The Russellville Democrat., 1875-08-05

of the year 1861, and during thu
 year 1862, were acting under thu
 authority of the state government
 set up by the constitution of 1861
 and that the same assumed to bt
 Independent of the government oi
 the United States, and was in fac,
 hostile to it. Neither the bill nol
 answer reveal any circumstance
 to show that the acts of said de.
 fendants, in connection with said
 officers, regarding the subject mat
 ter, were in furtherance of such
 hostility"
 The chancellor then proceeds
 to quote from recent case decid.
 ed by the supreme court of the
 United States Horn vs. Lockhart,
 IT Wallace, pp. 5S0 and 58l, in
 which it is held that the acts ot
 the severa. states in their indi-
 vidual capacities, and of their different departments of govern ment, executive, judicial and leg
 islative, during the war, so far as they did not impair, or tend to impair, the supremacy of the na- tional authority, or the just rights of citizens under the constitution, are in general to be treated as valid and binding. The existence of a state of insurrection and war did not loosen the bonds of soci .ty or do away with civil government or the regular administration of the laws. Order was to be pre- served police regulations main tained, crime prosecuted, proper ty protected, contracts enforced, marriages celebrated, estates set tied, and the transfer and descent of property regulated precisely as in time of peace.s No one that we are aware of seriously questions the validity of judicial or legisla- tive acts in the insurrectionary states, touching these and kindred subjects, where they were not hos tile in their purposes or mode of enforcement, to the authority of the national government, and did not impair the rights of citizens under the constitution"
 This decision of the highest judicial tribunal in the nation af- firms the correctness of the decis- ion of our supreme court in the case of Hawkins vs. Filkins, 24 Ark, 2S6, which sustained all acts of the state courts and state off cers in the ordinary discharge of their duties during the war. This decision was afterwards overruled by the same court in the case of Penn ct al vs. Tollison, 26 Ark, 515, and after that the legislature passed the act which l have quot ed above.
 But there is a more recent de- cision still by the. supreme court of the United States-delivered since the decision of Chancellor Eakin was promulgated. which reiterates the doctrine announced in IT Wallace, and sustains the correctness of the chancellor's de- cision. 1 refer to the case of Spratt vs. United States, 20 Wal lace, 459. In that case the supreme court held that "the acts of the states in rebellion, in the ordinary course of administration of law, MUST BE UPHELD IN THE INTEREST OF CIVIL SOCIETY, TO WHICH SUCH A GOVERNMENT WAS A NECESSITY.
 In the case before Chancellor Eakin an amended bill was filed in which it was alleged that the pretended payment by defendant was made ill Arkansas war bonds, or treasury notes, or confederate states treasury notes or bonds, issued in aid of the rebellion. On this point the chancellor says:
 "The use of confederate money in this war was in no manner hos tile to the United States. It had no possible connection with the war. The common school system of the state was instituted for so- cial amelioration and general pros perity, without any reference to any particular government, and was equally important under any government. Confederate money | was the only currency. It had value and purchasing power, which might be made useful, as well in the conduct of common schools, as in any other of the avocations of life. .. l think these payments, made in confeder- ate money, were fully ratified by the act of the legislature of March, lS67."
 This act is as follows:
 That all patents executed dur ing the war for sixteenth section or common school lands, are here by ratified, confirmed and made valid"
 The chancellor continues: "The language of the act is such as to show conclusively, in connection with what we all know of the his tory and condition of the country, that payments of confederate were meant by the act. If the technical payment in lawful had been intended, the act would have been unnecessary"
 The attorneygenera has ap-