Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1862-03-20

Citizens Of Rebel States in Federal Courts
The following interesting case has been decide,
in the New York supreme couIt:
THOMAS c. BONNEAU vs.. w. b. DTNsMORE, E7
Al.
The plaintiff sued the defendant On apromisso
~ note. Defendant set up that the plaintiff. be
ing q citizen of South Carolina, and an alien en-
envy, could not recover. The plaintiff demurret
to the answer, on the ground that while the de.
PENDANT alleged that he (plaintif) was an alien
enemy, he still admitted that he was a citizen OF
the United States. The judge o~venuled the de-
muuer for reasons contained in the following
opinion:
Judge Gould-The answer in this case sets up
for a defense that the plaintiff is an alien enemy.
Of course, if such is the fact, the defense is
sufficient. But the plaintiff claims that in plead
ing the defense the defendant has stated facts
which do not make the plaintiff an alien nemy,
but, on the contrary, snow that he IS a citizen OF
the United States, and in all respects entitled 10
sue in our courts. Then the answer says that
the plaintiff is a citizen of and now resident in
the State Of South Carolina, which State is in
a state of actual hostility to and in open war
with the United States. To which the plaintiff
(in argument) replies that these hostihties are
those of an instruction, and the United States
claim TO be still sovereign over the whole terri
tory, South Carolina included, and that no
State court can say that the citizens of South
Carolina, though having levied actual war
against the general government, are alien enemes.
There is a sense in which this reply is tech
nicslIy correct, but it is not the sense in which
is. founded the rule which in any case makes
the defense spoken of as valid one. An enc
my is not allowed to enforce (n our cOurts)
the collection of any claims against our own
citizens, because lin words of Chief Justice
Ellsworth, in the Gaze of Hamilton against
Eaton, before the United States circuit court in
North Carolina in l792)' it would be be danger
Gus to admi him into the country or to cores
pond with agents in it and, also, because a
transfer of treasure from the country to his
would diminish the ability of the former and
increase that OF the latter to prosecute the wal"
The whole ground Of excluding a public enc
my from our courts is one exclusively Of public
policy, and whenever public policy would carry
the rule the courts should be bound by it. This
reason for the rule applies IN full force and in
every particular to the case before the court, and
the plaintiff is completely within the %undOubted
spirit Of the prohibition which sUspends his rem
edy, while leaving his claim to remain untouched
aud liable to be revived aud recovered after
hostilities are ended. Of course this view is
based upOn the concession (by demurring to the
answer that the facts are correctly stated by the
defendant There is a further ground for hold
ing the plaintiff within the real disability 10 sue
in our courts, which is intended to be asserted
by this answer. By act of Congress, passed
July Is, 1861, the President of the United States
was authorized to declare by proclamation, any
State or States in instruction against the United
States under certain circumstances, and that
whenever he 50 declared, thereupon all com
mercial intercourse by and between the same
and the citizens thereof, an. the citizens of the
rest of the United States shall cease, and be IN
lawful so I0nU A. such coudiiou of hostility shall
continue" In pursuance Of this act, the presi-
dent, by proclamation, declared the State Of
South Carolina to be in such a state Of hostility,
and expressly stated that all commercial inter
course with that State was unlawful. There
should be no question that the endeavOrs to
enforce commercial rights-the attempts to col
lect that ayails Of prior commercial transactions
come completely within the spirit of this
restriction, and that under a proper construction
of this act it is unlawful to allow a citizen of that
rebellious State Especially one alleged to be
himself in hostility to the government to enforce
any such remedy in our courts. The demurrer
should be overruled, with costs.