Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1865-11-21

g State of Virginia lying west OF the Al
: Ieqheuv Mountains, and Of such other
= parts Of that State and the other states
hereinbefore mentioned as may maintain
a Ioyal adhesion to the Union and Con-
I stitution, or may be from time 10 time
occupied and controlled by forces of the
United States engaged in the dispersion
of said insurgents). are in state Of m
surrection against the United states, and
that all commercial Intercourse between
the same and the inhabitants thereof
I with the exceptions aforesaid and the
citizens Of other States and other parts
: Of the United States, Is unlaWfui, and
shall remain unlawful until such tnsur-
reetion shall cease or has been sup
pressed"
We do not entertain a doubt as 70 the
true Intent and meaning Of the set Of
July the thirteenth eighteen hundred
/ and siXty-one. Indeed the language IL
50 clear and implicit as tO render discus
sion unnecessary. The act interdicts all
/ commercial intercourse between the loyal
/ and insuFrectionary parts of the Union
during the existence OF the rebellion, eX-
| cept what may be licensed by the Presi-
dent and conducted under regulations
prescribed by the Secretary Of the Treas
uTy. 1t expressly declares all commercial
intercourse not within the exception to
be unlawful. Prohibiting is the rule, and
license the exception. The inhabitants
Of the loyal and dislOya districts are rem
dered Incapable Of dealing with each
other, so long as the rebellion continues 1
Every contract between them not 4
founded ON a license Is simply void. 1t /
neither passes title nor gives right Of /
action
The act invests the President with i
power 10 put the prohibition into opera /
ton, and define the limits of insurgent !
territory. This power was executed by !
the proclamation of August sixteenth, |
eighteen hundred and sixty-fOUT, and 4
from that date the prohibition had all .
the force of positive law.
II is clear that the contract between
Withenbury & Doyle and the Confede-
rate agent was within the prohibition.
Ii was an act Of commercial intercourse
between citizens Of Ohio and Of that part
of Louisiana in insurrection, in violation
alike Of the letter and spirit Of the statute.
The contract was, therefore, null and
void. The claimants acquired no title to
the Gotten. The question Of ownership
remained unaffected by the tsansaetion
between the parties. They had no legal
capacity % trade with each other While
the rebellion continued, il was not in the
power Of these claimants to acquire title
TO this property, except through a license
from the President
It is equally clear that the Louisiana
State Bank was within the prohibition. I
II is true that the City of New Orleans
was originally within insuTgent territory. ]
But ON it, capture and permanent oeeu-
patton by the United States forces, it fell
within the last exception in the Presi-
ient's proclamation, and ceased to be in
4 state Of hostility to the United States.
such was the ruling of the Supreme Court
If the United States in the case of the
Venice, two Wallace, two hundred and
And the President, in his
of March thirty-first,
,ighteen hundred and sixty-three,
n again defining the limits Of insuTrec-
ion, expressly excepts New Orleans.
And this act Of the President was prior in
late to the purchase BY the bank. Itfol- !
ows that after the sixth Of May, eighteen =
hundred and sixty-three, the prohibition I
xteNded to the Inhabitants Of New
orleans, and they had no more right to
gade with Upper Louisiana than had the
Of Ohio or Illinois. Nor can
he purchase Of the bank be sustained q
nder the permission of the commanding
ieneraL The President alone could
uthorize commercial dealing within the
Confederate lines. AS the bank acquired =
10 title, It had none TO transfer 10 Grief
/, Zunts. The latter have therefore no
interest in the property in dispute
The case of G.. A. LeAfore < Co. Is Just r
s free from doubt. Queryrouse, through /
7hom they claim, was clearly within the
rohibitiOn. He had no legal capacity L
, deal with the Confederate agent He
cQUired no title 10 the cotton, and con- s
squently had none 10 transfer 70 LeAIoFe
Co. The fact that they were citizens
T France does not alter the case. If p
ley had purchased directly from the 4
onfedsrate agent, perhaps they would -
ave acquired little. But It is useless TO
lter upon the discussion Of that ques-
on. It is enough for all of the purposes I
( this case 70 say, that they received no 4
tie to the cotton for the reason that \
had none 10 inlpart. q
Al Of the claims must be dismissed. o.