Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1870-02-02
THE SUPREME COURT AND THE
REBELLION.

thority OF the Government. During
the continuance of the war the doc
trine Of the United States was strong
and decided against the policy Of ad-
hitting that the insurgents had d gov
eminent, or that they were entitled to
any rights as citizens or subjects of an
Independent, or quasi independent,
jurisdiction. The only instance in
which this position vas relaxed was in
regard to the arrangements for the
exchange of prisoners of war. HUI
manity required-both for the sake of
our own soldiers who were captives,
and for the misguided rebels who were
taken by It's In armsNthat belligerent
rights should be accorded to the insur-
gents rs far as regarded the treatment
of prisoners. Even with that conces-
sion many evils YER suffered, and
outrage, barbarity and wrong pcrpe-
trated upon the Union prisoners at
Libby, Belle Isle, Salisbury and An
dersonville. During the war it was
unwise to call In the civil courts to
adjudicate upon the condition of per-
sons engaged in the rebellion. Since
the contest has closed, some questions
have arisen in regard to the rights aud
standing of persons who took part in
| the rebellion, or who acted under it,
which have been sufficient to establish
certain principles which will hereafter
be a rule of action upon collateral i'll
quiries. Some time ago the Supreme
Court seemed to give authority to the
! suggestion that the Government Of the
| Confetleracy was 4 dc .facto Government
by recognizing the validity Of n con-
tract made in one of the rebelliOuS
States during the time when Confcder-
ate currency was the only thing in tie
shape of money used there, payment
of which it was sought to enforce III
Federal money. to the same nominal
amount as was stipulated to lie paid in
| the Confederate aud far less valuable
currency. The Court decided in this
case that the contract to pay in Con-
federate money should be recognized,
that the measure Of damages was the
value of that currency at the time when
the contract was made in comparison
to the currency of the United States.
The Judgment. in fact, seemed to rec
ognizc the validity of the Confederate
currency aud the authority under
which it was issued in that part Of the
| United States which was dominated by
| the rebel leaders. From this decision
the inference was drawn that the Sill
preme Court would recognize all the
acts done by rebels, among themselves,
under the authority Of the insurgent
Government. But the decision given
in the case of Hickman vs.. Bell, au-
thorizes 4 very important distinction
between what, in the law, would be
called contracts and torts. Contracts,
by the previous judgment, seemed to
be legalized, although made for pay
ment in Confederate currency. But
wrongs against loyal citizens, commit
ted under the supposed authority OF
the rebel Government, will not be
justified or. upheld. In the case re-
ferred to, Hickman, who remained loyal
during the rebellion, was indicted In
Alabama for treason to the Confederacy
and arrested. After the rebellion was
quashed he brought suit in the District
| Court for Northern Alabama against
the defendants, who were officers OF
the Confederate Court and grand ju-
rors, for damages incurred by reason
Of his arrest and the proceedings
against him. The United States Dis
trict Court for Alabama must have
sympathized very strongly with the
rebellion, for it was there decided that
this loyal citizen had no remedy
against the malice, enmity or persectl-
ton of traitors, and that the latter,
having acted under the authority OF
the so-called Confederate States, were
thereby relieved from responsibility.
This judgment upheld the authority
set up by virtue of q rebellion against
the lawful power of the United States
Government, and declared that trail
tors must be by law shielded from all
accountability for their wrongful acts.
The United States Supreme Court
| totally overthrows this monstrous doc
trinc. Ii declares that under no cir
cumstances could the pretended AIT
thority set up by rebellion be justified
in committing wrong against loyal cit
liens, and that the parties who, out of
malevolence and disaffection to the
Union, prosecuted their ncighbor, and
would have had him executed, per-
haps, is one whose life was forfeit to
their laws, must answer for the cense-
q~uences. This is the most encouraging
thing which has lately emanated from
the Supreme Court. 1t puts an end to
the pretext that the rebellion legalized
itself. 1t sweeps away from the records
of the Southern Courts the numerous
suits and prosecutions brought by reb-
els against Union men who main
tanned the laws Of their country. 1t
establishes that loyalty will be pro-
tected, and that treason is 4 crime
which, if not punished, cannot seek
from the law appreciation and reward.
CHINESE VERAGTY.-In q Justice
Court, in this city, the other day, Il
very good thing happened, which was
IL. n.o.stnl h.. oil nracnnf A