Stephen Johnson Field

Name: Miller v. United States — Dissent
Author: Stephen Johnson Field

Summary

“Miller v. United States — Dissent”, is a work by Stephen Johnson Field. It explores elements such as the United States, seizure and proceedings.

Quotes from Miller v. United States — Dissent (Stephen Johnson Field)

Stephen Johnson Field, Miller v. United States — Dissent

“ The power to make rules concerning captures on land and water is a power to make such rules as Congress may prescribe, subject to the condition that they are within the law of nations. There is a limit to the means of destruction which government, in the prosecution of war, may use, and there is a limit to the subjects of capture and confiscation, which government may authorize, imposed by the law of nations, and is no less binding upon Congress than if the limitation were written in the Constitution. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Stephen Johnson Field, Miller v. United States — Dissent

“ But assuming the severe rule laid down by the chief justice to be the true rule, it applies only to the property of enemies, and by enemies is meant permanent inhabitants of the enemy's country. It is their property alone which is the subject of seizure and confiscation by authority of Congress, legislating under the war powers. Their property is liable, not by reason of any hostile disposition manifested by them or hostile acts committed, or any violations of the laws of the United States, but solely from the fact that they are inhabitants of the hostile country, and thus in law are enemies. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Stephen Johnson Field, Miller v. United States — Dissent

“ There is no difference in the relation between the owner and his property and the government, when the owner is guilty of treason and when he is guilty of any other public offence. The same reason which would sustain the authority of the government to confiscate the property of a traitor would justify the confiscation of his property when guilty of any other offence. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Stephen Johnson Field, Miller v. United States — Dissent

“ How the marshal could get possession of a thing which he did not touch nor handle nor control, by giving notice to two individuals in Detroit, themselves having no control or possession of the property, passes my comprehension. Shares or stock in companies can only be seized in virtue of statutory provisions, which prescribe a mode of seizure equivalent to actual taking of possession. No such provisions existed in the law of Michigan, in which State the proceedings were had. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Stephen Johnson Field, Miller v. United States — Dissent

“ If we turn now to the act of July 17th, 1862, we find that its provisions are not directed against enemies at all, but against persons who have committed certain overt acts of treason. It does not purport in any part of it to deal with enemies. It declares in its title that its object is 'to suppress insurrection, to punish treason and rebellion, to seize and confiscate the property of rebels, and for other purposes.' The other purposes relate principally to slaves, their employment or colonization, and the power of the President to proclaim amnesty and pardon. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Stephen Johnson Field, Miller v. United States — Dissent

“ The language of the eminent chief justice is perhaps subject to some qualification, if it was intended to state as a rule of public law that all property of the enemy, whether on land or water, was subject to confiscation. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Stephen Johnson Field, Miller v. United States — Dissent

“ The doctrine that notice to the owner is given by seizure of the thing, rests upon the presumption that the owners of property retain possession of it themselves, or place it in the care and management of persons who will represent them and communicate to them any proceedings taken against their interest in relation to it. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Stephen Johnson Field, Miller v. United States — Dissent

“ It has been held, that when the late rebellion assumed the proportions of a territorial civil war, the inhabitants of the Confederate States, and the inhabitants of the loyal States, became reciprocally enemies to each other, and that the inhabitants of the Confederate States engaged in the rebellion, or giving aid and comfort thereto, were at the same time amenable to the municipal law as rebels. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Stephen Johnson Field, Miller v. United States — Dissent

“ Percheman, [5] observed that it was unusual, even in cases of conquest, for the conqueror to do more than to displace the sovereign and assume dominion over the country, and that 'the modern usage of nations, which has become law, would be violated ”

Stephen Johnson Field

Summary

Quotes from Miller v. United States — Dissent (Stephen Johnson Field)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature