The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1869-11-02
TELEGRApHIc NEWS.
LATEST WASHINGTON NEWS.

LATEST WASHINGTON NEWS.
Debts Cue in Confederate Money to
be scaIed---Opinion OF Chief Justice
Chase I'm the Supreme Court.
Special to the Dispatch.
WASHINGTON, November /, 1859.
A case of peculiar interest to the people
of the late Confederate States was decided
in the Supreme Court to-day.
The facts in this case may be briefly stated
as follows:
In the month of November, 1854, Smith
s. Hartley, of Montgomery, Ala, purchased
of one Thorington, Of the same city, tract
of land, for which they agreed to pay 49,
900. They did pay him $4,000, and gave
their note for the balance-210, 900. To re-
cover these 10000 Thorington brought suit
in the United States Circuit Court for Ala
bama. The defence insisted that at the
time of the transaction the authority OF
the United States was excluded from
that portion of the State Of Alabama,
where all the parties resided, and the
ONLY currency in use consisted of Contede-
rate Treasury notes. 1t was also insisted
that the land purchased was worth no more
than s., 900 in lawful money; that the con-
tract price was $45, 900; that this was to be
paid in Confederate notes; that S35,0OO
were actually paid in these notes, and that
the note given for the remaining BIC, GOO was
to be discharged in the same manner; and
it was claimed on this state Of facts that the
vendor is entitled to no relief in court OF
the United States. This claim was sustained
in the lower court, and the bill was dis
missed. Thorington then carried his case
to the Supreme Court.
The questions before the Supreme Court
upon the bill were these:
a. Can a contract for the payment OF
Confederate notes, made during the Late
rebellion between parties residing within the
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 pay
ment of dollars was in fact made for the
payment of any other than lawful dollars
Of the United States?
(3.) Does the evidence in the record estab-
lish the fact that the note for $40, 600 was to
be paid, by agreement of the parties, in Con-
federatc notes?
1t cannot be questioned that the Confede-
rate notes were issued in filrtherance of an
unlawful attempt to overthrow the Govern
ment of the United States. Nor is it q
doubtful principle of law that no contracts
made in aid of such an attempt can be en-
forced through the courts Of the country
whose Government is thus assailed. But
was the contract of the parties to this suit
a contract in aid Of the rebellion!
THE Chief Justice here sketched in few
graphic sentences the origin and character
of the Confederate Government, and the
difference between de .fdcto Government
and Government de jure, illustrating it by
interesting examples from English history
It is very certain that the Confederate
Government was not acknowledged by the
United States as a de .facto Government
Norwasit so acknowledged by other Powers.
No treaties were made by it. No obligations
of a national character were created by 1t
binding after it's dissolution by the States
which it represented, or on the National
Government.
The central government established for
the Confederate States was government OF
force sustained by military power, and the
rights and obligations of belligerent power
were conceded to it i'll its military character
very soon after the war began, by the United
States, from motives of humanity and expe-
diencv. The whole territory held by it was
thereupon held to be enemy's territory
Within its limits the authority Of the Con.
federate Government was supreme. That
supremacy would not justify acts of hos
tility to the United States, but it made
obedience to its authority not only a
necessity but duty. Without such
obedience civil order was impossible.
1t was by this Government exercising its
power through an immense territory that
the Confederate notes were issued early in
the war, and those notes in short time be-
came almost excl usively the currency OF
the seeded States. AS contracts, except in
the contingency OF successful revolution,
these notes were utilities; for, except in
that event, there could be no payment.
They bore, indeed, this character upon
their face; for they were made payable
only "after the ratification Of treaty OF
peace between the Confederate States and
the United States of America" While the
war lasted, however, they had a certain con-
tingent value, and were used in nearly all
the business transactions of many millions
Of people. 1t seems to follow as q neces-
sary consequence from the actual supre-
macy of the Confederate Government that
this currency must be regarded in courts OF
law in the same light as if it had been issued
by foreign Government temporarily occll-
plying part of the territory of the United
States.
We cannot doubt that such contracts
should be enforced in the courts of the
United States. The first question, there.
fore, must receive an affirmative answer.
The second question to be considered. 1t
is quite clear that contract to pay dollars
made between citizens of any State of the
Union which maintains its constitutional
relations with the National Government is o
contract to pay lawful money of the United
States, and cannot be modified or explained
by parole evidence. 1t is equally clear that
if, in any other country, coins or notes de-
nominated dollars should be authorized OF
a different value from the coins or notes
which have been current under that name,
evidence would be admitted to prove their
an,1ivalent yaIua in lawful money of the
United States. The same rule must apply
in the case of the Confederate Government.
Our answer to the second question must also