Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1867-03-08

tain. The bold cheValier, Stephen Joseph
Meany, is, however, fighting it out. His
case will come to "a conclusion early on
Monday.
Collection of Interest ON Southern
/ Debts During the War-ImPOrt-
ant Decision by the United States
District Court of Texas @as -
+ IFrom the Galveston Bulletin.l
FEDERAL COURT.
H The case Of Cochrane ct al. Us. E. w. Tai
bott, was made a test case in the Federal
District Court now in session in this city,
tor the decision of q grave question grow
ing out of the late 'Onpleasantness," So
called; and the argument OF the point
raised, land upon which tine lawyers of
course differed radically, occupied the time
of the etCourt for several days. The ques-
tion raised by the pleadiugs was, whether
or not interest ran on debts owing by resi-,
dents of the Confederacy to, persons resid-
ing in the loyal States during the war.
Messrs. Turner, Bowers and Hancock,
counsel for the defendant, argued against
the aeerual 0finterest during the war, from
the following predicates: ~. .....,.
A civil war existed between the inhabit-
ants of the Confederate States and the
United States from May 18th, 1861, until
the civil authority of the United States
was restored, and that the effect of this
existence of a civil government de facto or
de jure in the insurgent. States. The par
ties to the war exercised the rights Of bel,
ligerents under the rules of war. All COM
mercial intercourse between the belliger-
ents was suspended during the war, and
the payment of debts due from residents
in one belligerent section to residents in
the other was prohibited. Interest, though
not part of the debt, is something added
to it by way of damages for detention of
debt; and the payment of the principal,
being prohibited, the effect was to abate
the interest during the prohibition. These
points were ingeniously, elaborately and
ably argued by, COUNSEL for defense. Mr.
Morrill,, attorney for plaintiff, assisted by
VIM. Alexander, Esq, made the following
points: /. That the Courts of the United
States are bound to regard the status
of nations, as declared by the Legis-
lative Department of the Government.
2. That by the acts, of Congress from
1861 to 1the present time. the United
States have not recognized the re-
belliOus States as "alien enemies" but as
domes ic enemies; and that the whole ten
or of Federal legislation South, such as es-
tablishingy courts and paying judicial Off
GERS, citizens of the so-called Confederacy
during the rebellion, shows that the United
States regarded the seeded States as par5
of the United States. 3. 1t is historically
proved to the court that all property, real
and personal, situated in Texas and owned
by persons in the loyal States, was contis-
Gated; and as by the laws of war the Con-
tederacy had the same right to do this as to
take the interest on notes due from its citi-
zens to its enemies, the econsequencesweul
be to judieially determine all such acts val
id. 4. That the court historically knows
that the only currency of the COnfederacy
used in payment of the interest to the same,
was its promissory notes payable when its
nationality should have been re recognized by
the United States; and this court cannot
recognize such supposed paymentas as of any
validity .1E = ID af1s1 &,i -f.-' l'-
Upon thelforegoing points presented in
this case, and which we have given some
what at length, for the benefit of our legal
friends at distance, Judge Duval deliver
ed the subjoined opinion of the court: q,
In this case there has been inteTposed
special plea in bar as against the recovery
of the interest on the notes sued on. accru-
ing between the I'd of March, 1861, and the
10th of August, 1866, because during that
time, as is alleged, state of war EXISTED
between the, two sections of the United
States in which the plaintiffs and defend
ant severally resided-the' domicile or the
former being in Massachusetts. and that of
the latter in Texas. It is further alleged
that the so-called Confederaey was, during
this period, a de fdctO Government; that
the plaintiffs and defendant were alien en-
existence of this war, ipso Jdeto, abated the
running of interest during the time above
stated. To this conclusion have not been
able to bring my mind, Notwithstanding
the authorities cited for its support, and the
arguments OF counsel for whose ability and
legal learning have high respect. ,.-
That there has been war is not open to
| question. But not having been war be-
tween separate and distinct nationalities,
do not think that authorities which alone
had application to such wars can properly
be invoked here. Had the rebellion been
successful, and the Southern Confederacy
been recognized as separate and sovereign
Government, then indeed l would not hesi-
tate to say under the sanction of the au
thorities cited, that interest would have
ceased to run during the war, in the abb
sence of any treaty stipulation to the con-
| trary, But we have Government unlike
that of any other. 1t is one sui generis. We
| 1have a written Constitution defining its
powers, as we'll asithose reserved respect
| lively to the States, or to the people. An
| unsuccessful, effort on the part Of certain
States of the Union, or majority of the
| people comprising them, to get rid Of their
constitutional obligations and erect a sep
arate and independent Government, al
| though it resulted in war, did not create a
condition OF affairs analogous to those eX-
| isting i'll war between two distinct nations.
I The Confederacy attempted to be formed by
! these States, was never recognized by any
| foreign Government as a nationality.
| By the Government of the United States,
| from which they rebelled, they were not
even regarded as Government de fdCto, but
only recognized as belLigerents, SD far as the
actual necessities aud exigencies of the
i war made it necessary. 1t seems to me
| that. this is manifest from the whole action
1 and legislator of the political authority of
the Government. =
/ The citizens of every portion fthe United
| States remained such citizens in cOntem-
! plation of law during the war. They may
have been enemies to each other, in their
| respective sections, but they were never
alien enemies. Their rights and duties as
1 such citizens, in reference to each other,
were only suspended during the war; and
when this ceased by the overthrow of the
rebellion, they stood, in reference to such
aErights and duties, as they did before the re-
bellion. If the war does not prevent the
collection of the principal of debts due to
people of the United States, residing in
4 what are known as loyal States, then l am
at a loss to know why interest should not
be allowed Judge Story. in his work on
contracts, says that whenever interest is
claimed uuon an express or implied con-
tract, it is necessary incident to the orig
inal debt, and matter of strict right which
must be allowed by the court"
i / cannot give the reasons at length which
induce me to withhold my assent from the
proposition set up in the plea, as regards
| interest in this case. They are based mainly
upon the peculiar character of the Govern
ment of the United States, and the position
which the insurgents occupied in reference
to that Government and to foreign nations
i 1t is sufficient to state my conclusion or
4 the subject. My opinion is, that the wal
i lately existing between the two sections O
the United States did not stop the running
of interest on contracts, subsisting between
the people of these sections prior to the war