Newspaper Page Text
Ctre Haute Cornier.
TUESDAY .MORNING, July 3.
Important Deotsiom.—iYe commence
to-day the publication of the verv able
and interesting decision of Judge Geo. R
Claytou, of Miss., on a “bill for specific,
performance." The Judge decides not
only the leading point, enforcing a
contract made and pai i with Confeder
ate Money, but also' defines with great
clearness, the relation of Federal and
State Governmens, the obligations that
citizens are under to each, and argues
that a party cannot be ansnerable for
treason whenbe acts under the author
ity’of his own State government. Every
intelligent Southern man will read this
decision with interest and nearly all
will profit. YVe shsil publish the bal
ance of the decision on Thursday, and
then it frill all ’appear in 'the week
ly Courier on'Friday.
Kail road • Convention--Throbs'll ’Rates
of Freight.
At the Railroad Convention held in
Atlanta on the 19th and 20th of June,
all the intermediate roads from Mem
phis,’ 'tLouisville, Bristol, Charleston,
and Savannah to Atlanta, as well as all
the'eft her roads in Georgia, were repre
sented.‘Great advantages to merchants
end shippers are expected to result
? flrom'the uniformity of changes that it
'is 'hoped will be. secured by the action
of this meeting, as well as the large re
duction, of freights and passage by the
through tariffs that are anticipated.—
We regret that Col. Cothran—who is
generally eminently successful in good
management—could not perfect such
an arrangement as would give to the
citizens of Rome and vicinity the regu-
ular'pn; rdta benefit of the through
rates, on the Rome road. We presume,
•'however,'that the additional change, to
i the-pro ruta through rates, on the Rome
foad, Will be very small; and, at all
events a large reduction from present-
prices on freights, from a distance, may
be expected.
The following resolution was adopt
ed :
XL Resolved, that a committee of
two, consisting of Col. Wm. H. Wad-
ley and Henry T. Peake, Esq., be and
are hereby appointed to arrange a thro’
rate for freights from New York,
Philadelphia, Baltimore and Boston, via
Charleston and Savannah, Memphis or
Knoxville, or any other important ter
minal station, or station of sufficien
importance in their estimation to be en
titled to such through rates—such rales
to be based upon the best contracts Htey
can make with steamship companies;
and the inland rate to be based upon
pro-rata rate to each road, except the
Atlanta apd'West Point and the Rome
rail road s-rAhe rate of which shall be
made acceptable to the officersof sgid
The said tariff of-rates shall op-
[From Miss. Sentiti'6'1.]
IMPORTANT DECISION.
roads.
errte both North and South.
fforrrble Murder in IVilkerson Coun
ty.
The Macon Telegraph gives the par
ticulars of a horrid massacre near sta
tion 15, C. R. R.„ perpetrated by two
negroes, Pompey and William, of Ma
con. They killed Mrs John Rollins,
and wounded, probably mortally, her
two children, 3 years and Smonthsold
respectively. As they attempted to
kill a negro girl, she made her escape
ana gave the alarm. Robbing is sup
posed’to have'been the incentive. The
‘fiends were pursued with dogs, and at
the close of the second day Pompey
was arrested. The pursuers 'were on
the trail of the other murderer, and
strong hope of getting him also was en
tertained.
Application of the Dash.
The Dahlonega Signal says indict
ments, at the recent session of the
Lumkin county court, were found
against Thos. Trulove for killing h^
neighbor’s mule,'and against William
Dobtson for assault and battery. Both
of the parties were found guilty. Tru-
love to pay a fine of $160, or receive
thirty-nine lashes on his back— failing
to pay the.fine, he received tho thirty
nine lashes on his bare back in the pub
lic square. Robison to work .on the
■street for three months, but refusing to
work, he is now imprisoned to await
orders from the Governor.
We suppose® these are white men
though the signal is not specific.
Escaped.—The Atlanta Intelligencer
learns from a private letter that the
guard at Canton, having in charge a
felon named Gunter, who was condemn
«d to the Penitentiary from Cherokee,
let him escape on the 22d inst.
Curap Ice.—-Ice is now sold in Macon
at 2J cents per pound by the block.
What was the Disease ?—We notice
under the obituary head in the Atlan
ta Intelligencer, a statement that Mrs.
Elizabeth Thrower died in that city, al
ter a short, but painful illness, on the
28th ult., and was buried on the even
ing of the same day. It is not custom
ary to bury people so soon after death,
especially when the illness had been a
short one.
New Flour.—Mr. Joseph Fulcher
has presented us with a sack of Flour
made from new wheat at his mill on
Silver Creek. This mill has been
thoroughly repaired, and all the ma*
chinery is entirely new, and will here
after be known as the Folly Mill, for,
as Mr. Fi says, “it is folly to try to please
everybody in a grist mill.’' The flour
presented is of the very best quality,
and Mr. Fulcher will please accept our
thanks for the highly appreciated pres
ent.
Below we are pleased to present to
our readers, the able, lucid, and to our
mind, conclusive opinion of George R.
Cl-yton, the-spectftl Judge of the 6 th
•JudiOfal District. The questions in
volved in this case, and decided upon
by Judge C., are of very great magni
tude and importance, and have excited
the liveliest interest in our bar, and
among all others interested. As we
have said, the opinion is able, lucid
and, to our mind, conclusive, arid we
are happy to see that this ‘Judge has
the fearlessness to affirm that our gal
lant men, recently engaged in a civil
war, ere-not rebels and traitors. vWe
commend the opiuiontotb© attentive
perusal of our readers :
Doke & Cade, ‘1
vs. > Bill'for Specific per
John W. Perkins*) formance.
In special Court for 6th Judicial Dis
trict of Mississippi.
■The bill, answer and proof, in -the
above cause exhibit the following facts:
On the 27th of January, 1864, defen
dant sold to complainants twenty thou
sand pouuds of lint cotton for the sum
of seven thousand dollars, which was
paid the defendant at the time
Treasury notes ot the Confederate
States of America—that at the time of
tbecontract, tho State of Mississippi,
having by act of a Convention of said
State,” seceded from the United
States, was in confederation, with the
Slates of Virginia, North Carolina,
Scuth Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Ala
bama, Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas, and
Tennessee, at war with said United
States—that said defondant Perkins
was to take ordinary care of said cot
ton and deliver the same to complain
ants when afterwards required, &e. De
fendant having failed and refused to
deliver the cotton when'required, this
bill is instituted to enforce a specific
performance of the contract.
Defendant, by counsel, submits the
following grounds of defense :
1. That the act of secession by the
State ot Mississippi and confederation
with other States, being in violation of
the Constitution ot the United States,
no government was created by said con
federacy which could perforin uny
binding act, and the issuing of Treas
ury notes io be used as money, was a
nullity, and consequently was not such
a consideration-as would make a Con
tract legal between individuals.
2. That the Constitution of tho Uni
ted States prohibited the States from
“emitting bills of credit,” and that the
States could not do collectively what
they weie prohibited from doing sep
arately. That said Treasury notes
which formed the consideration of the
contract , sued on, were “bills of credit”'
and having been issued in violation of
the Conststulion of the United States
were illegal and void, and said con
tract founded on said illegal considera
tion. cannot be enforced either in law
or equity.
3. That said Treasury notes were is
sued to carry on a rebellion against
the Government of the United States,
and the same having been issued in vio
lation of the Consti'ution, law and
public policy could raise no considera
tion upon which a legal and binding
contract could be created.
In considering the above objections,
it becomes necessary in elucidation of
the subject, to state concisely, the na
ture and relation of the State and Uni
ted States Governments with each oth
er, and to show the peculiar character
of the recent war, out of which the
Confederate Slates Government had
its origin. The citizensof this country
are living under two distinct govern
ments, with clearly defined powers, ex
pressed in written constitutions. They
©we allegiance to each, and obedience
to the laws of each. Mr. Justice Mc
Lean, in the case of Craig vs. the State
of Missouri,'uses this language :
“That distinct sovereignties could ex
ist undc-r one Government emanating
hom the same people, was a phenom
enon iu the political world which the
wisest, statesman in Europe could not
comprehend, and of its practicibility
many in our own' country entertained
the most serious doubts. Thus far the
friends of liberty have had great cause
of triumph in the success of the prin
ciples upon which our Government
rests. But all must admit that the
purity and permanency of this system,
depend on its faithful administration.
The States and the Federal Govern
ment had their respective orbits witnin
which each must revolve. If either
cross the sphere of the other, the har
mony of the system, is destroyed and
its strength is impaired. It will be as
gross usurpation cn the part of the
Federal Government to interfere with
State rights by an exercise of power
not delegated, as it would be for a
State to interpose its authority against
aflaw of the Union.”—4 Peters Rep
463.
These two distinct Governments act
ing upon (he same people and exercis
ing power ovi-r them, must necessarily
revolve in their respective orbits as
above expressed, or a conflict would
sooner or later be the result. When
ever a suit between individuals involves
questions of govermental power, the
Constitutions of each have established
a tribunul (to wit the judiciary) which,
from necessity, must settle the same.—
But when it assumes a political charac
ter, and the exercise of power is claim
ed by one Government and denied .by
the other, the Organic law is silent as to
the tribunal to decide the abstract
question of national sovereignty. The
judiciary being a branch of. the Gov
ernment, constituting only a- political
part of the entire organization, and the
mere creature of each, Could not be en
trusted with a power so great an d_ deli
cate as to decide the extent ofthh pow
er,(of either Government. The framers
of the Federal constitution, haviBg
clearly defined the powers to be exer
cised by that Government, and as clear
ly prohibited the exercise of powers by
the State Government, which might
conflict with the, delegated sovereignty
of the Federal Government, they were
necessarily compelled, from the nature
and functions.of thetwo Governments,
to leave all issues in relation to abstract
questions of political power, to be deter
mined by the good sense of the people,
in the same manner' as questions of like
character are settled by independent
be
S@“Thfe House Committee have
awarded - the .Pennsylvania contested
S6at to the Bitting member, Mr. DawBon
Democrat. That’s strange.
nations. There could be, from the pe'
culiar organization of each Government
no umpire appointed to decide national
controversies of sovereignty. The only
hope of harmony, and guarantee of
permanency, upon'which theframers of
the Constitution could rely—was, that
the common interest, which bad cre
ated both Governments for the hap
piness and prosperity of the people,
would continue them in the full use
and exercise of their respective powers.
They did not suppose that local or sec
tional prejudiced and interests com
bined with human ambition, operating
on man’s natural depravity, would pro
duce parties who, iu construing consti
tutional power, would seek te enlarge
or curtail tbe.powcrs of each govern
ment, merely to insure party triumph.
They were, however, mistaken, for
there arose almost with the birth of
the nation, political parties, which be
came more embittered towards each
other, and more dangerous to the safe
ly of the republic, as the licentious
ness of the press increased, with its
•age, onepartyseeking the centraliza
tion of power in tho Federal Govern
ment, and the other contending ’for
the resumption of power by the States.
This state of political affairs, we need
only, say culminated in The attempted
secssion of a part of the Hi States, by reg
ularly organized convention of the
people , from the federal government;
which State action produced a war, the
effects of which willbe felt by future
generations. There remarks have been
made for two objects—first, to show the
relation of the two governments with
each other, to enable us hereafter to
define the character of the recent war,
and secondly to combat ah idea, prom-
iinent in the able and learned argu
ment of defendants counsel—that the
Constitution and laws of the United
States were in fall operation over the
citizens of the bel%eren& States during
the war, and that those who engaged
in the war, were committing a simple
act of rebellion against their legitimate
government. We consider that the
citizen of the State, owing, as' he does,
partial allegiance to both governments,
cannot commit the crime of treason,
when liis action is controlled by State
authority. This principal is carried so
far in England as to exonbrate the citi
zen from the crime of treason for sup
porting an usurper against the rightful
sovereign. ..“it is held, ’says Mr. Black
stone that a King,’’ de facto andnot de
jure, in other words, an usurper that
hath got possession of the throne, is a
King within the meaning of
the statute, as there is a tem
porary allegiauce due to him, for
his adoaini'tration of the Government
and temporary protection of the pub
lic; and therefore treasons committed
against Ilenry VI. were punished un
der Edward IV. though all the line of
Lancaster had been previously declar
ed usurpers by act of parliament/
And again, “When therefore an usur
per is in possession the subject is ex
cused and justiGed in obeyius and giv
iug him assistance; otherwise nnder an
usurpation -no mail conld be safe,
•if the lawful Prince had a right to hang
him for obedience to the power in be
ing, as the usurper would certainly do
for disobedience.”—2 Chit. Blockstone,
book 4, page 54 (lateral page 77.)
It is evident that it this doctrine
correct, and treason cannot be com
mitted by rendering assistance ito an
usurper who has posession of the gov
ernment against tho lawful Prince,
must certainly the citizens of a State,
owing not only temporary, but, perma
nent allegiance to the State govern
ment, cannot be amenable to the gen
eral government for rendering obedi
ence to tbe authority cf bis State,
notwithstanding, by so doing he will
violate his federal allegiance. -A con
trary doctrine, in conflict between
State and general government, would
render the escape of a citizen from the
crime of treason impossible; for the
obedience of one would constitute treason
against the other.
The late disastrous war then, could
not have been a simple rebellion
What wns its character? It 'was a War
between distinct sovereignties to settle
a question of governmental power. The
States that engaged iii the war, conten
ded they had a sovereign right to re
sume the power originally granted by
them to the federal government, that
government denying the right—a con
flict of arms was the result, which de
cided the issue against tho States, pla
cing the constitutional government
established by the federal Union, ujpon
a basis of permanency and perpetuity
which it never before possessed. How
ever, sad ar.d unfortunate the war and
its consequences to society and the
country, it has settled a great and ab
sorbing question, to wit: that no State
has the right or will be permitted to
secede from the federal Union, and
establish either by itself or in connex
ion with other States, a.goverument, on
this continent, independent of the
government of the United States,
The recent war, as defined by wri
ters on international law, was a “Civil
War,” and not a rebellion.
'‘Custom, says Vo ttel, appropriates
the term of “Civil War,” to every war
between the members of one and the
earns political society. If it is between
part of the citizens on one side, and the
Sovereign with those who continue in
obedience on the other, provided -the
malcon tents have any reaeon for taking
up arms, nothing farther is required to
entitle such disturbance to the name
of “Civil War." and not that of rebel'
lion. Vattel L. Nations424.
In addition to above distinction be
tween “civil war” and. rebellion; to
show the character of the recent war
between the Southern and Northern
States, we have only to refer to some
of the recent decisions of the Supreme
Court of the United States, to settle
the matter.
In the prize cases of BchooBer Bril-
liante, Crenshaw, Barque Hiawatha,
et. al. vs: U. States, the Court decide
the recent war was a “civil war.” They
divide upon the question as to the pe
riod, when the same became actually,
civil war, the minority of the Court
contending that it had not assumed
the character and dignity of ciyil war,
until the passage of the act of Congress,
recognizing' the existence of the war,
to-wit: on the 13th of July 1861, but
the majority'of the Court decide that it
had become a Civil and Territorial war,
previous to the passage of said Act,
and-that tbe citizens of each Section,
by reason thereof, had become enemies
to each other and were subject to all
the belligerent rights and * liabilities of
nations at war—2: Black’s Rep. S. C.
U. S. 669. to 674. inclusive.
We also ball attention to the Cotton,
case of Mrs. Alexander, who attempted
to show that-she was a loyal citizen of
the United States, aqd claimed protec
tion to thp right of property, under the
Constitution and laws’ thereof. Tfle
Court however, decide that no distinc
tion could be made between the prop
erty of loyal or disloyal citizens; that
all alike, were subjected by interna
tional law, to the same rule; that resi
dence in an enemy’s Territory fixed the
status of the resident and his property;
that by reason of her residence in ene
my’s Territory, she became an enemy
of the United States, and her. Cotton
was subject to seizure and confiscation,
as enemy’s p-operty.' 2. Wallace's Rep.
S.C.U. S. 418 419, and 420. The
Court in this case go still farther, and
show the Utter impotency of the Con
stitntion and laws of the United States
to afford her protection, by declaring
“that Mrs. Alexander, being a resident
in the enemy’s Territory, had no right
to be heard in the Courts of the United
Slates.” Ib. page '421 same doctrine
affirmed in the case of the Circassian,
ib. page 148. . .
Wedeern it unnecessary to •_ multiply
authorities.to establish the fact, that
the late war between the North and
South, was in the fullest acceptation of
the term a “civil war.”
We next proceed to enquire, how the
laws of the cotint”y are effected bv the
existence of “civil war” and Vattel
says: “A civil war breaks the bands
of society and government, or at least
suspend their force antF effect; it pro
duces in tbe nation two independent
parties, who consider each other as ene
mies, and acknowledge no common
judge. Those two/parties therefore,
must necessarily be considered as
thenceforward constituting at least for
a time two separate ‘bodies,-two-distinct
societies.” “They stand therefore in
precisely the same predicaments as two
nations, who engage in a contest: and
'being unable to come to an agreemen t-,
have recourse to arms.” Vattel L. Na
425. And again: “When a nation be
comes divided into two parties absolu
tely independent, ' and no longer
acknowledging a - common superior, the
State is dissolved, and the war between
the two parties stands, on the same
ground, in every respect, as a public war
between two different nations.”—Ib.
page 427. Tbe same doertine is affirm
ed in the learned works of Wheaton
and HaUcck on international law and
laws of war.
Also in the ca3e of the “Santissima
Trinidad” The.supreme court of the
United States decide that a nation in
volved in|a “civil war” with the monther
country, has, as a belligerant nation (in
the language’ of the court,) “the
sovereign rights of war’ and can
purchase and own public vessels, which
will bo respected as such- by neutral
nations—7Wheat 337 (5 Con. Rfep.
•284).
What then, was the effect produced
on the Constitution and laws of the
United States during ‘the existance of
the late “Civil War”; and what power
became vested in tho Confederacy,
formed by the belligerant States? Tiie
foregoing doctrines from Vattel and
other establish, that so soon as tbe Con
federacy was created and civil war com
menced, the Constitution aud laws of
the Uuiteci oiates, 6r “the force and
effect of them” as he expresses it, were
suspended throughout said Confedera
cy. The cotton case, before referred
to, of Mrs. Alexander also settles, that
*nQ protectation to person or property
could be afforded by said Constitution
and laws, even to loyal citizens residing
within said Confederacy.'
We cannot bold that the suspension
of the Federal Constitution and laws,
left the Confederate States in pefect
anarchy, with no law controling con
tracts or-rights of property. But we
conceive, that as the States continued
all theif power and functions of govern
ment which they possessed before the
war, and created a de facto government
with belligerant power, the two com
bined, possessed authority to enforce
the law and give ample protection and
validity to the property, rights and.
contracts of the citizens. The common
and municipal laws ofthe States, regu
lating transactions and contracts be
tween citizens, were not effected
the war, but remained intact, within
the jurisdiction of the Confederate
States.
We are brought then, to censider
the condition of the Confederate States
Government pending tbe war, and to
ask what were its powers during its de
facto existence. We are told by Vattel
that for the purposes of the war, it was
in the position of an independent na
tion; and we are informed by the Su
preme Court of the United States
tho “Santissma Trindad” case, that as
a belligerent nation, it possessed the
“sovereign rights of war.” What is to
be understood by “sovereign rights of
war ?” Most clearly, as the term sover
eign itself implies, a full, perfect and
com plete power of doing and perform
ing all things in -relation to the war
which would have a tendency to lead to
a successful termination. .Hence,
the case mentioned, the court decide
that the de fpeto government then un
der consideration, had the right to pur
chase and own public vessels which all
nations would respect. Other “Sover
eign rights of war” would most unques
tionabiy be,, the right to purchase and
own all necessary munitions of war,
ordnance, commissary stores, &c., raise
armies, provide the means for pay
ing for the services, clothing and ex
penses of the same, and to do every
thing necessary for the fortunate and
prudent management of the war.
then, the de facto governments, as we
think we have shown, possess.the Tight
and power of raising the means to con
duct the war, surely the mode and plan
ner of raising the same, muBfbe left to
the sound .judgment and discretion of
said government, and especially in ref
erence to its action on its own citizens.
The only question therefore presented
in relation to the legality of tho issu
ance, by the de facto government, of
Treasury notes, is, were they necessary
as a war measure—could the war have
been conveniently conducted without
them—Were they necessary as a means
of national defense ? If so, the Con
federate States, as a de facto government
with the sovereign belligerent rights
attached thereto, could issue the same,
and Use them in the be$t manner the
government thought proper to accom
plish its object. If tjjey circulated
amongst the people as money, (as the
case underoonsideratibn itself shows,)
and enabled the government to pay its
troops for&ervicee with them, to buy
commissary stores and munitions of
war, and all other things necessary for
conducting the war, it seems to'U3, (in
dependent of the historical fact of their
military necessity, which the court. is
bound to notice,) that this of itself
would be sufficient to connect the im
portance of their issuauce with the
vfar. ■ '
The issuance of these notes was not
such a violation of the federal Consti
tution, la W6 and policy as contended
for 'by counsel for defense, Which
broughtThe act of issuance withib the.
purview of those decisions of the
courts, which declare all contracts made
in consideration of an illegal act, void.
As before shown, the operation of tbe
Federal Constitution and, laws, over the
Confederate States, were suspended ^by
the civil war—the issuance of the
Treasury notes was as much a war
measure at the, time, as the raising of
armies Would have been. They be
came a public necessity for the pro
cess of the war, and the Confederate
1 tates, having acquired the sovereign
belligerent rights of nations, as laid
down in all the works on international,
law and confirmed by the federal
courts, violated no laworpnblio policy
by their' issuance.
Tbe credit given them was a ques
tion solely for those who received, them
as money or parted with property for
them.
The Federal government has recog
nized their validity by. enforcing a Claim
for all property and cotton belonging to
the Confederate States, at the date of
the surrender, of their armies, in the
hands of citizens, whether the same
had been acquired by purchase or taxa
tion. The titles to most of this proper
ty and cottons were acquired by pur
chase, and pftid for jn Confederate
Treasury notes, which said titles the
federal government recognised as legal,
by seizing the cottons and other prop
erty belonging to the Confederate States
and leaving private property unmblest-
ed.
It- is contended with much force, by
learned counsel for deiease, that the
issuance of Treasury notes on the pledge
of the faith of the nation for their re
demption was a soverei gn acU of govern-
ment and that courts never in,their., de
cisions, recognize the existence of gov
ernments do jure, (with such powers,) in
advance of the action of executive and
legislative branches of goverr ment who
alone possess the right to decide . at
what time a nation becomes a govern
ment de jure. In support of this doc
trine we are referred to many authori
ties:—Rose vs. Himely. 4 Cranch 241.
Foster et al vs; Nelson ’ 2, Peters 307,
253, Garcia vs Lee, 12 Peters 516 . and
517, Williams vs Suffolk In Co. 13 Pe
ters, 420, dec. We fully admit the
correctness of Ihis doctrine to- the ful
lest extent claimed for it. The issu
ance of the Treasury notes, however,
as we conceive and have attempted to
show, was a war measure, designed at
the time as the means for sustaining
the war, and consequently was a bel
ligerent and nbt a civil act of sover
eignty, an'd cuine within the acknowl
edged sphere and authority of a dis facto
government, which courts in the set
tlement of individual rights, would be
bound to notice.
If these notes became a part of the
currency of the country by the common
assent of the people, and /by general
usage represented the value of property,'
contracts made in consideration of them
can be sust ained by the courts, without
at all recognizing the de j>xre right or
character of the government that is
sued them. The faith pledged fin;*the
redemption of them, as ail know who
received them, depended on the recog
nition of the Confederate States as a de
jure government—the credit of the is
sue and not its legality was the only
question to be considered by those who
used them.
It will scarcely be denied, that the
Confederate States fo'r the time being,
was a de facto government, invested as a
belligerent with all the “sovereign
rights of war.” It had power to raise
armies, and consequently the right to
pay its. troops. Suppose in paying its
troops it had been compelled to issue
script or certificates of indebtedness,
payable in the future, to its soldiers for
services, could any one deny the legali
ty of the’transaction, and suppose this
script or certificate of indebtedness was
convertable into specie in the commun
ity at.a ‘fixed value ? Will it be said
that if a soldier who had received such
script, should trade for a horse, he re
quired no title, because the govern
ment which had the power - of forcing
him into the armv, had no authority
to pay him for his services ? We think
not, and can look upon the transaction
only as a valid legal and binding con
tract. Tiie Treasury notes were virtu
ally just such script, and were used
many of them, for just such purpose to
wit, the payment of the troops for ser
vices.
The second and third grounds of de
fense suggested by counsel, viz- that
the Treasury notes, were bills of credit
emitted by the Confederate States in
violation of. the Federal Constitution,
and could furnish no’ consideration for
a valid contract, and. also that they
w.ere issued to carry on a rebel
lion against the United States,
which rendered them invalid, and
could create no binding contract, have
been in a great degree already discuss
ed. Had the premises on which coun
sel rely tor defense of this case, been
correct, the conclusions they draw from
them Would have been gjgresistable.—
They take for granted that the recen
war was a simple act of rebellion—that-
during the same, the Federal Constitu
tion and laws were in full force and ef
feet, operating upon the people in re
bellion; that the provisions of the same
bad not been impaired or disturbed by
tbe War, and consequently any viola
tion of them effected individual or per
sonal rights precisely tbe same-, as if the
country had remuined at peace. Ta re
fute this view of the case, We have
shown that the war was not a rebellion
but a civil war, which placed the par
ties to the war, in the attitude of dis
tinct nations as laid down by all writers
of international law; that the Confeder
ate States as a belligerent nation, be
came vested with all power necessary
to conduct the war to a successful ter
mination—that the creation of a nation
al currency, if necessary as a war meas
ure, was perfectly'legitimate—that the
military necessity for the currency, of
itself, created the power in the de facto
government to issue the Treasury notes
—that the civil war had suspended the
Federal Constitution and laws over the
belligerent States, and that tbe issuing
of 6aid Treasury notes, violated neither
law or public policy existing over
6aid belligerent States at the time of
their issuance. If this be correct,
which will scarcely admit of denial, we
hold that the use of these Treasury
notes in the ordinary trade and traffic
of the country was legitimate, and they
constitute such a valuable considera
tion, both in law and . equity, as gave
validity and legal effect to all fair con
tracts made with them.
We deem it unnecessary to dwell'for-
llier on the Becond and third grounds
of defense, as the remarks made on the
first ground, have foil application to
tbe whole defense made by counsel for
Teiendant-.
Before closing however, we will con
cisely state another view of this case,
Which equally entitles complainant to a
recovery.
The arguments of counsel for defense
is founded on this principle of law,
which is too well settled to admit of
controversy, viz: “that courts will toot
enforce againBt either party, contracts
growing out of, or connected with an
Jlegal or immoral act.”- It is contended
by counsel for defense, that the issue of
Treasury notes by the Confederate
State government, was a violation of the
federal Constitution, and the act being
illegal vitiated all contracts made With
them. Admit for the sake of argument,
that the triun of the first part of coun
sels proportion, viz: that the issuance
of the Treasury botes was an illegal act
by the Confederate States government,
how far is the. contract now under in
vestigation effected by the illegal act?
In the ease of Toller Vs. .Armstrong
the Judge in staling, the law . to the
jury says, in speaking of the foreging
rule of law:—“The principle of the rule
’ , that no man ought to be heard in
court of justice, who seeks to enforce a
contract founded in, or arising out of
moral or political turpitude." So far as
the-rule operates tomeeourage the.per
petration of an immoral of illegal act,
it is founded in. the strongest reason*
but it cannot safely be pushed farther.
If for example, the man who imports
* goods for another by means of a viola
tion of the laws of his country, is dis
qualified from founding any action
upon such illegal transaction, for the
value or freight of his goods, or any ad-
vances made- on them, 'he is justly
punished for the immorality of the act,
and a powerful discouragement from
the perpetration of it is provided by the
rule. But after the act is accomplished,
no new contract ought to be effected
by it; it ought not to vitiate the contract
of the retail'merchant/who buys these
J. P.
wholesale and
DEALER IN STAPLE
DRY
General Mereh^’
or tho | COMMISSION MEHPrh
2LSL.5??*> »-
goods from the impotor,' that
tailor who buys from the merchant,
of the customer of tbe former, amongst I Vveos ; . - - -"* hi
whom the goods are distributed in generous AiTfe*
clothing, although the illegality of the patronage extended to him rf be - ral
erignal act, was knowfc tb each of tbe six months; would now r l U " n f
above persons at the time he contract their attention io a large ad?.- 0 * 1 *
sWooY *“'<*°-
The feline doctrine is laid-down by jSS^SSajSSS*, Hf* ““72!
Judge Story, .in.'his conflict of .Laws, prints, I^ANCY LAWNsPu^ 4
ORGANDIES SOT.Tn t ““COSh,
page 376 and 248, and also confirmed ORGANDIES SOLID A c
by the Supreme Court of this State, in HAMS, MOSAMBIQUES^
- , oe tne eneccorj^s’fMISSESVl^l Fbo^
this illegal act upon contracts of the Iters a- suoer conm,™ ?°YS’
this illegal act upon contracts ot tne (TERS & SHOES, GSOCEIEr * X8 ’ $
country? Most clearly from the above july5 j p x,„Y' "
rule of law, only those would be effect- — r —
ed which grew immediately out of; or T,i3 r SpIendid^Printsjmcrettiw'
were connected with the illegal act, | jmy5 J- A. HoDOWu,
' "* n nit nlVihv I *'
and none others. All cotton or othel- 2 ^ 0 o Yds. Blown
property purchased by the Codfederate fr aD( i i ow Miflcj,
States, and paid for with the said Treas-1 -j n ly5 j. p. M c D0ifjp^
ury notes, being contracts, connected
and tainted with the -illegal act, to IOO Bunches Athens (^tkjhYani-*^
wit: the issuing of the same would be july3 ”• McDOwS?
void under the rule above stated, and 20 Boxes Fine Virginia
no recovery could be had, either by the cheap P Chew,n « l*i
Confederate States or those claiming
under them-through the courts of the
country. But when said notes pass in
to the hands of persons not connected
in any manner with the illegal act—
contracts made upon the faith of them,
are founded upon a consideration not
july5
J. P.
17,000 lbs. Fine Virginia Salt ing^vT
2 cents per ft. no charge for. sack
J. P.' McDOifnt
July 5
20,000 fts. Fine E. Tenn. & Ya/iw/
hand and to arrive this week.
tainted with the illegality of their is- ®°? H>s-Pine E. Tenn, Lard chop tt j
suance, and consequently such a con-1 al 1113 wcpk_
sideration aa will make a good and val
id contract.
! Assimulating the ease under consid
eration to the rule of Armstrong and I
Toller, the illegal importation of the
goo s in that case vitiated all contracts
connected With it, but when they pass-1
ed to persons innocent of any impro
priety in their importation.'to-wit: The
retail merchant, the tailor, his custom
ers, &c., all contracts with or for said
J. p. McDowell
Special attention given to fiUhTlj'
and to consignments of all kinds 0 ^
july5-tw-tt
Look at This.
WANTED-—A WELL IMPBOYED
PLIWTATIOJ
XL _ • • -i - w* 7
goods are declared valid and binding TN the vicinity of Rome, contaiainn
on the parties. The taint which effects l® 8 * than, four hundred (400) sou,
subsequent contracts is not connected „ a ? el § kt aun<ire d (8®®). A tfe
with the thing,, but only the illejal Act P Ap'^y to" C. Johnson, at the rf*.
and the test to ascertain -that fact, laid 4 Johnson & Gore, Broad Street, BomeT
down in-the case of Simpson vs. Bloss, j«Iy5-tw-w-2w ’
7 Taunt 246, is “Whether the plaintiff
requires any aid from the illegal frans- GEORGIA, Chattooga Countv.
'action to establish his’case,” if he does ■
the contract is void, ifhe dees not, it is
valid. So in the case before the Court, [ the estate of George W. Neal, late ol
The issuance of the Treasury notes by county, deceased,
the Confederate States Was tne illegal I These are therefore to cite tad tdi
act, and would vitiate - aH -contracts L®)- 1 and singular the kindred and c.
connected with it, but when they went
•xauuji* - - I. within tne time prescribed—that u »
into the hands of persons entirely mno- | by the first Monday in August next, I
cent of any complication of their ilegal cause, if any they have, why said ...
issuance and were used by such persons should not be granted to said applieut
as a consideration in contracts, it was a | Given under my hand and official '
legal consideration and createid a valid
and binding contract.
The question then occur?, in the case
before the court, what connection did
the contract between the parties to this
suit bear to the illegal act of issuing the
Treasury notes ■? There is no dispute
in relation to the facts of the case? It
is agreed by both parties to the pres-.|
ture, this 29th day of June, 1866.
SAMUEL HAWKDS, I
july5-30d. Ordinal
GEORGIA, Chattooga County
W HEREAS C. V. Abridge appEs
me for letters of Administntja'
the estate of John B. Abridge,
County deceased.
_ . _ These, are therefore, to cite *ul
ent contract-*—that on the 27 th of Jan- I all, and singular, those concerned to it
uary, 864, complainant paid defend- appear, at my office within the time— :
ant in Treasury notes of Confederate by law, to show cause it any they
States government, Which he received said ^letters should not be granted
as valuable at the time, seven thousand undermj haudaid,
dollars in payment for twebt-y thousand J S1 ° e ’ 13 SAMUEL EAWPL
pounds of lint cotton, which defendant
was to keep and deliver at -ubsequent
time—theccn'ract was executed in' all
but tiie filial delivery*of the icotton.—
The question again occurs, in w-Uat par-
july5
Online I
SHERIFF SALES.
ILL he sold on the first Totsdijl
w
_ _ _ Vf August next, before the
ticular is this contract connected .wi<h | door in Rome between the legal
the illegal act of the issuance of these j sale/the following property, riz:
notes, or what aid is required from that I w ne House and. Lot No. 95 in the
i!!teh' aCt it Cn ;^ le w mpl T aQt f ^ t 8US '' kAown°aAthe?oriacr prooerty ofV
tain his contract? We confers that we uu „ o^p,-^ by Cotyper and often. 1
can see none whatever. The Contract as the property of J. J. Morrison to
E®
is perfect in itself, and requires no con- c'dst in' fi. fa.—J. C. Pemberton vs. J.
nection with the illegal act complained rison. and costs in various other 4
of, to render it more complete. Sup- bands,ys. J. J. Morrison,
pose complainant, being a retail mer- I JOHN R. TOWER.,
chant,-bad purchased from an impor
ter, goods imported in violotion of. the
law, as in the case mentioned in Arm
strong aud Toller, without having any.
connection with the illegal importation
ofthe sabae—any contract made by
him with 'others for these goods are de'
ciared in that case to be valid—and sup
pose instead of Treasury notes, he had
paid defendant for the cotton in these
goods, will any one in ihe. face of the
decision ip lhat cage, deny the validity:
of such h conMbt, arid ifDbt, how is it
possible they Can doubt the validity
and binding obligation of the. contract
£':l
Brick Work
AND PLASTERING.
R. MARTIN,.
H AYING returned to Rcme ui
pared to do Brick Work aud Ph
in good style and on reasonable to® 1
liberal share ot patronage is sobeiwt
jhilo30tw-3m
Wheat!
under consideration, When said Treasu-1 -TjTTE will pay the highest
ry notes bear precisely the same rela- vr for any quantity of whes
tion to their illegal issde that said goods now ttahGBI
bore to their illegal importation ? - ’ • B E B , NETT ’ J ° NE
We confess we have felt the delicacy June -2m
of our position in deciding .this' case— ‘ n . . ■ n _ „««
1 Bacon! Bacon
mense interest involved in the decision i . .g
rendered it important that no hasty A NOTHER-Car Load just recew^
conclusions should be-arrived at, and LcL ders, Clear Rib, Clear
we have therefore given the case as care | Ham %0RNETT JONES A HARGB® fl
juue28-Im
foi an examination and 'investigation
as we are capable of doing. From ev
ery view we have taken of the case,
the conclusion forces itself upon us that
our duty requires we should grant the
prayer of the bill.
Let-a decree be entered for the - de
livery of the cotton to complainant in
accordance with the’ contract, and in
the alternative, if the cotton cannot be
had, for the value of it, and defendant
pay the costs of the suit.
Geo. R. Clayton,
Special Judge!
in nnn LBS - justrece!veiJ 1,7
1U ’ UUU McB.BB0tJ^ P
500
june23-tw-tf
ALSO
LBS PRIME LABD*
BLANCEVIIih®
Slate
SALE Of STOCK'
KcS’J
Rgy-The total receipts from Internal
Revenue customs, miscellaneous sources
sales of public lands for the fiscal year
ending to-day, will, it is estimated at
the Treasury, foot up over §550,000,000.
‘Jhe.receipts from Internal Revenue
are estimated at §315,000,000; customs
§170,000,00; direct tax about S2,000,000;'. ien saare5 UCiUUS .~ 6 „ 55
from miscellaneous sources §65,000,000; KTrustse lor F. C. Brunner;
and from sales of public lands about longing to Dwight Lathrop, ^
§280,000. . Neidlinger and twenty- to
Trustee for children—all biie $.. ,
Ugy-Three persons were pardoned by unpaid balance :£ u \. 0 ?pqrrAl,li,
e President to-dav: Mrs. Marv I , A. E.
july3-w-30days
will ho eold at public outcry ' ^
tbe President to-day; "Mrs. Mary
Colt, Mrs. Mary W. Anderson and 0.
1?. Daniel, of Green county, Ga., all of
these applicants came under the §20-
000- clause of the amnesty proclama-
jdfloj
.Van 1
Holders of notes of the Bank of
Cape Fear are advised -that they -.are
lGdeemed promptly in Raleigh, by H.
W. Jones, Esq., cashier. .Twenty-five
cents in curreucy ; per dollar is the
highest price allowed by the bank.
R$*The Savannah papers of.Wednes
day chronicle the death of -Dr. J. G.
Howard, a well known physician of
that city and for some years.a Professor
in the Savannah Medical College.
/Wfteat, _
Planters who wish to obtain*^
now have an opportunity-ot ^
will be furnished. Wh-cat ^ j
be dry and well clea ?,®'j' f,en ’
well filled to save refilling wo'
N. B.—Persons wishing ^ s
me at the store of Hardin * . _.*«<
the Post Office corner-
nn Gallons each, Copal, C
/CU Varnish) for sale by
hoope
ju»
Coach 11