The Valley Virginian. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1865-1895, 1871-04-27
IMPORTANT DECISION.

~ NASA1k4sA DIsSAt5AVNs
An important decision was announced by Judge
Turner, Of Rockingham Circuit, at the Apri
term of the Circuit Court for that county. 1t was
a case growing out of the sequestration Of for
eign creditors properly by the Confederate
States authorities during the war, and was
argued at length, and with great ability for
three days by Col R. W. Johnston, or the COM
plainant and J. N. Liggett, Esq, for the defence,
at the September term, 1870, of the Rockingham
Circuit Court.
1t was action of Williams & Arrest, mer-
chants of Philadelphia, against George Bruffy's
administrator, for debt of 1857 81, contracted
March II, 1861, during said Brufy's lifetime,
and payable 18th September, 1861. Bruffy being
citizen of Virginia, Brufy's administrator paid
the money over to the sequestrator under the
Confederate States government.
As this decision of Judge Turner is the first
that has been rendered in Virginia on the ques-
ton presented, whether the payment Of a debt
due foreign creditor by debtor living within
the jurisdiction of the Confederate States, to the
sequestrator under that government, was q di .
charge Of the debt, we will give as near as we
can, The subs ance of it.
Pleas-non assumpsit oleae adainistrrit-an
payment upon judgment of the Confederate
States under q law of said States, seeuestering
the debts of the citizens of said States to citizens
OF the then United States, to which last plea,
there is a demurrer. The case was submitted in
vacation upon the demurrer and pleas and argued
facts.
The rights of sequestration and confscation
arise from state of war. Their exercise
strengthens the State and weakens the enemy
In support OF this position Judge Turner referred
to numerous standard authorities These rights
are not impaired by modern usage, and in gov
eminent like ours, 70 be brought into opera
ton through an act of the Legislature. Conis-
cation transfers q debt to the State; and seaues-
tration is an authorized or compulsory payment
of debt to the State by way of deposit for an ap-
plication indicated.
Ii State can confscate, d .fortiori it may Sc
quester. If the State may say to the citizen, the
debt to the creditor at the option of the State be-
longs to the State, and that upon the collection
thereof by the State, it can and does discharge
the debts, it may do the like act of constituting
Itself a receiver and discharge the debtor and
hold itself responsible to the creditor Were this
not so, the primary object of the exercise of these
rights, that of weaking the enemy, would fail,
for mere suspension of the collection of the
thereof, trading or dealing across the lines being
unlawful, and unless there be more than suspen-
sion, no injury results to the enemy.
From the object of the exercise of these rights
it would seem, also, that discharge or extin-
gulshment Of a debt follows alike in cases of a
debt due prior to or pending the war. The dis
stinction between these two classes of debts taken
IN Mr. Daua's notes to Wheaton, p. 433, is not
supported by authority, Dali, 1913 Peters, 1st
vol. 106.
In THIS view sequestration as effectually extiE-
gulshes debt as confscation. Judge Chase, in
the case of Keppells administrator VS. Petersburg
y Weldon r. R., speaks of the Confederate act as
one OF confscation seauestration. When the
seizure of the debt is completed by the actual COL
lection during the war, it is difficult, IN view of
the extinguishment or discharge of the debt, to
see how the debtor ever after could be held re-
sponsibe. Yet in the case of Ware VS.. Hylton
where the general views herenbefore expressed
upon the right and results of sequestration or
conhscatlon were sustained under law contain
ing no coereive feature, like those in the Confed-
crate laws, it decided that the United States
succeeding to the sovereignty of Virginia in ex-
ternal matters could By treaty, FIX upon the orig
lnal debtor liability to the British creditor up
on the State OF Virginia making compensation to
the debtor, which compensation was decided to
be the value of the money paid into the loan Office
Of Virginia.
Anu IL is argued II this case hat the result Of
:he war substitutes the will of the United States
Tor the Treaty between the States and Great
britain. For argument sake, admit this In
the case referred to, the ,.vylsion of the treaty
was pasea upon the right to take private proper
y Tor the public good upon making compensa-
lion; and Virginia, the confscating power, sur
wing the war, did this. In this case the Con-
federate States is no more, and the United States
make no proposition of compensation. The
ri IF 4la IT,,;tc
crate States, or the citizen upon compensation.
10 take private property, or to give q former
creditor right to recover an extinguished or
discharged debt of former debtor, upon general
principles, must be by some law of the State
If, in tine Of aoar, an act of the Legislature, as
decided in Brown VS.. the United States is naces-
sary to take the property of an enemy, a .forheri
OF the conclusion Of the acGr, act of the Legsla
ture IS necessary to compel a second payment of
debt which the debtor (now citizen) was in
duty, and by coercive provisions, bound to pay to
his then existing government Judge Turner
knew of no such legislation.
Between States, a treaty of peace abolishes the
subject OF war, and after peace the conduct of
either party cannot be brought into contest again.
All violences, injuries damages sustained by
The government or people during the war are
buried IN oblivion. Hence the restitution of, or
compensation for property confscated during the
war, can only be provided for by the Treaty of
peace. Peters eon'd. report 1st p. 1O7 Things
of which nothing is said in the treaty remain in
the state in which they Ware VS.. Hylton, 8
vol. l99-Peters LIST con'd. report, 10Y. Vat. BIB
81 p 121, sc &c.
At the conclusion Of the war, this debt had
been confscated or sequestered in the absence of
action on the part of the Congress of the u S. 1t
remains so, enVen upon the concession that the
Will Of the u S. is competent to nullify the Coz
federate acts of confscation.
1t seems certainly not a case in which Court
may declare the recognition of those acts Of con-
fiscation against the public policy of the United
States. 10 do this, would look like passing from
the judicial to the legislative department of the
government.
The origin of the right of cofscation and &C.
questration in a State of war, and the purpose
for which they are exercised, establishes them as
bellgerent rights.
That the Confederate States were belligerents
cannot be controyerted. Dana, in note to 575 |
Oh. part |. Wheaton, admits the Confederate
Government became at once firmly established in |
eleven States, organized in all its parts, and as
sumed the position of an independent nation. 1t |
punished as treason loyalty to the United States |
Of any persons within its assumed limits, SC. But
he insists that no general status of blligerency
was conceded to them by law. Sovereignty IS |
acquired by State when it separates itself from
'he community Of which 1t previously formed |
part, and Gil which it was dependent sHThis |