The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1869-11-05


territory controlled by it was thereafter held to
be the enemy's territory, and the inhabitants
Of that. territory were held In most respects
for enemies. To the extent, then, of actual
supremacy, however unlawfGlly gained, in all
matters OF government within its military lines,
the power Of the insurgent government cannot be
questioned. That supremacy would not justify
acts OF hostility to the United States. How lar
It should exercise them must be left to the lawful
government upon the re-establishment OF its au-
thority. But 1t made civil obedience to its au-
| thOrity not only necessity but duty. without
such obedience civil order was impossible. 1t
was by this government exercising its power
through an immense territory that the Confed-
crate notes were issued early In the war, and
these notes. in short time, became almost eX-
clusively the currency OF tholnsurgent states. AS
contracts in themselves, in the contingency OF
successful revolution, these notes were utilities,
for except in that event there could be no payer.
They BORE indeed, this character upon their face,
for they were made payable only nalter ratlnca,
States and the United States OF America" While
the war lasted, however, they mad certain
contingent value, and were USED as money
in nearly all the business sEH1 Transactions
be regarded. therefore, as currency
imposed on the community by irresistible
force 1t seems to follow as necessary conse-
quencefrom the actual supremacy OF the insur-
gent government as belligerent, within the ter.
rtory where it circulated, and the necessity OF
civil obedience on tho part OF all VINO remained
In IT, that this currency must be rerarded IN the
courts Of law in the same light as II 1t had been
issued by a foreign government temporarily oo-
cupyng q part OF the territory OF the united
States Contracts stipulaung Tor payments IN
that currency cannot be regarded as made IN alu
OF the foreign invasion in the one case, or OF the
domestic insurrection in the other They have no
necessary relation to the hostile government,
whether invading or insurgent. Ihcy are trans
actions in the ordinary course OF civll society,
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 insurrcction. we cannot doupt tIiat
such contracts should be enforced In the courts OF
the United States, after the restoration OF peace,
to the extent of their first obligation. The
first question: therefore, must receive an anirnl-
alive answer The second question, whetner
evidence can be received to prove that promise
made in one OF the insurgent States, ana e1-
pressed to be for the payment OF dollars, without
qualifying words was, in fact, made 1or the pay
nent OF any other than lawful dollars OF tne uni
ted States is next to be considered. 1t is quite
clear that contract to pay dollars made between
citizens OF any State Of the Union maintaining Its
constitutional relations with the national govern
ment is contract to pay lawful money OF the
United States, and cannot be modified or ex-
planned by parole evidence. But 1t Is equally
clear II in any other country colls or notes de-
nominated dollars should be authorized OF dlner-
cnt value from the coins or notes which are cur
rent here under that name, that In suit upon .
contract to nay dollars made in that country evil
dence would he admitted to prove what KIND OF
dollars was intended; and, If II. should turn out
that foreign dollars were meant, TO prove their
equivalent value in lawful money OF the United
States.
Such evidence does not modify or alter the con-
tract. 1t simply explains an ambiguity whicn,
under the general rules OF evidence, may be re-
moved by parole evidence. we have already
seen that the people Of the insurgent States,
under this Confederate Government, were, IN
legal contemplation, substantially IN the same
mt nf m a
occupied and controlled by an invading Delllge-
rent. The rules which would apply to the former
case would apply to the latter and, as In the 1or-
mer case, the people must be regarded as sub
iects Of q 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 insurgent Delngefents,
actually established as the government OF tine
country; and contracts made with them must be
interpreted and inferred with reference to the
condition Of things created by the acts OF the
Il is said, indeed, that under the insurgent
government the word doars fpWe fp is nsa7 Pr
fhg as under tile Government oil the united
States; that the Confederate notes were never
made d legal tender; and, therefore, that no evil
dence can be received to show any other meaning
of the word when used in contract.
But IL must be remembered That the Waolc con-
dition OF things in the insurgent states was
matter fact, rather than matter OF law; and as
matter of fact these notes, payable at o luture
and contingent day, which has not arrived, and
can never arrive, were forced into circulation as
dollars II not directly by the legislation, yet ndl-
rectly and quite as efIectuauy by the acts OF tne
insurgent government. Considered In tnem-
selves and in the light OF subsequent events,
these notes had no real value, but they were
current MS value by Irresistible force; they were
the only measure OF value which this people had,
and their use was matter OF almost aDsoiute
necessity, and this gave them sort OF value,
insignificant and precarlous enough IL Is true,
gold and silver, the universal measures Oh Valuc,
80 that 1t was easy to ascertain how mucn gold
and silver was the real equivalent OF sum eA-
pressed in the currency. In the light OF these
facts il seems hardly less than absurd to say tat
these dollars must be regarded as luentleai III u
kind and value with the dollars which constitute
the money Of the United States. we cannot sIut
our eyes to the fact that they were essentially dll-
ferent in both respects, anu IL seems 10 US tnat
no rule OF evidence, properly uuuerstoou, re-
ulircs us to refuse, under the circumstances, 10
admit proof of the sense in which the word dollar
was actually used in the contract before us.
Our answer 10 the second question Is, therefore,
also i'm the Affirmative. We are clearly oil the
Opinion that such evidence must be received III
respect to such contracts in order that justice
NAV l,e done between the parties and that the
party entitled 10 he pa!d In tnesc confederate
dollars can only receive their actual value at the
time and place of the contract In lawful money OF
the United States. We do not think II necessary
to 20 into q detailed examination or the evidence
I'm the record in order TO vlndicate our answer to
the third question. II is enough 10 say fhat II mas
left no doubt in our minds that the note for SlO,-
600 To enforce payncnt or which suit was
brought in the Circuit Court, was to be paid by
agreement in Confederate notes. 1t follows that
the Judgment Of the Circuit Court must be levers-
cd and the cause remanded for new trial, III
conformity with this opinion.