The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1876-01-14
SUPREME COURT.
THE COUNTIES NOT TO FAY THE CLAIMS
FOR SALT-JUSTICE TO A SUFFERER
FROM MILITARY YRULE-BURRUSS
TO Go TO THE PESITEN-
TIARY-OrHER BUSINESS.

FROM AkULE-BUhkOSS
TO Go TO THE rESITEN-
T1ARY-orRER BUSINESS.
In the Supreme Court of Appeals yester.
| day. all the judges present except Judge
| Bouldin. Judge Anderson delivered bis
opinion In the cases OF the Board Of Super
| visors of King and Queen rs. Fauntlerov :;
| Terry, assignee, rs Board OF Supervisors Of
Pittsv,yania; Whites executriy Us. The
! County of Surry; BoarG OF Supervisors Of
| Stafford rs. Hewett's executor, better known
as The "salt cases." Judge Anderson, after
| reviewing the results OF the war in its legal
aspects, SAID:
! ,he county courts from making levy or to
| collect taxes TO pay any debt or obligation
c ea,ed for the purpose Of aiding any rebel
lion against the United States. similar
| Inhibition is made as TO the United States,
or any State. By the fourteenth amenament
to the Federal Constitution.
1t might be contended that the contracts
| in question could not fall within the prohi-
| hilion because the la.c war was not rebel-
| lion. But We cannot doubt that the language
was Intended to apply, however inappro-
pirate, to the secession movement and to the
L lk.C
| in the State Constitution imparts an inbbl-
| ton 10 any county, city, or corporation TO
pay anv debt which was contracted in order
| 10 maintain the act OF secession or in aid OF
the Coniederacy: for the war was prose-
cuted by the Confederate States for those
objects which is called rebellion.
| This court in De Rothschlds rs. The Au.
| ditor I'D Graft, 4D and in Courth Us.
| Chamley GO Graft, 404) held that the
| present Government is
NOT LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE
| for any DEBT contracted or liability incurred
| by the authorities haying control Of The
| State after the ordinance of secession was
adopted. Judge Staples, delivering the
| opinion in the former case, says 1t is easy
to demonstrate that this is not the Rich
mond government, nor the successor of that
| governments; and consequently that it is not
anSwera5le for the debts contracted by that
government. But if the State Government
| is not responsible, how can the counties be,
| which are subordinate to and act under the
authority of the State Government?
1t is true that the constitutional prohibi-
ton extends TO contracts made by the State,
though they may not have been made in aid
of the rebellion, whilst rs to contracts made
by the county
TIE CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITION
extends only to such as were made in aid of
the rebellion But in neither case would
the prohibition in the State Constitution
amount to anything if the contract was valid
and binding before the Constitution was
adopted. A State can no more impair the
obligation of a contract by adopting con-
st,u,on than by passing law. (The Home.
stead cases %, Graft 2s1-2, citing Dodge g.
Woolsey, IS; How, U, 5. r., 334, and
White & Hart and al, Wall, y Nor coulu
the State release itself from valid obligation
merely by declaring in its Constitution
that the agents Of the State by whom the
contract was made were only pretended
agents or usurpers, II they were not SO IN
fact.
| That the contracts made by the State or
the counties of the Confederacy are not
obligatory upon the State or the counties in
their present relations to the Union does not
therefore rest upon their reputation by the
State Constitution, but upon other grounds.
so that it is matter of no consequence that
the prohibition as to contracts made by the
State is unqualified, whilst the prohibition
as 10 those made by counties, cities, or cor.
poratons is qualified. They both rest upon
THE SAME BASIS
and that is, that they are not binding upon
, the State or the counties in their present re-
t lations to the Union US part Of it or incorpo-
rated with it, because they were the acts of
, bodies which were organized in hostility to
the Union, in combination with Others, and
for its overthrow.
The question is not whether the county
had the right as q division Of Confederate
, State 10 make the contracts in question, or
whether such contracts were binding upon
t the county as an integral part Of Contede-
4 rate State. But it is whether, after the Con-
r federacy has become extinct, and the coun.
, ty. through the State, has renounced and
/ abrogated the acts Of secession and the Con.
federacy, and been restored to its place in
| the government of the Union, shall be
BOUND By CONTRACTS
made by a county court which was acting
! in the interest Of and subordinate to the
COntederacy.
y Whilst it is true that a State cannot release
! itself from its valid and binding obligations
Y by changing its Constitution and inserting a
>. provision therein declaring them to be null
r and void, I apprehend that upon the over
!. throw of the Contederacy and the suppression
n of resistance TO the Government of the Union
q it was competent for that Government to dis.
y claim all liability for the debts contracted bY
ri the Coniederacy, and to require that in re,
constructing the governments Of the Sta es
which had united in the Conrederacy they
! should disclaim all obligation for debts
: which they or their several counties and mu.
inequalities had contracted in the secession
movement or in aid OF the Contederacy
!, and this only upon the ground of want OF
identity between the contracting and paying
party. II was matter OF great Importance
TO the Government of the United States
q indeed, requirement OF
81 STATE NECESSITY.
] It is easy to see at a glance how embar
5 RAISING it would have been to that Govern
e meut TO have restored all the States which
had united in resistance to its authority viii
q the immense burden Of debt which they anC
G their several counties and municipalities haG
: contracted in maintsiniug the Confederacy
e And upon no principle of law, or reason, OF
] natural right could refusal on the part o
/ the United States be condemned.
: And it would not have been less embar
rassiug 10 the States themselves who resumed
2 their position in the Union, and to their re-
spectiVc counties and municipalities. L
2 would, in fact, have been to assume bur
den which would have been oppressive, IN
supportab BILE, and absolutely ruDous TO them
and this would have been really the source o
embarrassment to the Government OF the
, United States. The failure of the Confede
racy, and the incalculable loss of property
. which it degolqed upon its citizens, utterly
i incapacitated them to assume and pay
ipJf,G n nEn