Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1869-11-06
The Confederate Dollar and it's
Status i'm the Contract and after
the War.

WASHINGTON, D. c., Nov. 1.-The follow
ing important opinion was delivered to-day |
in the Supreme Court of the United States
by Chief Justice Chase:
No. 112. Thorington CS. Smith d Hart
ley.-OpiniOn of the Court by Chief Justice
Chase.
This is a bill in equity for the enforce
menG of a vendors lien.
It is not denied that Smith d Hartley
purchased Thorington's land, or that they
executed to him their promisory note for
part of the purchase money, as set forth IN
his bill; or that, if there was nothing more
in the case, he would be entitled to decree
for the amount of the note and interest,
and for the sale of the land to satisfy the
debt. But it is insisted, by the way Of
| defence that the negotiation for the purchase
of the land took place, and that the note In
| controversy, payable one day after date,
was made, at Montgomery, in the State OF
| Alabama, where all the parties resided In
| November, 1864, at which time the author
| itv of the United States was excluded from
| that portion of the State, and the only
| currency in use consisted of Confederate
| Treasury notes, issued and put in circula-
| ton by persons exercising the ruling power
/ Of the State in rebellion, known as the
| Confederate government.
| It'll also insisted that the land purchased
was worth no more than three thousand
dollars in lawful money; that the contract
price was forty-fve thousand dollars; that
this price. by the agreement of the parties,
was to be paid in Confederate notes; that
thirty-ive thousand dollars were actually
| paid in these notes, and that the note CIV
| en- for the remaining ten thousand dollars
was to be discharged in the same manner;
| and il is claimed on this state of facts, that
the vendor is entitled to no relief In
| court of the United States, and this claim
was sustained in the court below, and the
bill was dismissed. The questions before
| US on appeal are these: First, can con-
tract for the payment of Confederate notes,
made during the late rebellion, between
parties residing within the so-called Con-
federate States, be enforced at all IN the
courts of the United States? Second, can
evidence be received to prove that prom
Use expressed to be for the payment of
dollars was in fact, and for the payment OF
anv other than lawful dollars Of the United
States? Does the evidence in the record
establish the fact that the note for ten thou
sand dollars was to be paid, by agreement
l oil the DarIle9, IN hOlcSl AuO
| first question is by no means free from
difficulty 1t cannot be questioned that
| the Confederate notes were issued In furth-
GRANGE of an unlawful attempt to overthrow
the government of the United States by
insurrectionary force Nor is 1t doubtful
principle of law that no contract made in
aid of such an attempt can be enforced
through the courts of the country whose
| &c fhr1c acaoIla1 INT the
contract of the parties to this suit contract
of that character-can it be fairly described
as a contract in aid of the rebellion? In
examining this question, the state of that
part of the country in which it was made
must be considered. 1t is familiar history
that, early in 1861, the authorities OF seven
States, supported, as was alleged, by pop
ular maiorities, combined for the over
throw of the National Union, and for the
establishment within its boundaries
of a separate and independent confed,
| Grafton. A governmental organization
| representing these States WAS established
in Montgomery, in Alabama, first under
| provisional constitution, and atterward I'M
: | der a constitution intended to be perma-
I | nent In the course of a few months toul
| other States acceded to this confederation,
| | and the seat of the central authority was
i
= transferred to Richmond, in Virginia. II
was by the central authority thus organized
and under its direction, that the civil wal
was carried on upon vast scale against
the government of the United States fol
more than four years. Its power was re
cognized as supreme in nearly the whole o
/ the territory of the States confederated L
4 was the actual government OF all the lnsur
a gent States. except those portions OF then
q protected from its control by the presence
I of the armed forces of the national govern
ment. What was the precise character o
f this government in contemplation OF law
II is difficult to define it with success. An.
/ definition that may be given may not I'M
!, probably be found to require limitation ant
qualification. But the general principle
of law relating to de fdctO government Will
,, we think, conduct us to conclusion suth
!, | cientlv accurate. There are several degree
!. of what is called de .factO government
, Such government, in its highest degrees
4 assumes a character very closely resemblln
r, that of a lawful government. This
, when the usurping government expels IN
q regular authorities from their customar
= seats and functions, and establishes ltse
4 in their places, and so becomes the actuf
government of a country. The dlstln
gushing characteristics OF such govern
,a ment is. that adherents to it in war agains
,e the government de jure do not incur tn
n penalties of treason; and, under certaI
= limitations, obligations assumed by 1t l
}, behalf of the country or otherwise viii, /
70 general, be respected by the governmer
ID | de lure when restored.
Examples of this description OF govern
ment de fdct0 are found in English historI
Sc The statute II, Henry VII, G. l. (Bri
M Stat. at large,) relieves from penalty Il
a treason all persons who, in defense of Il
King for the time being, wage war again
III those who endeavor to subvert his authont
IN by force of arms, though warranted in s
doing BY the lawful monarch "a Bl. Comm
d. 10
id But this is where the usurper Obtain
lie actual possession of the royal authority
ed the kingdom; not when he has succeeds
n. only in establishing his power over partic
ce lar localities Being in such possession
es allegiance is due to him as king de tactO.
by Another example may be found in Il
ct government of England under the Cor
in monwealth, first by Parliament, and afte
wards by Cromwell as Protector. 1t "