The weekly clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1863-1882, 1867-01-17

A most imp ortant dec was reu-
dered yesterday by Out gh Court Of
Errors and Appeals in ID case Of y
& r. Green u.s. james 50 Sizer, II
which the legality Of exc eoiy con
tracts where Confederate Notes, Cot
| ton Money and State Treasury Notes
were the consideration, is affirmed,
and the Judgment of the Circuit Court
of Kinds thus sustained. Its great
length prevents its publications. full
| for few days The following ex-
| tracts win indicate its purport:
/ I'm coming to this combustion we cannot
/ disregard the fact that vast amouht oI eIe
/ rights and property of our citizens aepen:,a ls
on contracts founded on conslderaeloIis ..no
! tbats af tha ease before us; nor con we over
i look fhe circumstances under which suen
/ conIrants. were made. The currency on
/ which they were founded, was, for upwards
sof f;,ns wears almost exclusively the circular
| tinr medium of the country issued pydov-
ernments having, in fact, complete power
! over the people, and exercising undlsefEpeu
+ political functions. 1t was the representa-
tive Of their rights and property IN all pecu-
MARY tranactions. of private character,
and was, at the tie, valuable and conyert-
able into gold or silver coin to n considerable
value It answered all the purposes OF
circulating medium among the people, and
immeIse Interests were ACQUIRED by means
Of It. under circumstances of the greatest
food fai1h by both parties, aiai OF large
prolific the parties who reserved u con-
tracts the highest obligation were entered
into, in consideration of it, and by it, food
and clothing and other absolute necessaries
were obtained Under such circumstances,
to hold that such contracts were illegal and
void and that the parties acquired no legal
rights under them, would be alike contrary
to settled rules of law and to sound public
pU aTRe mex objection raised to the rulings
of the Codrt is that the Mississippi Treasu-
/ ~ notes were bills of credit. and void under
section 10 of article of the Constitution of
| the United States, and, to the extent of the
amount of them involved In 1fisdase, that
| they Gould not constitute ala@A dpnsfdera'
ton for the contract sued 90 IDS epjec-
! ton is based on the AUTH RAG VS.
i Peters. ~
.sIf it be conceded that, $f6he these
/ notes were issued, the Cohsp Ion of the
I-Unitea States was in actual re in this
| State. and that the powers of thi Nate were
L
of its condition at the time, yet tits eseal
| that these notes are not embEed within the
/ prohibition of that Constitute9n&
"They were issued under the6rdinance Of
of the State Convention of 26th. January
/ 1861. which authorized them to be issued
i solely on loan of money to the State, and
| as evidence to the individual of the lndebt
| edness of the State for the loan. They were
not authorized to be issued as circulating
1 vi 4bo1 mr. thu rl0liou
templated by the measure. That they were
used among the people in part for that pur
| nose. after thew were issued, is true but il
| is manifest FROM the ordinance, that, such
| was not the purpose, for which they were au
| thorized They were not intended to be
| loaned or emitted" as currency, but were
| given out to persons who loaned money to the
| State; and that is expressly decided, in the
case of Craig VS.. The State of Missouri, not
to he within the prohibition of the Consti
| tuition. 1t is there held, that . contract ex
ecuted BY State by which she binds herself
| to paw money at a future day for services &C
tually rendered, or for money borrowed fol
| uresent use. is not bill of credit within The
meaning of the Constitution, Peters 4362
/ And it is clear that these notes were author
i lied to be issued for money borrowed, by TIT
/ State for present use, and for no other pur
| pose.
/ z,sAsQueSbIOu appears W udfO uOOh AoeASoe
j IN the court below as to the validity of che
4 notes referred to as cotton money! issued
by this State, and as to the right bud powe
| ofthe State to issue them. But that ques
| ton has been waived by the counsel for thu
plaintiffs in error here; and nothing W.
| have said above is to be considered as an in
timat1on of an opinion on that point.
The decision was rendered b!
Judge Handy, and concurred in By
Judge Elicit. Judge Harris submitted
an opinion dissenting from some
points and concurring in others. Boil
will shortly appear at length.