The Athens post. [volume] (Athens, Tenn.) 1848-1917, 1869-11-12
Contracts to be Paid in Confedcr.
ate Money.

ate hontg.
From the Nashville Union and Anitricsnl
Since the close Of the war many diff
cnlties have arisen In the Southern
States from the want of an estahii@. ed
rule in regard 10 the responsibilities in.
Cured under contracts made during
the progress of the rebellion which
stipulated either for the payment OF dol.
lars. which were mutually understood
10 mean dollars of Confederate money
or so many dollars in that currency.
by the courts OF some OF the States. our.
among the rest, it has been held that
such contracts were void. Thesesu-
per-loyal Judges will now learn that
they have been hasty in their decisions.
The important points involved in he
questions arising in THE settlement OF
these contracts were definitely settled
on the LIST inst. BY the opinion of the
Supreme Court of the United States in
the case of Thorington VS.. Smith X
Hartley. from Montgomery. Ala, which
was delivered by Chief Justice Chase.
and is reproduced entire in this morn
ing's Union and american. The prin-
cipes of this decision are old in fug-
fish law, and the present application OF
thcm recognizes that the authority mlin-
tanned by military power, which was
paramount in the Confederate Suites
for more than four years was the atu-
al government of the region il occupied,
The Court stated the following points,
and gave an affirmative answer b. zach :
L. Can contract for the payment OF
Confederate notes. made during the
late rebellion, between parties residing
within the so-called Confederate States,
be enforced at all in the Courts Of the
United States?
2. Can evidence be received to prove
that promise expressed TO be for the
payment of dollars was in fact for the
payment of any other than lawful dol
lars Of the United States?
3. Does the evidence on the record
establish the fact that the note for ten
thousand dollars was to be paid. by
agreement of the parties, in Confed-
eric notes.
The principle has heretofore been
cnunciated that none of the stipulations
of contracts made to aid the rebellion
can be enforced in the courts of this
country, but the Supreme Court now
holds that inasmuch as an ordinary bus
mess transaction did not involve any
act of hostility to the government, it
must be judged by its merits; and that,
as the parties living within the Confed-
crate lines were compelled to use this
currency in general circulation in their
midst, business transactions arising
from and based on this necessity de-
serve legal recognition and protection.
The general tone Of the decision indi-
Gates disposition to substitute law and
reason for the prejudice and passion
that have marked the political treat
mcnt of questions arising out of the
late civil war. The necessity under
which the Southern people lay to sub
nit to the Confederate government Is
clearly recognized by the court; and
this clearly exhibits the injustice Of the
Radical policy which has found in the
simplest acts OF civil obedience to q
powerful dc .tacto government, and
even in acts of common humanity. a
prctcxt for DISTINGUISHING citizens who
have shown willing submission to the
restored authority of the Federal gov
The court held thGt 1.-THE
party entitled to be paid in these Con-
fedyl'ate -aplla,y can only rsaei6e their.
acthal value At the time aifdsNace of
the contract in lawful money bf the
United States" Gold was the only
. lawful money" by which the stand
ard of value of the Confederate dollar
was regulated. The following table
was made up upon that basis, and al
though itvarics somewhat as to locali-
ties, it will be found very useful to
those having settlements to make Of the
nature decided by the Supreme Court
Of the United States:
lSil--Jan, |, to Nav pcr cent below mar