The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1853-01-18


unsnshed the honor OF the country, and TO place Il
above the suspicion OF taking any part in the conflict
This being the attitude In which the government STOOD
and this its open and ayowed policy upon what grounds
can the parties 10 such c0nrsct this come into
court OF Justice OF the United States and ask for It's spe
chic execunon' Il made in direct opposition 10 the
policy OF the government, TO which II the duty ot
every citizen 10 conform And while they il exert
log all It's power 10 fulhl good faith ils neutral obKa
tons, they made themselves parties TO the war, BY furnish
Ing general of the Texan army, for the avowed
purpose OF aiding and assisting him IN his military opera
lions.
II might indeed fairly be inferred from the language OF
the contract and the statements IN the appelants' bull
mai The volunteers 10 be raised. armed, and equip
ped within the limits OF the United States. The LAM
snage oil The contract is
That tho sad party of second part, Chat Is. the
being dssfous Of assisting the said Gene
raj Jeasson Chambers who i, no.o sag aged in Taisns
want u ssa sa1appms volunteers ff Texas and Is IN
And as Gen Chambers was then in the United States,
and was as the contract states actually engaged ia Iais
ing. armng, and equppn1 Volunteers and was in want
OF accomplish his object, the inference would
TO almost irresistible that these Dire IN ations
were making al or near the place where the agreement
made, aud that the money was advanced enable
nun 10 raise and equip military force in the United
States And this inference is the songer, because no
place is mentioned where these preparations are 10 be
made, and the agreement contains no engagement on his
part proviso on theirs which prohibited him from
using these and making these military Preparations
within the limits OF the United States . tr6l ia 4,
Ii this be the correct Interpretation OF the agreement
the contact is not only void, but the parties who adj
vanced the money were liable to be punished 10 crimi-
nal prosecution for violation OF the neutrality laws OF
he United States, And certainly, with such strong in
dicalions OF criminal INTENT and without any avsrment
the bill from which their innocence can be inferred,
court of chancery would lend its aid TO carry the
reemen into specific execution but would leave the
parties to seek their remedy law. And this ground
would OF itself be sufficient 10 justify the decree OF ths
district court disnissng the bill. s.g- .4 siatala
But the decision stands on broader and hrmer ground,
aud this agreement cannot be sustained either at law
in equity The question is not whether the parties TO
this contract violated the neutrality laws of the United
States subjected themselves 10 criminal prosecution
but whether such contract made al that time within
the United States for the purposes stated in the contract
and the bill OF complaint. legal and valid contract,
and such ene either party the aid of the courts
OF justice OF the United ates TO enforce it's execution
The intercourse OF this country with foreign na,oS,s
and lis policy With regard - them, are placed BY the
institution Of the United States in the hands of the gov
ernuent and its decisions upon these subjects oai
gaiory upon every citizen OF the Union He Is boani to
be at with the nation against which the warmakng
power has declared war; and equally bound to commtn
act OF hostility against nation with which the Cover =
msn - IN amy ana friendship las pnacp's 'sp1.s
the foundation OF all government, as there could be
social order peaceful relations between the citizens
different countries without it, 1t liz, however, more
phacay ire in relation to the citizens of the United
States for the sovereignty resides in the people.
every citizen is portion of il and is himself personally
bound by the laws which the representatives OF the
eregnty may pass, the treaties into which they may
enter within The scope OF the delegated authority And
when tina, authority has pshted lis faith to another
citizens OF the two countless every ciizenof the United
States is equally and personally pledged The compact 10
made by the department of The government upon which
he himself has agreed TO confer the power is his
personal compact portion OF the sovereignty in
whose behalf il is made Aud he do no act nor en-
into any agreement promote encourage revolt
hosties against the territories Of country with which
our goveInm ;li is pledged by treaty TO be al peace
without breach OF his duty citzen and the breach
OF the faith pledged 10 the foreign patton And II he
does he cannot claim the aid OF court oil justice TO
enotee It, The appellants in their contract that they
were induced TO advances the money by the desire to pro-
mote ihe cause of freedom. But our own freedom can
be preserved without obedience TO laws
social order preserved if the judicial branch OF the gov
srnment counenanced and sustained contracts made in
violation OF the duties which the law imposes or in con-
trayenon OF the known and established policy OF the
political department. acting within the limits OF its con-
stltuiional power. g#g eFH4e* b a HrsHt
But il has been urged the argument that Texas was
in fact independent, and sovereign State at the time Of
this agreement; and that the citizen OF neutral nation
may lawfully lend money TO one that is engaged In war,
TO enable II 10 carry hostiies against its enemy.
il not necessary IN the before 10 decide how
far the JUDICIAL tribunals OF the United States would
force like this when two States wledged
TO be independent al and this country neutral
1t is sufficient 10 the argument 10 say that the
question whether Texas bad or had not at that time be-
come independent State was question for that de-
partment OF government exclusively which 10 charged
with our foreign relations, And until the period when
that depaI recognised it ndepe ndent State,
the judicial tribunals OF the country bound TO con-
slider the old order OF things having continued and to
regard Texas as part OF the Mexican territory And
undertook 10 inquire whether she had mol in fact be-
independent sovereign State, before she
cognised such by the treaty making p0we should
take upon ourselves the exercise of political authority
for which judicial tribunal is wholly unfl, and which
the constitution has conferred exclusively upon smother
department s.ae e. ree#.H4 E HlSphnr
This is not new question. 1t before the court
in the of Rose u Hmeey CT ana, and again in
Hoyt rs Gelston, Wheat. 324 And 10 both OF these
cases the said that II belongs exclusively TO gov
ernments TO recognise States in the revolutions
which may occur in the world and until such rscox-,
milton, either by government the government
to which the State belonged, courts OF justice
bound consider the ancient state OF things remain
ing unal,ered. sta ~ II aHt2
II was upon this ground that the court OF common
pleas in England, the of Dewent Hendricks,
Moore's &. Il Reports $50, decided that il
trary 10 the law of nations for persons residing in Eng
land TO enter into engagements 10 raise money by way
of loan for the purpose OF supporting subjects OF for.
eign State in against government IN friendship
with Eng Gland, and that right OF action attached upon
any such contract And this decision quoted with ap
probation by Chancellor Kent in let kents Com. 49,
Nor 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 abso utey void at The time il made,
il can derive force validity from events which after
wards happened
But il is insisted on the part OF the appellants that this
contract 10 be executed in Texas and was valid nv
the laws OF Texas and that the district court iof inst
State in controversy between individuals, was oonnd
TO administer the laws OF the State and ought therefore
10 have enforced this agreement Ell ISL E#4f J. 80
This argument il founded in part on mistake OF the