peters 14, page 86, Chief Justice M said: "It may not be unworthy of remark, that it is very unusual, even in cases of conquest, for the conquerors to do more than to displace the sovereign, and assume dominion over the territory. The modern usages of nations, which have become law, would be violated; that sense of justice and of right, which is acknowledged, and felt by the whole civilized world, would be outraged, if private property should be generally confiscated, and private rights annulled. The people change their allegiance, their relation to their ancient sovereign is dissolved. But their relations to each other, and their rights of property remain undisturbed."

When delivering the opinion in Amy Warwick case, Mr.