Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1869-06-03

Important I.awsuIs Isefore me Esxtsss.
From the LONDON Times, May II.

Il Ab nOHSub WHEN the reI9LlOn
between Great Britain and Americ
are assuming a troublesome com
; plexion, the accidental course of
common lawsuit has placed one 0
the two governments in position
so strange as to be hardly magma
Iible. The United States accuse US 0
having grievously wronged them b
assuming 8 state of war where nom
existed, and 50 raising "a body o
ordinary insurgents to. the Level o
an actual government with bellig.
erent rights. At this very moment
however, an action is pending in the
Court of Queens Bench in which
the United States claims toireeOyef
Certain property as successors to the
| Confederate States, and in which,
4 they are compelled not only to adj
NIT, but to establish the pretensions
Of,that very government whose au-
lhority they would otherwise repu-
diate and ydecry. During the war,
Sir Peter TAFT, an army elothier in
this country, received a large guam
tity Of cloth from The Confederate
government, to be made up into
uniforms. Before the contract,
however, could be completed, or the
goods delivered, the contest came to
an end, and now the American gov
eminent, as the heir of the contract
ing government, is suing the con-
tractor for the value of the material
supplied to him. For the mere plea
itself there appearsto be precedents,
but the difficulty is this-that the
United States can only sue as rep
resentatiVes of the Confederate
States, and that in maintaining their
suit they are necessarily driven not
only to admit, but to assert and con
tend for, many of the positions
which, when advanced by our own
government, they have fiereely i'm
pugned. OF course the defendant
is fully aware of this weakness in
the case of his adversaries, and
presses his advantage to the utmost
indeed, beyond the limits consid
cred allowable by the court. ..
The argument took the form of 8
discussion on certain "interrogato.
ries'-twenty in number-which
the defendant claimed to administer
to the plaintiffs. He desires to ask
his opponents who they are, and in
what capacity they are suing him;
what was the original constitution
of the federal Union before the war,
and what the rights retained under
that instrument by the several States
of the federation; whether certain
States did not assert their right to
leave the Union and establish an in
dependent Confederacy; whether
this right was not actually exer-
cised, and whether a de .facto gov
eminent of the Confederate States
Of America did not consequently
arise After these questions have
been answered, the defendant de-
sires to know whether the old Union
did not make war upon the new
Confederaey, and prosecute this war
for a certain period; and, finally,
claims to be told how long this state
of war continued, and when it came
to an end-in other words, at what
period the two belligerent govern
ments were superseded by a single
conquering government inheriting
all the rights of the vanquished
power. We need not say how ex-
tremely embarrassing such queries
would be likely to prove. The
United States government would,
in fact, be subjected to a critical
eross-examination under most pers
picking circumstances, for while, as
plaintiffs in the action, it would be
their interest to make out the best
case possible for the Confederate
authorities, every argument and
every piece of evidence produced
for that purpose would tell directly
against their own allegations in the
more important matter Of the Ala
bama claims. i.l4 tria t-.'. ''
No evidence of the dilemma thus
created would be more extraOrdi-
nary than the first step in the pro
ceedings as yesterday reported. The
United States sue Sir Peter TAFT as
representatives of the Confederate
States, and, in order to secure
themselves a standing ground, they
are compelled to assert that the
Confederate States were de .fact0
government. This assertion the
defendant calls upon them to prove,
and then the plaintiffs, for the pur-
pose of proof, actually put in that
very proclamation of neutrality
which in other negotiations they
have so strongly denounced. When
this proclamation was issued there
was, as they have repeatedly con-
tended, no war, and yet they now
appeal to it az evidence of the war.
Mr.. Mellish made the best he could
of the inconsistency. Though the
United States" he said, objected
to the proclamation of neutrality
| contained in Earl Russell's letter of
January, 1862, yet they not only
| admitted but eontended that in that
court such document must be taken
as conclusive" On this argument
the Lord Chief Justice promptly
observed that the court would re-
cognize the Queens proclamation,
and would take the fact as there
stated. "Aye," retorted the de-
PENDANTS counsel, " but the United
States will not, and ought we to
be bound by it while they are not
so 2'' This much debated procla-
nation, therefore, is relied upon by
the American government in a civil
suit as evidency of the existence Of
| a war and of a state of belliger.
ency, while in other negotiations il
| is condemned as having been with
out warrant in fact for that state o.
war and belligerency which it pro
fessed to recognize. Precisely tn,
same difficulty ran through tn,
whole Of the case; for, while tn,
United States refused to acknowl
edge the authority of the Confed
crate States agents, they were pre-
ferring claim which, except OF
the superstition that these agent