Bristol news. [volume] (Bristol, Va. & Tenn.) 1867-189?, 1869-11-12
Law INTELLIGENCE.
UNITED STATES SUP EME COURT.
OPINION OF CHIEF JUSTICE CHASE
ON THE LEGALITY OF CONTRACTS
IN COyFEDER ATE NOTES.

WAsH1SGrcN, Nov. I.-The following i'm
portanB opinion vas delivered to-day In the
Supreme Court Of the United States:
Thornington agt. Smith and Hurley -Opin-
ion Of the Court by Chief Justice Uhase.-
This In a bill in equity for The enforcement
Of vendors lien Il is not denied that
Smith and Hartley purchased Thorning
tons land, or that they executed to him
iheir promiss0ry note for part Of the pur-
chase money, as set krsh in his bill or
sA-A, ~ there ~as aething mora in the case,
he would be entitled % q decree ar tne
amount OF the note and interest, and for
the sale ss the land 20 satisfy the debt.
"a Bot it ID insisted by the way OF defense,
that tho negotiation fot the purchase Of the
land took place, and that the note In con-
trorersy, payable one day After date, was
made at Montgomery, in the State OF Ala
bama, where all the parties resided In No
yembsr, 10 64, at which time the authority
Of the United States was excluded from that
portiou Of the state. aud, the only currency
In use consisted of Confederate treasury
a ties issued, and put IN circulation By per-
sons exercising the ruling power Of the State
Ga rebellien, known as the Confederate Gov
arnment. II was also insisted that the land
purchased was worth no more than % 900
in lawful money that the contract price
was S45. 900 /; that this price by the Agree
ment of the parties was N be paid In Con-
federate notes that S35 600 we're actually
paid in these notes and that the note given
for the remaining 10000 was to be dis
charged in the same manner; and t Is
claimed, on this stata OF facts, tnat tho ven-
dor is entitled TO no relief in Court OF the
United States. And this claim was sus-
tanned in the court below, and the bill was
dismissed. The questions before Us on Ap-
peal are these;
FIRST. Caa . contract for the payment Of
| Confederate notes, made during the late
| Rebe lion, between parties residing within
| the sO-called Confederate StatesA be Gu
forced at all in the Courts OF the United
| Stated
gecond, Can o7iiance be received to
nrove that promise Expressed 10 oe for the
| navment Of dollars was, in fact, and for the
| payment Of any other than lawful dollars
| Of the United States
| Third, Does the evidence IN the record
establish the fact that the note for $4,000
was 70 be paid by agreeniunt Of the parties
! in Confederate notes
The 6rst question is by no means free
from difficulty. IL cannot be questioned
that the Confederate notes we're issued In
furtherance Of an unlawful attempt TO over
throw the Government OF the United States
by insurrectiouary force. Nor is 1t doubt.
full principle Of law that no contract made
in aid OF such an attempt can be enforced
| through the courts Of the country whost
Goyernment is thus Assailed. Bat was the
contract Of the parties 10 this suit a con
tract Of that character can IL bs fairly do
scribed as a contract in aid Of the Rebel
lion In examining this question the state O
that part Of the country in which 10 wa
made must be considered. 1t Ia familia
T. i 4 h.. -.
seven States, supported, as was alleged, b.
/. pooalar m iorities, combined for the over
, throq of the National Union, and for tn
establishment within its boundaries Of
| .eDarate and independent confederation
, In the course OF a few mouths four OJhe
4 States accedad TO this confederation, an
the seat OF the central authority was trans
/. ferred 10 Richmond, in Virginia. 10 wa
by the central authority thus rganizec
aud under its direction, that the civil wa
z was carried on upon a vast scale against tn
Z Government OF the United States for NOR
l., han four years. Its power was r. c gu ze
D as supreme in nearly the whole Of the terr
3. tory OF the States c0nledersted. 10 was th
actual Government Of all the insurge'
States. except those portions Of them pro
tected from its control by the presence
), the armed forces Of the National Cover
Z ment. What was the precise character
it this Government Ia contemplation OF law
II is difficult to dthne it with exictnes
g Bat the general principles Of law reiatir
lt 70 ds factO government will we think, eol
/. duct q TO a conclusion sufficiently aeeura1
Is There are several degrees Of what 10 cAlis
/ fs fsct0 government. Such governmen
y In It's highest degrees, character Vel
gi closely resembling that Of lawful COVER
ment. This Is when the usurping Cover
Of ment sxpels- tho regular authorities no
= their Customary seats and functions, Al
il establiahes itsslf In their place, and 20 b
10 comes tho actual government OF counir
J. rhe distinguishing cAarActerisnea OF saen
e. rossrnmsaI Is thai sdhersnts 10 IL IN "
& against the goversment die J'ue do not Inc
y the penalties Of treason aud, unaer q
tain Limitations, obhgaIiona assumed by u
Of behalf Of the country, OF otherwise VIII
I'd general DO rsspecn d BY the goyernment
10 lure when restored. An example may
6auna in the g0Yornment Of England und