Year: 1875

/ charter, TO receive the notes of the bank
Issued during the usurped government
/ in payment Of taxes assessed to support
/ the restored government Of the State.
/ 1t is well settled that sll legal and
valid contracts between citizens of the
rebel States were so far under the pro-
lection Of the United States constitution
during the prevalence Of the rebellion
that they could not be impaired by the
legislature OF the restored State govern
ments. The question presents itself, was
| the contract OF guaranty, between the
State and the holders Of the new issue
arising under section Y Of the bank
charter, under the protection Of the Fed
eral cons ,itu ion duliDg the rebellion? II
50, then the act of the legislature repUdi-
ating that issue was invalid. II not,
then that act was legitimate and effec-
tive.


The contract wss, that the State
| would receive the notes Of the bank in
payment OF taxes due the State. We are
to regard the twelfth section OF the
| bank charter as having been Te-enacted,
or tscitly recognized as in force by the
new government, inaugurated in May,
1861. 1t was, there ore, an attempt by
the usurp'ug COVE, lment to bind the
State to guarantee the nOtCJ of the bpnk
issued during the existence of tIe new
government by agreeing to receive them
for taxes assessed to support the usurp-
ing govern Dment. But it has been settled
by repeated judicial decisions, that the
political status Of the State was never
effected or changed by the &C.
tion OF the usurping legislature,
but that she continued q member
OF the Federal Union, under the
guarantee OF the Federal constitution.
1t has been repeatedly decided that the
government inaugursted in the place of
the Legitimate State government was
only operative es a military or de fGctO
civil government, but in as far as IL wes
opposed to the Federal government or
to the legitimate State government, that
it was an illegal usurpatiOn. To hold,
therefore, that the contract revised by
the twelfth section Of the bank charter
was valid obligation on the State, pro-
tected from impairment by the Federal
constitution, would be to hold that the
constitution protected q contract which
bound the State to guarantee the pay
ment of taxes raised to sustain govern
ment in open hostility to the Federal
constitution and the Federal Union. 1t
follows, necessarily, that the usurping
government did not and could not COM
nit the State to contract which should
continue any longer than the usurping
government itself continued, and such
contract could not be under the prOtec-
ton Of the Federal constitution. AL
though the notes issued by the bank
might be binding as between the bank
and the holders thereof, they could not
be made the basis Of contract between
the State and the holders thereof, by
which the State would be bound to re.
ceive them for taxes due the State after
the usuTped government should cease TO
exist and the legitimate government
should berestored. It follows that because
the contract arising under the twelfth
section Of the bank charter, during the
existence of the usuTped State govern
ment, was not under the protection Of
the Federal constitution, it was compe-
tent for the legislature OF the restored
State government to repudiate the al
legged contract and to refuse to receive
the notes in payment of taxes assessed
to support the restored, Legitimate State
government. The legislature of the
usurping government had no power by
Te-enacting the twelfth section of the
bank charter to impose upon the State
an obligation which the legislature of
the restored legitimate State govern
ment would be bound 10 carry out. 1t
follows that there was no error in the
refusal of the court below to grant aper-
emptory mGnddDlUS.


NICHOLSON.