Year: 1869

(From the London Times May ILL.,


"a. Az moment when the relations between Great
complexion the accidental course OF common law
| suit has placed one OF the two governments III a
| The United States accuse US Of having grley0usy
wronged them by assuming state OF war


OF ordinary insurgents to the level of an actual gov
ernment with belligerent rights, At this very mo


ment, however an action Is pending IN the Court OF


recover certain property successors the COned


crate States, and In which, therefore, they CON-


PEELED not only to admit but to establish, the pre-


tensions OF that very government whose authority


they would otherwise repudiate and decry


During, During the wa, war an, Sir Peter TAFT, an army


quantity OF cloth from the Confederate government


to be made up INTO uniforms. Before the contract,
however could be completed or the goods delivered,
the contest came to an END, and now the American


government, as heir OF the contracting government,


suing the contractor for the value or the material


supplied to him. For the plea itself there APP


pear to be precedents; but the difficulty is thisthaJ


the United States can only sue as representatives OF


the Confederate States and that in maintaining their


suit they are necessarily driven not only 10 admit


but to assert and contend for many OF the positions


which, when advanced by our own gOvernment,


they have fercely impugned. OF course the defend


ant is fully aware OF this weakness in the of his


adversares and presses his advantage to the ut


most-indeed, beyond the limits considered allow
able by the court


The argument took the form OF discussion ca
certain 'interrOgat0ries"-twenty IN number
which tho defendant claimed to administer to the


MT. MeulSn on Deuull OI tIe American govern
ment, objected, with some reason, to the length to
which the interrogatores had been carried. twas
naturally the defendants object to embarrass the
plaintif1s as far possible. and to bar them from
insisting certain facts BY showing how inconve-
nlent such assertions might prove in another and
q more important suit. But the advantage was GER
tainly pushed too far. 1t could not have been rele
want or necessary to examine the United States on
the right OF secession under the old federal cOnstl
tutl0n nor to the principles on which the
Northern and Southern States respectively rolled


In the civil war. Accordingly the court, while
tfIntY hQh ~ Of fhn tod Gfnfn
paintifrs this kind OF Interrogation, limited its
scope to three ponts-the duration OF the De rnctO
government, its termination and the authority OF
It's agents. but II Will prob lby to the reader
that, even as thus cirCumscribed. the crOss-eXami
nation may be rendered extremely perpleXing the
respondents. We are at o loss, indeed, to conceive
how the American government can at one and the
same time succeed in its suit against Sir Peter TAFT
and In its controversy with the British nation II the
Confederate government was Of such character as
to invest the federal government, its successor
with the rights now claimed, and II that fact g
Lord Claren ion Will assuredy find q
goodly array OF arguments ready to his hand. The
United States undertaking to prove to the salts.
faction OF the Court Of Queens Bench that the gov
eminent over which Mr. Jefferson Davis presided
was really and truly De JdctO government, compe-
dnly authorized agents. They must then prove that
between themselves and this government state of
war occurred; that they subdued the said govern
ment and succeeded by right OF conquest to what
ever property was held by that government or by
other parties on Its behalf All this they may per-
80 as we should imagine. without foregoing many
OF the pretens0ns which they have recently adj
vanced and abandoning or the charges leVcled
against ourselves