404 



CONNECTICUT CONQUEST. 



The constitutions of Uic colony on the banks of 

 the Connecticut, of the years 1638 and 1650, and the 

 most ancient record of the colony of New Haven 

 (q. v.) are of no little historical interest, as indications 

 of the deep feeling of the necessity of laws in the 

 mind of man, and of the stern and sombre religious 

 spirit of the first settlers of those colonies. The cliap- 

 ter of capital! laices, in the code of 1650, is almost 

 verbally copied from the Mosaic law. It inflicts 

 death, among other offences, for the worshipping of 

 any other God but the Lord God ; being a witch, 

 that is consulting with a familiar spirit ; blas- 

 pheming the name of God, the Father, Son, or 

 Holy Gnost ; adultery, rape, sodomy, stealing ; bear- 

 ing false witness, in order to take away another man's 

 life ; cursing of parents by a child above 16 ; or on a 

 son who manifests a stubborn and rebellious spirit 

 after having been chastised by his parents, &c. The 

 plantation covenant, recorded in the oldest record of 

 the colony of New Haven, is one of the purest speci- 

 mens of the control social of Rousseau. (See New 

 Haven.) A small work, published in 1825 (Hartford, 

 by Silas Andrus), affords a curious illustration of the 

 character of the early settlers of Connecticut. The 

 title is thus : The Code of 1650, being a Compilation 

 of the earliest Laws and Orders of the General Court 

 of Connecticut ; also the Constitution, or Civil Com- 

 pact entered into and adopted by the Towns of Wind- 

 sor, Hartford, and Wethersfield, in 1638 9 : to which 

 are added some Extracts from the Laws and Judicial 

 Proceedings of New Haven colony, commonly call- 

 ed Blue Laws. For the blue laws see New Haven. 



CONNECTICUT; the great river of New Eng- 

 land. It has its source on the north border of New 

 Hampshire, and separates New Hampshire from Ver- 

 mont, passes through Massachusetts and Connecti- 

 cut, and flows into Long Island sound, between Say- 

 brook and Lime. Its general course is S. by W. till 

 it reaches Middletown (Connecticut), after which it 

 has a S. S. E. course to its mouth. Its whole length 

 is 410 miles. It is navigable for vessels drawing 10 

 feet of water to Middletown, 36 miles ; for those 

 drawing 8 feet, to Hartford, 50 miles ; and by means 

 of locks and canals, it has been rendered navigable 

 to the Fifteen Mile falls, Bath (New Hampshire), 250 

 miles above Hartford. The boats which navigate 

 the river carry from 12 to 20 tons in descending, and 

 about two-thirds as much in returning. The falls 

 which have been rendered passable by artificial 

 means are those at Enfield (Connecticut), the Wille- 

 mantic falls, those at South Hadley, Montague, Wai- 

 pole, Plainfield and Lebanon. Of these, Bellows 

 falls, at Walpole, are the most remarkable. Accord- 

 ing to a survey made in 1824, the falls in the Con- 

 necticut, between Hanover (New Hampshire) and 

 Enfield (Connecticut), measure 371 feet. On these 

 falls were locks measuring 218 feet, viz., at South 

 Hadley, 50 feet; Nuter's falls 71 feet; Bellows 

 falls, 48A ; Waterqueechy, 12j ; and White river, 36 

 feet. The Connecticut flows through a fine country. 

 The land bordering upon it is generally of an excellent 

 quality ; and there are upon its banks many beauti- 

 ful and flourishing towns ; among which are Haver- 

 liill, Hanover, Charlestown, and Walpole, (New 

 Hampshire ;) Newbury, Windsor, and Brattleborough 

 (Vermont) ; Greenfield, Hadley, Northampton, and 

 Springfield (Massachusetts) ; Hartford, and Middle- 

 town, &c. (Connecticut). 



CONON, an Athenian commander ; was one of the 

 generals who succeeded Alcibiades in the command 

 of the fleet in the Peloponnesian war, and, engaging 

 Callicraiidas, was defeated ; but afterwards gained a 

 victory, in which the Spartan commander lost his 

 life. On the subjugation of Athens, B. C. 405, he 

 remained at Cyprus, forming plans for the restora- 



tion of the prosperity of his country. By persuading 

 Artaxerxes, king of Persia, that the superiority of 

 the Lacedaemonians was injurious to the safety of his 

 dominions, and that they could only be checked by 

 rendering the Athenians able to oppose them, he 

 procured the command of a Persian fleet, B. C. 398, 

 attacked the Spartan admiral Pisander near Cnidos, 

 and, killing him with his own hand, defeated the Spar- 

 tans, who lost the greatest part of their fleet. The 

 empire of the sea was immediately transferred, and 

 the power of the Lacedaemonians in Asia Minor im- 

 mediately ceased. Conon then returned to Attica, 

 and employed his sailors and workmen in restoring 

 the fortifications of Athens. He fell a prey to the 

 hatred and envy of the Lacedaemonians, who, in a 

 treaty of peace with the Persians, accused him of 

 plotting the delivery of ^Eolia and Ionia to his coun- 

 trymen, and of the misappropriation of the king's 

 money and forces. He was accordingly apprehend- 

 ed, and, as some writers relate, was put to death at 

 Susa ; others say that he made his escape ; but the 

 event is doubtful. 



CONQUEST. By conquest is now generally un- 

 derstood the right over property acquired in war, or 

 by superior force. In the feudal law, it had a some- 

 what different sense, meaning any means of acquiring 

 an estate out of the common course of inheritance. 

 (2 Bl. Comm. 243.) The right of conquest has 

 been deduced as an inference of natural law, from 

 the right to weaken our enemy, to compel him to 

 make compensation for injuries, to force him to an 

 equitable peace, and to deter or prevent him from 

 future injuries. It presupposes a just war. and a 

 right of appropriation growing out of it. It is now 

 generally admitted as a part of the law of nations. 

 If a war be unjust, it is plain that it can receive no 

 sanction from the law of nature or the law of nations ; 

 and, therefore, no just acquisitions can arise from it. 

 But who is to decide whether the war be just or un- 

 just ? If neutral nations attempt to decide the ques- 

 tion without consent, they draw themselves into the 

 quarrel, and may be involved in the war. The par- 

 ties who wage war never avow that they are acting 

 unjustly, and will not admit any superior, who has a 

 right to decide such questions for them. Nations 

 claim a perfect equality and independence, and 

 therefore will not submit to the decision of any other 

 sovereign. The only answer, in a practical view, 

 that can be given to the question is, that every free 

 and sovereign state must decide for itself, whether it 

 is carrying on a just war, and what are the duties re- 

 quired of it in such a war. With a view to public 

 safety and repose, neutral nations are understood to 

 be Ijound to act upon certain rules, which may be 

 called the voluntary law of nations. Among these 

 rules the following are universally admitted: 1. 

 that every regular war, as to its effects, is to be deem- 

 ed, by neutral nations, just on both sides ; 2. that 

 whatever is permitted to the one to do, in virtue of 

 the state of war, is also permitted to the other ; 3. 

 tliat the acquisitions made by each belligerent in the 

 war are to be held lawful, and to be respected ; 4. that 

 neutral nations are bound to impartiality in their con - 

 duct to each of the belligerents. 



Many questions are discussed by jurists, in re- 

 spect to the rights of conquest, some of which are of 

 great nicety and subtilty. To enumerate them, 

 without adverting to the various shades of opinion, 

 would itself occupy a large discourse. We shall con- ' 

 tent ourselves, therefore, by enumerating a few only 

 of the principles, which, by the benignity of religion 

 and the enlarged influence of knowledge and public 

 opinion, are now generally received among civilized 

 nations. Conquest may respect either persons or 

 things. It may respect movable or immovable pro 



