it, has been the subject of consideration in this court on several occasions. Craig v. Missouri, 4 Pet., 410; Briscoe v. Bank of Ky., 11 Pet., 257; Woodruff v. Trap nal, 10 How., 190; Darrington v. Bank of Ala., 13 How., 12; Curran v. Arkansas, 15 How., 309. These notes were not issued on the credit of the State, nor was the faith of the State pledged for their payment. It is a historical fact, proper to be used in argument, that an amendment, designed to pledge the faith of the State for the payment of these notes, was proposed while the Act was pending before the Legislature, but was rejected. It is true there was no corporation organized to control and manage the fund, as in some of the cases above quoted; but, in fact, the Governor, Treasurer and Auditor of the State, under the provisions of the law, because a quasi corporation for that purpose. They were virtually trustees, clothed with the duty of administering the funds for the benefit of the parties interested in it. Messrs. T. W. Bartley and Geo. F. Ed munds, for defendants in error: that the fund arising from the same might be paid out of the Treasury of the State, as advances to the people of the State upon the security of cotton at the rate of five cents per pound, in the manner and upon the terms prescribed in the Act. Owners of cotton desiring to obtain an advance upon the same, might present an application under oath to the Auditor of the State, stating the county of his residence, the number and marks of the bales of cotton in his actual possession or under his control, of which he was the owner, the average weight of the bales, the character of the cotton and the place where it was deposited; and the provision was that if it was subject to no lien or incumbrance whatever, the auditor might make the advance, provided the applicant executed a receipt to the auditor specifying the number of the bales upon which he obtained the advance, and the aggregate amount of the payment. Such a party was also required to promise in the receipt, safely to keep and deliver the cotton at some specified city or seaport in the It is argued on the other side that this issue Confederate States, to some person to be desigof "cotton money" as a circulating medium nated in the receipts, or to some cotton was a simple measure of local expediency to factor to be selected by such party and notifurnish conveniences for exchange, and aid in-fied to the Governor at the time of the shipternal commerce and business until the blockade could be removed, which had effectually prevented the shipment of the cotton crop of 1861, the chief resource of wealth and commerce for the people of the State. A blockade, as well as a siege is a legitimate measure of warfare. The object is to cut off trade and all business communication with the belligerents within, in order to compel them, by stress of necessity, to terms of capitulation and cessation of hostilities. And any measure which evades the blockade, or gives aid or strength in gold and silver or in treasury notes, then to those besieged, and enables them to hold out longer, is an aid to the cause of that belligerent party. In this instance, the shipment of the cotton crop of 1861 was the only resource of the people of Mississippi at that time; and the blockade had effectually prevented this. The issue of this paper circulation, as advances on the cotton crop, was an expedient to circumvent the effect and operation of the blockade. The argument of counsel is a distinct admission that the object was, by advances on the cotton, to enable the people to hold on to their cotton, and hold out until the blockade should be removed. By affording means, therefore, by the medium of circumventing the blockade for a time at least, this expedient did directly aid the rebellion. ment, and at such time as the Governor by proclamation should require. Until sold, the cotton remained at the risk of the party receiving the advance; but the proceeds thereof were subject to the order of the Governor. In addition to the petition and receipt, the party was required to execute a bond to the State with sureties double the amount of the advance, with stringent conditions, among which is the stipulation that if the proceeds shall not be sufficient to discharge the advance Besides this "money constitutes the sinews of war," and any money which contributed to replenish the Treasury, and furnish money facilities in any form to a people engaged in a war, is an aid to their cause. And this measure was a part of a revenue system adopted in Mississippi, at the time, to sustain the people of the State while engaged in the rebellion and, therefore, an aid to the rebellion. Mr. Justice Clifford delivered the opinion of the court: Treasury notes of various denominations, not exceeding $5,000,000, were, on the 19th of December, 1861, authorized to be issued by the Legislature of the State for the express purpose the obligation is to be enforced to the full amount of the advance or such portion of it as may not otherwise have been discharged. Funds so received by the Governor, whether in payment of the advances or for the proceeds of sale of the cotton, or recovered in suits on the bonds, were required to be deposited with the Treasurer and placed in the Treasury of the State; and it was enacted that the treasury notes so issued should be receivable in payment of all dues to the State, except the military tax previously levied. Prior to that time, to wit: on the 9th of January, 1861, the State passed the Secession Ordinance to repeal the law by which the State was admitted into the Union, and to withdraw all obligations on her part growing out of that relation, and to resume all the rights, functions and powers which were previously vested in the United States, and on the 26th of March in the same year, the State acceded to the Secession Confederacy, and adopted and ratified the Constitution previously ordained and established by the insurrectionary confederation. Ann. Cyclop., pp. 474, 475. Corresponding proceedings followed, by which the Constitution of the State was so amended as to abrogate all the provisions recognizing the Federal Constitution, and 80 changing the same as to adapt the instrument to the assumed relations between the State and the other seceding States. Vigorous legislative measures followed, all tending to the same 1874. TAYLOR V. THOMAS. end, some of which were strictly of a military character, and others whose object was to raise revenue to enable the State to meet the new obligations she had contracted, consequent upon the new relations she had assumed. Strictly speaking, there is only one error Considered as an entirety, assigned in the record, though it is twofold in its character. it is that the court below erred in sustaining the demurrer to the bill of complaint and in refusing the relief prayed for by the complainant. But the appellant also complains that the effect of the decree is to sustain the Act imposing the tax in question and to impair the obligation of the contract made by the State in virtue of the Act under which the cotton notes were issued, that all those notes should be receivable in payment of state and county taxes. of the complainant, and the respondents removed the cause into the High Court of Errors and Appeals. Due entry of the appeal having been made, the parties were again heard in the appellate court, and the latter court reversed Increased revenue became indispensable, and the decree of the county court, sustained the to supply that deficiency the ruling power of demurrer filed by the respondents, dissolved the State looked chiefly to direct taxation and the injunction granted by the court of original to the great staple of the State, as the princi-jurisdiction and dismissed the bill of compal means for replenishing the Treasury. Pub-plaint; whereupon the complainant sued out lic necessity was so great in that regard, that a writ of error and removed the cause into all the resources of the people were taxed in this court. almost every conceivable form known to legislative bodies, as means to supply the public Measures of wants in such an emergency. various kinds were adopted for the purpose, and among the number was the passage of the Act authorizing the proper authority to issue treasury notes, and empowering the Auditor of the State to make the described advances in the manner and upon the terms before explained. Sufficient is known as to the occurrences during the war of the rebellion, without any special reference to those events. Suffice it to say, was suppressed and the that the rebellion State returned to her allegiance to the United Five propositions are submitted by the reStates, and in the progress of events became Constitution. spondent in answer to the errors assigned by recognized under the Federal Enough appears, however, to justify the re-the complainant; but in the view taken of the mark that she came back with an exhausted case, it will not be necessary to examine with Treasury, which made it necessary to resort much care any one of them except the third, to increased taxation to enable her to pay her which is, that the Act of the insurrectionary Legislature of the State, providing for the issue current expenses. of the before-mentioned treasury notes, was passed in aid of the rebellion, and that the treasury notes issued under it are illegal and void. Direct support to that proposition is found in the opinion of the highest court of the State, given in the case now under examination. Accordingly, the Legislative of the State, on the 16th of November, 1865, passed the law of that Statc levying a special tax, which required that the same should be collected in the currency of the United States. By the record it appears that the appellant, prior to the 29th of May, 1866, was the owner of fifty bales of cotton, and that he owed a tax of $2 per bale on the same by virtue of the last named Tax Act, and that on that day he tendered to the respondents below, or one of them, a treasury note of the denomination of $100 in payment of the said tax, and that the respondents, as he alleges, refused and still refuse to take the same in payment of the said tax. as they were bound by law to do. Both parties agree that the treasury note tendered was one of the number issued under the law empowering the Auditor of the State to make the before-mentioned advances, and that the respondents, the Collector and his deputy, refused to receive it upon the ground that the later law, imposing the tax, required them to collect the same in the currency of the United States. Most of the propositions submitted by the respondents were examined by the state appellate court, in all or nearly all of which the court appear to have concurred, but they finally rested the decision upon the ground that the alleged contract of the insurrectionary Legislature, that the treasury notes to be issued under the Act in question should be received in payment of taxes, was void because the Act conferring the authority to issue the notes was passed in aid of the late rebellion and, consequently, that the supposed contract is not obligatory upon the State, since she returned to her allegiance and became re-organized under the Federal Constitution; that the operation and effect of that Act was to give aid and comfort to the rebellion and, therefore, that it was not revived by the Ordinance of re-organization passed since the cessation of hostilities; that the Act was a part of the financial system of the State at a time of great pecuniary want, to supply not only a circulating medium for the people in the transaction of their ordinary business, but also to furnish means by which an empty treasury might be replenished; that the treasury notes, issued under that Act, were also intended to supply an important part of the revenue by which state government was to be sustained and enabled more effectualService was made, and the respondents ap- ly to aid the Confederate Government in the peared and demurred to the bill of complaint. prosecution of a sanguinary war waged exHearing was had and the county court over-pressly for the purpose of subverting the Conruled the demurrer and enjoined all further stitution of the United States. attempts to collect the tax. Subsequently the chancery court entered a final decree in favor Payment of the tax having been refused, the respondents, or one of them, distrained a part of the cotton and levied on the same in satisfaction of the tax, and the appellant alleges that the Collector will proceed to sell the same unless he shall be restrained by proper process; wherefore he prays for an injunction, and for a decree that the Collector shall receive the treasury note in payment of the tax, and for general relief. Beyond all doubt the finding of the appellate 791 court of the State in that regard is correct, and the court here also unanimously concur in the conclusion reached by that court, that the treasury notes authorized to be issued by the Act under consideration, inasmuch as they were issued "against the public policy and in violation of the Constitution of the United States, are, therefore, illegal and void." Thomas v. Taylor, 42 Miss., 710. Three principal propositions are submitted by the appellant to controvert that conclusion which will be separately considered: (1) That the terms of the Act authorizing the issue of the treasury notes do not warrant the conclusion reached by the state appellate court, that it was passed in aid of the rebellion. (2) That the subsequent decisions of the same court have overruled the decisions of that court in that case. (3) That certain decisions of this court are inconsistent with the conclusion that the Act 487*] in question, when properly construed, affords any evidence that it was designed to accomplish any such purpose. which was to be determined by the proclamation of the Governor declaring the fact, the Governor shall in the same form require all persons to whom advances had been made, to deliver the cotton specified in their respective receipts within ninety days from the date of the proclamation. Nothing could be received by the Governor in lieu of the cotton "but gold and silver or the treasury notes issued under the Act," and the express requirement is that all the funds so received by the Governor in payment of the advances shall be deposited with the Treasurer, and be placed in the Treasury of the State. Attempt is made in argument to show the inference drawn from those provisions, that the Act was passed in aid of the rebellion, is repelled by another provision of the same Act, which in effect provides that such treasury notes shall not be receivable in payment of the tax levied under a prior law and which is denominated a military tax, but it is sufficient answer to that suggestion to say that by the terms of the Act said notes are made receivable in payment of all taxes then due to the that when so received the notes might "again be paid out by the Treasurer upon any warrant of the auditor drawn upon the general treasury." Nor is there anything in that exception inconsistent with the theory that the Act was passed in aid of the rebellion, as it is highly probable that the Legislature supposed that the other provisions of the Act were sufficient to insure confidence in the paper emission without making the notes receivable in payment of the military tax. I. Subsequent to the passage of the Secession Ordinance every branch of the state government-executive, legislative and judicial-State or counties except the military tax, and claimed that the State ceased by that Act to be one of the States of the Federal Union, and denied in the most solemn forms of proceeding that the people of the State owed any further allegiance to the Federal Constitution or obedience to the laws of the United States. Instead of that, the whole people of the State joined with one accord in adopting a new Constitution differing widely from the Federal Constitution, and by which, as they claimed, they severed and dissolved all connection with the Federal Union and established a new confederation between the people of that State and the other seceding States. Such measures and pretensions led immediately to conflict of jurisdiction and presently to open hostilities, which showed that every prospect of compromise was at an end. Military preparations became necessary on both sides, and the several seceding States found it impossible to avoid increased and onerous taxation, and no one of the number felt the pressure in that regard more heavily than the State where these parties reside. Suppose that is so, still it is insisted that the conclusion of the state court, that the Act was passed in aid of the rebellion, cannot be supported, because the members of the Legislature which passed the Act were elected before the ordinance of secession was adopted; but two answers may be made to that proposition, either of which is sufficient to show that it is destitute of merit: (1) That the Act if passed in aid of the rebellion, would be void even if passed by a *Legislature otherwise inno- [*489 cent of any treasonable act. (2) That the Legislature in question, subsequent to the Different expedients were adopted to replen-adoption of the secession ordinance and of the ish the empty Treasury of the State, of which ordinance by which the State acceded to and none, perhaps, afforded greater promise than became a member of the insurrectionary conthe measure embodied in the Act providing federacy, ceased to represent the State as a for the issue of treasury notes, as it had the constitutional member of the Federal Union. effect to call forth the product of the great staple of the State from its secret depositories, and to render it available as the basis of an extended paper circulation. Legislative authority to issue such notes was accordingly granted, but the requirement was that the notes, when executed in the prescribed form, should be deposited in the Treasury of the State, to be paid out by the auditor as advances to such of the people of the State as should comply with the before-mentioned terms II. Extended discussion of the second propand conditions prescribed in the Act authoriz-osition submitted by the appellant will be uning their issue. Other provisions of the Act also afford very strong confirmatory proof that the Act was 488*] passed in aid of the rebellion *as, for example, the section which provides that when ever the then present blockade of the ports of the Confederate States should be removed Members of the Legislature may perpetrate treasonable Acts after the Legislature is organized as well as before they take their seats, nor is the question affected in the least by the fact that the Legislature was duly organized before the State seceded, as the public history of the period shows that the whole Government and people of the State joined in the rebellion before the Act in question was passed through the forms of legislation. necessary, as the cases referred to in support of the theory that the prior decision of that court upon the subject under consideration is overruled, do not afford the proposition any countenance whatever. They are as follows: Buchanan v. Smith, 43 Miss., 97; Mister v. McLean, 43 Miss., 268; Lawson v. Jeffries, 47 the object and purpose of it. If that was just in itself and laudable, the alienation was valid, but if the object and purpose were to break up the Union and to overthow the constitu tional government, the alienation was invalid. Surely such remarks do not serve to support the proposition of the appellant; and he is equally unfortunate in his reference to the case of Horn v. Lockhart, 17 Wall., 580, 21 L. ed. 660, in which the opinion was given by Mr. Justice Field. Order, say the court in that case, was to be preserved, police regulations maintained, crime prosecuted, property brated, estates settled, and the transfer and descent of property regulated precisely as in times of peace. No one that we are aware of, say the court, seriously questions the validity of judicial or legislative Acts in the insurrectionary States touching these and kindred subjects where they were not hostile in their purpose or mode of enforcement to the authority of the National Government, and did not impair the rights of citizens under the Constitution. Miss., 686. Neither of these cases support the proposition for which they are cited. On the contrary, they decide, in substance and effect, that Acts necessary to peace and good order among citizens-such, for example, as laws which sanction and protect marriage and domestic relations, govern the course of descents, regulate the conveyance and transfer of property, provide remedies for injuries to person and estate, and other similar Acts which would be valid if emanating from a lawful government-must be regarded as valid when proceeding from an actual, though unlawful government; but that Acts in further-protected, contracts enforced, marriages celeance and support of rebellion and against the just rights of the citizens must be regarded as invalid, which accords with the rule of decision adopted and promulgated in the prior decision of the same court, and which is all that need be said responsive to that proposition. 490*] *III. Under the circumstances it will not be necessary to add much to what has been remarked responsive to the preceding proposition to refute the third one of the series, as the language of the final proposition decided by the State appellate court is borrowed from the decision in Texas v. White, 7 Wall., 733, 19 L. ed. 240, of this court upon the same subject. Certain Acts, such as those described by the State appellate court, it is admitted, are valid, but the late Chief Justice, as the organ of the court, proceeded to say that Acts in furtherance or support of rebellion against the United States, or intended to defeat the just rights of the citizens, and other Acts of like nature, must be regarded as invalid and void. Nor is there anything in the case of White v. Hart, 13 Wall., 650, 20 L. ed. 687, which is in the slightest degree inconsistent with the rule laid down in the preceding case. Exactly the same doctrines were laid down in the case of Huntington v. Texas, 16 Wall., 413, 21 L. ed. 318, in which the opinion of the court was also given by the late Chief Justice. Bonds for the payment of money to a large amount were issued, before the rebellion, by the United States to the State of Texas, to adjust certain claims made by that State growing out of a dispute as to her boundaries. Part of those bonds were still in the treasury of the State when the rebellion broke out. Texas joined the rebellion, and during that period some of those bonds were used by the ruling power of the State. War ensued, but in the progress of events the rebellion was crushed. Various efforts were subsequently made to re-organize the State as one of the States of the Federal Union, and those efforts were so far successful before the suit in the case last cited was commenced that the Supreme Court decided that the State was competent to sue. She brought that suit to recover part of those bonds. Defenses of various kinds were set up by the defendant in the subordinate court. Exceptions were filed by him to the ruling of the court and the case was removed here by writ of error. In disposing of the case here, the court re491*] marked as follows: *whether the alienation of the bonds by the usurping government devests the title of the State depends, as we have said, upon other circumstances than the quality of the government. If the govern ment was in the actual control of the State, the validity of its alienation must depend on Viewed in the light of the qualifying phrase, the remarks reproduced accord with the present views of the court, as the qualifying phrase is equivalent to an affirmative decision that judicial and legislative Acts hostile in their purpose or mode of enforcement to the authority of the National Government, or which impaired the rights of citizens under the Constitution, are invalid and void, which, in principle, is exactly what the State appellate court decided in this case. Decree of the State Court affirmed. THE MUTUAL BENEFIT LIFE INSUR- v. HALLIE NEWTON. (See S. C., 22 Wall., 32-38.) Admission of party-effect of, as evidencepreliminary proofs-evidence against insur ance company. 1. Every admission upon which a party relies is to be taken as an entirety of the fact which makes for his side, with the qualifications which limit, modify or destroy its effect. When, therefore, the agent and officers of an insurance company stated to the agent of a party claiming upon a policy of insurance, that the preliminary proofs presented were sufficient as to the death of the insured, but that they showed that the insured had committed suicide, the whole admission must be taken together; if sufficient to establish the death of the insured, it was also sufficient to show the manner of his death. 2. The preliminary proofs presented to an insurof its policy of insurance, are admissible as prima ance company, in compliance with the condition facie evidence of the facts stated therein against the insured and on behalf of the company. [No. 183.] Decided Mar. 1, 1875. Argued Feb. 9, 1875. ed States for the Eastern District of Missouri. This action was brought by the defendant in error, upon two policies of insurance. It was originally commenced in the Missouri Circuit Court of St. Louis County, whence it was re moved to the court below. *Headnotes by Mr. Justice FIELD. insurance in cases of suicide-see note to Mut. Life NOTE. Effect of provision avoiding policy of life Ins. Co. v. Terry, 21 L. ed. U. S. 236. 1 the court here also unanimously concur in the Three principal propositions are submitted (1) That the terms of the Act authorizing the issue of the treasury notes do not warrant the conclusion reached by the state appellate court, that it was passed in aid of the rebellion. (2) That the subsequent decisions of the same court have overruled the decisions of that court in that case. (3) That certain decisions of this court are inconsistent with the conclusion that the Act 487*] in question, when properly construed, affords any evidence that it was designed to accomplish any such purpose. which was to be determined by the proclamation of the Governor declaring the fact, the Governor shall in the same form require all persons to whom advances had been made, to deliver the cotton specified in their respective receipts within ninety days from the date of the proclamation. Nothing could be received by the Governor in lieu of the cotton "but gold and silver or the treasury notes issued under the Act," and the express requirement is that all the funds so received by the Governor in payment of the advances shall be de posited with the Treasurer, and be placed in the Treasury of the State. Attempt is made in argument to show the inference drawn from those provisions, that the Act was passed in aid of the rebellion, is repelled by another provision of the same Act, which in effect provides that such treasury notes shall not be receivable in payment of the tax levied under a prior law and which is denominated a military tax, but it is sufficient answer to that suggestion to say that by the I. Subsequent to the passage of the Secession terms of the Act said notes are made receiv Ordinance every branch of the state govern- able in payment of all taxes then due to the ment executive, legislative and judicial-State or counties except the military tax, and claimed that the State ceased by that Act to that when so received the notes might "again be one of the States of the Federal Union, and be paid out by the Treasurer upon any wardenied in the most solemn forms of proceed- rant of the auditor drawn upon the general ing that the people of the State owed any fur- treasury." Nor is there anything in that exther allegiance to the Federal Constitution or ception inconsistent with the theory that the obedience to the laws of the United States. In- Act was passed in aid of the rebellion, as it stead of that, the whole people of the State is highly probable that the Legislature supjoined with one accord in adopting a new posed that the other provisions of the Act were Constitution differing widely from the Federal sufficient to insure confidence in the paper Constitution, and by which, as they claimed, emission without making the notes receivable they severed and dissolved all connection with in payment of the military tax. the Federal Union and established a new confederation between the people of that State and the other seceding States. Such measures and pretensions led immediately to conflict of jurisdiction and presently to open hostilities, which showed that every prospect of compromise was at an end. Military preparations became necessary on both sides, and the several seceding States found it impossible to avoid increased and onerous taxation, and no one of the number felt the pressure in that regard more heavily than the State where these parties reside. Suppose that is so, still it is insisted that the conclusion of the state court, that the Act was passed in aid of the rebellion, cannot be supported, because the members of the Legislature which passed the Act were elected before the ordinance of secession was adopted; but two answers may be made to that proposition, either of which is sufficient to show that it is destitute of merit: (1) That the Act if passed in aid of the rebellion, would be void even if passed by a *Legislature otherwise inno- [*489 cent of any treasonable act. (2) That the Legislature in question, subsequent to the Different expedients were adopted to replen-adoption of the secession ordinance and of the ish the empty Treasury of the State, of which ordinance by which the State acceded to and none, perhaps, afforded greater promise than became a member of the insurrectionary conthe measure embodied in the Act providing federacy, ceased to represent the State as a for the issue of treasury notes, as it had the constitutional member of the Federal Union. effect to call forth the product of the great Members of the Legislature may perpetrate staple of the State from its secret depositories, treasonable Acts afte Legislature is or and to render it available as the basis of an ganized as well as their seats, extended paper circulation. Legislative au- nor is the quest least by thority to issue such notes was accordingly the fact that the aly organgranted, but the requirement was that the ized before the public hisnotes, when executed in the prescribed tory of the p should be deposited in the Treasury ernment and State, to be paid out by the auditor rebellion bef vances to such of the people of the St. should comply with the before-mentioned and conditions prescribed in the Act au ing their issue. Other provisions of the Act also affor strong confirmatory proof that the A 488*] passed in aid of the rebellion * example, the section which provides that ever the then present blockade of the p the Confederate States should be re through the II. Exter necessary. |