Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1869-11-10


tants passed under a temporary allie
glance to the British government anC
were bound by such laws, and sucl
only, as il choose to recognize and i'm
pose. It is nOt~tO be Inferred from
this that the obligations of the peopl,
of Castine, as citizens of the UniteC
States, were abrOgated. They wert
suspended merely by the presence anC
only during the presence of the para
mount force. A like example is fdhInC
in the case of TampicO, occupied dur
ing the war with Mexico by the troops
of the United States. 1t was deter
mined by this court in Fleming VS.
Page g Howard, 6l4) that although
Tampic0 did not become a part of the
United States in consequence of thai
occupation, still having come together
| with the whole State of Tamaulipas
of which it was part, into the eXclu
sive possession of the national forces
ii must be regarded and respected by
other nations as the territory of tht
| nited States. There were cases o.
temporary possession of territory by
lawful and regular governments a
war with the country of which the
] n u
The central government established
for the insurgent States differed from
the temporary governments at Castint
and TampicO in the circumstance that
lis authority did not originate in law.
full acts of regular war; but il was moi
on that account less actual or less su.
preme, and we think that it must bt
classed among the governments o.
| which these are examples. 1t is to be
observed that the rights and obliga.
/ tiOns Of belligerent were conceded tc
it in its military character very soon
/ after the war began, from motives o.
! humanity and eXpediency, BY the
! United States. The whole territory
controlled by it was thereafter held tC
/ be the enemy's territory, and the in
/ habitants of that territory were held,
in most respect, for enemies. To the
! extent, then, of actual supremacy
however unlawfuliy gained, in all
| matters of government within its
| military lines the power of the insur.
! gent government cannot be ques-
/ toned. That supremacy would moi
/ justify acts of hostility to the United
! States. How far it should excuse
Z
government upon the re-estah.
! lishment of its authority. But il
made civil obedience to its authority
not only a necessity, but "a duty. With.
out such obedience, civil order was
/ impossible. 1t was by this Govern
ment exercising its power through an
immense territory that the Confeder-
ate notes were issued early in the war
and these notes in a short time bt.
| came almost exclusively the currency
I of the insurgent States. As contracts
/ in themselves, in the contingency OF
successful revolution, these notes were
nullities; for, except in that event,
/ there could be no payer. They bore
/ indeed, this character upon their face;
for they were made payable only ''af
ter ratification of peace between the
! Confederate States and the United
States Of America" While the war
lasted, however, they had a certain
contingent value, and were used as
money in nearly all the business
transactions Of many millions of peO-
pie. They must be regarded, there
fore, as q currency imposed on the
community by Irresistible force. II
seems to follow as a necessary conse-
quence, from the actual supremacy of
the insugent Government, as a bellig-
erent, within the territory where il
circulated, and the necessity of civil
obedience Oh the part OF aid who re-
manned in il, that the currency must
be regarded in the courts OflaW in the
same light as if 1t had been issued by
foreign government temporarily oc-
cupying a part of the territory of the
United States. Contracts stipulating
for payment in that currency cannot
be regarded as made in aid of the for
eign invasion in the one case, or ofthc
domestic insurrectiOn i'm the other.
They nave no necessary relation to
the hostile government, whether in
vadiag or insurgent. They are trans
actions in the ordinary course of civil
society, and though they NAV indi-
rectly and remotely promote the ends
of the unlawful government, are with
out blame, except when proved to
have been entered into with actual in
tent TO further the invasion or insur-
rectiOn. We cannot doubt that such
contracts should be enforced in the
courts of the United States, after the
restoration of peace, to the extent of
their first obligation.
The first question, therefore, must
receive aa Affirmative answer. The
second question, whether evidence
can be received to prove that prom
ise made in one of the insurgent States,
and expressed to be for the payment
Of dollars, without qualifying words,
was, In fact, made for the payment of
any other than lawful dollars of the
United States, is next to he cOnsid-
cred. 1t is quite clear that a contract
to pay dollars, made between citizens
of any State Of the Union maintaining
its constitutional relations with the
National Government, is a contract to
pay lawful money of the United
States, and cannot be modified or ex-
planned by parole evidence. But il is
equally clear if in any other country
coins or notes denOminated dollars
should be authorized Of different value
lg0m the coins or notes which are cur
rent here under that name, that in a
suit upon a contract to pay dollars
made in that country, evidence would
be admitted TO prove what kind of dol
lars were intended; and if il should
turn out that foreign dollars were
meant to prove their equivalent value
in lawful money of the United. States,
such evidence does not modify or alter
the contract. 1t simply explains an
ambiguity which, under the general
rules of evidence, may be removed by
parole evidence. We have already
seen that the people OF the insurgent
Gf1# E.FNa
eminent, were, in legal contempla-
tiOn, substantially in the same con-
dition as inhabitants Of districts of a
country occupied and controlled by
an invading belligerent. The rules
which would apply to the former case
would apply TO the latter; and as in
the former case, the people must be
regarded as subjects Of a foreign power,
and contracts among them be inter
pretel and enforced with reference 10
the laws imposed by the cOnqueror,
so in the latter ease the inhabitants
must be regarded as under the author
ity of the iEsurgent belligerents actu-
ally established as the government of
the country, aud contracts made with
them must be interpreted and referred
with reference to the condition of
things created by the acts of the gov
erning pOW0r, 1T is said, indeed, that
under the insuTgGnt government the
word dollar had the same meaning as
under the government Of the United
States; that the Confederate notes
were never made legal tender, and,
therefore, that 10 evidence can be re-
ceived to show any other meaning of
the word when used in n contract.
But il must be remembered that the
whole condition of things in the
insurgent States was matter OF
fact rather than matter of law,
and, as a matter of fact, these notes,
paysble at a future and contingent
day, which has not arrived, and can
never arrive, were forced into circula-
ton as dollars, if not directly by the
| Legislation, vet indirectly and quite as
effectively by the acts of the insurgent
Considered in them
selves and IN the light OF subsequent
events these notes had DO real value,
but they were made current as dollars
by Irresistible force; they were the
only measure of value which this peo-
pie had, and their use was matter
OF almost absolute necessity, and this
gave them sort Of value, insignificant
ana pnecarious enough, it is true, but
always having a sufficiently definite
relation to gold and silver, the univer-
sal measure of value. so that il was
easy to ascertain how much gold and
silver was the real equivalent Of sum
expressed in the currency.
In the lights of these facts IL seems