Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1868-12-14
msnt, occupying its capital and exsrois-

WEI "a Ee-814
and one, 60 conspicuous that the world
can never lose the sense OF 1t, in the es-
of the Commonwealth and
In place of the monarchy.
Ia this sense, certainly, the Rebel Gov
erpmsnt was never q de JGcto Govern
meut. It never asserted any authority
to Represent the nation. Il was only
what Ii professed to be, q revolutionary
organization, seeking TO establish q con-
faderaey of States. disconnected rom the
States, and dependent wholly for
sueesss upon the success Of the revolu-
ton.
The term, however, Ia often used, and
perhaps more frequently, In s sense less
precise, as signifyinR any organized gov
ernment established for the time y e q
considerable territory, In exclusion Of
the regular government. A de (Gct0
government of this sort Is not dis'ia.
guishsble In principle from other unlsw-
fat combinations. It Ia dIstlDgulshable,
in fact, mainly by power, and In terrific
rial control, and by the policy usually
adopted 10 relation to Il by the national
government.
Treason In f. igland IL not committed
against tbe Is ful government by acts o.
hostility done IA support OF a dc JGcto
governRtn'. strictly 30 called. This is
the rule % a1lished by the statute, IL
Henry VII passed with reference to the
frequent changes Ia the royal authority,
during the civil var Of York and Lsn-
caster, and tho reason OF the rule, doubt
lees, extended TO acts done IN the Psrlis-
ment, and by the Protector, while In
possession of the supreme bower in Eng
land, though the benefit of IL wss denied
.. 5000 80 - = nnCaf annEnEonzEra IN
stance to Sir Henry Vane. Aud 1t may
be well doubted whether in this coudG~
treason against the United States could
be committed Ia obedience to q asurplng
President and Congress, exercising I'M
constitutional and unlawful power at the
seat OF the national government.
But Il cannot be maintained that ects
against the King, committed In obedl-
enCe to q usurpef temporarily Ia possess
sion Of a part OF the Kingdom, would
not be treason In Englaud; or that levy
ing war against the Unitsd States by
persons, however combined ard cOnfed-
Grated, (even though successful 10 estab-
lishing their actual authority In several
Ststee,) would not be treason here.
What effect, then, Is to De given to
acts done under the authority OF RB In
surgent body, actually ~organized as q
government, and actually exercising the
20 @ers OF s government, Within s large
extent Of territory, not merely In hoetil-
ity to the regular and lswful govern
ment, but in complete exclusi0n Of 1t
from the whole territory subject 70 the
ibsurgsnt control7
1t 10 not eSsy to give q general answer
to this question. On the one hand, IL Is
clear that one Of It's acts In hostility 10
the regular government = be reeog-
nizsd SIS lawful on the other hand, It Is
equally clear that transactions between
individuals, which would be legal and
binding under ordinary circumstances,
cannot b pronounced illegal and Of no
Obligation, because done in conformity
with laws enacted or directions given By
the usurpiDg power.
Bstween the extremes OF lawful and
unlawful, there Il aIarge variety Of tFsns-
actions 10 which IL is difficult to apply
strictly any general rule but 1t may be
safely said that transactions OF the usurp-
ing authority, p~TeIudicial TO ths interests
Of citizens OF ctaer States excluded By
the iosoTiect;0a and by the policy OF the
national government fron the care and
oversight OF their own interests within
the States In rebellion, cannot be upheld
In the courts Of that government.
In the csse before 20, Tor example, Mrs.
Ksppsll wss the undoubted owner CT
three hundred and four shares of the
stock OF the Petersburg Railroad Com
psny, and was clearly entitled to her
just proportion Of its earnings. Bat che
was denOuncsd sn alien enemy by the
Confederate Government. She was ex-
GUIDED from all control of her stock ard
!. rs -S1@ ~ IaufAAnAn 80 Ntrn.
this, the stock was ssqGesteTej, or rather
c~ontiscstad, and partly sold, and the
dividends paid to the purchasers, and 20
q person called a receiver, appointed N.
der the rebel authority. Can 1t be maiD-
taiued hat her right 70 the dividends
upon her stock was dsfasted by these
transactions? We think not. we csn-
not regard the Confederate government
as s deJeeto government IN any such
sense that lie sots are entitled to Judicial
recognition rs valid. On the CONTRARY.
VS. are ooligei TO regard II rs 4 oombina-
tlon or unlawful o~OnfedeEacy organized
for the overthrow Of the National Gov
eminent, and its acts for the eonascs-
ton or sequestrSt!aa OF the private
property OF the citizens CT the United
s ates, as null and of no effect. The SD
ofa receiver, the sale Of the
stock, the payments Of the dividends,
must all be regarded 81 a part OF the pro
cess OF sequestration or oontiscatiop, and
all as equally void,
But 90 cannot agree that tbis rule is
fairly applicable to this case. 1t does not
appear that there was any acting apart
Of ciSidends, Or that sny soros was ao-
tlGily used or threatened. On the con-
lrary, the action of the company in en-
p!oyiDg their railroad In the service Of
the Confederate government, and the abb
OF scy protest or tbs part OF any Of
is officers agsiDst the unlawful payment
Of dividends, afford q reasonable infer
that they were rot involuntary ao
cessories &c the whole action o! that gov
srnment, No reasonable application OF
ths principles relied upon, therefore,
will excuse the company from its lisbili-
y to its stockholders. And public policy
requires the protection 0: stock.
holders In the loyal States from any sp-
OF tbis principle not clearly de.
by the law. Mrs. KeppSli was
of the immediate security sfor-
TO Der rights by the national govern
nent, by the rebellion. IL Ia the duty of
hat goverDmsnt, ssnes that rebellion IA
suppressed, to sn5rd her, as far as Drae-
ultimate security. On tie other
lsnd, It is the obvious GlcAsss of sound
loiicy that 40 encouragement should be
siYsn TO rebellion by relieving parties
rebel control of private RESPONSE
except IN very clear CAGES OF
compulsory force, without their direct or
consent
Bot 1t ia said, admitting .he character
u the Confederate Government, In view
The law, to be such as has been stated
the company was compelled TO pay
he dividends to the parties who received !
hemt snc BY this Compulsory payment
vas discharged OF responsibility TO the
awful proprietor Of the stock.
proposition asserts the exemption /
the company from liability on the
OF vis B70jori that thsrs can be
10 responsibility wnere the loss Is Occs-
Toned by irresistible force. And II NAV
le admitted that Il the dividends belong
Dg to Mrs. keppell had been set apart
o her specially, ard the money thus set
part Rad been taken FROM the c0mpasy
Without consent on their part, ty the Rp-
lcation OF force, either actual or men
csd, under circumstances amounting 70
IuseSs, tho loss must haya been borne by
Ter. After such an appropriation of div
iende, the company would have be-
one, perhaps, the bailee for the stock
Ioider for the pTopofItoG, and az excuse
carer for hira foF pon-dslivery might
Rouse the company for nou-payment.
We think the second claim OF the COM
any q to payment In Confederate notes
qnallJ untensble; the liability of the
omeany to Mrs. Keppell for eRch divi-
end aenruAd Uhapf ~ u-aa doolaNad