State v. . Blalock

61 N.C. 242
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided January 5, 1867·Published·Cited by 10 cases

Opinion

*244 Reade, J.

There were eighteen persons indicted in this Case. They were citizens of North Carolina, and during the war they enlisted in the Federal service and engaged in a fight with arms, with certain of the home guards in the Confederate service; and some were wounded on both sides.

Several interesting questions were discussed at the bar as to the regularity of the enlistment, and of the swearing and mustering in of the defendants, involving the general question, Whether they were soldiers in the Federal service-at all; and if they were, then, whether they were acting under orders or were marauders.

But we are relieved from deciding these complex and embarrassing questions by reason of the fact that, since the-trial below, the Legislature has passed an act of amnesty and pardon, which embraces this case. We did, indeed, so-far consider the facts as to enable us to determine that the | defendants are not dearly entitled to an acquittal upon the I merits; because if they are they would be entitled to a Snew trial to save the costs. But it is evident that their guilt jor innocence is involved in much doubt, and we can see ne jgood likely to result from another trial.

The conflict of arms and political disturbances through which we have passed have troubled society to its deep foundations. Those who are now neighbors have lately been in armed hostility, and met each other with deadly purpose; property and lives have been sacrificed; those who were in command had to compel obedience, and were sometimes too imperious; those who had to serve were worn out and irritable, and sometimes resistant; the rapacious plundered and the innocent suffered. Every one has something unpleasant to remember, and many have wrongs to revenge. Criminal prosecutions and civil suits necessarily spring out of such a past. The details, not to say the exaggerations of irritating facts, the conflict of witnesses, the discussions between zealous advocates, the denunciations of *245 parties, the hazard of costs and damages, and the inflictions-of punishments, would not only keep alive these evils, but would cause them to spread into a pestilence. While so many have injuries to revenge, quite as many have errors to regret; and it will be a great public good if the past can be forgiven and forgotten. In view of this the Legislature, at its present session, passed the following act:

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of North Carolina, and it is hereby enacted by the authority of the same,, That no persons who may have been in the civil or military service of the State, as officers or soldiers of the militia, or soldiers of the home guard, officers and soldiers of the local police, officers and soldiers of the late Confederate States,, or as officers and soldiers of the United States, shall be held to answer on any indictment, for any act done in the discharge of any duties imposed on them, purporting to be by a law of the State or late Confederate States Government, or by virtue of any order emanating from any officer commissioned or non-commissioned of the late Confederate States Government, or any officer commissioned or non-commissioned of the United States Government. That no one of the above named officers or privates who now are or may hereafter be indicted for any homicides, felonies or misdemeanors committed prior to the first day of January,-A. D.r 1866, shall be held to answer for the same, but shall be entitled to a full and complete amnesty, pardon and discharge from the same, upon the payment of the costs; provided, they shall not be taxed with the payment of the costs upon any indictment preferred against them from and after the passage of this bill, or in other words, that no officers or privates in any of the above named organizations, against whom no indictment is now pending, shall be liable to prosecution for any offence committed against the criminal *246 laws of North Carolina prior to the first day of January, A. D. 1866, as aforesaid.

Be it further enacted, That in all cases where indictments ■are now pending, either in the County or Superior Courts, if the defendant can show that he was an officer or private in either of the above named organizations at the time, it shall be presumed that he acted under orders, until the con- , trary shall be made to appear.

Be it further enacted, That all private citizens, who, on •account of age, or from any other cause, were exempt from service in any or all of the above named organizations, who, for the preservation of their lives or property, or for the protection of their families, associated themselves together for the preservation of law and order, in their respective counties or districts, shall be entitled to all the benefits and provisions of this act.

Be it further enacted] That no person who may have been in the civil or military service of the State or late Confederate States Government, or in the service of the United States Government, in either of the above named organizations, shall be held liable in any civil action for any act done In the discharge of any duties imposed upon him by any law or authority purporting to be a law of the State or late Confederate States Government.

Be itfurther enacted, That this act shall be in force from and after its ratification.

Legislation of this kind has not been unfrequent, when -occasions of great strife have made it proper. It is genererally applied to whole classes for the purpose of restoring tranquility in the State. It is the gracious act of the gov-ernment towards its erring subjects. It is the most amiable prerogative of the government. Law cannot be formed on principles of compassion to guilt. The rugged task of con *247 demning and punishing is for the courts. The gracious act of forgiving is for the crown. 4 Black, 401.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

State v. . Blalock, 61 N.C. 242 (N.C. 1867).

61 N.C. 242 (State v. . Blalock) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Ramseur
Supreme Court of North Carolina, 2020
State v. Frazier
185 S.E.2d 652 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1972)
Jamison v. Flanner
228 P. 82 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1924)
State v. . Bowman
59 S.E. 74 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1907)
In Re Briggs
47 S.E. 403 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1904)