The western Democrat. [volume] (Charlotte, N.C.) 1852-1870, 1867-07-16

formed part of the Confederate States, but this
Court is coordinate branch of rightful gov
ernment, forming part of the United States
and cannot entertain such an objection" 1n
our case, the matter is reversed. The turpitude,
| if any, was aimed at the United States, and the
maxim applies, provided there be the criminal
intent. That is the question I deny the in
| tent-there is no evidence of it or anything
from which it can be implied. 1t cannot be
held that the mere receiving Confederate note
was illegal and base, without involving in the
lmputaton of baseness, every man and woman
70 the State the minister of the gospel, the
Judge, who received their salaries the pbysi-
clan, the merchant, the mechanic the farmer,
who carried on their ordinary business The
poor seamstresses, who at the end of the day
received their hard-earne wages, were all guilty
of act SO base that the doors of the courts of
justice must be shut against them The pro-
position is monstrous During the war farmer
should not have made more grain than enough
to support himself and family; making surplus
was illegal-it aided the rebellion. IF every
man had quit work, the rebel army could not
have been sustained the war would have been
stopped by starvation. We were told in the
argument that sgold, as we'll as iron, is sinew
of war" It may be added, meat and bread are
also sinews of war-reductio od absurdune
t. But, it is said, the consequences of hold
ing all such dealing to have been illegal, will
not be grievous, after all, for, in its practical
application, the maxim will only make void
erecutory contracts The principle, if sound
one, evidently includes all contracts, executive
as we'll as executory, and the admission, that in
practice it can only be made to reach the latter,
demonstrates the impotence and absurdity of
this action of the Courts, the means Of put
ting stop to civ2 wars. Let us see how it is
to operate: A man buys a tract of land, pays for
it in Confederate notes and takes a deed The
Court cannot reach him, for it is met by the
maxim sin pari de1icto naelior est conditio de-
fendentis;" SO he keeps the land not because
he is innocent, but because the Court cannot
take it from him and restore it to the original
owner, for he is equally guilty If one has
paid off bond in Confederate notes, whether
the creditor will be allowed to sue on the origi-
nal debt, which is not tainted with this "turpi
causa," is problem that 1 will not undertake
to solve.
But suppose the bond is only paid in part;
the payment must be rejected, for, being in
Confederate notes, tits of no more legal effect
than if made in counterfeit money-or suppose,
in our case, Mr. Hooker brings ejectmen. for
the land-the contract has been in part per-
formed, aud the Defendant is in possession, will
the Court shut its doors against her on the
maxim in pari delicto? In short, is the prac-
tica application of this novel princip pie to be al
lowed to cover all intermediate cases, when the
contract has not been fully executed, or is it to be
confined to contracts wholly executory, where
the purchaser has paid the price, but, in the
simplicity of his innocence, has neglected to
take deed and has not even taken possession?
The amount of it is-all who required the Con-
federate notes to be paid down or who have
taken deeds and acquittances under seal, al
though equally guilty, to go unpunished,
and only those who gave credit to their neigh
bors or who neglected to take deeds are to be
made victims to the vengeance Of the law, while
the remiss debtors and dishonest vendors are to
be the sole gamers, although equal participants
in the illegal act. Lame and impotent conclu-
sion
Thus encouragement is to be given to dis
honesty, Justice is not to be administered, aud
the people of the country to be involved 10
utter perplexity and confusion, in order to make
a useless show of zeal on the part of the Courts
"to punish rebels.
R. NJ. PEARSON, C. j.