Wilmington journal. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1844-1895, 1869-11-12

| insurgent government, as belligcrcnt,
within the territory whore it circulated,
and the necessity of civil obedience on
| the part of all who remained in it, that |
| this currency must be regarded in the |
courts of law in the same light as If it had |
been issued by foreign government tenn
porarily occupying part OF the territory |
| of the United States Contracts stipula-
| ting for payments i'll that currency cannot
| be regarded as made in aid OF the foreign
invasion in the one case, or OF the domes-
tic insurrection in the other They have
no necessary relation to the hostile gov
eminent, whether invading or insurgent.
They are transactions in the ordinary
course of civil socie Y, and, though they
may indirectly and remotely promote the
ends of the unlawful government, are
without blame, except when proved to
have been entered into with actual intent
to further the invasion or insurrection.-
We cannot doubt that such contracts
should be- enforced in the courts of the
United States, after the restoration of
peace, to the extent Of their first obliga-
ton. The first question, therefore, must
receive an affirmative answer. The second
question, whether evidence can be received
to prove that promise made in one OF
the insurgent States, and expressed to be
for the payment Of dollars. without quail
flying words, was, in fact, made for the
payment of any other than lawful dollars
of the United States, is next to be consid-
cred. It is quite clear that contract to
pay dollars made between citizens of any
State Of the Union maintaining its con-
stitutional relations with the national gov
eminent is a contract to pay lawful money
Of the United States and cannot be modl-
fed or explained by parole evidence. Bot
t il is equally clear, il any other country's
coins or notes dcnonlinated dollars should
be authorized of different value from the
} coins or notes which are current here I'M
der that name, that in a suit upon con
tract to pay dollars made in that country
evidence would be admitted to prove what
, kind of dollars was intended and, if it
} should turn out that foreign dollars were
meant, to prove their equivalent value IN
lawful money of the United States.
Y Such evidence does not alter or modify
the contract. It simply explains an am
: biguity which, under the general rules Of
3 evidence, may be removed by parole evil
dence We have already seen that the
4 people of the insurgent States, under this
Confederate Government, were, IN legal
: contemplation, substantially in the same
condition as inhabitants Of districts Of q
. country occupied and controlled by an in
! vading belligerent. The rules which would
apply to the former case would apply to
the latter and, as in the former case, the
people must be regarded as subjects OF a
foreign power and contracts among them
, be interpreted and enforced with reference
, to the laws imposed by the conqueror, SO
in the latter case the inhabitants must be
regarded as under the authority OF the IN
= surgent belligerents, actually established
. as the government of the country and
contracts made with them must be inter-
S~fo RI
condition of things created by the acts Of
the governing power.
It is said, indeed, that, under the lnsur-
} gent government, the word dollars had the
> same meaning as under the government OF
the United States that the Confederate
o notes were never made legal tender, and,
, therefore, that no evidence can be received
. to show any other meaning of the wore
y when used in contract.
But it must be remembered that the
!. whole condition of things in the insurgent
, States was matter of fact, rather than mat
:. ter of law; and as matter of fact these
;. notes, payable at future and contingent
! day, which has not arrived, and can never
: arrive, were forced into circulation as dol
lars, if not directly by the legislation, yet
indirectly and quite as efectually by the
It acts of the insurgent government. Con.
}, sidered in the mselves, and in the light OF
r subsequent events, these notes had no rea
r, value, but they were current as value by
II irresistible force; they were the only meas,
1t ure of value which this people had, and
q their use was matter Of almost absolute
1t necessity, and this gave them sort OF q
y value, insignificant and precarious enough
g it is true, but always having sufficient
s. definite relation to gold and silver, the uni
30 yersal measures of value, SO that 1t was
ID easy to ascertain how much gold and silver
i was the real equivalent of a sum expressed
q in the currency. In the light of these
l. facts it seems hardly less than absurd te
e say that these dollars must be regarded az
e identical in kind and value with the dol
1t lars which constitute the money of TIT
1t United States We cannot shut our eye
l. to the fact that they were essentially diff
is ferent Ia both respects, and it seems to III
- that no rule of evidence, properly under
s. stood, requires us to refuse, under the CIR
le cumstances, to admit proof Of the sense II
ID which the word dollar was actually used II
g the contract before US.
Of Our answer to the second question is
a. therefore, also in the affirmative. We ar
S. clearly of the opinion that such evidence
a. must be received in respect to such con
'd tracts in order that justice may be don
n, between the parties, and that the part
lie entitled to be paid in these Confederat
t, dollars can only receive their actual valu
a at the time and place OF the contract /
e. lawful money of the United States. w
~ do not think it necessary to go into dc
of tailed examination of the evidence in tn
W record in order to vindicate our answer t
tn the third question. 1t is enough to sa
SO that it has left no doubt in our minds tha
n the note for $4,000, to enforce paymen
os of which suit was brought in the Circul
is Court, was to be paid by agreement i
n Confederate notes. 1t follows that tn
te Judgment of the Circuit Court must be rs
as versed and the cause remanded for me-
u trial, in conformity with this opinion.
IA