The evening Argus. [volume] (Rock Island, Ill.) 1861-1871, 1869-11-08
CONFEDERATE CONTRACTS.

Case of considerable interest and I'M
or,s,ca has inst been decided by the Su'
nreme Court of the United States, involving
mainly the question whether promissory
co,e made in the Confederate States during
the war and which was payable in confeder'
ate money, can be enforced as contract
in the Courts. The telegraph has imper'
fectIy reported the purport of the decision
sndwe therefore state its points fully, as
they are of interes, to the legal profession,
and to the commercial public.
In 1864 Smith h Hartley, in the state Oh
Alabama, bought of one Thorington piece
of land at the stipulated price OF Si''Ooo,
confederate currency valuation, and Pa'o
$4,000 cash in that money, executing their
nrom;ssorv note for the balance, $40 ,OOO.--
The vslue of the land in lawful money is
alleged to be about $4,000. The vendor
brough. suit in the U. S. Circuit Court ior
Alabama to enforce his lien on the land tor
the balance Of the purchase money, secured
BY the note referred TO. That court dismiss
sd his hill on the ground that Con'eoefa'e
notes being issued in furtheranee Oh Cd ~
tenn, to overthrow the government Of tne
United States, cannot IN any way DC n"Ne
the subject of contract wh'eh eou'' VI
law equity will recognize or enforce
The appeal from the judgment of the
Court below presents, as Chief Justice Chase
saws in his opinion, three questions; FIRST
can a contract for the payment OF Conleaer'
ate notes, between parties residing wi'hih
the so.called Confederate States, be enforced
at all in the courts of the United States
Second. can evidence be received to prove
that q promise expressed to be for the pay
ment of dollars was in fact, and Tor the pay
nent Of any other than lawful dollars of the
Irnitsd States? Does the evidence In the
record establish the fact that the note Tor
ten thousand dollars was to be paid, by
agreement of the parties, IN Confederate
notes?" After an elaborate review OF the
law on the duties, responsibilities and ex'
emptions of subjects or citizens OF de tdcto
Governments, which we cannot even epito'
mize here, the court find no difficulty in
answering the first question in the aihrma
tive. On this particular po'ns We give 'he
conelusion OF the court in Judge Chase
own language;
As contracts in themselves, in the contln
oancv of successful revolution, these notei
ware uuIlilies, for except in that event there
could be no payer They bore, indeed, their
character on their face, for they were mate
PAYABLE only "after ratification OF treaty
Of reAce between the Confederate States
and the United States Of America" While
the war lasted, however, they had certain
contingent value, and we're used as money
in nearly oil the business transactions o
many millions Of people. They must b.
regarded, therefore, as currency imposed
upon the community by irresistible force
IL seems to follow as necessary eonse
ouence, from the actual supremacy of tht
insureent government, as belligerent with
in the territory where 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 temporarily occupying part OF
the territory of the United States. Contracts
stipulating for payments IN that currency
cannot be regarded as made in AID OF the
foreign invasion in the one case, or OF the
domestic instruction in the other. They
have no necessary relation to the hostile
government, whether invading or insurgent
They are transactions in the ordinary course
of civil society, and although they may in
directly and remotely promote the ends o
the unlawful government, are without blame
except when proved to have been entered
into with actual intent to further the inten
ton or insurrecton. We cannot doubt tina
such contract should be enforced in tn
courts of the United States, after the resto
alton of peace, TO the extent OF their ar
obligation.
The point of the decision, overruling tn
of the court below, seems to be that althoue
the issuing by the Confederate governme
Of notes for circulation as money, was o
illegal and void act, yet as these notes we
in fact and by superior force, the only C
culating medium in commercial transaction
promises made by citizens Of the Confed,
ate government, redeemable in this meaiu
are not tainted with the illegality VIII
attaches to the issuing of notes by the 6
eminent, and may therefore be enforced
contracts, and payment required to
extent of the value of such currency in la
full money at the time the promise WAS mac
It was insisted that dollars, in such nc
meant lawful dollars, and that no eviden
could be introduced to vary the meaning
the written contract but the court also ru
against this view and held that such ev
dsnce did not tend to modify or alter tt
contract between the parties, but simp
explained an ambiguity aud made Gle
what the real contract was; and that nc
withstandiug the contract called for 100
dollars" only the actual value in lswf
money of TO- 600 Confederate dollars at Il
time and place of the contract can now
recovered.
THE LATE GEORGE PEABODY.
II ia Seldom that a death occasiong an