The New York herald., 1869-04-13

| States. This purpose was undoubtedly uniaw-
full for the acts which 1t contemplated are
within the express definition OF the constitution.
reasonable. II Is true that the military board was
subsequently re0rganlzed. IL cons.stei thereaiter
OF the Governor and two other members, appointed
and removable by him, aud was therefore. ehlrep
tended to the control OF all public works ana sup
plies and to the aid OF producing within the State
by the importation OF articles necessary and
proper for such aid." And it was insisted. In
argument on behalf Of some Of the defend, ,,d,
ants, that the contract with White u Chiies
being for the purchase OF cotton cards aud
medicines. was not contract. In and OF me re,
entirely legitimate and innocent, and, therefore that
payment for those goods by the transfer Oh any pro-
adopt ADOPT this View. wy without entering at this time upon
the inquiry whether any contract mape by such
board can be sustained we are Obliged 70 say that
nave been conferred IN Mrtherance OF It's main pur.
pose, OF war against the United states and
II made In the execution OF these enlarged powers,
still contract in aid OF the rebellion and there
fore void. And cannot shut our eyes to the evi-
dence which proves that the act Of repeal was in
tended to aid rebellion by facilitating the transfer OF
these bonds. II was supposed doubtless that the
bore upon their face no direct evidence OF having
come from the possession OF any insurgent State
this repeating act it follows ,nat the title OF the
State was not divested by the act Of the
But II was insisted further In behalf OF those de-
PENDANTS. who claim certain Of these bonds by pur
chase or as collateral security that Wn,e
Chids obtained possession OF the bonds, they
are innocent holders, without notice, and entitled
to protection as such under the rules which apply to
securities which pass by delivery. These rules were
fully discussed In Murray Lardner e Wall 11S).
We held in that case that the purchase OF coupon
bonds before due, without notice and In good faith
Is unaffected by want OF title In the seller, and
that the Darden OF proof IN respect to notice
and want OF good faith is on the claimant
OF the bonds as against the purchaser. We are
entirely satisfied with this doctrine Does the State
fffpt,n dAfnn nRart ,Nf
want OF title to the bonds in White Chids? II
would be difcult to give negative answer to this
question: II there were no other proofs than the leg
But there is much other evidence of notice. The
rules to which we have adverted have never been
applied to matured obligations Purchases OF notes,
or bonds past due, take nothing but the
actual right and title OF the vendors. Brown
vs.. Davis. 81, Il. 80; Goodman vs.. Symonds,
20, How, $685. The bonds in question were
dated January l, 1851, and were redeemable after
ey e Ss 9i no iS @ the IN as u
redeemabe; but the known usage of the United
States to pay all bonds as soon as the right OF pay
ment accrues, except where distinction between
redeemabltty ana payabillty Is made by law and
shown on the face OF the bonds, requires the appli
bonds OF the United States, which have become re-
dccmable and in respect to which no such distinc-
ton has been made.
Now all the bonds In controversy had become re-
deemable before the date of ths contract with
Wnlte & Ches, and all bonds OF the same Issue
which have the endorsement OF Governor or Texas
made before the date Of the secession ordinance,
and there were no others endorsed by any governor
had been paid in coin on presentation at the Treas
tons for the pay nent or bonds without the required
endorsement and OF coupons detached from such
bonds made to that department had been denied.
AS necessary consequence, the negotiation
oi these bonds became difficult. They sold
much below the rates they would have commanded
had the title 10 them been unqueshOned. They were
bought In fact, and, under circumstances, could
ony nave been bought upon SJecul alton. The pur-
chasers took the risk OF bad title hoping doubt
less that through the action of the national govern
meat or the government OF Texas IL might be con-
verted INTO good one And 1t is true that the first
provisional Governor Of Texas encOura yed the ex-
pectation that these bonds would be ultimately paid
to the holders. But he was not authorized to make
any engagement in behalf OF the State, and,
in fact made none. 1t is true, also, that
haps, by these representations, departed to
some extent from its original rule. and
paid bonds held by some of the defendants without
the requisite endorsement But 1t /, clear tla This
cnange in the action OF the department could not
a1ect the rights OF Texas a. State OF the Union,
having government ackn0 0wledsng her obligations
TO the national constitution.
1t Is impossible, upon this evidence, to hold the
want of title IN White is Childs As these persons
acquired no right to payment OF these bonds as
through them. ON the whole case, therefore,
conclusion il that the State Of Texas Is entitled TO
the reler sought oy her bill, and decree must be
Associate Justice Grier dssented az to the jurlsd4
ton and merits Of the cause, holding that Texas
state in the Union In point OF iact and there
fore could not bring suIG In THU court aDv more
tnan could tue District OF Columbia Associate JUS
tees Swayne and Miller dis5ented as TO the question
or jurisdiction only.
The McrCadie Casc-The Appeal Dismissed for
Want OF JnrisdictiOn-Gcneral FrcmOnps
Contracts In the Department Of Missouri
The Case Of tho Steamboat Bclfast-Cotton
Specuia:ions I'm Louisiana During the Re.
beliiou-rhc Case of Rosenberg Dismissed.
wAsHINGToS, April H. 1869.
The Supreme COurt OF the United States TODAY
disposed of the OF william II. McCardle, the MIS-
sissipp editor who, 1t will be recOllected, was
arrested, tried and sentenced to Imprisonment
by the military authorities several years ago
on the charge OF writing and publishing sedl-
tious articles In his newspaper lie had appealed
from the Circuit Court of the United States for the
Southern district OF MsslssipDi. which had denied
the writ OF habeas corpus. Chef Justice Chase de-
lVerel the opinion OF the cour6 dlsmis5lng the ap-
peal for want OF jurisdiction.
The cases OF the United states, appellants, VS.. Al
bert L. MOwry, Samuel j. Morgan jonathan 7. Bur-
t0n OiIver II. Gefroy and Benjamin lIigd0n, were
appeals from the Court OF Claims. The facts are
briefly these:-In 1851 the parties abovenamed
orally supplied the Department Of the Missouri with
mortar and tug boats, railroad cars, horses, &c.
General Fremont was at tnat time IN COM
mand OF the department and McKinstry was
acting as quarermaster rle cnar1e or fraud having
been raised the secretary OF War suspended the con-
tracts. and board, under resolution OF Congress,
was appointed to investigate the claims. The parties
submitted their claims to the board, which awarded
certain amounts, Tor winch tney rccelpted unuer
protest. They afterwards seyerally brought
suit In the Court Of Claims, which allowed
them the remainder OF the money claimed
under tho contracts. The Supreme Court hold
that these parties having voluntarily come before
the board and receipted the sums allowed were
stopped from further claims IL was not designed
by the government that the proceedings should be
commenced In one tribunal and ended In another.
For these and other reasons the court Justice Nell
Son delivering the opinionl reversed the decree OF
the Court OF Claims and rcmanded the causes, with
directions to enter decree dismissing the petitions.
In the case OF the steamboat Belfast, b. q. Nelson
ct al. claimants In error vs. Boon Company ct AL,
in error to the supreme Court OF the state or Ala
bama Justice Clifford delivered the opinion OF the
court, reversing the decree OF the court below with
costs. and remandlng the cause with directions to
dismiss the libel. Tue case involved claims for
cotton lost in transportation, and which had been
insured by the owners The Court held, as against
10 lor trta