The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1869-11-17

United StnIeS Opinion by
Chief Justice Chuse.
WASHINGTON, D. c.. Nov. 1.-The
im pOrlaut opinion WAS de-
livpred 70 day in the Supreme Court
of the Umte'l States:
No II2 TnoringtOn va. Smith &
HsrtIPy,-OpiniOnO Of the Court 10y
Chief Justice Chase.
This is ~ bill in Equity for the en-
forcPment of Il vendors lien.
1t is not denied that smith & Hart>
ley purch4~ed Thnringtnn's land, or
that they executed to him their prom
isSory nute for part of the purchase
money, as set forth in his bill Ur that,
ifIhere WAS nothing more in the CASE,
re would be entitled tO Il decree for
the amount of the note and interest,
aud for the sale of the land TO satisfy
:he debt. But it il insisted, by the
Way OF defence, that thu negotiation
for he PURCHASE of the land tuUk place,
add that the note in controversy, pay
anie one day after dale, WAS maue, nj
Montgomery, in the Stale ut Ala
hAma, where all the parties teslded III
NOYeInber, 1914, at which time the
authority of the United StaIe- was
CANAuANh AlOAAA AAAffI BSAAAOAA va NAAS
oJHIe, aud the only currency in use
CONSISTED of Confederate Treasury
NOTES Issued aud put III circulation 10y
persons exercising the ruling power
ut Ihe States III rebellion, known as
the Confederate Gov ernhenI.
Ii was also iusi-ted that the land
purchased whs worth no more than
three thousand dollars in lawful
mons v; that the contract price MAS
furty live Thousand dollar; that this
prIcr, by the agreement of the parties,
was 10 fIe paid in Confederate nOtes;
that thirty five thousand dollars
were ac uaiIy paid in these notes,
aud that the note given for the re
uI:Ining ten Thousand dollars was To
be discharged in The same manner;
and il II cl>1ined on this state or
facts, that the vendor il entitled 10 no
relief Ia Ii Court of the United States,
and this claim Was Su-Idlueu III the
Court l,eiOV, and tie blli was ulSmIs-
STD The QUESTION before u Oh aT'-
peal are these: FIR 9, c..n cnutract
tor JgIe payment UI Conf drr~to ;'Ote~,
made during Lae late rebellion, Ie-
tween parties reoluJIg Ni'hIn the -
called Confederate S!AIt-<, iIe enforced
at all in the Courts of the United
STATES? Second: CSn evidence be
recpiVed tO uruVe lRSt Il promise ex-
pressed 10 be 3Ur Uh- pSynieHt OF dol
lars u a. in fact, aud tur the pay yntrnC
Ofai Y JLh~r thsn awful dollars Otthe
UGItsu STaIes? Does the evidence III
the record establish the fact that the
uute for ten Thousand dollars WAS 10
he paid, by agreement 'f the parties,
Ia Confederate notes? ThS h'sG
question il hy no means free from
riItfiruity. IL caunOJ be questioned
hat the Confederate notes were Is
sued i'll fHrthGrance of an unlaw1ul
[ empt Id overthrow the Govern
InenI OF the United States by insuT-
rectiOnary force. Noe is ii doubt
iuI principle Uf law that no Contract
made III aid of such an attempt can
be enforced through the CDurts OF the
country whose government is thus
aSsailed. But WIS the contract OF the
parties to this suit acOntract of that
charActer-can it he fairly described
as a contract In aid OF the rebellion :?
In examining this question the state
OF that part of the country in which
it WaS made must be considered. 1t
is familiar history that, early III 1861,
the authorities Of seven States, SuU
ported, AS was alleged, by popular
majOrities combined, for the over
throw OfIhe National Union, and for
the establishment, within it's bound.
aries, of n separate and independent
confederation. A governmental or
ganiZation representing these States
WAS esta bIIshed at Montgomery, lis
Alabama, first under u provisional
constitution, and afterwards under h
constitution intended TO be perna-
nent In the course of a few months
fOur other States acceded TO This con
federation, and the seat of the CEN
tral authority was transferred TO
Richmond, in Virginia 1t WAS by
the central authority thus organized,
and under its direction, that the evil
war v as carried Ola upon II vast scale
against the government nf the UnIt-
Ell States for more than four years.
Its power was recognized ~ su-
pTeue in uearly the whole of the ter
riIoTy of the States cOufederHted. 1t
Was thu actual government of all the
iI.surgent States, except those por-
ttons of them protected from its con
troll hy the presence of the armed
forces of the National Government.
What was the precise character OF
this government in contPmplatiOnO of
law? It's difficult to define it with
txHctness. ANY defiRitiOn that may
he given may not probably be found
| to require limitation and qualihca
Tion.-But the general principles OF
IA W relating 10 ii Oe JGctO government
will, We think, conduct u to con
| cIusiOn sufficiently accurate. There
are several degrees of what is called
| Ce fCtcto governments. Such gov
ernmeut, in its highest degree, as
| sumes II character very cluseiy Ie'
senbiiug that OF d lawful govermmc III
This f when the usurpIng govern
meut rXpels the regular authorities
| from their customary * ats and func'
| IionS, aud establishes itself in theII
| places, and 50 becomes the actual gov
erument of the country. The dis
tinguishiug characteristics of such d
government is that adherentS Ia il IN
war against thu government dc jure d
not Incur the penalties Of LreaSOu
and, under certain limitations, OblI
CATIONS assumed by lin behalf of tht
country or otherwise will, III geneT-
a, be respected by the government
dr .jtTe when restored. ....
Examples OF this description o
government de JdctO are found il
English history. The statute IL
Henry VII, C.I.( (Brit. Stat. at large
relieves from penalties for treason al
persons who, IN defence OF the kini
lOr the time being, wage war agains
those who eudeaVOr to suoVert thi
authority by force of arms, though
warranted IN SO doing by the Lawful
monarch q Bl. COInm., I'D.
But this is where the usuTper OBJ
taius actual possession of the rOya
authority of the kingdom; not whel
he was succeeded only in establishing
his power over particular localities
Being In SUCH pOssessi8n, allie gianc
is due to him as king de JGctO.
Another example may be found Il
! the government of England unde
the Commonwealth, first by Parlls
ment and afterwards by CrOm WILL d
Protector. 1t WAS not, In the con
temptation of law, 3 government
jttTe. but it was n government dc fact
In the absolute sense. It made laws
treaties, and cOnqueSts, which It
mained the laws, treaties and coz
quests of England after the restOrs
ton. The better opinion Is that fact
done In obedience TO this gOyernmen
cOuld not be justly regarded as tres
sonAbIe, though in hostility to tn