Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1853-01-22
THE LAW OF THE LAND.
DECISION UPON AN IMPORTANT POINT OF LAW
BY THE HIGHEST JUDICIAL TRIBUNAL.

4
surRKsE CouRr or THE UNITED srArEs-DEcrMBHR
| TERM, 1852.
John Kennel Ezekiel s. Haines Eden b. Reeder Georg,
Graham, jr, John McCarty, Joshua Yorke and Robert
b. Bowler, appellants, Thomas J. Chambers. Ap
peal rem the District Court of the United States fo
the District Of Texas. L. Sherwood, of New York and
W. G. Snethen, of Washington, for appellants; Hon
Voney L. Howard, of Texas, for appellee.
Opinion of The Court IN the case, delivered Jy Mr.
Chief Justice fancy:
This is an appeal from the decree of the District Court
of the United States for the District of Texas
The appellants filed bill in that Court against the ap-
pelee obtain the specific execution of
which is set out in full in the bill, and which they aege
was executed the city of Cincinnati in the State
Ohio on or about the 10th of September 1885, Some Of
the compainants claim original parties the contract
and the other asgnees of original parties who have sold
and assigned to them their interest
The contract, after stating that it entered into
the day and year above mentioned between Gen. T. JEFF
erson Chambers Of the Texan army of the first part and
Morgan Neville and six others who named in the
greement of the city of Cincinnati of the second part
proceeds to recte the motives and inducements Of the
parties in the following words:
the said party of the second part being DESTROYS of
assisting the said Gen. L. Jefferson Chambers who now en-
gagged in raising armng and equpping volunteers for Texas
and WHO'S in want of means therefor and being extremely de-
srous advance the of freedom and independence of
Texas have agreed to purchase of the said Cham
bers Of his private the lands hereinafter described
And after this recital follows the agreement of Cham
bers sell and convey them the land described in the
agreement situated in Texas for the of twelve thou
sand five hundred dollars which he acknowledged that
he had received in their notes payable in equal install
ments of four SIX and twelve months and he coyenaned
that he had good title this land and would convey 1T
with general warranty. There other spulatons on
the part Of Chambers to the title to the parties
which it is unnecessary to state they are not material
to the questions before the Court.
fans ntfth N nnnf
that the notes given aforesaid all paid and sets
forth the in which the complanants, who were
not parties the original contract had acquired their
interest asgnees and charges that Notwithstanding
the full payment of the money Chambers, under different
pretex refuses to convey the land according to the terms
of, his agreement.
1t further states that they informed and seieye
that he received full compensation in money, scrip land
other valuable property for the supplies furnished by
him, and in arming and equpping the Texan army re-
erred in the said contract and which it in part
the object Of the said parties of the second part assist
him to do by the said advances made by them before
stated and which said advances did enable the said Cham
bers so to do.
To this bill the respondent Chambers) demurred and
the principal question which arises the demurrer is
whether the contract legal and valid one, and such
be enforced by either party in Court of the United
States. 1t appears the face of it, and by the
ments of the appellants in their BILL that it made in
Cincinnati, with general in the Texan army, who
then engaged in raising, arming and equipping volun
that of the inducements of the appellants in entering
into this contract and advancing the money to assist
him in accomplishing these objects.
The District Court decided that the contract illegal
and void and sustained the demurrer and dismissed the
bill and we think that the decision right.
The validity of this contract depends upon the relation
in which this country then stood to Mexico and Texas
and the duties which these relations imposed upon the
Government and citizens of the United States
Texas had declared itself independent few months
previous to this agreement But it had not been
knowedged by the United States and the constituted
authorities charged with foreign relations regarded
the treaties had made with Mexico still in force and
obligatory upon both nations BY the treaty Of limits,
Texas had been admitted by Government to be part
Of the Mexican Territory and by the first article of the
treaty Of amity, commerce, and navigation it de-
cared that there should be firm inyioable, and uni
versal peace and true and sincere friendship between
the United States Of America and the United Mexican
States in all the extent of their possessions and terrific
RES and between their people and citizens respectively
without distinction of persons place. These treaties,
while they remained in force by the Constitution
Of the United States, the supreme law and binding not
only upon the Government but upon every citizen No
contract could lawfully be made in violation Of their pro-
| visions.
Undoubtedly, when Texas had achieved her indepen
dence, previous treaty could bind this country to
gard il part Of the Mexican territory BUTT belonged
the Government and to individual citizens decide
when that event had taken place And that decision
cording the laws Of nations depended upon the ques
ton whether she had had not civil government in
successful operation capable OF performing the duties
fulfilling the obligations of independent Power. II
depended upon the state of the fact and not upon the
right which in contest between the parties And the
President in his message TO the Senate Of December D.
1886, in relation TO the conflict between Mexico and
Texas, which was still pending, says:
"A questions relative the government Of foreign
TONS whether Of the Old the New World have been treat
ed by the United States questions Of fact only and our
predecessors have cautiously absained from deciding
them until the eearet evidence in their possession to
enable them only to decide correctly but to shield their
decision from every unworthy Journal
| Of 1885, 1887, pages ST.
Acting upon these principles, the independence Of
Texas acknowledged by the Government Of the
United States until the beginning of March, 1887 Up to
that time it regarded part of the territory OF
Mexico. The treaty which admitted il to be held
70 be still in force and binding both parties and every
effort made by the Government 10 fulfil its neutral
| obligations and prevent citizens from taking part in
the conflict This is evident from official communica-
ton from the President to the Governor of Tennessee in
reply to inquiry in relation to requson for militia
made by Gen Gaines The despatch is dated in August
1886, and the President the following language:
Thc obligations Of treaty with Mexico as well as the
gesera.prncpes which intercourse with foreign
Powers, requires to maintain strict neutrality in the
contest which agates part Of that Republic Solone
Mexico fulhs her duties they defined by the
treaty and violates the rights which are secured BIZ
il to citizens act the Of the Government
the United States which would tend foster spirit of
sance her and laws, whatever may be the
character and form, when administered within her limit
and jurisdiction, would be unauthorized and highly mpro
l per.'-Ex. Doc. 1885, 1897. Vol ], Doc. 2, p So.
And the very day which the agreement Of which
we are speaking made, September Is, 1867 Mr.
FoRsYTH the Secretary Of State in note to the Mexsai
Minister assured him that the Government had take
measures TO secure the execution Of the laws for
ing the neutrality Of the United States and that the pub
lie officers vigant in the discharge Of that duty
TEX Doc. vol. l. doc. 2, page 63 "a.
- - - - Al.