Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1853-01-22

the constituted authorities were endeayorng to maintain
untarnished the honor Of the country aud to place il
above the suspicion Of taking any part in the conflict
This being the attitude in which the Government Stood
and this open and avowed policy upon what grounds
can the parties to such contract this come into
court justice Of the United States and ask for its e
cfc execution? 1t made in direct opposition the
policy Of the Government, to which it the duty OF
every citizen to conform. And while they it exert
ing all its power fulfil in good faith its neutral obga
TONS they made themselves parties to thewar by furnish
ing means general of the Texan army for the ayowed
purpose of aiding and assisting him in his military pe-
| rations.
1t might indeed fairly be inferred from the language
the contract and the statements in the appellants bill
that the volunteers to be raised armed and equip
ped within the limits of the United States The language
of the contract is:
That the said party of the second part THAT is the
painan being DESTROYS of assisting the said General
Jefferson Chambers who is engaged in raising armng,
equppng volunteers for Texas and ism want Of means
I. therefor"
And as Gen. Chambers was then in the United States,
and was the contract states actually engaged in rails
ing armng and equppng volunteers, and was in want
of TO accomplish his object the inference would
be almost Irresistible that these preparations
making at near the place where the agreement was
made and that the money advanced to enable him
raise and equip military force in the United States And
this inference is the stronger because places mention
ed where these preparations to be made and the
ment contains engagement his part or proviso
theirs which prohibited him from using these and
making these military preparations within tile limits Of
the United States.
If this be the correct Interpretation of the agreement
the contract is not only void but the parties who advanc
ed the money liable to be punished in criminal
prosecution for violation Of the neutrality laws of the
United States And certainly with such strong indications
of criminal intent and without any averment in the bill
from which their innocence be Inferred court OF
chancery would lend its aid to carry the agreement
specific execution but would leave the parties to seek
their remedy at law And this ground would Of itself be
sufficient to justify the decree of the district court dis
missing the BILL
But the decision stands broader and rmer ground
and this agreement cannot be sustained either at law or IN
equity The question is not whehe the parties to this
contract violated the neutrality laws the United States
or subjected themselves to criminal prosecution; but
whether such contract made at that time within the
United States for the purposes stated in the contract
and the bill of complaint legaland valid contract
and such entte either party he aid OF the courts
of justice Of the United States enforce its execution
The intercourse Of this country With foreign nations,
and its policy with regard to them placed by the
Constitution Of the United States in tie hands Of the Gov
and its decisions upon thee subjects are obi
gatory upon every citizen of the UnDA He bound to
be at war with the nation against witch the war-makng
power has declared and equaybound to commit no
act of hostility against nation witt which the Govern
ment is in amty andfrendship This principle is uni
versay acknowledged by the laws 1t lies at
the foundation Of all government as there could be no
social order peaceful relations between the citizens OF
different countries without it. 1t is however, more en-
phaticay true in relation the citizens Of the United
States. For the sovereignty resides in the people,
every citizen is portion OF it. and is himself personally
bound by the laws which the representatives of the sove
reignty may pass the treaties into which they may
enter within the scope of their delegated authority And
when that authority has pghted its faith to another ma
ton that there shall be peace and friendship between the
citizens of the two countries every citizen of the United
States is equally and personally pledged The compact
is made by the department of the Government upon
which he himself has agreed to confer the power 1t is
his own personal compact portion Of the sovereignty
in whose behalf it is made And he do no act nor
into any IN
or hostites against the territories of country with
which our Government is pledged by treaty to be at
peace, without breach of his duty citizen, and the
breach of the faith pledged to the foreign nation And
he does he claim the aid Of Of justice to
enforce it. The appellants say in their contract that they
induced advance the money BY the desire to pro-
mote the of freedom But own freedom cannot
be preserved without obedience to own laws nor So
cal order preserved the Judicial branch Of the Govern
countenanced and sustained contracts made in vio-
ation of the duties which the law imposes in contra
venton of the known and established policy of the political
department acting within the limits OF its constitutional
power.
But it has been urged in the argument that Texas
in fact independent and sovereign State at the time OF
this agreement and that the citizen of neutral nation
may lawfully lend money to that is engaged in war;
to enable it to carry on hostes against its enemy
1t is not necessary in the before to decide how
far the judicial tribunals Of the United States would en-
force contract like this when two States acknowledged
to be independent war; and this country neutral
IL is sufficient 10 the argument to say that the
quesuOn whether Iexas had OF hau
come Independent State question for that de-
partment OF Government exclusively which is charged
with foreign relations And until the period when
that department recognised independent State the
judicial tribunals of the country bound to consider
the old order Of things having contnued and TO
gard Texas part Of the Mexican territory. And
undertook inquire whether she had not in fact be-
independent sovereign State before she was re
cognsed such by the treatymaking power should
take upon ourselves the exercise Of political authority for
which judicial tribunal is wholly unfit and which the
Constitution has conferred exclusively upon another de-
partment.
This is not question. 1t before the Court
in the Of Rose Hmely, Or 272, and again in
Hoyt Gelston, Wheat 324 And in both Of these
the Court said that it belongs exclusively to Gov
ernments to recognise States in the revolution:
which may in the world and until such recognition
either by our own Government the Government tc
which the State belonged Of justice bound
consider the ancient state Of things remaining un
altered
1t was upon this ground that the Court Of Common
Pleas in England in the Of Dewent Hendricks
Moores G. B. Reports $780, decided that it contrary
to the law Of nations for persons residing in England 70
enter into engagements to raise money by Of loan fo
the purpose Of supporting subjects Of foreign State in
arms against Government in friendship with England
and that no right Of action attached upon any such con
tract And this decision is uuoed with appreciation by
Chancellor Kent in 1st Kent's Com. 1l6.
Nor can the subsequent acknowledgment Of the indie
pendence Of Texas and her admission into the Union
sovereign State, affect the question. The agreement
being illegal and absolutely void the time 1t made
il derive no force validity from events which after
wards happened.
Bat it is insisted the part of the appellants that thin
contract TO be executed in Texas and valid By
the laws Of Texas and that the District Court for hs
State in a controversy between individuals, bound
administer the laws Of the State and ought therefore