Wilmington journal. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1844-1895, 1869-11-12

so many ways made themselves honorably
famous and rendered the name Of Nlr-
ginia immortal. Let us strive to place
North Carolina by her side. NJ.
THE CONFEDERATE DOLLAR,
Opinion of Chief Justice Chase, In Full
Enforcement o. Vendors Lien i'm a
Contract Entered into under tue Late
Confederate GOvernment-Ehe Conieo-
crate Dollar and its Status In the Con-
tract and after the War.
The following important opinion, de-
livered in the Supreme Court OF the United
States on Monday last, is of SO much in
terest that Southern readers will hardly
be content with the telegraphic abstract
already given in the JOURNAL, We there
fore publish the decision in full, as pro-
nounced by Chief Justice Chase:
THoRINGToN VS.. SMITH & NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS.
OF THE COURT BY CHIEF JUSTICE CHASE.
This is bin in equity for the enforce
| ment of q vendors lien.
It is not denied that Smith Hartley
purchased Thorington's land, OR that they
executed to him their promissory 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
| q 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 Mont
| pomery. in the State of Alabama, where
| all the parties resided in November. 1864,
at which time the authority 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 circulation by persons
exercising the ruling power of the States
in rebellion, known as the Confederate
government.
It was also insisted that the land pur-
chased was worth more than three thous-
and dollars in lawful money F.; that the con-
tract price was forty-fve thousand dollars
that this price, by the agreement of the
parties, was to be paid in Confederate
notes that thirty-fve thousand dollars
were actually paid in these notes ; and
that the note given for the remaining ten
thousand dollars was to be discharged in
the same manner and it is claimed on
this state of facts. that the vendor Is en-
titled 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 contract for the pay
} ment of Confederate notes, made during
: the late rebellion, between parties residing
? within the so called Confederate States, be
enforced at all in the courts Of the United
;, States ? Second, can evidence be received
80 prove that Il promise expressed to be
: for the payment of dollars was in fact, and
for the payment of any other than Lawful
, dollars IF the United States Does the
u evidence IN the record establish the fac
that the note for ten thousand dollars was
to be paid, by agreement OF the partles' II
J Confederate notes The first questlon II
by no means free from difficulty. LIZ can
not be questioned that the Confederate
T notes were issued in furtherance OF an un
lawful attempt to overthrow the Govern
I ment of the United States by insured
{ tionarv force. Nor is it doubtful prlnc1
nile of law that no contract made IN aid O
snch an attempt can be enforced through
. the courts of the country whose govern
ment is thus assailed. But was the con
} tract of the parties to this suit contrac
, of that character-can it be fairly described
t as a contract in aid Of the rebellion Ii
r examining this question, the state OF tina
t part of the country in which it was made
must be considered. It is familiar hlstor.
Y that. early in 1861, the authorities o
: seven States, supported, as was al
e legged by popular majorities combined
for the overthrow OF the Na!ona
/ Union, and for the establishment, Wlthll
J., it's boundaries, of separate and lndepen
g dent confederation. A governmental OF
y ganization, representing these States, wa
= established at Montgomery, IN Alabama
I first under provisional constitution an
o afterwards under constitution lntenoe
to be permanent. In the course OF Ie!
:, months four other States acceded TO thl
II confederation, and the seat OF the centra
1t authority was transferred to Richmond, II
I'll Virginia. 1t was by the central authoi1t
n thus organized, and under Its dlrection
/ that the civil waT vas carried on upon
J. vast scale against the Government OF I'll
United States for more than four years
!, / Its power was recognized as supreme
q nearly the whole of the territory OF In
), States confederated. It was the actus
1t government of all the insurgent States, e1
W cent those portions of them protected froI
ID its control by the presence OF the arme
lrl forces of the national government. Whs
isl was the precise character OF this govern
II ment in contemplation of law IL Is ON
ID cult to define it with exactness. ANY gel
milton that may be given may not lmproo
1s bly be- found W require limitation al
utt qualification. But the general princlpl