The daily Gate City. [volume] (Keokuk, Iowa) 1855-1916, 1866-01-24

All IMPORTANT DECISION.
We find in the Memphis Bulletin report
Of an important decision recently made in the
Supreme Court of Tennessee. We extract
sufficient to show its purport and tenor. The
case is stated in the opinion of the Court
thus
This is an action Of debt, brought in the
Circuit Court of Shelby county, to recover
$500, due by promissory note executed by
the plaintiffs in error, to one Sampson Yer
gon, and by him assigned to Reuben j. Scott,
and by Scott to Overall who sues the makers
alone.
The contest here arises on a receipt for
5000, executed by Overall on the 9th of De-
cember, 1862, to Wright, one of the plaintiffs
in error. The payment was in what is kno xn
as Confederate Money" and the face Of the
receipt shows it was to be entered as credit
on the note sued on in this action. The
credit was not entered, and under the instruc-
tions of the Circuit Judge to the jury,
there was verdict for the full amount Of the
note, with interest thereon, and judgment
pronounced according to the finding of the
jury, from which an appeal in error is prose
cuted in this court
The Circuit Judge, among other things not
excepted to, in substance told the jury
that the receipt was an undertaking on the
part Of Overall to see that the $500 paid
should be credited on the note, and inasmuch
as the credit had not been entered, the un-
dertaking was executory, and must be sup-
ported by good or valuable consideration;
and that Confederate money" having been
issued against public policy and without
authority of law, was neither a good or a
valuable consideration.
Waving all criticism on his Honor, the
the Circuit Judge construction of the receipt,
we think there is no error in the charge of
which the applicants have any ground OF
complaint. The whole question turns upon
the validity of Confederate money" and we
are not at liberty to evade it, by refining upon
the distinction between executory and execu-
ted contracts. Was the Confederate States
such sovereign and independent political
corporation or organization, as authorized it
TO coin money, or issue its bonds or notes, on
the faith and bind the people of the so-called
Confederate States for the payment
thereof? This is the question with which We
have to deal, and however much the business
transactions of the people of this State may
be involved in it, we have but one duty to
perform, and that is, to tread the path marked
out by the law.
The learned Judge then proceeds to show
that the Confederate States had no such
right, nor were they in judicial sense q gov
ernment de yfdcto. He quotes Halleck, In
ternational Law, Sec. 20:
"Until the independence of the new State
is recognized by the government Of which it
was before part, or by the Foreign State
when its sovereignty is drawn in question,
courts of justice aud private individuals are
hound IN N cidar tho mn stata oft thtpuc
as remaining unchanged
In support of this principle the Judge ex
amines opinions delivered in the following
cases Rose VS.. Himily, Cranch, 24l !;
Hoyt vs.. Gelston, Wheaton, 324 Santisse-
ma Trinidad and the St. Ander, Wheaton,
285; kennett ct al vs.. Chambers, IA Howard,
3S; and in the late trial of the Savannah
pirates.
The Judge then proceeds:
The courts are bound to follow the action
of the political departments of the Federal
Government, and when they fail or refuse TO
recognize the existence of the new govern
ment, the courts can do nothing more, than
administer the laws as they exist under the
old. Any other rule of practice would break
up the harmony of the Government itself and
expose its political and judicial departments to
nize the Confederate States as a govern
ment de facto, and the other refuse-who, in
such case would judge between them7 So,
also, Of the erection of new foreign govern
ment. the one might recognize it as a sove
reign and Independent power, and the other
refuse. Such a practice would involve the
nation in interminabe conflicts of power at
home, and endless difficulties abroad. The
act of recognizing the existence of q new gov
ernment, is the act of the nation ITSELF and the
highest exercise of sovereign power, aud if
done by any inferior power, It could avail
nothing either to the new government or to
its citizens. What advantage, if by any pos
sibility the Courts were to recognize the Con
federate States as a government de facto
would accrue to those who once claimed to be
citizens under it? Such a recognition, If it
were legally possible, could only have an in
ternational operation. 1t could not benef
oially effect individuals. ''The Confederate
government de facto, or otherwise, that en-
acted its laws, has ceased to exist-it has no
power to enforce them-and surely it will not
be contended that the Courts of the United
States, States or Federal, are bound to exc
cute the laws of an extinct, insurgent power,
enacted against the policy and authority of
the Government Of the United States, and ex-
pressly for its overthrow. Such q principle,
directly operative to enable the insurgents to
take advantage of their own wrong-a princi-
pie abhorrent to the laws of civilized coun.
tries, and no where to be tolerated. No
nights or protection can accrue to individuals
under Confederte laws. They we're enacted
without lawful authority and against the pol
icy, laws and Constitution Of the United
States. and the courts ofthe county are BOUND
to treat them as if they had never been pro-
mulgated.
Applying these principles to the case under
consideration, there can be no difficulty in de-
termining the rights Of the parties The pay
ment is evidenced by the receipt having been
made in Confederate money" was utterly
void. The paper itself having been issued
against'publc policy-fof an unlawful and Ile-
"a lpurpose, and without any authority Of law
which this court can take cognizance, must
not be held as worthless bank paper, issued
by a legally constituted corporation, but as
paper, issued without any legal authority
Whatever and therefore worthless in the pay
ment for property or pre-existing debts.
This principle has been sanctioned by this
Courtin the case of forged or rcounterfeitpa paper.
In the case of Wan vs.. Street 4 Co., 2 Head,
6o9, the court said: IA payment Of genuine
bank notes, supposed by both parties to be
good, though IN fact worthless, will be bind
ing, and the loss must fall on the receiver, in
the absence of fraud. 1t is otherwise if the
potes be not genuine-not what they purport
10 be. so . payment in forged paper v6Sld
be void and have no effect as a credit or pay.
ment for property or pre-existng debts. v
Much more must this principle be applica.
Bile when the notes Purporting TO be money,