Kitabı oku: «Trial of the Officers and Crew of the Privateer Savannah, on the Charge of Piracy, in the United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York», sayfa 21

FIFTH DAY

October 28, 1861.

ARGUMENT OF MR. DUKES FOR THE DEFENCE.

Mr. Evarts said: Perhaps it is unnecessary that I should say to the Court and learned counsel, that I shall refer to the Statute of treason, as well as to the Constitutional provision as to treason. The Statute of treason is found in the first section of the Crimes Act of 1790.

Mr. Dukes said:

May it please your honors and gentlemen of the Jury.

It has been said by one of the most eminent statesmen that ever lived, that "civil wars strike deepest into the manners of the people,—they vitiate their politics; they corrupt their morals; they pervert the natural taste and relish of equity and justice."

If this be so, one would think that this was a singularly unfortunate time for the Government to bring on the trial of these prisoners at your bar, who are entitled to that right which the Constitution offers to the meanest citizen—that of a fair and impartial trial.

Is it to obtain that fair and impartial trial that the case is brought on now, when the flame of civil war lights the land, and when, in every stage and condition of society, the bitterest sentiments of hostility prevail?

Is it in order to afford the prisoners a fair and impartial trial that the case is brought on now, when tender infancy and gentle woman unite with stern and selfish man in uttering the deepest imprecations on their enemies?

Is it in order to obtain a fair and impartial trial that the case is brought on now, when, on God's holy day, in his holy temple, his chosen ministers officiating at his holy altar, utterly unmindful of the injunction of their meek and lowly Master, "to forgive their enemies, and to pray for those who despitefully use them"—offer up to Heaven prayers for its severest vengeance upon the heads of their enemies?

If so, gentlemen, I beg at least, (as one of the counsel,) to offer my dissent.

It does, indeed, seem to me that this is a singularly unfortunate time to bring on this trial. But yet, gentlemen, I feel buoyed up with hope, because I know the unbending integrity of the Judges that officiate, and I know that the Jury, which sits in judgment over the lives of these men, is chosen from the citizens of New York—a city in which, if any city in the world possesses large, liberal, and enlightened views, we may hope to find them. But, still, the officers of the Government must excuse me for saying that I think it unfortunate, and somewhat illiberal in them, considering the character of the charge made against these men, to try them now. It does seem to me that it is, at best, but trying treason with an odious name.

Gentlemen, this is no new thing. Years ago this very question, as to the propriety of trying men situated as these men are, was brought before the mind of that liberal and enlightened statesman, Edmund Burke—the long-tried and faithful friend of America; and I trust that I may be pardoned for referring to his words on this occasion, and for reading to you a passage from his celebrated letter to the Sheriffs of Bristol, in 1777, which, perhaps, will more fully illustrate my views than anything I can say. Speaking about American privateersmen, then in the same position as these men now are, he says:

"The persons who make a naval warfare upon us, in consequence of the present troubles, may be rebels; but to treat and call them pirates is confounding, not only the natural distinction of things, but the order of crimes; which, whether by putting them from a higher part of the scale to the lower, or from the lower to the higher, is never done without dangerously disordering the whole frame of jurisprudence.

"Though piracy may be, in the eye of the law, a less offence than treason, yet, as both are, in effect, punished with the same death, the same forfeiture, and the same corruption of the blood, I never would take from any fellow-creature whatever any sort of advantage which he may derive to his safety from the pity of mankind, or to his reputation from their general feelings by degrading his offence, when I cannot soften his punishment.

"The general sense of mankind tells me, that those offences which may possibly arise from mistaken virtue are not in the class of infamous actions.

"Lord Coke, the oracle of the English law, conforms to that general sense, where he says, 'That those things which are of the highest criminality may be of the least disgrace.'* * * * *

"If Lord Balmerine, in the last rebellion, had driven off the cattle of twenty clans, I should have thought it would have been a scandalous and low juggle, utterly unworthy of the manliness of an English judicature, to have tried him for felony as a stealer of cows.

"Besides, I must honestly tell you that I could not vote, or countenance in any way, a statute which stigmatizes with the crime of piracy these men, whom an Act of Parliament had previously put out of the protection of the law.

"When the legislature of this Kingdom had ordered all their ships and goods, for the mere new-created offence of exercising trade, to be divided as a spoil among the seamen of the navy—to consider the necessary reprisal of an unhappy, proscribed, interdicted people as the crime of piracy, would have appeared, in any other legislature than ours, a strain of the most insulting and unnatural cruelty and injustice. I assure you, I never remember to have heard any thing like it, in any time or country."

Gentlemen, I read this extract because it is the testimony of an eminently wise man, and an eminently just one. Such were his views at that day, and I am inclined to believe that those words spoken by him then have a better application to the state of things at present than any remarks I can make, or that can be made by any one of us who are in the midst of this whirl of excitement.

But, gentlemen, the Government has chosen to make the issue. It was at liberty to do so; and that issue is piracy.

Piracy, gentlemen of the Jury, you have heard defined by the eminent counsel who preceded me. The parties here occupy, as it were, a two-fold capacity. The eighth section of the Act of 1790 applies to piracy under the common law; the ninth section of that Act creates what we have called statutory piracy. The eighth section of the Act only alludes to piracy as it is acknowledged under the law of nations, and as known to the common law. The ninth section, however, differs from the eighth, because it applies peculiarly to citizens of the United States, and is supposed to be more enlarged in its character than the eighth section. Now, with reference to a portion of the prisoners here,—to those who are not citizens,—eight of them come entirely under the eighth section; and we shall contend that, under that section, they cannot be convicted. As regards the other four, it will be contended, that not only are they embraced by the first, but likewise by the second of these sections—that of statutory piracy, which applies peculiarly to them.

Well now, gentlemen, in regard to the eighth section, the learned counsel who very ably addressed the Court on last Saturday, stated that intent had little or nothing to do with the offence; that he did not choose to be held to the animus fruendi, but that the charge was the animus furandi, and that when a person committed robbery it was but of very little consequence to what purpose he applied the proceeds of the robbery, or for whom he committed it. Now, with all due deference to the learned counsel, I think this is putting the case rather unfairly, because he is quietly assuming the very point we are discussing; for it is the fact of the animus furandi—the fact whether or not this is robbery—that we are discussing.

We have distinctly said, and shown by the books, that that which he says is not the characteristic of the crime, is really its characteristic, and that intent in this, as in every other offence, peculiarly constitutes the crime.

It is just because the taking is not for the party himself—is not an appropriation for his own purpose, and for his own ends, and for his own object, that there is a difference between piracy and privateering. And why is this so? Because the party who goes forth on a privateering expedition, goes forth under the sanction of a nation. It may be a nation only de facto, but still it is a nation. He goes by the authority of that nation, armed with a commission under its sanction, after having given the most ample security to be responsible to the nation itself for any act of misconduct on his part; that nation holding itself out to the civilized world as responsible for every excess on the part of the citizen to whom it grants letters of marque. Well, gentlemen, the taking of property on the part of the privateer is not for himself. The taking is in the name of the State. The title which the privateer has in the captured property is no title at all, nor does he pretend to claim it. The title is in the State, and up to the very moment of condemnation, although the property may have been acquired by his blood, and by his treasure, the State has the right to release it. So important is this fact of intention, as entering into the transaction, that it has been held that no excess on the part of a person carrying letters of marque from a regular Government could be punished as piracy—the Government being liable, and he himself being referred to his own Government for punishment.

It has been even held in England, that where the act of taking a commission from a foreign prince was so unlawful in its character as to amount under the law to a felony, yet still the party having letters of marque, should not be charged with piracy.

Now, gentlemen, there was an attempt made by the learned counsel to cast odium upon privateering and upon this transaction, by speaking of these men as going out for their own plunder. Well, I have nothing to say about that; but there is one thing to be remarked: that in times of hostility the plunder does not belong to one side, nor does it belong to the privateersman alone, but the regularly armed vessels of every nation in the world, as well as privateersmen, are enriched by the capture of prizes at sea; and I suspect that the members of the bar now present can tell you how extensively our own navy has been enriched within the last few weeks by the condemnation of prizes. If the spoils derived from enemies' property be plunder, and if it be disgraceful to take it, then the highest names in England have been associated with such plunder, for you have but to look into the English books to find the name of the great and distinguished Arthur, Duke of Wellington, as connected with such cases.

But, gentlemen, there is another thing which would prevent the parties from being convicted of piracy, that is, the state of enmity existing between the two nations. It is a general rule that enemies can never commit piracy against each other, their depredations being deemed mere acts of hostility. This is as far back as the days of Lord Coke; and the rule has been carried so far as to protect the citizen of one of the belligerents, who, without any letter of marque at all, goes on the ocean and seizes the property of the enemy. It is true, it has been said that in such cases citizens act at their peril, and are liable to be punished by their own sovereign; but the enemy is not warranted in considering them as criminals.

That the people of the Confederate States, under whose commission these men have acted, stand in the light of enemies, the learned decisions of Judges Cadwalader and Betts; the blockade of the Southern ports, which is a hostile measure; the confiscation of the property of their citizens—not only of the property of the men who have arms in their hands, but of the citizens at large; the captures at sea; the vessels condemned here; the virtual dissolution of partnerships; the admission of the plea of alien enemy; the President's proclamation of non-intercourse; the arrest of citizens of those States returning from Europe; and the opinion of my learned friend, the District Attorney himself, showing that it is treason for the banks here to pay over the bank balances to Southern customers,—all these things go to establish, thoroughly and sufficiently, the condition of enmity or hostility, which forms a protection to these parties. They fix the status of war; they decide that the two powers are enemies, and that, too, without any declaration of war, for no declaration of war is needed. It seems to me that it is all useless to attempt to evade the admission that there is war. We cannot by legal enactments—we cannot by judicial decisions—we cannot by Presidential Proclamations—establish the condition of war and all the consequences of war, and yet shrink from its open avowal. And yet that is precisely what is attempted here. It may do with those that are strong to oppress their own subjects, but it will not do when you come to deal with foreign nations. When you come to deal with these eight men who are here, the subjects of foreign powers, those powers have a right to put in a word. Gentlemen, it is impossible for this Government to do less than acknowledge that, in fact, there is a state of hostility; and you may as well call it by its proper name—we are in the midst of war.

It will not do for the Government, like the ostrich, to put its head under its wing, and fancy that because it sees nobody, nobody sees it. The Government has enacted all the consequences of war without making an open or decided declaration of it. Under such circumstances, however, the status of enmity is sufficiently fixed to protect the prisoners.

But there is another test of piracy, gentlemen, and it is this—Is the privateer a universal enemy? Is he a universal plunderer? Is his hand against every man? Has he not a nation?

Now a pirate has no nation. He is an outlaw, and is justiciable everywhere. His is the law of might—

 
"For why? Because the good old rule
Sufficeth him: the simple plan
That they should take who have the power,
And they should keep who can."
 

But it is not necessary that the nation under whose commission he acts, shall be one which is already established and acknowledged among the family of nations. It may be a colony struggling for independence, and not yet recognized by the nations of the earth. Our own Courts years ago decided this case with a liberality which has eminently distinguished them, and established the principle in respect to the South American colonies—colonies at that time not acknowledged by our Government as independent nations.

So, gentlemen, it was with regard to the powers of Europe during the days of the American Revolution. Every power in the world respected the letters of marque issued by Congress; and if there is an instance of a single case in which, in any land in the civilized world, there was a criminal trial of an American privateersman, I have not been able to find it. Their letters of marque were recognized because they were the letters of a de facto Government.

Now, gentlemen, what are the tests sufficient to form such a nationality as will cover these commissions? Are the Confederate States, in this instance, competent to maintain the relations of war and of peace? Gentlemen, if the South American provinces were, I think it can hardly be disputed that the people of ten great States like these certainly are. They are very far beyond them in civilization, in information, in wealth, and in all the means by which nations sustain their independence.

So important, however, is the fact of a commission, that even a commission from the Barbary powers—states which subsisted entirely, I may say, by plunder and piracy—was regarded as sufficient, in the Courts of England, to protect an Algerine who was taken with letters of marque. And that opinion comes with the authority of one of the greatest masters of the science of jurisprudence—Sir William Scott—a name that can never be mentioned without feelings of reverence by any man who respects the sentiments of justice and their application to the principles of international law. In the case I allude to, the Barbary subject was taken in an attempt to seize an English vessel. The crew was composed of foreigners, men of different nations, most of them belonging to Spain and France. It was held that as to all the rest of the parties they should be treated as outlaws, but the Algerine was allowed the plea of respondeat superior. In other words, he had but to point to his country, and say she was responsible; that she gave him authority, and assumed the responsibility; and upon that plea he was allowed to go. I mention this to show how far the doctrine has been carried.

But, gentlemen, if the commission from a Government de facto generally is a plea in bar (and that it is, I have no doubt the Court will charge you), it certainly holds good in a case of this kind, where the authority is much less questionable. Now, are the United States bound to recognize the Confederate States as belligerents? Not as an independent nation,—that is an entirely different question. We say, gentlemen, not only that the United States are bound to recognize the Confederate States as belligerents, but we think we have shown that they have done so. The capitulation between Commodore Stringham, General Butler, and Commodore Barron, recognized the existence of a state of war, and recognized the prisoners as prisoners of war; and not one word has been said, and not one act done, by the Government, to disavow their authority in so doing. It is the principle of civilized nations—and we belong to the family of civilized nations—to recognize parties, even in the midst of civil war, as belligerents; and this country is too just, too powerful, and too elevated in sentiment, to shrink from that which civilization, decency and honor compel her to stand to. She must recognize even those who are her children—struggling against her authority though they be—as fair and honest antagonists. From the time of our own struggle, in the days of the Revolution, we professed the principles of international law. They are now a part of the law of the land. There is a moral obligation upon us to occupy our position in the great family of nations; to hold it, as we have always done, with honor and with distinguished consideration. Sorry, indeed, would I be to think that there should be, on this occasion, any eminent departure from it, as there certainly would be if these men were held in any other light than as mere privateersmen, and not pirates.

But if these principles are true, as applying between the people of this country and the people of England during the days of the Revolution,—if the mother country then considered us as belligerents where there could be no subtle political question such as may be raised here, and has already been raised—the doctrine of the two sovereignties,—there is then, at least, a reason which applies in this case, and never could have applied in that case; for the allegiance of the colonies to the mother country was firm, fixed, and undivided: it never was, and never could be, questioned.

I say, then, that these parties are not pirates; and I further say that the municipal laws of a State, or of a number of States, cannot constitute that offence to be piracy which is not so characterized by international law; and for this principle I refer to 1st Phillimore, 381 (International Law).

I come now to the 9th section, and I will read that section:

"And be it further enacted, that if any citizen should commit any piracy or robbery aforesaid, or any act of hostility against the United States or any citizen thereof, on the high seas, under color of any commission of any foreign Prince or State, or on pretence of authority from any person, such offender shall, notwithstanding the pretence of any such authority, be deemed, adjudged, and taken to be a pirate, felon, and robber, and on being convicted thereof shall suffer death."

This section applies particularly to the citizens of the United States. Now, I contend that this section does not change the character of the offence. It differs only by stating that the commission shall not form a pretext. The words "piracy and robbery" explain the words "acts of hostility," which follow immediately afterwards. Where particular words are followed by general words, the latter are held as applying to persons and things of the same kind as those which precede. The coupling of words together shows that they are to be understood in the same sense. Take these two principles with the other principle, that penal statutes are to receive a strict interpretation. The general words of a penal statute must be restrained for the benefit of him against whom the penalty is inflicted.

To the same effect is the case of The United States vs. Bevins (5 Wheaton):

"Penal statutes, however, are taken strictly and literally only in point of defining and setting down the crime and the punishment; and not literally in words that are but circumstances and conveyance in the putting of the case.

"Thus, though by the statute 1 Ed. 6, C. 12, it was enacted that those who were convicted of stealing horses should not have the benefit of clergy, the Judges conceived that this did not extend to him that should steal but one horse, and therefore procured a new Act for that purpose in the following year.

"But upon the Statute of Gloucester, that gives the action of waste against him that holds pro termino vitæ vel annorum, if a man holds but for a year he is within the statute; while, if the law be that for a certain offence a man shall lose his right hand, and the offender hath had his right hand before cut off in the wars, he shall not lose his left hand, but the crime shall rather pass without the punishment which the law assigned than the letter of the law shall be extended.

"A penal law, then, shall not be extended by equity; that is, things which do not come within the words shall not be brought within it by construction.

"The law of England does not allow of constructive offences, or of arbitrary punishments. No man incurs a penalty unless the act which subjects him to it is clearly both within the spirit and the letter of the statute imposing such penalty.

"'If these rules are violated,' said Best, C.J., in the case of Fletcher vs. Lord Sondes, 3 Bing., 580, 'the fate of accused persons is decided by the arbitrary discretion of Judges, and not by the express authority of the laws. 2d Dwarris Stat., 634.'

"By another restrictive rule of construing penal statutes, if general words follow an enumeration of particular cases, such general words are held to apply only to cases of the same kind as those which are expressly mentioned. By the 14 Geo. 2, C. 1, persons who should steal sheep or any other cattle were deprived of the benefit of clergy. The stealing of any cattle, whether commonable or not commonable, seems to be embraced by these general words, "any other cattle," yet they were looked upon as too loose to create a capital offence. By the 15 George 2, C. 34, the Legislature declared that it was doubtful to what sorts of cattle the former Act extended besides sheep, and enacted and declared that the Act was made to extend to any bull, cow, ox, steer, bullock, heifer, calf, and lamb, as well as sheep, and to no other cattle whatsoever.

"Until the Legislature distinctly specified what cattle were meant to be included, the Judges felt that they could not apply the statute to any other cattle but sheep.

"The Legislature, by the last Act, says that it was not to be extended to horses, pigs, or goats, although all these are cattle.

"3 Bingh., 581.

"2 Dwarris, Statutes, 635."

By the English law, and by the principles of general law, may it please the Court, the offence must be clearly defined—it must be limited, ascertained, fixed. It must be clear to the accuser. It must be clear to the accused. It must be equally clear to the Judge. It must leave him no discretion whereby he can enlarge or alter it. And, may it please the Court, this is the safe and true principle of construction—to give as little as possible to the discretion of the Courts; for it has been well said, that the arbitrary discretion of any man is the law of tyrants. It is always unknown; it is different in different men; it is casual, and depends on constitution, temper, and passion. In the best of us it is oftentimes caprice; in the worst of us it is every vice, folly and passion to which human nature is liable. It is by defining crime clearly that the citizen has his strongest guarantee for his personal safety. Let us see the opinion of perhaps the greatest master that ever touched the subject of jurisprudence—I mean Montesquieu.

"It is determined," he says, "by the laws of China, that whoever shows any disrespect to the Emperor is to be punished with death. As they do not mention in what this disrespect consists, every thing may furnish a pretext to take away a man's life, and to exterminate any family whatsoever.

"If the crime of high treason be indeterminate, this alone is sufficient to make the Government degenerate into arbitrary power."—Montesquieu, Spirit, Book 12, c. 7.

Now, may it please the Court, it is through statutes in which crimes are ill-defined—are not clearly and distinctly designated—that tyrants in every age have been able to crush their victims. Hence, in the noble system of laws that it is your honors' privilege to dispense, safeguards have been put in the strongest degree, and bulwarks have been erected around the life, the liberties, and the rights of the citizen.

Now, what is an "act of hostility"? Suppose these men had gone out with a commission instructing them to go on the seas, to board vessels, and to beat the captains of vessels, and to do no more—to abandon them then, and take to their own ships—would that be an act of piracy? Is it not plain that the law meant piracy or robbery, or any "act of hostility" ejusdem generis, that is, animo furandi? To show that this construction is not forced, your honors will find in the Act of March 3d, 1825 (Dunlop's Laws, p. 723, sect. 6), that a special law was passed for the very purpose of punishing acts of hostility against the United States and its citizens by forcibly attacking and setting upon vessels owned in part or wholly by either of them, with intent to plunder and despoil the owners of moneys, goods, &c., &c. If, therefore, this construction of these words, which I respectfully submit to the Court, has any weight in it, they amount to no more than what has been already decided in Clintock's case—the clear and well-settled principle of law that the commission shall not form a pretext for robbery.

But, may it please the Court, as to the ninth section of the Act, it never was contemplated as applying to organized States. It was an Act which was intended to apply to individuals alone. States are not the subjects of criminal law, nor can you legislate against them; and this has been distinctly decided. If the Confederate States have been guilty of a gross breach of faith in the attempt to withdraw from the Confederation, they may be coerced; but the citizen himself must go unpunished. They are States—recognized by yourselves as States. They are not a collection of piratical hordes; and under such circumstances the law will not apply to the citizen of any of these States who acts fairly and honestly under his commission.

The learned counsel who spoke last Saturday, referred to privateering as a relic of the barbarous age. No one agrees with the learned counsel in that respect more than I do; and from the bottom of my heart I hope that he may be yet able to take his share in banishing from the world this relic of the olden time. But, really, I see very little chance of advancement in that line, so long as a vessel of war is allowed to take private property on the seas. There should be perfect immunity for all property on the ocean belonging to individuals; but the letter of Mr. Marcy shows that we are not yet exactly up to that point.

The learned counsel stated that, before he could concede the commission in this case to be a justification, two things must be shown: First, there must be a state of war; and, second, the privateer must have received his commission from some public, national, sovereign power. Well, we think we have shown the existence of war sufficiently strongly; and as to this point, I fancy that few gentlemen of the bar can forget the pointed and admirable allusion of the learned counsel himself (Mr. Evarts), in his argument in the District Court, some time since, to the absent clerk, in illustrating the fact of the existence of war. I remember how forcibly it struck me when I read it. The decisions in the case of the South American privateers settles the point as to the nationality.

But, gentlemen, there is another subject to which I will briefly allude—that is, the abstract right of these States legally to secede. Now, gentlemen, we do not deny that there is no such right. I concede all that. Yet, still, these men have ever held different notions; and, on this subject, a line has been drawn for many years through an immense tract of this our country. The right or the wrong of it does not affect us here. You have failed to convince them, and they have failed to convince you. There is no common arbiter between you, because they contend that, being sovereigns, they cannot submit to the Courts questions between themselves and the United States. Now, they may be wrong, but have you the right to declare them so? You ought to be perfectly certain. Justice, reason, and duty prompt that there ought to be no mistake. When you hold a party for a criminal charge, there ought not to be a reasonable doubt. Is there no possibility that, in the course of the proceedings between the Federal and State Governments, you may be wrong? Does truth only consort with one side of the line, and falsehood with the other? May you not be mistaken? Look at the different lights in which, for years, you have respectively viewed various questions. See how gradually the change has been effected; and yet how stronger and stronger it has grown day by day. Can any one forget the deep and intense anxiety with which that great statesman, Mr. Clay, just before his death, regarded the division between the Methodist and Baptist Churches of the North and the South? And yet no man was a truer or firmer patriot, or an abler advocate of the Government; and no man saw with more unerring certainty that the line, sooner or later, was destined to be drawn between the two sections, unless some compromise was effected.