The New York herald., 1862-02-12
Citizens of Rebellious States Cannot Sut
An Cur Courts-Important Decision.
sUrREME COURT-SPECIAL TERN.
n.r--


ED.e-Thonas c. Bonneau Is. w. b. Diasaore ct al
Tho plaintiff sued the defendant promssory note
Defendant set up that the plaintiff being citizen OF
South Carolina and alien enemy could not
The plaintiff demurrsd to the answer the ground
whih defendant alleged that he (painti) alien
enemy he still admitted that he was q citizen Of the
United The Judge ovsruled the demurrer for The
reasons contained In tho following opinion
judge Gould-Tbe answer this case sots up for do
fence that the plaintiff s alien enemy OF course,
II such 10 the fact, the defence ie sufficient But the
plaintiff claims that in pleading tho defence tbs dc
endan has stated facts which do not make the plaintiff
an alien enemy but, the contrary, show that he
is citizen Of the United States, and in all respects
entitled 20 Ia courts. Then the says
that the plaintiff is q citizen OF and now resident in
tho 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 aygument) replies
that the hostes are those OF insurrecton and the
United States claim to bo still sovereign the whole
territory south Carolina included and that State court
say that the citizens Of South Carolina though having
levied actual against the general government are
alien enemies There Is sense In which this reply is
techpicaly correct, but is not the which s
founied tho rule which in any makes tho defence
Yin our eors1 the coe,,on of sny sas asesa sa
Gu, citizens because lin the words Of Chief Justice
EIs WORTH in the case Of Hamilton against Eaton, before
" United States Circuit Court in North Carolina In 11a2
an ould be dangerous TO admit him the country or
20 cor sspond with agents in IT, and also trans
fer az treasure from the country 10 his would diminish
The sb y Of the and that OF the latter
10 prrA ute the war; The whole ground Of excluding
enemy from our courtSs ono exclusively Of pub
lc roiir, and whenever public policy would carry the
rue the ours should be bound by IT. This for
The rule a, plies In full forcs and IN every particular
70 The ssseh sfore the court. and the plaintiff is com.
nlsteIv withh the undoubted spirit Of the prehibon
which suspend his remedy while leaving hs claim TO re-
AFTER bosl,ies ended OF course, this view rs based
upon the conccssh by demurring 70 the answer that
Is further ground FOR holding the plaintiff within ths
real Disability 70 sue in our ceurts which s intended 70
be asserted BY this 1swer By act o. Congress passed
authorized 70 declare. by proclamation, any state or
states % nsurrccion "A ainst the United States under
certain circumstance ana that whenever he declared
'thereupon all commercial intercourse ~ ana between
the same and the citizens the, eof and the citizens Of the
rest Of the United States shall and b unlawful 80
long as such condition Of hosk ty shall continue In
pursuance this act, tho PresA sDt by proclamation,
declared State Of South CaroA te DO In such state
Of hostility end expressly stated tn ~ all commercial In
tercourse wih that State was unhwfn There should be
no question tnS the sndeavors TO eA orce commercial
rghtsthe attempts te collect the svaiN OF prior com.
mercial completely with IN the spirit
OF this rcstrctian and that under proper construction
cf this act II " unlawful 20 allow citizen Of hat rebel
lious state especially alleged TO be himself in hos
tsty 10 the govefumen1 70 enforce any such remedy
our courts. Tie demurrer should be oyurued,twith
cosis