Validity of Statutes. When the military forces of the Confederate government were overthrown, it perished, and with it all its enactments. But the legislative acts of the several states forming the confederacy stand on different grounds, and eo far ae they did not impair or tend to impair the su premacy of the national authority or the just rights of citizens under the constitution, they are in gen eral to be treated as valid and binding ; Williams v. Bruffy, 96 U. S. 177, 24 L. Ed. 716; Ford v. Sur get, 97 U. S. 594, 24 L. Ed. 1018 ; Keppel v. R. Co., 1 Chase's Dec. 167, Fed. No. 7,722; Texas v. White, 7 Wall. (U. S.) 733, 19 L. Ed. 227; U. S. v. Ins. Co., 22 Wall. (U. S.) 99, 22 L. Ed. 816.
Payments made under the Confederate sequestra tion acts were void and gave no title. See Dewing v. Perdicaries, 96 U. S. 193, 24 L. Ed. 654.
Decisions of the Confederate Courts. Judgments of such courts merely settling the rights of private parties actually within their jurisdiction, not tending to defeat the just rights of citizens of the United States, nor in furtherance of laws passed in aid of the rebellion, are valid ; Cook v. Oliver, 1 Woods 437, Fed. Cas. No. 3,164 ; Coleman v. Tennessee, 97 U. S. 609, 24 L. Ed. 1118; and a judgment of a court of Georgia in November, 1861, for the purchase money of slaves, was held a valid judgment when entered, and enforcible in 1871; French v. Tumlin, 10 Am. Law Reg. (N. S.) 641, Fed. Cas. No. 6104 (with note by James T. Mitchell, late Chief Justice of Pennsylvania). But during the war, the courts of states in rebellion had no jurisdiction of parties residing in states which adhered to the national government ; Livingston v. Jordan, 10 Am. L. Reg. (N. S.) 53, Fed. Cas. No. 8,415, by Chase, C. J. See further Gunn v. Barry, 15 Wall. (U. S.) 610, 21 L. Ed. 212 ; 12 Op. Att. Gen. Ill, 182 ; 13 id. 149 ; Ma con & A. R. Co. v. Little, 45 Ga. 370 ; Griffin v. Cunningham, 20 Gratt. (Va.) 31 ; White v. Hart, 13 Wall. (U. S.) 646, 20 L. Ed. 685 ; Hurd'e Theory of Nat. Govt. ; RECONSTRUCTION; CONFEDERATE STATES; CONFEDERATE MONEY ; WAR.
William Rawle, in his "View of the Constitution" (Philadelphia, 1825, 2d Ed. 1829), in treating the guarantee of the constitution to every state in the Union of a republican form of government, ex pressed the opinion that a state had the right to withdraw from the Union. He said (2d Ed.):
"If a faction should attempt to subvert the gov ernment of a state for the purpose of destroying its republican form, the paternal power of the Union could thus be called forth to subdue it. Yet it is not to be understood that its interposition would be justifiable, if the people of a state should determine to retire from the Union, whether they adopted an other or retained the same form of government." (Page 296.) "The states, then, may wholly withdraw from the Union, but while they continue, they must retain the character of representative republics." (Page 297.) "The secession of a state from the Union depends on the will of the people of such state." (Page 302.) The editor of this Revision of Bouvier found among the papers of William Rawle, some years ago, his "Notes on the Constitution" evidently in tended to be used in the preparation of a third edition. Apparently they were prepared during the Nullification excitement ; President Jackson's Nul lification Proclamation was issued December 10, 1832. He died in 1836 without completing the third edition. He says in these notes: "The distressing agitation of the public mind now prevailing in two of the Southern States has induc ed the author carefully to review this chapter with much anxiety to discover whether his opinions on this important subject are correct and with a full determination candidly to avow any error which he should find in them. The exact question is whether the people of one state may withdraw that state from the Union without the consent of the other states, or the rest of the people of the Union." And he concludes: "Very gratifying would it have been to the author of this work had his reconsideration of this most interesting question terminated in a different conviction, but he cannot retract in this edition what he continues to think nor expunge what has already been laid before the public." Among the same papers was a letter from Mr. Justice Story, written to Mr. Rawle soon after the publication of his first edition, in which he express ed his dissent from Mr. Rawle's view of the right of secession, and accepted an invitation to visit him in Philadelphia on his way from Washington to Boston, after the adjournment of the Supreme Court. to discuss the subject. Unfortunately this letter has been mislaid.