Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1886-07-10

was not dependent on the fact whether
they were in or Vdt of the Union. If in
the Union, notwithstanding their at
tempted secession, their powers we're in
full force. Il out of it, then they we're
separate Confederacy with the same power
In or usst they seyerally possessed property
in their own right. The Confederate
States never denied their obligation to pay
the Confederate debt. On the close Of the
rebellion they returned to their allegiance,
which had been only temporarily inter
rupted. In that time they had borrowed
money on their bonds and used IT for pur
poses approved by them, and under direc
ton of what was then regarded by them
| as properly constituted authority. So as
between the holders of the bonds and the
States there was binding obligation that
no third party could Discharge Or interfere
with. But the United States did interfere
unnecessarily and arbitrarily, and amended
its organic law and prohibited any State
from paying these debts, and declared
them void and illegal When the United
States declared no State should pay lis adj
mitted debt, it committed a stupendous
blunder. It relieved the guilty party from a
| lust liability, and wantonly attempted to de
stroy debt it did not own, and with
which it had 10 rightful concern. But
though the debt was contracted for the
wicked purpose of destroying the Union,
it was good as between the contracting
parties. The United States should there
fore have stood aloof and left them to ad-
lust the matter. 1t follows that the con-
stitutional amendment extinguished the
Confederate debt and created at once q
new liability for damages against the
United States, measured by the value of
the property so wrongfully destroyed. So
the liability is not for the Confederate
debt, but for the damages inflicted upon
the holders of it by Its extinguishment
This is very fully and almost in verbiage
the whole of this most ingenious argu-
ment. Its assumed greatest strength IS It's
chiefest error. e., that in declaring that
no State late in rebellion should pay any
part of the rebel debt, the United States
thereby created liability against itself
This point, on which the whole argument
hinges, is one to be heard in equity, Of
course. 1t has no standing in law. In this
case the alleged offender is the Court OF
Equity to determine its own case. To say
that by extinguishing the rebel debt the
United States damaged the bondholders
with all respect to the lofty abilities Of
Judge Fullerton, appears 10 us to be beg
ging the question" The creditors Of the
rebel States knew that the l3an was for I'M
lawful purposes; in law nor i'll reason
could they ever have expected when max
ing the loan that the party against whom
it was to be used would be liable for Its
payment. They had no reason to expect
that the States in rebellion, if unsuccess.
full would even be allowed to exist as
States. They knew that punishment
would overtake them in case of failure
their investment was in the nature Of g
bet that the Confederacy would win
and hence it would appear that a rule
similar to that of caveat emptor applies
However, if this is bad law or insufficient
reasoning, let the bondholders content
themselves, they viii never handle the
coin of the United States for the evidence:
of Indebtedness they hold.