The Labor enquirer., 1884-03-29

southern states at the time the loans
contracted. In any case it is not the
business Of . debtor. if even the latter
be q state, to declare that certain pri-
vate legal business in which the said
debtor contracts liability is null and
void, but this must be left to the de-
cision of the courts Of law in the case of
an action being institsted."
From the opinion of DR.. Sules Levita,
doctor of laws and advocate of Paris, the
following passages are cited:
The congress of the confederate
states, after having obtained by its po-
litical and military organization for the
southern states, recognition as belliger-
ent states, passed DEGREES authorizing the
issue of loans. In decreeing these loans,
pursuant to section eight of its constl-
tuition, the confederate congress e1er-
cised in the name of and with the con-
currence of the thirteen states repre-
sented by it, the right incontestibly as
sured to each of them by the American
constitution of 1887, to contract public
loans. \ 1t results from
these clauses which are not singular to
the constitutions of the states of the
American Union (as the principle that
the judges are independent of the legis-
lative power is recognized by all free ma
tions) that the legislative assemblies Of
the south had not the rlghtto adjudicate
upon the question of private properly,
and that the question of cancellation of
a debt validly contracted, could only be
decided by competent tribunals.
These latter in applying the principles
upon which all rights of property and of
claim rest, could not decree confscation
to the prejudice of the owner, nor of the
creditor. The courts would have allowed,
as provided by the constitutions of the
states, fair compensation to the holders
of the bonds of the confederate debt.
n n \ Their obligation is indie
pendent of the political changes which
have been brought about A country or
a province conquered during a war, or
pursuant to a treaty, is not discharged
from its debts, consequent upon the nom
continuance Of the government which
has contracted such debts"
The next is the opinion of NJ. Lente,
advocate of the court of appeal in Paris,
and that of M. Henri Barbour, baton
nier of the roll of advocates in the court
of appeal in Paris. Both assume the
correctness of the following statement,
namely:
THAT the constitution of the Amerl-
can Union of 1887, comedies to each of
the states of the Union power to con.
tract public loans and that, consequently,
the southern confederated states assem-
bled at Richmond had in principle the
right to borrow individually, in terms of
that constitution"
Now, We have here the opinions of SIX
of the most prominent men on the con-
tinent of Europe, and if the reader will
note, the fact. each one advances a new
point in favor of the legality of the
debts, but before going further l shall
place before the reader the opinions of
two eminent judges of the English
bench. These opinions were delivered
in London, Oh February %, 1868, on the
cotton loan in London. The one is the
present Lord Cairns, and the other the
present Lord Justice Cotton. Opinion -
"We are of opinion that it will be
violation Of any law of this country or
of any principle of international law, to
advertise the loan in this country as a
loan to the confederate states, upon
bonds, the amount of which is payable
by those states. We are of opinion that
there is not any legal objection to the
offering the bonds for sale in
to the public at price and on
terms to be stated in prospectus"
But some if not all of your readers
will say, "why, we have the fourteenth
to the constitution of the
United States, which says, Neither the
United States, nor any state shall assume
or pay any debt, or obligation incurred
IN aid of insurrection or rebellion against
the United States, 4 \ but all such
debts shall be held illegal and void"
Now there are two points which we
have to take into consideration in this
matter, and they are: First-Has a ma
ton a right to pass retrospective law,
even although they are the conquerors ?
and, second-the question of the legality
of these debts has never been brought
before the supreme court of this coun-
try, and If brought before that tribunal
it might be found as unconstitutional as
was the fifteenth amendment, which
gave the colored people Of this country
the same privileges as the whites. Now,
there is one reflection which l wish TO-
bring before your readers before 1 close
this letter. and it is this: How comes it
that the opinions of these eminent men
have been taken from three Countries
Holland, France and England ? Why
are there none from Italy,, Austria or
Spain ? The answer must undoubtedly
be that the three first countries were the
principle hackers of the late confederacy,