delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is an action of debt, brought in the Circuit Court of Cannon County, to recover eight hundred
The contest here arises on a receipt for three hundred dollars, executed by Overall, on the 9th of December, 1862, to Wright, one of the plaintiffs in error. The payment was in what is known as “Confederate money,” and the face of the receipt shows it was to be entered as a credit on the note sued on in this action. The credit was not entered, and under the instructions of the Circuit Judge to the jury, there was a verdict for the full amount of the note, with interest thereon, and judgment pronounced according to the finding of the jury, from which an appeal in error is prosecuted to this Court.
The Circuit Judge, among other things not excepted to, in substance, told the jury, that the receipt was an undertaking, on the part of Overall, to see that the three hundred dollars paid should be credited on the note, and inasmuch as the credit had not been entered, the undertaking was executory, and must be supported by a good or a valuable consideration; and that “Confederate money,” having been issued against public policy, and without authority of law,' was neither a good or a valuable consideration.
Waiving all criticism on His Honor, the Circuit Judge’s construction of the receipt, we think there is no error in the charge of which the appellants have any ground of complaint. The whole question turns upon the validity of “Confederate money;” and we are not at
To coin money is an act of sovereignty; and by the older authorities, it was- held of such vital importance to the honor of the State, that it was placed among the prerogatives of majesty, and could not be delegated. The faith and credit of the State was always pledged for the genuineness of the coin; and the wisdom and policy of the ancient law would not, therefore, entrust the exercise of this right to any other hands than the reigning sovereign.
Under our form of government, the right to coin money, is, by the Constitution, expressly delegated to Congress; but to exercise this right, requires the exertion of the sovereign power of the nation. No less power than the consent of both Houses of Congress, with the approval of the President, can authorize the coining of money, or the issuance of the bonds or notes of the United States, predicated on the faith and credit of the nation.
The published Constitution of the “Confederate
It is claimed for them, that they had thrown off the power and authority of the Government of the United States, and so far erected a new and independent Government, as' to he, at least, a Government de facto; and ás such, entitled to all the rights and privileges belonging to a sovereign and independent nation. We cannot assent to this proposition. To do so, would be to settle, by judicial determination, what the “Confederate States” failed to achieve by arms. The very, object the “Confederate States” had in view, in the great struggle now ended in the complete triumph of the national power, was to establish a separate, independent, national existence; and failing to. accomplish this object, the Courts of the country can afford no relief. They are bound, as well upon principle as authority, to recognize the ancient state of things as remaining unchanged.
This question is neither a new or a doubtful one. All the authorities, both in England and America, concur in fixing its character. It is not a judicial question, but eminently a great public, political question, which must be determined by the legislative and executive departments of the national Government. Halleck on In
In the case of Eose vs. Himily, 4 Oranch, 241, this question came directly under review, and Chief Justice Marshall, in delivering the opinion of the Court, said: “The colony of St. Domingo, originally belonging to France, had broken the' bond which connected her to the parent State — had declared herself independent, and was endeavoring to support that independence by arms. France still asserted her claim of sovereignty, and had employed a military force in support of that claim. A war de facto unquestionably existed between France and St. Domingo. It has been argued, that colony, having declared itself a sovereign State, and having thus far maintained its sovereignty by arms, must be considered and treated by other nations as sovereign in fact, and as being entitled to maintain the same intercourse with the world that is maintained by other belligerent nations. In support of this argument, the doctrines of Vattel have been particularly referred to; but the language of that writer is obviously addressed to Sovereigns, and not to Courts. It is for governments to decide whether they will consider St. Domingo as an independent nation; and until such decision shall be made, or France shall relinquish her claim, courts of justice
This question again came before the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of Hoyt vs. Gelston, 3 Wheaton, 324, when the principle settled in Rose vs. Himily was fully recognized. See also the Santissima Trinidad, and the St. Ander, 7 Wheaton, 285; and Kennett et als. vs. Chambers, 14 Howard, 38. And still in a later case, in the trial of the Savannah pirates, in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York, Mr. Justice Nelson, with whom Shipman, Judge, concurred, while delivering the opinion of the Court, said: “It is claimed that the Confederate States have thrown off the power and authority of the general government — have erected a new and independent government in its place, and .have maintained it against the whole military and naval- -power of the former— that it is at least a government de facto, and entitled to all the rights and privileges that belong to a sovereign and independent nation. The right also, constitutional or otherwise, has been strongly urged, and the law of nations, and the commentaries of eminent publicists, have been referred to, as justifying the secession or revolt of these Confederate States. Great ability and research have been displayed by the learned counsel, on this branch of the case. But the Court do not deem it pertinent or material, to enter into this wide field of inquiry. This branch of the defense involves considerations that do not belong to
The learned Judge, after declaring that this - had been the uniform course of decision and practice of the Courts of the United States, goes -on further -to say:
Page 342“The revolt of the Spanish Colony of South America, and the new government erected on separating from the mother country, were acknowledged by an Act of Congress, on the recommendation of the President, in 1822. Prior to this recognition, and during the civil war' between. Spain and her colonies, it was' the declared policy of our government, to treat both parties as belligerents, entitled equally to the rights of asylum and hospitality, and to consider them in respect to the neutral relation and duties of our government, as equally entitled to the sovereign rights of war as against each other. This was also the doctrine of the Courts, which they derived from the policy of the government, following the political departments of the government, as it respects our relations with new governments, erected on the overthrow of the old. And if this is the rule of the Federal Courts, in case of a revolt and erection of a. new government, as it respects foreign nations,
Applying these principles to the case under con
This principle has been sanctioned by this Court, in the case of forged or counterfeit paper. In the case of Wan vs. Street & Co., 2 Head, 609, the Court said: “A payment of genuine bank notes, supposed by both parties to be good, though in fact worthless, will be binding, and' the loss must fall on the receiver, in the absence of fraud. It is otherwise if the notes be not genuine — not what they purport to be. So a payment in forged paper would be void, and have no effect as a credit or payment for property or pre-existing debts.” Much more must this principle be applicable, when the notes, purporting to be money, were issued against public policy as well as the laws and Constitution of the United States, and expressly for their overthrow.
But, we do not say, that a case might not arise, involving “Confederate money” as the basis of an executed contract, where the rights of the parties were
Affirm the judgment.