The Sweetwater enterprise. (Sweetwater, Tenn.) 1869-187?, 1869-11-25
Contracts to be Paid in Confederate
Money.
From the Nashville Union and Americana

From the Nashville Union and Americana
Since the close of the war many diff
fculties have arisen in the Southern States
from the want Of an established rule in
regard to the responsibilities incurred IN
der contracts made during the progress of
the, robellion which stipulated either atnr-
the payment of dollars, which were mu-
tually understood to mean dollars of con-
tederate money, or so many dollars in
that currency. By the courts of some of
the States, ours among the rest, it has
been held that such contracts were void.
These SUPERFICIAL Judges will now learn
that they have been hasty in their decis-
ions. The important points involved in
the questions arising in the settlement Of
these contracts were definitely settled on
the lst inst, by the opinion of the Su-
preme Court of the United States in the
case of Thorington VS.. Smith Il Hartley
from Montgomery, Ala, which was deliv-
cred by Chief Justice Chase, and is repro
duced entire in this mornings Union and
American. The principles of this decis-
ion are old in English law, and the pres
ent application of them recognizes that
the authority maintained by military pow
er, which was paramount in the Confed-
crate States for more than four years, was
the actual government of the region it DC
cupied. The Court stated the following
points, and gave an affirmative answer to
each:
/. Can Il contract for the payment of
Confederate notes, made during the late
rebellion, between parties residing within
the so-called Confederate States, be en-
forced at all the Courts of the United
States?
2. Can evidence be received to prove
that a promise expressed to be for the
payment of dollars was in fact for the pay
ment of any other han lawful dollars of
the United States?
3. Does the evidence on the record es-
tablish the fact that the note for ten thou
sand dollars was to be paid, by agreement
of the parties, in Confederate notes.
The principal has heretofore been enun-
ciated hat none of the stipulations of con-
tracts made to aid the rebellion can be
enforced in the courts of this country, but
the Supreme Court now holds that mas
much as an ordinary business transaction
did not involve any act of hostility to the
government, it must be judged by it's mer-
its; and that, as the parties living within
the Confederate lines were compelled to
use this currency in general circulation in
their midst, business transactions arising
from and based on this necessity deserve
legal recognition and protection. The
general tone of the decision indicates a
disposition to substitute law and reason
for the prejudice and passion that have
marked the political treatment of ques-
tions arising out of the late civil war.
The necessity under which the South
ern people lay to submit to the Confede-
rate government is clearly recognized by
the court; and this clearly exhibits the
injustice of the Republican policy which
has founded in the simplest acts of civil
obedience to a powerful de facto govern
ment, and even in the acts of common
citizens who have shown a willing submis-
sion to the restored authority of the Fed
eral government.
The court held that "the party entitled
to be paid these Confederate dollars can
only receive their actual value at the time