The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1866-05-23

brought the act Of issuance within tho purview of
contracts made In consideration OF an illegal act
| void. As before shown, the operation of the Fede-
raj Constitution and laws over tho Confederate
states was suspended by tho civil 'law-the issu-
ance of tho Treasury notes was much war
| measure at tho time, as the raising Of armies
would have been They bocamo public necessi-
W for tho progress of tho war, and the Confeder-
ate States having acquired the sovereign belligc-
| rent rights Of nations, as laid down in all tho
worKs on international law, and confirmed by tho
Federal Courts, violated no law or public policy by
| their issuance
The credit given them was n question solely for
those who received them as money, or parted with
Tho Federal Government has recognized their
validity by enforcing claim for all property and
cottcns belonging to tho Confederate States, at
the date Of the surrender of their armies, in tho
hands of citizens, whether the same had been ac-
| quired by purchase or taxation. The titles to
| most of this property and cot,ons were acquired
by purchase, and paid for in Confederate Treasu-
ry notes, which said titles tho Federal Government
| recognized as legal by seiziug the cottons and
| other property as belonging to tho Confederate
States and leaving private property unmOlested.
1t is contcnded with much force by learned
counsel for tho dofence that the issuance OF Trea-
sury notes on tho pledge of tho faith of the nation
for their redemption, was sovereign act of 60
vornment, and that Courts never in their decisions
recognize the existence of governments dc j,ue
with such powers), in advance of the action of
Executive and Legislative branches of govern
mont, who alono possess the right to decide at
what time nation becomes government dc jure
authorities: Roso uS. Himely, Cranch 24l; Eos
ter ct al Us. Nelson, Peters 307, 253; Garcia
Us. Lee, II Peters SIG and 5l7 Williams u.s. Suffolk
correctness OF this doctrine to the fullest extent
claimed for it. The issuance of tho treasury notes
however, rs VIC conceive aud have attempted to
show, was war measure, designed at tho time ae
tho means for susta inng tho war, and consequent
y was belgcroLt and not civil act OF sovereign
ty and came within tue acknowledged sphere and
authority of a dc fucso government, which Courts,
in the settlement of individual rights would be
bound to notice.
Ii these notes became part of tho currency of
tho country by the common assent Of the people,
and by general usage represented the value OF
property, contracts made i'll consideration OF them
can be sustained by the Courts without at oil re-
cognizng tho de jure right Of character OF the
Government that issued them. The faith plcdg-
ed for the redemption of them, as all know who
received them, depended on the recognition OF the
Confederate states as n de ju''e Government the
credit OF the issnc, and not it's legality, was the
only question to be considered by those who used
them.
1t will scarcely be denied that the Confederate
States government for the time hcing, was de
fdcto government, invested a belligerent with
all the "soveregn rights of war;" 1t had power
to raise armies and consequently the right TO pay
lts troops. Suppose III paying its troops it had
been compelled to issue scrip or certificates of in
debtedness payable in tho future, to its soldiers
for services, could any deny the legality of the
transaction And suppose that this scrip or GER
thcato of indebtedness convertible into specie
in the community at its fixed value will it be said
thatl soldier who had received such scrip should
trade it for horse, he acquired no titlc because
the government which had tho power of forcing
him into the army had no authority to pay him
for his services We think not, and can look upon
the transaction only as a valid, legal and binding
contract. Tho treasury notes were virtually lust
such scrip, and were used, many OF them, for just
for services.
The second and third grounds of defence sug-
gested by counsel viz that tho treasury notes
wore bills Of credit emitted by the Confederate
States in violation OF the Federal Constitution and
could furnish no consideration for valid con-
tract, and also that they were issued to carry on
a rebellion against the United States, which rem
dered them invalid, and could create no binding
contract-hsve been in great degree already dis
Guessed. Had the premises on which counsel rely
for defence Of this case, been correct the conclu-
sions they draw from them would have been ire
sistible. They tske for granted that the late war
was simple, act OF rebeilion-that during the
in full force and effect, operating upon tho
people in rebellion; that tile provisions Of the
same had not been impaired OF disturbed by
affected individual or personal rights pre-
cisely the same as if the country had re-
mained at peace. To refute this view of the
bellion, but q civil war, which placed the parties
to the war in the attitude or distinct nations as
laid down by all writer's on international law; that
the Confederate States, az belligerent nation
became vested with all power necessary to con-
duct the war to successful termination-that the
creation OF national currency, il necessary as u
"ct .AuooouAo, nao Pei!ecuy leSNllnate-tnaG the
military necessity for the currency, OF ITSELF crea-
ted the power in the de ftcto government to issue
the treasury notes-that the civil war had sus-
pended the Federal Constitution and laws over
the behJerent States, and that the issuing of said
treasury notes violated neither law nor public
policy existing over said belligerent States at tue
time OF their issuance. II this be correct, which
will scarcely admit OF denial hold that the use
OF these treasury notes in the ordinary trade and
traffic OF the country was legitimate, and they
stituted such a valuable consideration, both in
law and equity, gave validity and legal effect
all falr contracts made with them.
We deem it unnecessary t. dwell further oil the
second and third grounds of dofonce, the re-
marks made on the first ground have full appli-
cati) IN to the whole defence made by counsel for
defendant. .
Before closing, however, we will concisely state
another view Of this case, which equally entities
complainants to recovery.
on this principle of law, which is too well settled
to admit OF controversy. viz: That courts will not
ENFORCE against either party contracts growing out
Of or connected with, an illegal or immoral act"
L. s contended by counsel for defence that tho is-
sue OF Treasury notes by the Confederate States
tuition, and the act being illegal vitiated all con-
tracts made with them. Admit, for the sake of
argument, the truth Of the first part of counsels
proposition, viz: tn the issuance Of the Treasu-
ry notes was al illegal act by the Confederate
States Goyernment-how far is tho contract
gal act2 In tho case OF Toller us. Armstrong,
the Judge in stating the law to the jury says, in
speaking OF tho foregoing rule OF law: "The prin-
ciple OF the rule is, that ought to be heard
in court OF justice, who seeks to enforce a con-
tract founded in or arising out Of moral or polii-
discourage the preparation OF an immoral or il
legal act it ia founded in the strOupeBt reason