National Republican., 1884-02-23
Dollar Bonds Of the conrcderacy.

Dollar Bonds OF the COnfcderacy,
Certain holders of worthless confederate |
securities in London have procured the pub
lication of an opinion by Mr.. j. Barr Robert !
son to tho effect that the foreign creditors of
citizens of the southern states, who were
obliged to accept confederate bonds in pay
ment for goods delivered before the war,
have an equitable claim against the United
States government which ought TO be adj
mitted and paid Mr.. Robertson says that he
makes no pretensions to being q lawyer, but
it is difficult to soc why anybody but
lawyer should bo asked to give
an opinion upon so difficult legal
question. by way of disclaimer he goes
into an elaborate argument to show that the
confederate states, being an illegal corpora
tion according to United States law, could not
States or any separate state. Nobody dis
putes this proposition. When the confeder.
acy collapsed, its promises to pay went with
it, and upon no principle of international law
could the United States be asked to pay u
debt contracted in the prosecution of gigan-
tic rebellion. The fourth section of the four
teenth amendment to the constitution is
merely declaratory of the existing law upon
this subject.
Mr.. Robertson admits that so far as the So
called dollar bonds were issued for the
benefit of the confederate government they
have no validity, and that the holder who
exchanged his money for them is entitled to
no relief. lie took all the risks when he in
vested in hazardous loan, and when the
contingency which alone gave them value
became impossible he had nothing to do but
to bear the loss. The o-called cotton bonds"
have no better standing. At tho time these
bonds were issued two eminent English law
yers gave an opinion that it would not be n
violation of any law of Great Britain or of
any principle of international law to adver-
tise the loan and sell the bonds in England; but
these eminent lawyers did not say that in
the event Of tho failure of the confederacy
the United States government would pay its
obligations. Six eminent continental jurists,
however, have given an opinion to the effect
that the confederate loans are binding upon
the separate states which composed the con-
federacy.
Mr.. Robertson does not concur in the rea-
soning which these jurists employ, or the
conclusions which they reach. The claims
he regards as valid are those of for
eign citizens, mostly English, Dutch, and
French merchants, to whom citizens of
the southern states became largely in
debtod before the war. After the
breaking out of hostilities, the debtors
remitted confederate bonds in payment of
tho balances due. The creditors were
obliged to accept this currency, because they
connection with the war, and the bonds wore
not purchased for the purpose of aiding the
rebellion. For this reason Mr., Robertson
maintains that the holders of these bonds
| have valid claim against the United States
government, and also tho governments of the
late seeded states, Tho question as to how
the particular bonds used in this way are to
| be identified from those which were
purchased as an investment is dis
posed of with the suggestion that
the English, Dutch, and French governments
will undertake to distribute the amount re-
spectively due their citizens, and that the
United States need 90 to no further trouble
than to make an award of the aggregate sum.
This is very obligpg, but it Is not likely
that the United States government will ever
impose this duty upon any foreign power.
The payment OF the dollar bonds" has been
indefinitely postponed and it will take the
opinion of number of eminent iurlsts to
convince the plain people of this country
that the redemption, even of those which
were sent to foreigners in payment of just
debts, is not absolutely barred by the fourth
section of the fourteenth amendment.