The western Democrat. [volume] (Charlotte, N.C.) 1852-1870, 1867-06-25
Gbt wtstfrn Drmofrat.
CHARLOTTE, n. C.
IMPORTANT LEGAL OPINION OF
CHIEF JUSTICE CHASE.
From the Raleigh Standard

co,r, held ia this City, his honor Chief Justice
Chase delivered the following important opinion
of the Court, upon the question, how tar the Peo
ole of the South were relieved from liability &c
Northern creditors by the Contscatlon and
Seouestration acts of the late so-called Conied
crate States. He arrives at the following con-
,clusion 1--WE hold therefore, that compulsory
payment, under the sequestration acts to the
rebel receiver of the debt due to the Plaln:lfs
from the defendant, was no discharge" He also
held that the plaintiff was not discharged from
TIE payment of interest
SHoKTRIDGE ct al Us. MACON.
This is an action for the recovery the amount
of promisory note with interest
There is no question of the liability Of the de-
PENDANT to the demand of the plaintiffs, unless he
is excused by coerced payment of the note sued
rpon under an act of the selfstyled Confede rate
Congress, passed August soth, 1851, entitled
IAN act for the sequestration of the estates OF
alien enem ies,' and an amendatory act passed
February 18th, 1862.
1t is admitted that the plaintiffs were citizens
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 IN
stituted in the Courts ofthe so-called Confederate
States, to pay the amount due upon IT to the
receiver appointed under the Sequestraslon acts.
Upon these facts it is sisted that the defen-
dant is discharged from his liability to the plain
lifts 1t is claimed, that, while it existed, the
Confederate government was a de fdcto govern
ment; that the citizens Of the States which did
not recognize its authority aliens, and in
time of war, alien enemies; that consequently
the acts of sequestration valid acts; and,
therefore, that payment to Confederate agent
of debts due to such citizens, if compelle1 by pro-
ceedings under those acts relieved The debtor from
all obligations TO the original creditors
To maintain these propositions the counsel for
the defendant rely upon the decisions of the Su-
preme Court of the United States to the effect
4hat the late rebellion vas a civil way III the
prosecution Of wl;ch belgerent rights were ex-
ercised by the National Government and accur-
ded to the armed forces of the rebel Confederacy;
and upon the decisions ofthe State Courts, during
and after the close of the American war for in
dependence, which affirmed the validity of conEs
cations and sequestratons decreed against the
property of non resident British subjects and the
inhabitants of colonies States hostile to the
United Colonies or United States.
But these decisions do not in our Judgment,
sustain the propositions in support of which they
are cited.
There is no doubt that the State of North
Carolina by the acts 0? tie Convention Of May,
1861; by the previous acts Of the Governor OF
the State; BY subsequent acts Of all the depart
Jnents of the State Government; and by the acts
of the people at the elections held after May,
1851, set aside her State government and Con-
stitution. connected, under the National Consti-
tuition with the government Of the United States,
and established new Cons tuition and govern
ment connected with another. socailed central
government, set up in hostility to the United
States; and entered upon course of active war
fare against the National government. Nor is
there any doubt that by these acts, the practical
relations of North Carolina to the Union were
suspended, and very serious liabilities incurred by
those who were engaged in them
But these acts did not effect, even for a mo-
I1ent, 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 aud defying its authority,
separate him from the State. Such acts may
subject the offender to outlawry, but can
discharge him from no duty nor relieve him from
any responsibility.
The National Constitution declares that Urea
eon against the United States shall consist only in
levying war against them 10 adherirg to their
enemies, giving them aid and comfort"
The word "only" was used to exclude from the
criminal Jurisprudence Of the new Republic the
odious doctrines of constructive treason. Its use,
however, while limiting the definition to plain
overt acts, brings these acts in conspicuous relief
as being always. and in essence, reasonable.
War, therefore, levied against the United
States by citizens Of the Republic under the PIE
tended authority of the new State government of
North Carolina or of the so called Confederate
government which assumed the title of the Con
federate States" was treason against the United
States.
It has been supposed, and by some strenuously
tnalntained that the North Carolina Ordinance
of 1861, which pusported to repeal the North
Carolina Ordinance of 1889, by which the Con-
stitution Of the United States was ratified! and to
repeal also all subsequent acts by which the as
sent OF North Carolina was given to amendmen is
of the Constitutions, did in fact repeal that Ordi-
nance and those acts and thereby absolved the
people OF the State from all obligation as citizens
OF the United States and made it impossible to
commit treason by levying war against the
National government
No elaborate discussion of the theoretical ques-
zion thus presented seems now to be necessary
That question, rs a practical one, is at rest and
is not likely to be revived 1t is enough to say
here, IN our Judgment, the answer which it has
received from events, is that WHICH the soundest
construction of the Constitution warrants and re-
9uires.
Nor can We agree with some persons, dis.in-
guished by abilities and virtues, who insist when
rebellion attaIns the proportions and assumes the
character of civil war; it is purged Of IFS treason
able character and can only be punished by the
defeat of its armies, the disappointment Of its
hopes and the calamities incident to unsuccessful,
war.
Courts have no policy and can exercise no po-
iitical powers. They can only declare the law,