The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1892-10-23
THE RIGHT OF SECESSION.
Was Ii Settled by the Result OF tho War or
Not?-An Interesting Point
To the Editor Of The Times:

To the Editor Of The Times:
/ In your editorial referring to "The Life
I Of General Joseph f. Johnston, by General
| Bradley I. Johnson" as published in your
| issue OF the 9th ult., you say: The war
| Of course, settled the question OF secession
| as a practical matter" But in so saying
J you inadvertently made mistake" ac
cOrdng TO a judgment rendered on the 25th
| of November, 1880, by the Supreme Court OF
| Appeals of Virginia, affirming decree
| pronounced by the Chancery Court OF the
| City Of Richmond in the case Of Walls
| executor VS.. The Mutual Assurance Society
] Of Virginia.
| The suit grew out Of the evacuation fire
\ In this city on the Sd Of April. 1865, under
a policy issued long before the late Civil
War" and according to the requirements OF
| the 9th section Of the charter granted the
society by the Legislature CT Virginia ON
the 22d Of December, 1874, II Is liable for
all losses by fire not occasioned by the in
sured. This is the only exception author
lied by the act Of incorporation, and IL was
never altered In this respect by any amenda.
tory act.
When the demand was made for the In
demnfty accrued, the society set up a mere
bylaw exception clause-to-wit: Riots, civil
connections, Instructions and the invasion
Of a foreign enemy, and its main reliance
for exemption from liability, in the case
referred 10, was the aforementioned eI-
ception.
The Court Of Appeals OF Virginia in
affirming the chancellOr's Decree held thai
as secession dissolved the Union politically,
the war was, therefore, a foreign war, and
that as the invasion of Virginia by the
Federal armies was, in fact, 8 foreign in
vasion, the society WAS not liable for the
loss.
Anderson. Judge. delivered q dissenting
opinion, which was coneurred In by Burks,
Judge.
Appellant presented petition for 8 re-
hearing on the ground that the Judgment
was IN Violaticn OF the Constitution and
laws Of the United States, as eTpounded
by the Supreme Court Of the United States.
The following is an extract from the
decree denying the petition for a rshesring:
after Virginia had seeded from the
Union by the votes Of her people. she be-
came foreign enemy TO the people and
Government Of the United States and that
the invasion OF her soil by the Federal
armies was to be treated as foreigs In
yaslon; and that the invasion OF Grants
army was the proximate cause Of the burn
Ing OF Richmond; and as by the terms OF
the policies in these cases the company
was not to be liable for less when tho
fire resulted from the invasion Of foreign
enemy, the insured were not entitled to
recover"
So, Notwithstanding the results Of the
war, and numerous decisions Of the Supreme
Court OF the United States TO the contrary,
the Supreme Court OF Appeals Of Virginia
stu holds that secession did dissolve the
Union politically, and rs Virginia's "Ordi-
nance OF Secession" has never been re-
scinded by the votes OF her people" il
follows that this State Is not now "a mem
Der OF the Union" and that her people are
foreigners" as compared to 1.-The people
and Government of the United States"
An appeal" was allowed by Chief JUS
tice Waite. Then appellees Immediately
moved TO dismiss for want Of Jurisdiction,
annexing thereto also a motion 10 sfirm.
On the first hearing OF the case, in 1881,
the Supreme Court OF tho United States
denied the motion 10 dismiss. and post
poned the motion 10 affirm until a hearing
upon the merits.
On the second argument however, In
November 1854, by some fnexpiicabfe mis-
take, occurring after the order had been
read frcm the bench. the case came up
again upon the motion 70 dismiss. upon a
hearing on the merits.
When counsel for appellant opened his
argument in reply to appellees counsel the
Chief Justice said to him from the bench:
Az this court has already passed upon all
questions regarding secession. foreign war.
aud as 10 the status CT the Confederate
organization. II cannot allow such questions
TO be reopened and discussed here again.
Although the Judgment OF the State court
was based entirely on such Federal Ques-
tons" as Its reasons" therefor, neverthe-
less under this Injunction OF the court above