Staunton vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1860-1896, 1869-11-05
[specialto the Dispatch
DeDfs Due in Confederate Money to be
Scaled-Opini0n of Chief Justice Chase in
the Supreme Court.
WASHINGTON, November !, 1869.

y case or 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, 1864, Smith
Il Hartley, OF Montgomery, Ala, purchased
OF one lhorlngton, of the same city, tract
OF land, for which they agreed to pay 49,
ooo. They did pay him s35 900, and gave
their note for the balance $40, 600 Tore
cover these SO, 900 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 por-
ton of the State Of Alabama, where all the
parties resided, and the oaly currency in use
consisted OF Confederate Treasury notes 1t
was also insisted that the land purchased was
worth no more than So, 900 in lawful money;
that the contract price was S45 900; that
this was to be paid in Confederate notes 3
that 1884, were actually paid in these
notes, and that the note given for the re-
naming $4,000 was to be discharged in
the same manner and it Was claimed on this
S'"oS Va idCtH thaU JIG sCEuOl Is CuLluitG To 10
relief in court Of the United States. This
claim was sustained in the lower court, and
the bill was dismissed. Thorington then
carried his case to the Supreme Court.
The questions before the Supreme Court
upon the bill were these:
% Can contract for the payment Of
Confederate notes, made during the late re-
bellion 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 express ed to be for the paw
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 es-
tablish the fact that the note for SIC, 900
was to be paid, by agreement of the parties,
in Confederate notes?
1t cannot be questioned that the Confede-
rate notes were issued in furtherance of an
unlawful attempt to overthrow the Govern
ment Of the United States. Nor is it doubt
full principle of law that no contracts made
in aid Of such an attempt can be enforced
through the courts of the country whose
Government is thus assaled But was the
contract Of the parties to this suit 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 a de facto Government
and Government de jure, illustrating it by
interesting examples from English history
1t is very certain that the Confederate
Government was not acknowledged by the
United States as de tacto Government
Nor was it so acknowledged by other Pow
ers. No treaties were made by it. No OBJ
legations ola national character were created
by it binding after its dissolution by the
States which it represented, Or on the Ma
tional Government.
The central government established for
the Confederate States was government Of
force sustained by military power and the
rights ard obligations of belligerent power
were conceded to it in its military character
very soon after the war began, by the United
States, from motives of humanity and expe-
diency. 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 hostility
to the United States, but it made obedience
to its authority not only a necessity but
duty. Without such obedience civil order
was impossible It was by this Government
exercising its power through an immense
territory that the Confederate notes were is
sued early in the war, and those notes in
short time became almost exclusively the
currency Of the seeded States. AS contracts,
except in the contingency of successful rev.
olution, these notes were utilities for, ex-
cept il that event, there could be no pay
ment They bore, indeed. this character
upon their face; for they were made paya-
BILE only after the ratification Of a 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. It seems to follow as a necessary
consequence from the actual supremacy Of
the Confederate Government that this cur
rency must be regarded in courts Of law in
the same light as if it had been issued by a
foreign Government temporarily occupying
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, therefore, must
receive an affirmative answer,
The second question to be considered 1t
is quite clear that q contract to pay dollars
made between citizens of any State Of the
Union which maintains its constitutional re-
lations with the National Government is a
contract to pay lawful money Of the United
States. and cannot be modified or explained
by parole evidence. It is equally clear that
if, in any other country, coins OF 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 equivalent
value in lawful money Of the United States.
The same rule must apply in the ease of the
Coafed Government. Our answer to
the second question must also be in the affirm
alive
With regard to the third question, It is
enough to say tbat4il has left no doubt on
our minds that the note for $40, 900, to en-
force the payment of which suit was brought
in the Circuit Court, was to be paid by
agreement in Confederate notes. 1t follows
that the judgement Of the Circuit Court must
be reversed, and the cause remanded for
new trial in conformity with this opinion.
ssss--ss---ss-- -
The PRoposEp TENNESSEE STATE CoNgEN-
r1oN-THE FRANcHIsE-Ex- PRESIDENT JOHN.
SON. &c Nashville, October 31.--The
lower house Of our Legislature has been the