The New York herald., 1878-12-03
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.

TILE CLArLIN SILK SUIT TERMINATED AGAINST
THE PROSECUTION OF ACTS OF THE
TENNESSEE LEGasIArURE DURING THE REBEL
LION.
WssHIsoToS. Dec. g. 1878.
The following decisions among others. were
dered to-day in the United States Supreme Court
Nos. 3sS and $780, The United States plaintiff in
error, H. b. Clahn ct al-Error TO the Circuit
Court OF the United States for the Southern District
of New York1t il alleged on the part OF the plain
tin in in these two similar that the defend
ants ut various times from December 1871 to Noyem
Der, 1874, knowingly received bought and con-
ccaled large amounts OF fraudulently imported
silk, and thereby became liable for an infraction
of the act of 1929 chapter 8 section O. and of that of
1866. chapter SOL section L. The holds that the
counts of the plaintiffs declaration framed upon the
contemplated criminal proceeding and not civil
action of debt. With regard to the act of 1928
the court holds after renewed and
fnl examination Of the two statutes that Con-
gress had in view in the act OF 1856. not
only the punishment of the offence described, but
indemnity to the government for the loss sustained
II the forfeiture of double the value Of the goods
nonnced by the act OF 1923 designed to secure
indemnity to tho government for the wrong done
clared in the act Of 1856 must have been
intsnded int for the same purpose. In that case
second section Of the earlier one and would have
pealed them had it contained no repeating
be maintained by force OF the act of 1929 for
tions which occurred subsequent to the enactment of
the act of 1865 The judgment of the lower court s
afirmed Justice Strong delivered the opinion.
No. 81. John Meith plaintiff in error. VS.. Z. A.
Clark. collector &C.. in errorTo the Supreme Court
of the State OF Tennessee.-The principal
question involved in this cause is whether
the State OF Tennessee is obliged to receive
in payment Of taxes the now deprecated notes
OF the Bank OF Tennessee. as it bound itself
to by section - OF the charter of the
bank in 1888. or whether it can repudiate
that contract to the notes issued after May 1861
on the ground that the State government then
forcbly seized by insurgents and it's powers nsurped
Tho raises several federal questions interest
and importance. The Court in opinion delivered
by Justice Miller holds that the theory that there
be two different political entities called States within
the geographical limits one loyal and one rebeIl
ious is fanciful and unenable; that there has
been moro than political society in existence
organized State of Tennessee from the day of its ad
mission into the Union, i'll 1895. to the present hour
Second-That there is no foundation tor the theory
which maintains such separation of the seeding
States from the national government make their
legislation while in rebellion void and invalid unless
ratified by positive laws enacted since their restora
ton.
that the issue OF nots by the Bank of Tennes-
sec after May q. 1861 made for the purpose Of
giving aid and comfort to insurgents in violation
OF the constitution and laws Of the United
States, and that consequently the contract
which the State made in 1884 to take the
notes of the Bank of Tennessee in payment
of taxes is and has all the time been. under the pro-
lection of the federal constitution The Judgment Of
the Supreme Court of Tennessee is, therefore, re-
versed, and the renanded for further proceed-
ings IN accordance with this opinion. Mr.. Justice
Bradley delivered dissenting opinion, denying the
assumption that the governments of seccded States
were lawful governments. The Chief Justice
also delivered dissenting opinion In which it
was maintained that the ordinance Of in
validating the contact of 1885, far the issue
Of bank notes is concerned. authoritative
declaration by the people Of the state who cog
infant of the facts that the issues in question after
May 1861 in furtheance of the rebellion aud
therefore not entitled to constitutional protection.