The weekly clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1863-1882, 1867-02-07

1t is not pretended that these funds were
in fact of no actual, available value, wien
4 they were received by the defendants and
were refused to be paid over to the plaintiff I;
and on the contrary, 1t Is shown that they
i were available to him to considerable
actual value in gold or silver. But it Is
contended that because they were Illegally
issued originally they could never be the
/ foundation of a.yalid contract in q transac-
ton between private citizens.
Conceding Tor the purposes of the present
i case, that the of these notes was an
unauthorized and illegal act, yet it is SO in
but two points of view
ist. In setting up q power in opposition to
the authority of the United States.
I'd. In giving aid and support to the mil
Itary operations against the government OF
the United States.
4 As to the former, 1t is manifest that the
| conduct of the plaintiff does not bring him
within it's condemnation. The position of
the Confederate States, seyerally or united
| ~, in opposition to the United States, was
taken before the notes in question were is
sued Whatever right or power they had
| to set upa government, independent of that
Of the United States. had been already put
| into requisition. The step had been taken
| and a government was formed, which
claimed to be Independent and which pro-
ceeded In point of fact to exercise all the
| powers of a separate and independent gov
| ernment. And the issue of these notes was
| in the exercise of one of these powers of
course the plaintiff in receiving the notes
! after they passed into circulation as money,
and in treating them as such, could have
been in no wise inculpated in any public
wrong that may have been committed in the
| effort to set up an independent government,
| since that had already been set on foot be-
| fore they were issued.
AS to the second, there is nothing to show
| that the reception of the nof6sby the plain
| tiff and his treating them as money, had any
connection with the rebellion. The notes
were in circulation and the medium of ex-
| change in the private transactions of our
citizens They were used as money, in the
| civil and domestic pursuits of our people,
and were SO received by the plaintiff. Even
| a state of war does not contemplate the bar
barian rule of suppression of all the domes-
| tic business of society; and the necessities
of the times established these notes as the
| medium by which these transactions were
carried on. The Government of the United
States appears to have .acquiesced in this
necessity; for though the most rigorous mil
| itary expedients We're adopted, by public
authority in relation to matters bearing up
on the war, no act was passed by Congress
prohibiting the issuing or circulation of
currency of this description, when its exis-
tence was matter of notoriety
But it is said that in receiving and pass
ing these notes, aid was given to the rebel
lion, because they were necessary to the main
tanaace Of 1t and that that object was promo
ted by receiving them in the private transac-
tons ofindiyiduals
This is an assumption which is not estab-
lished. The bonds of governments, which
do not circulate as currency, are frequently
more valuable in the market than the ordi-
nary currency of the government or the other
circulating medium of the country. This
was the case with Confederate bonds during
considerable period of the war, and is now
the case with United States bonds. Gov
ernments usually conduct all their financial
operations by means of loans, public sccuri-
ties ard other currency than their own issues.
1t does not therefore appear that the MAIN
tanance of the rebellion absolutely depended
on the issue of this currency. But the policy
of issuing the notes under consideration
was intended, i'll great degree, on the part
of the Confederate government, TO supply
circulating medium for the country in order
that its domestic business might be carried
on. IS
But whether this was the purpose for
which this currency was issued or not, IL IN
fact became the representative of the private
property, debts and contracts of our citizens
after 1T aras issued, simply because from neces-
sity, these notes were the substitutes for
value, and not because the citizen in receiv-
ing them was in any way actually impllca-
ted in giving aid to the rebellion; and his
receiving and passing them would not
necessarily be illegal.
The error on which the objection under
consideration proceeds, consists in not cor
rectly estimating the Office and character
of circulating medium. We have repeat
eddy said above that it is the representative
of value. It represents property and stands
in the place of it in the dealings of men;
and that is its principal office. For it the
planter sells his cotton. the trader his stock,
and the merchant his goods. 1t is the form
in which value and property are estimated
in such dealings 1t is therefore entitled to
the same benefit of legal protection in the
contracts of individuals as the property it
represents would be entitled to if the proper
ty had been exchanged in specie; and if the
use of the property, in such transaction
would not be unlawful, so the employment
of the medium in the place of it would not
be. Thus, if man purchase horse, and
instead of giving a bale of cotton or hum
bred bushels of corn for it, he give so much
of the circulating medium, in use at the
time, as is considered of equal value with
the bale of cotton or hundred bushels of corn
the purchase is valid unless it be prohibited
by law. For the contract is as valid when
one medium of exchange is used as the other
provided neither be in violation of any
positive lawS or declared public policy; be-
cause, in either form it is property and as
such is entitled to protection on principles
of natural justice. When there is no posi-
tive law forbidding the use of the particular
circulating medium, and when it does not
appear that the party in the act of receiving
or using it, was engaged IN any purpose
clearly and positively in contrayention of
public policy, the act cannot be condemned
!, as illegal.
We may test the legality of receiving and
passing such funds by considering whether
the party would be guilty of any offense in
law, by such acts. He would clearly violate
no positive law where there is no crilnina
participation for lie has only exercised his
rights over his private property as a citizen
might lawfully do without in any way in
yolving himself in the existing war. 1.-THE
act were done with the intent to aid the ]
rebellion, il might be- criminal on account Of
the intent, and he night be liable criIninalIy
by reason of it, But If not q criminal act,
1T is in violafionof no law; and there being
no unlawful purpose it is clear that it is not
q criminal act, and hence it is not unlawful.
These notes thsn stand on the footing of
private property !; and as well might it be
said that specific private property in this
State was not O sufficient consideration for
q contract during the war as to say that
these notes which were received without
any illegal faint could not form ayalid con-
sideratiUn for a contract. For the private
property of the citizen of the Confederate
States was essentially the materiA resource
on which the rebellion and the success of
the whole cause depended 1t was the
source from which revenue, tbs sinews of
war, was raised. Il was impressed to supply
r