The Fremont weekly journal. [volume] (Fremont, Sandusky County, Ohio) 1867-1877, 1872-03-22

VI biS al MS COu6IdCtCu 1OT, duu per
haps paid for, by Remington, prior
to this 18th of October when notice
was received, were not delivered up
to that time; we may assume that all
contracts made up the time of notice
were performed by delivery accor-
ding to contract and it is probable
that some of the contracts had not
been performed at the time the no.
tice was received. We assume that
such was the case, and that arms
were delivered on existing contracts
after notice that one of the firm of
Remington & Sons was an agent for
the French Government. Let US
see then how the case will stand,
upon this assumption.
1, There is no question as to the
right of the government to sell arms
to Remington d Sons MP to the time
notice was received that. one of the
firm was acting as French agent in
time of war. 1t is admitted on all
sides that the government had a
right to sell; and it appears as mat
ter of fact, that the government had
sold thousands Of stands of arms to
this firm during previous years, some
Of which went to almost every cOun-
try in Europe and Asia, during time
of peace. Such sales are not only
admissible under international law,
but the business is considered an ex-
tremely praiseworthy and honorable
one on the part of the citizens en-
gagged in it, whether the arms are of
their own manufacture, or bought
up in the way of trade, either from
governments or private persons.
This carries US up to October 13.
2. On that day notice was re-
ceived.
8. And Immediately sales were
stopped, bids already in hand were
not opened, no further contracts
were permitted. Up to this time
there does not seem to be a point on
which to hang a doubt as to the law
fulness of the acts of the government
by its agents. But,
4. We assume, and the evidence
will probably show, that there was
subsisting contracts in various stag
es toward complete performance at
the time notice was received. Itmay
be that some of these contracts had
not passed any consideration on
either side; it may be that part of
the arms were delivered and not all :;
it may be that all of the arms OF part
were paid for and none delivered, or
ali delivered and none paid for.
Whatever stage the contract had
reached in incomplete performance
the question of doubt remains the
same--namely:
s. Ought the government to com
plete its performance of all existing
contracts, made as an innocent party
without notice, prior to October 13.
This, it seems to US, is the only
question as to which there can be
any controversy. All are agreed as
to the right of the government upon
all other points we have named up
to this.
We need not invade the domain of
international law, it seems, to settle
this question. There has been so
much international law piled up on
the question already that it is like
hunting for a grain of corn in a
shuck mattress to reach the true
point at issue. The disputants
seem to have exhibited quotations
from Vattel, and PufendOrf, and
Grotius, and Wheaton, just as a be-
leaguered force might faunt banners
to conceal an internal weakness.
Contracts are void, or only void
able. A contract made by the agents
of the government even after notice
would not have been void, because
after delivery the government could
unquestionably have collected the
consideration. Whether such con-
tract would be voidable, as contrary
to public policy or on some other
ground, we leave to the lawyers. The
question we wish to reach is this :
If a contract made even after notice
would be only yoidable and not void,
can the government equitably or le-
gally refuse to complete its perform
ance of a contract made prior to no
tice by delivering all or any part of
the arms, remaining to be delivered
under it at the time notice was re-
ceivedP Upon this nice question
depends the guilt or innocence of the
agents of the government, upon the
charge of having delivered arms to
an agent of the French government
after notice that he was such agent.
This is the only question in the
case. There is absolutely no con-
troversy upon any other question of
law. however much diversity of opin-
ion there may be upon questions of
fact, which have arisen in this much
bedeviled case.
Let us make it palmer if possible: /:
There may have been arms deLivered
upon pre-existing contracts, after
notice was received; was the govern
ment bound thus to deliver, or did
it's agents do wrong in delivering2
Tie contract, when made, was a
legal one. Both parties had the
right to make it. Both parties in
making it were acting in pursuance
of law and precedent. They were
continuing to do what had always
been done contracting, the one to
sell and the other to buy, certain
arms at stipulated prices. The viii
ating element of notice to the gov
ernment had not yet entered into