The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1869-11-11
Important Decision BY the Supreme Court
of the United States.
WASHINGTON, November /.

Important Decision by the Supreme Court
of the United States.
WASHINGTON, November l.
A case of peculiar interest to the pee-
ple of the late Confederate States was de-
cided in the Supreme Court today.
The facts in this case may be briefly sta
ted as follows:
In the month of November, 1864, Smith
& Hartley, of Montgomery, Ala, purchas-
ed of one Thorington, of the same city, q
tract of land, for which they agreed to
pay $4,000. They did pay him $50, ,OO0,
and their note for the balance $4,000.
To recover these $4,000, Thorington
brought suit in the United States Circuit
Court for Alabama. The defence insisted
that at the time of transaction the authori'
ty 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 Confederate
Treasury notes. 1t was also insisted that
the land purchased was worth no more
than $4,000 in lawful money; that the
contract price was SIS, 900 and this was
to be paid in Confederate notes; that
s35 900 were actually paid in these notes,
and that the note given for the remain
ing $4,000 was to be discharged in the
same manner; and it was claimed OH 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 dismissed.
Thorington then carried his case 10 the
Supreme Court.
The questions before the Supreme Court
upon the bill were these:
(1.) Can 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
payment 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
establish the fact that the note for $4,000
was to be. paid, by agreement of the par
ties, in Confederate notes2
1t cannot be questioned that the Con-
fedcrate notes we're issued in the further
ance of an unlawful attempt to overthrow
the Government of the United States.
Nor is it doubtful principle of law that
no contracts made in aid of such an at
tempt can be enforced through the courts
of the country whose Government is thus
assailed. But was the contract OF the
parties to this suit contract in aid of
the rebellion ?
GThe Chief Justice here sketched in a
few graphic sentences the origin and
character of the Confederate Government,
and the difference between 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 facto Govern
mont Nor was it 80 acknowledged by
other Powers No treaties were made by
it. No obligations of national charac-
ter wore created by it binding after it's
dissolution by tho States which it repre-
sentcd, 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's military
character very soon after the war began,
by the United States, from motives of
humanity and expediency. The whole
territory held by it was thereupon held to
be enemy's territory. Within its limits
the authority OF the Confederate Govern
ment 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 a
duty. Without such obedience civil order
was impossible. 1t was by this Govern
ment exercising it's power through an
immense territory that the Confederate
notes were issued early in the war, and
those notes in short time became almost
exclusively tho currency of the seeded
States. As contracts, except in the con-
tingency of successful revolution, these
notes were nulities; for, except in that
event, there could be payment They
bore, indeed, this character upon their
face; for they were made payable only
aafter the ratification of treaty of peace
between the Confederate States and the
United States of America" While the
war lasted, however, they had certain
contingent value, and were used in nearly
all the business transactions of many mil
lions of people. 1t seems to follow as o
necessary consequence from the actual
supremacy of the Confederate Govern
ment that this currency must be regarded
in courts of law in the same light as if it
bad been issued By foreign Government
temporarily occupying part of the terri
tory 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.
Tha oaoond nneation Ia to ha considered