Nashville union and dispatch. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1866-1868, 1867-01-12

every allegation against the Legality OF the
F bank charter. the worthlessness Of the
paper issued by the bank, Orchard, the
maker Of the note has not been the suf-
/ ferer. The bills constituting a portion Of
! the consideration OF the note, ne used in
pavment of his debts while they were cur
rent In the community, and he has not
/ taken them back either voluntarily,
assuming that he might have done so, and
/ set mp the fact rs a defense to the note, nor
has been subjected to the repayment Of
/ the debts he discharged by the use Of them;
and even was he permitted TO succeed in
/ reducing the present demand by rebutting
/ the bank bills received by him; It does not
appear that he Is under any obligation to
account for that amount TO the creditor or
creditors to whom he paid them. The de-
| PENDANT, therefore, il not in a condition to
contest the several questions raised and
discussed in the argument, in respect to the
power Of the Legislature 10 charter the
| bank, or the conduct Of the parties con-
| cerned in Its organization
The judgment Of the Circuit Court below
was affirmed. There is a clear and broad
distinction between the issuing of bank
notes without the sanction Of a charter
which passes az currency in a community,
and a currency that has been issued for an
| illegal and reasonable purpose. The par
ties who issued the bank notes could not
have recovered, according to well settled
principles, on a note the consideration Of
which was the Illegal notes of their bank /;
| they would have been repealed from a court
in attempting to enforce an illegal contract;
| but the notes passing into the hands Of
/ third persons, no way connected with the
| illegal transaction, were not affected by it,
! in the case Of Confed crate treasury notes,
| every one into whose hands so ever they
| passed, knew the objects and purposes for
which they were issued and was guilty of
an illegal act in passing or giving them
| currency.
1t is insisted that although this note, I'M
! der the constitution and laws Of the United
States was void, that it was made within
| the limits O! the Confederate government,
and while they had the occupation of the
| country, that they had organized a govern
ment that il was 4 de fdct0 government,
and therefore they had the legal right to
| issue these treasury notes, 1t Is insisted.
in support Of this principle, that the Su-
preme Court of the United States, in the
VI
wick, have held that the rebellion was a
civil war and that those engaged in it
were entitled TO belligerent rights; that
that was a recognition of the revolted
States "a would constitute them q govern
ment de tGcfO.
That the reyolled States organized GOV
| ernment over them for a time; that they
resisted the jurisdiction Of the United
States over a portion Of the territory,
| closed the courts established by the regular
government, placed large armies in the
field in hostility 10 that government, and
held for more than three years a large por-
| ton of the territory, over which they
claimed TO exercise jurisdiction. The final
| disruption OF that government-the sup
preston of the rebelli0n-the re-establish-
ment of the jurisdiction Of the government
/ of the United States are matters of history,
/ Of which this court will take judicial
notice
The principal question before the court
| in this case of the Hiawatha and Amy
Warwick was, whether the property of per
sons domiciled and residing within the re-
VOTED States was properly the subject OF
| capture on the seas az enemy's property.
The court say, quoting from Natte, "a civil
war breaks the bands of society and gov
ernment or at least suspends their force
and effects il produces in a nation two in
/ dependent parties who consider each other
as enemies, and acknowledge no common
/ judges; those two parties, therefore, must
| necessarily be considered as constituting for
a time two separate bodies-two distinct
| societies, and having no common superior
| 10 Judge between them they stand precis
| ~ in the same predicament as two nations
| who engage in a contest and have recourse
| to arms; this being the case, it is very evil
| dent the common tar Of rar these marims o.
moderation, humanity and honor ought to be
observed by both parties in every civil
| war"
| When a party in rebellion occupy and
| hold in a hostile manner a certain portion
| of territory-have cast off their allegiance
and declared their independence-haVe Or
ganized armies-have commenced hostili,
ties against their former sovereign, the
world acknowledges them as belligerenti
| and the contest war; hence the parties &c
civil war usually acknowledge 10 each
other belligerent rights; that is, t3eyerchaRg,
| prisoners and adopt the other c0latcsiss ano
rules common to national and public ,Uuy8
The court say, " it is not the less a civil wal
with the belligerent parties in hostile ar
| raw because il may be called an insurrec
ton by one side and the insurgents be con.
sidered as rebels and traitors 1t IL moi
necessary that the independence of the re
volted States be acknowledged to consti
tute it bclligerent power. Wheaton
Lawrence, supplement, P. Il.
| The revolted States were recognized by
the government of England as beliger
ent power On the I4th Of May, 1861. Al
soon as the news of the attack on For
Sumter, with the information that the in
suTgents had an organized government wa,
| received, most of the other nations Of Eu
rope followed the course of the government
of England in recognizing them rs having
belligerent rights. The proclamation o
the President and the acts Of Congress re
! Cognized a state of war The exchange o
| prisoners and the other usages of war be
| tween the opposing armies was recognition
on the part Of the government fthe United
States that war existed, and should bC
conducted on principles of humanity anC
according to the custom of civilized ma
hons, and thus far political power of tn,
| government accorded 70 the insurgent
belligerent rights This did not carr
with it ali those rights that existed
between two independent nations at war
In civil wars Nauel says, they usually
| award 90 each other belliCereut rights
that Is they exchange prisoners and adop
the Courtesies and rules common to ma
tioual and public wars
In its prosecution, after this recognition
ON the part of the government The vessels
the subject Of controversy In the case belor
the supreme Court of the United State
were captured, the court say "the question
| whether1he Confederate States are bel
! ligereut power was one purely political
that they must be governed by the dccision
and acts Of that department of the govern
ment 20 which this power is entrusted Tn
according of belligeIeut rights 10 the insur
! gents did not constitute them a government
dc f1r'o, nor vested IN them more of Oh
rights Of sovereignty. which would author
izs them 20 issue currency that can b
recognized as legal by the courts sitting uu
der the authority of the regular govern
mcnt nor can the courts recognize any @
the acts of the insurgents In their organiza
ton as a civil government
This question rests with the pultica
, power Of the government SO long as tina
power withholds its recognition, the court
OF the country cannot lend their aid to en-
/ force any contract growing ont of The organ
lzaton Of the so-Called Confederate States
, | Wheaton, Ia his International law, saws
Until the new State is acknowledged
: either by the foreign State where its sovt
! reignty is called in question, or bv the gov
P eminent of the country of which il was be
fore a province, courts Of Justice and privat
2 individuals are bound 60 consider the an
e. cient state of things as remaining unaI