The tri-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1866-1868, 1867-06-20
Important Legal Opinion of Chief JUS
tIce Chase.

tlCe CndSes
At the recent term of the United States
Circuit Court, held in this City, his honor
Chief Justice Chase delivered the following
important opinion of the Court, upon the
question, how far the people of the South
were relieved from liability to Northern
creditors by the Confscation and Sequestra-
tion acts Of the late so-caled Confederate
States After a concise statement of the
line of argument relied upon by the defen-
dant's counsel, the Chief Justice proceeds to
set forth the law, and to vindicate his state
ment in an opinion remarkable for vigor
of thought and clearness of reasoning
He arrives at the following conclusion,
in which public opinion will, we think,
acquiesce He says: ave hold therefore,
that compulsory payment, under the seques-
tration acts, to the rebel receiver of the debt
due to the plaintiffs from the defendant, was
no discharge" He also held that the plain
tiff was not discharged from the payment of
interest.
SdOh1 81 ~ Us. NAHUM.
This is an action for the recovery of the
amount Of a promisory note with interest.
There is no question of the liability of the
defendant to the demand of the plaintiffs,
unless he is excused by coerced payment of
the note sued upon under an act of the self
styled Confederate Congress, passed August
Both, 1861, entitled AN act for the seques-
tration Of the estates of alien enemies" and
an amendatory act passed February 18th,
1862.
1t is admitted that the plaintiffs were cit
liens of Pennsylvania; that the defendant
was citizen of North Carolina; that the
note sued upon was made by the defendant
to the plaintiffs and that the defendant
was compelled, by proceedings instituted in
the Courts of the so-called Confederate
States, to pay the amount due upon it to the
receiver appointed under the Sequestration
acts.
Upon these facts it is insisted that the de-
PENDANT is discharged from his liability to
the plaintiffs. 1t is claimed, that, while
it existed, the Confederate government was
de facto government; that the citizens of
the States which did not recognize its au-
thority were aliens, and in time of war, alien
enemies; that, consequently, the acts of Sc
questration were valid acts; and, therefore.
that payment to Confederate agent of debts
due to such citizens, if compelled by pro-
ceedings under those acts, relieved the debtor
from all obligations to the original creditors.
To maintain these propositions the coun-
sci for the defendant rely upon the decisions
of the Supreme Court of the United States
to the effect that the late rebellion was a
civil war, in the prosecution of which bel
ligerent rights were exercised by the Nation
nppf md loI -
forces of the rebel Confederacy; and upon
the decisions of the State Courts, during
and after the close of the American war for
independence, which affirmed the validity
of confiscations and representations decreed
against the property of nonresident British
subjects and the inhabitants of colonies or
States hostile to the United Colonies or
United States
But these decisions do not, in our iudg-
ment sustain the propositions in support of
which they are cited.
There is no doubt that the State of North
Carolina by the acts of the Convention of
May, 1861; by the previous acts of the Gov
ernor of the State; by subsequent acts of all
the departments of the State government:
and by the acts of the people at the elections
held after May, 1851, set aside her State gov
eminent and Constitution, connected, under
the National Constitution with the govern
ment of the United States; and established
new Constitution and government connected
with another, so-called central government,
set up in hostility to the United States and
entered upon a course of active warfare
agains the National government Nor is
there any doubt that, by these acts, the prac-
tlcal relations of North Carolina to the
Union were suspended, and very serious la
| bilities incurred by those who were engaged
in them.
But these acts did not effect, even tor a
moment, the separation of North Carolina
| from the Union, any more than the acts of
an individual who commits grave offences
against the State by resisting its officers and
defy1ng its authority, separate him from the
State. Such acts may subject the offender
even to outlawry, but can discharge him
from no duty nor relieve him from any re-
sponsibility.
The National Constitution declares that
Treason against the United States shall
consist only in levying war against them OF
,, in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid
and comfort"