The democrat. [volume] (Weston, W. Va.) 1868-1874, 1869-11-08


| tue other, They have no necessary rel. :
ton to the hostile government, whether
invading or insurgcnt, They are tran
sections in the ordinary course Of civil So
riety, and, though they may indirectly
andremotely promote the ends ofshe IN.
lawful government, arc without blame ex-
cept when proved to have been entered
into with actual intent to further the in
vasion or iusurrcction. 7s a'ai
I'VE cannot doubt that such contracts
should be enforced in the Courts of the
shUnited States after The restoration Of
peace, te the qxlentof their just obliga-
ton,
The first question. therefore, must re.
eeivc an affirmative answer"
Upon the % question, the Chief Jus.
.ice said: sp suq, 50
u 1T is quite clear that a contraett to pay
dollars made between citizens ofany Stat
Of the Union maintaining its sti,u.ional
relations with the national government il
a contract to pay lawful money Of the Uni
ted States! land cannot be modified or ex-
planned BY parol evidence, 2
"Bnt it is equally clear if any other
couutry's coins or notes dcnqmipated dol
lars should be authorized Of different value
from the coins or notes which are current
here under that name, that in suit upon
contract e pay dollars made In tina,
country, evidence would be admitted 10
prove what Kind Of dollars were intended
and ifit should turn out that foreign dol.
laas were meant, toPrcyc their equivalent
valueiu lawful money. Of the United States.
such evidence does not modify or alter
the contract. Il simply explains an an.
biguity which, under the general rules Of
evidence, may be rcmoyelGby parol evil
.idencc.
,"We have already seen that tho people
Of the insurgcnt States under the Conied.
crate goycrpn,eptwere in legal contempla-
,ion, substantially in the same condition
as inhabitants of districts Off country oc-
cnpied and controlled by an invading bel
ligcrant. Tho rules which would apply in
the former case would apply in the latter,
and as in zig former case the people mus.
DO regarded as subjects Of foreign
power, and contracts nmong,hem be H.
terprctcd and enforced with reference 10
the laws imposed by the conqueror, so in
the latter case :he inhabitants must be- re-
garded as under the authority of-the in
surgent bcllIgerent power actually estab.
lishsd as the government Of the country,
aud contracts made with them must b.
Interpreted and inferred with reference to
the condition Of Thugs created BY the acts
Of tho governing power. 1t is said, in
deed, that under the insurrcnt govern
lnent the word dollar had the same mean.
ing as undcr the government ofthe United
States; that tld Confederate notes we're
never made a legal tender. and therefore
that no evidence can DO received to show
any other meaning Of the word when used
in a contract.st T}7ot ~ aElEa ~ :
HBut il must be remembered that the
whole condition Of things in tho insurecnt
States was matter Of fact rather than mat.
tor Of law; and asimallcr Of fact, these
notes. payable at a future and contingeut
day which has not arrived and can never
arrive, were forced into circulation ms
dollars, il not directly BY tho legislation.
yet indirectly and quite nseicctually,
by the acts Of tho insurgept government,
considered 10 themselves and in tho light
Of subsequent events. these notes had no
real value, but they were made current as
dollars by irresistible force. They were
the only measure Of value, which the peo-
tple had, and their use was a matter Of al.
most absolute necessity. And. This gave
them sort Of value, insignificant and
precarious enough, It I, true, but always
having q sufficiently definite rclation 10
gold aud silver, the universal measures Of
value, 50 that it was always easy to asccr.
tain how much gold and silver wos tho
real equivalent Of, u sum expressed in tlis
4 currency. tf''t.a sg.s
"1n the light Of these facts ii seems
hardly less than absurd 10 say tha. these
dollars must be regarded as identical in
kind and value with the dollars which
constitute the money oftle United States.
We cannot shut our eyes to the fact that
they were essentially difFeren. in both
respects; and it seems 10 us that no rule
Of evidence, properly understood, requires
ms 70 refuse, under the circumstances, to
admit proof Of the sense in which .lie word
dollar was actually used in the contract be-
fore us. .c,isirgn;.G
"Onr answer TO tho second question is,
therefore, also in tho affirmative. We
are clearly Of the opinion that such ,ev.
dence mus. be received 10 respect to such
cor tracts in order that justice may be done
between the parties, and that tho party en-.
titled TO be paid in those Confederate dol.
lars can only recover their actual value at
the TING of the contract IN lawful money
Of the United States" ~ r
The third question was also decided in
he affirmative. ii nc '1fii.irL
= ~, -,