The New Orleans crescent. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1866-1869, 1868-12-11
Important DeeisioB.
WHAT CONSTITUTES DE FAcTo G0vKRNMENT-THE
CONFEDERATE GOVERNMENT DECLARED TO BIZ
OUTSIDE THE CATEGORY.

CONFEDERATE GOVERNMENT DECLARED TO BE
OUTSIDE THE CATEGORY.
Among the most important opinions delivered
BY Chief Justice Chase at the November term OF
the Circuit Court in Richmond Va, is that In the
case of administrators Of Catharine G. Keppel vs..
the Petersburg Railroad Company. The following
is that portion of the opinion which eucidates tne
character of the Confederacy as government:
The first Of these propositions rests upon the
premises that the Confederate organization was
government de fdcto, and that acts In obedience
TO its authority must be presumed to have been
done under the compulsion of superior force. by
reason of which the actors discharged from all
ulttrior responsibility.
or this il may be observed, in the first place.
that the term de tdcto, as descriptive OF govern
ment, has no fixed and definite sense.
Il is, perhaps, most correctly used as signifying
q government completely, though only tempo
rsrily established in place of the lawful or regu-
lar government, occupying its capital and exer-
cising its power.
Examples of this kind of de facto governments
are found in English history; some in the violent
seizure and temporary possession of royal power,
and one, so conspicuous that the world can never
lose the sense Of it, in the establishment OF the
commonwealth and the protectorate in place OF
the monarchy.
In this sense, certainly, the rebel government
was never a de fdcto government. It never held
the national capital. Ii never asserted any au-
thoriiy TO represent the nation. 1t was only what
IL u
seeking to establish confederacy of States, and
dependent wholly for success upon the success OF
the revolution.
The term, however, is often used, and perhaps
more frequently in sense less precise. as signify
ing any organized government established for the
time over considerable territory. in exclusion of
the regular Cover nment. A de fdcto government
of this sort is not dstnguishable In principle from
9th er unlawful combinations. II is distinguishable
in fact mainly by power and in territorial control.
nd hv IL % In
by the national government.
Treason in England is not committed against
the lawful government by acts Of hostility done
in support Of de Jdcto government, strictly So
called This is the rule established by the statute,
III Henry VII, passed with reference TO the fire.
quent changes in the royal authority during the
civil wars Of York and Lancaster. And the rea-
son of this rule, doubtless extended to acts done
under the Parliament and the protector, while in
possession of the supreme authority in England (;
though the benefit of it was denied TO many. and
in most conspicuous instance to Sir Henry Vane.
And il may be well doubted whether in this coun-
Try treason against the United States could be
committed in obedience to usurping president
and Congress, exercising unconstitutional and
unlawful power at the seat of the national gov
ernment.
But il cannot be maintained that acts against
the king, committed in obedience to usurper
temporarily in possession Of part OF the king
dom, would not be treason in England; or that
levyiug war against the United States by persons,
however combined and confederated (even Though
successful in establishing their actual authority In
several StatesJ, would not be treason here.
What effect, then, is to be given to acts done
under the authority of an insurgent body, actually
organized as government, and actually exercis-
ing the powers of q government, with a large ex-
tent of territory. not merely in hostility to the reg
uar and lawful government, but In complete ex-
cluson of it from the whole territory subject to
the insurgent control?
Ii is not easy to give general answer to this
nr@ ha ham ia oil hat nOno Of
its acts in hostility to the regular government can
be recognized as lawful; on the other IL is equally
clear that transactions between individuals which
would be legal and binding under ordinary cir
cumstsnces, cannot be pronounced illegal and of
no obligation because done in conformity with
laws enacted or directions given by the usurping
power.
Between these extremes of lawful and unlawful
there is q large variety of transactions to which it
is difficult to apply strictly any general rule, but it
may be safely said that transactions of the usurp
ing authority preudicial to the Interests of citi-
zens of other STATES excluded by the insurrection
and by the policy Of the national government
from the and oversight of their own interests
within the States in rebellion, cannot be upheld 10
the courts Of that government
In the case before us. for example, Mrs. Keep.
pei was the undOubted owner Of 304 shares Of the
stock of the Petersburg Railroad company, and
wss clearly entitled to her just proportion of its
earnings. But shs was denounced as an alien
enemy by the Confederate government she was
excluded from all control of her stock. and all
ceipts of dividends and, more than this the
stock was sequestered, or rather confscated, and
partly sold. and the dividends paid to the pur
chssers, and TO a person called q receiver, ap-
pointed under the rebel authority. Can it be
maintained that her right to the dividends upon
her stock was defeated by these transactions ?
We think not. We cannot regard the Confeder-
ate government as de fdcto government in any
such sense that its acts are entitled TO judicial re-
cogntion as valid. On the contrary, we are OBJ
liged to regard it as combination or unlawful
confederacy organized for the overthrow of the
national government, and its acts for the confsca-
ton or sequestratien of the private property of
the citizens of the United States as null and Of no
effect. The appointment of the receiver, the sale
OF the stock. the payment of the dividends, must
all be regarded part of the process of seques-
tration or confscaton and all as equally void.