The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1866-04-28
The Daily N ews.
SATURDAY MORNING, APRIL %, 1866.


SATURDAY MORNING. APRIL 2s, 1866.
Tho Secession Ordinance md Civil Affairs.
On the 18th instant, Justice d ARNARD, OF the
Superior Court OF Now York, in the case OF tho
Crescent City Bank Us. EDWARD, ct ais, denied
the motion to strike out the defence Of Mr.. MAT
THEws, party to tho suit. |
= The question involved in this preliminary mo-
tion is one Of great Importance to all persons hay
ing business connections with Southern firms du-
ring the war. The suit was brought upon note
given by the agent OF the firm Of MATTHEW'S &
BRANDER, if such firm existed intermediate the
Louisiana Ordinance Of Secession and the capture
of New Orleans, at that city, and was discounted
by the plaintiff. MArFHEws was then and now
resident OF New York, while the other partners
were residents Of New Orleans. '.. ., naui. 1
The defendant, MATTHEWS, set up In his answer,
rfrst that the partnershio WAS never completed,
being contingent on the accession Of third party
and, second, that the ordinance Of secession and
civil war turned all the residents OF Louisiana into
alien enemies, and thus dissolved all contracts,
including partnerships. The plaintiff moved to
strike out this answer as frivolous, thus bringing
up the whole question, and it was urged at come
length few days ago, when the case wssreported
in full the plaintiff arguing that to give suoh an
effect to tho ordinance of secession would be to
give judicial recognition Of their validity and OF
the independence Of the seeded States; the de-
fendant arguing that it was merely recognizing
de- facto state OF war in tho same way and to the
same extent as it had been accepted by the United
States Courts in prize cases. The Court sustains
by its decision the defence. ....
Mr.. BsoDHRAD, Second Comptroller Of the Trea-
sury, in a case wherein certain persons residing
in the Confederate States and domiciled in those
hofo md dr. fha hay
ward and demanded balances which they allege'
were due and payable to them before the war be.
gan, goes into an elaborate argument to show
that they are not entitled to recover, although
their allegations be undisputed. He says that
while the war continued, claimants, in the eye Of
the law, were regarded hostile characters, and
their property as enemy's property liable to seiz-
ure and confscation and the hostile quality at
taches to both persons and things, until, by the
action OF Congress-, or the Executive, It Is wholly
removed. ,,.... ,,'r i-....i
s"The rule OF law to be observed In the present
case is that applicable alike to civil and interna-
tional wars; for the Tgeneral uses Of nations re-
CARDS such war [civ war] as emitting both the
contendng parties to all the rights of war as
against each other, and even as respects neutral
nations" (Vide WHEATON on International Law,
p. 522 also vArTEL, book III, ch xviii, p $685. ROSE
us. HMELY, BRANCH R.; 272; the VENICE, Q WAI-
LACE R., 258.) 'o' -.
t'We must be governed" says the Chief-Justice,
tbY the principle Of public law 80 often announced
from the'bench applicable ealika to OWL and in
ternatonal wars, that all the people Of each State
or district, in insurrecton against the United
States, must be regarded as enemies until by the
action Of the Legislature q and the Executive, or
otherwise, that relation ia Thoroughly and perma-
nently changed" (Case Of Mrs. AIExANpEns cot
ton, WALLACE r., 419.)
And "from the moment our State is at wsr with
another itfhas, on general principles, right to
seize on the enemy's property thus taken to it's
own use or to that of the oaptors." tWHEAToN,
supra, p. 5s6; also, VkrrEL, supra, sec 161, p.
h864. 81 ,t W{ III 5GE slh II F.h
= DEBTS stand upon the me.ground id This re-
gard as other property tuide pHrLraoaE on Inter
national Law, vol, ill.,, p. 1872, 81; BRowK us.
United States, Branch r., 14O).
The authorities above cited establish the right
of the United States tothe debts due rebel ene-
my at the time the war commenced They also
prove that, in legal point OF view, claimants
were enemies OF the Government Of the United
States.
These debts, therefore, never having been re-
duced to possession, but always having remained
as balances in the Treasury, cannot now be with
drawn by claimants, except in violation of law.
For the title OF these balances, jure beM must be
regarded as divested from the original owners and
transferred to the United States (uids WHEATON,,
supra, p. 629.) a.. go
It appears, then, II the position Of Judge BAR
NARD and the Comptroller be sustained by the
higher authorities, that all North ern debtors and
! the Government itself are to be relieved Of every
pecuniary obligation to the people Of the late Con-
federsoy; whilst the lRtter as we all know are
compelled Notwithstanding the terrible .losses
they have sustained, TO satisfy every Northern
creditor and pay to the Government their full
quota Of taxes. i-i'.'i
Gen. Stendman's Mission In the south--,
Tho .Freednioh;s Bnreau-The Lnbo r
Question in Virginia. '..h