The Daily clarion., 1867-02-05

= n.,ance due the plaintiff. lne ,,ose as
COW coNssaa,,ss nleaded payment anu So ,,s and the
ien1an, @ ,s,aintiff in bar OF ms claims cI.,snt This
vylaintif replied denylng sre crosI action assert
plea Oh ss<ndants right to recover ,ile ITaon
ills -. s iaiutiff's note set up IN ln5 PtIicb was
OF tue trI traverse of that demand, the
NJ ie.gal effect OF the plain.ltth ne ffendants
lhe - -, Il what sum were the Tn de-
qlles,iwoh % ,s,oyer in their cross action the
tltieu 49, that question. IL II ciu cieatu that he
tsLs.a;f was entitled 70 cred. ie = anDeared
pftihe;5 on that claim; anu' II II - q. which
had tnG,sintitf had paid certain Illilua I,.s of
that tie p4snts had received IN were
inc a...s,,1ent between them, anu r,ad 10 the
an !.is5 as and refused TO De et ~ became
retalnt.S on his demand, unth spI Ia fo nav
plainuh, V VsreeiaIly il the ptsintiH hau :;
Woi III, line Mt par of the iuhus y. ~, i'm
te l thsre cannot be quesiio -. ti. tba Sum re-
them, i,,,ld he entitled TO credlt ioe tb fnnds
TN WeI.N M .be defendants. For, aliei tne - the
ceived =. ah tbey were either the tunds ol e,,e
We're pt p or of the plaintlf III oil tne J - If
ueIei i Jiould have been credlted ~ 7he,,, on
lIea g. Isttar, the refusal 20 Ie'u; iIln for ALI
/ OF the enJers the defendants napie l'i - -
demand I iJ''II Ioss which the plainun nas s,, su
/ the aetusi he result of the wrongful ue'ei-
/ tanned as lht
/ ton. tho aboye views the lnstfue-
ton was right. ,s;dar the objections
eo III, artion of the court IN grahllns iT tare
/ " uustL destruction in behalf OF liiS H.sb ~,
yO9 =; refiISing the TTSt. SecoRt anu - % - :;
.frnctjons in behalf OF the piaint tt ;,strnc
refusing the fret. secoaa anu Fandants 5of',
tf1,,S asled in behalf OF the aeteh,'a' -,
tiore +Tnctions present for cur deteI
:4;e,, +ba very important questlou
-,bather contracts of an eNeeutoiS .
es,in1 on the consideration OF What
aaTomonIv called Confederate money v =
State currency, issued during tho Ieeon =
war. or obligations incurred on o.,d "a,
such currency, are Naho ~ 4I'a foundatiol
|, under any circumstances, oe the f -,
, of onv legal right The negative oA "a
T.onosition is eontended for by the eouiist
e. tba nIaintiffs in error, who INSISTS tha
sncb cnrrency. being issued IN ald OF the y
belIion, was illegal and VOID. 10 an II ,,
, and purposes, as against puDIle poilog a. g
that il cannot form wand oohsiuoi 49, :; :
| any contract or o6!lSallou, uAao 11orso, an
) cumstances, or in favor OF any pc ooA
hence. that there was no right OF actlOn
! the plaintiff in this case. .,:-r- l..
e The argument in support of tins YteW' u u
d been directed entirely TO the power VI :.
9 Confederate and State governments 20 tSs'
! the notes in question, IN opposltloh TO- th
\ INDEPENDENTLY of, the rights and powers
I the United States under the Constltutlo
{ We do not consider it necessary, IN I'll
4 | n,,,,enf case to decide whether the issue
o these notes by the Confederate and sta
o governments rendered them valid IN ia'
# in point of the right and power OF tho
3; Governments in the condition lR when th'
: were then placed, to issue them. That is
q question of very grave moment, Whlch
: do not think necessarily involved IN tn
i case The true question here Is, WheUht
. after they were issued and had passed IN
= circulation, they could become the found
O tiop of any legal right in the hands of Pc
n son who had received them in good fal
l. and in the course of his lawful business,
)f onrrencv and unou which he could make
y valid contract.
a 1t appears. by the record, that the not
: in question constituted the only currency
20 the State at the time, and passed ire
& hand to hand, as money, IN the pecullla
transactions of the people, and that tho
r received by the plaintiff, were received
- him in due course of business as mon'
al without any participation on his part IN tn
y Illegal issue, and upon no consIderatl
n of aid on his part to the rebellion; that tn
II were afterwards deposited with the defer
i, ants upon contract, express or impI'
that they were to be paid back by them
or him, or applied to his credit; and this e'
ne tract had no reference To the rebellion.
nj 1t is not pretended that these funds WI
in fact of no actual, available value, WI
IN they were received by the defendants a
Ell were refused to be paid over to the plalntl
OF and on the cOntary, it is shown that til
'h were available to him to a consideral
mr. actual value in gold or silver. But 1t
ns eontended that because they were illega
nv issued originally they could never be
eY foundation of a.valid contract IN trans
In ton between private citizens.
as Conceding tor the purposes of the prest
re case that the issue of these notes was
We unauthorized and Illegal act, yet it Is SO
eh but two points of view.
&c 1st, In setting up power in opposition
0 Of the authority of the United States
ON ID. In giving aid and support to the n
nd itary operations against the government
to the United States.
Ia As to the former, it is manifest that
ne conduct of the plaintiff does not bring /
H., within its condemnation. The position
,p- the Confederate States, seveTally or unit
le- ly, in opposition to the United States,
i;'' taken before the notes in question were
10 sued. Whatever right or power they /
or to set up government, independent of t
Il of the United States, had been already
on into requisition. The step had been tai
" and government was formed, VIII
ch claimed to be independent and which |
he ceeded in point of fact to exercise all
Tor powers of separate and Independent e
OF ernment. And the Issue of these notes
~ II in the exercise of one of these powers.
to- course the plaintiff in receiving the nc
10 after they passed into circulation as mon
and in treating them as such could h
in been in no wise inculpated in any pul
re- wrong that may have been committed in
effort to set up an independent governm,
ses since that had already been set on foot
OF fore they were issued.
10 Conclusion tomorrow
ay
en BY TELEGRAPH.