and that the children of the mortgagee, by having accepted and acquiesced in it for so long a time, had, independently of any statute of limitations, and apart from any question as to the legality of the payment of the bonds in Confederate money or Virginia bank notes, forfeited their right to invoke the aid of a court of equity. Washington v. Opie (1892), 145 U. S. 214. A sale of a railroad under the provisions of the general improvement law of Florida (act of Jan. 6, 1855), made during the war of the rebellion by the persons acting as governor and officers of the State, in their capacity as ex officio trustees of the general improvement fund, must be recognized as valid, under the settled doctrine that the act of the rebellious States in their individual capacities--executive, legislative, and judicial-so far as they do not tend to impair the supremacy of the national authority or the constitutional rights of citizens, are to be treated as valid and binding. Johnson r. Atlantic G. & W. I. Transit Co., 156 U. S. 618, 15 S. Ct. 520. An officer in the United States Army, assigned to the command of a military district, had no authority, as military commander, to issue an order to the sheriff of the county, requiring him to place a person in possession of a plantation and personal property which were, at the time, in the possession of another person. But where he issued such an order on the application of H., who claimed to be the true owner of the property, and was sued by W., who was dispossessed by the execution of the order, for damages for such dispossession, it was held that he could justify under such order if II. was the true owner and was entitled to the possession. Whalen r. Sheridan, 17 Blatchf. 9. A decree in an attachment case, begun in the South during the war by seizure of property and publication of notice, is void as against a loyal citizen, and can be impeached collaterally. Dorr r. Gibboney, ? Hughes, C. C. 382. The appointment of an administrator, though made during the war between the States, is valid. Allen r. Kellam, 69 Ala. 442. During the late war the State of Mississippi levied a tax on land for military purposes. Held, that an executor paying such a tax upon land of his testator should be reimbursed, although the tax would now be considered as invalid, and, if a sale of the land had been made therefor, it would not be upheld. Hudson r. Gray, 58 Miss. 882. The orders of military commanders exercising authority under the Federal Government in North Carolina, immediately after the war, relating to the administration of civil affairs, had no further efficacy than such as they drew from the force which upheld them. Varner and Dorsett v. Arnold, 83 N. C. 206. The State of Tennessee is bound to receive in payment of taxes bills of the Bank of Tennessee issued after May 6, 1861, provided the same were not issued in support of the rebellion; and the burden of proving that certain bills tendered in payment of taxes were thus illegally issued is upon him to whom the tender is made. ing State v. Sneed, 9 Baxter (Tenn.), 472.) Keith v. Clarke, 4 Lea (Tenn.), 718. (Overrul The fact that the act of Dec. 15, 1863, to encourage the erection of certain machinery by donation of land and otherwise was enacted during the rebellion does not render it void, as having been enacted in aid of the rebellion, its language not warranting such construction. 25 S. W. 705, affirmed. McLeary v. Dawson, 87 Tex. 524, 29 S. W. 1044. In 1790 a fund bequeathed in trust for the poor of a county in Virginia was loaned on real estate security. In 1863 the legislature authorized the payment of amount and it was paid in Confederate currency. Held, that the legislation was constitutional, and that the lien was discharged and could not be reinstated. Prince William School Board r. Stuart and Palmer, 80 Va. 64. In 1861 the city of Richmond, under an ordinance, issued small notes to circulate as currency. At that time it was a penal offense to issue such notes, but it was claimed that the issue was validated by the legislature the following year, while the city claimed that the notes were void, as issued in aid of rebellion against United States. The memorial of the council to the legislature, urging it to legalize the issue, recited that the council had been compelled to take measures for the relief of the people, and their defense against the threatened war, and that the law prohibiting it from issuing such notes ought not to stand in the way of providing resources for the protection against unscrupulous enemies. It showed that the expense of the city had been increased by the war. Two members of the council which issued the notes testified that one of the objects of the issue was to provide small change, but the principal object was to meet the expenses expected to arise out of the war. Two other members testified that the only object of the issue was to provide small change, but one of these witnesses was discredited by its being shown that he offered for adoption the memorial to the legislature. Held, that the evidence sufficiently showed that one of the objects of the issue of the notes was to aid the rebellion, and that consequently they were void. Isaac v. City of Richmond (Va.), 17 S. E. 760. Where, during the civil war, the clerk of a county court went with the Confederates when they abandoned the county, taking the records with him, and the Federal forces took possession of the county, held, that no one could administer the duties of the office in the Federal lines as deputy for the clerk while the latter was within the Confederate lines. Herring v. Lee, 22 W. Va. 661. 3. REGULATION OF COMMERCE. § 1145. "Entertaining no doubt that the military right to exclude commerce altogether from the ports of the enemy in our military occupation included the minor right of admitting it under prescribed conditions, it became an important question, at the date of the order, whether there should be a discrimination between vessels and cargoes to belonging to citizens of the United States and vessels and cargoes belonging to neutral nations. "Had the vessels and cargoes belonging to citizens of the United States been admitted without the payment of any duty, while a duty was levied on foreign vessels and cargoes, the object of the order would have been defeated. The whole commerce would have been conducted in American vessels, no contributions could have been collected, and the enemy would have been furnished with goods without the exaction from him of any contribution whatever, and would have been thus benefited by our military occupation, instead of being made to feel the evils of the war. In order to levy these contributions and to make them available for the support of the army, it became, therefore, absolutely necessary that they should be collected upon imports into Mexican ports, whether in vessels belonging to citizens of the United States or to foreigners. "It was deemed proper to extend the privilege to vessels and their cargoes belonging to neutral nations. It has been my policy since the commencement of the war with Mexico to act justly and liberally toward all neutral nations, and to afford to them no just cause of complaint; and we have seen the good consequences of this policy by the general satisfaction which it has given." President Polk, special message, Feb. 10, 1848, Richardson's Messages, "It is doubted, in the last edition of Kent's Commentaries that was published during the author's life, as to the validity of the powers claimed by the President in his official letter of March 31, 1847, to the Secretary of the Navy. He exercised, as being charged by the Constitution with the prosecution of the war, the right of levying military contributions upon the enemy for the purposes of war, and of opening the Mexican ports to neutral trade, the whole execution of these commercial regulations being placed under the control of the military and naval forces. These fiscal and commercial regulations would,' it is said, 'seem to press strongly upon the constitutional powers of Congress to raise and support armies, to lay and collect taxes, and to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and to declare war and make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces, and concerning captures on land and water, and to define offenses against the law of nations. Though the Constitution vests the executive power in the President and declares him Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, these powers must necessarily be subordinate to the legislative power in Congress. It would appear to me to be the policy or true construction of this simple and general grant of power to the President, not to suffer it to interfere with those specific powers of Congress which are more safely depos ited in the legislative department, and that the powers thus assumed by the President do not belong to him but to Congress.' (1 Kent Com. 292, note b.)" Lawrence's Wheaton (ed. 1863), 1014. Upon the occupation of the country [Porto Rico] by the military forces of the United States, the authority of the Spanish Government was superseded, but the necessity for a revenue did not cease. The government must be carried on, and there was no one left to adminis ter its functions but the military forces of the United States. Money is requisite for that purpose, and money could only be raised by order of the military commander. The most natural method was by the continuation of existing duties. In adopting this method, General Miles was fully justified by the laws of war." Dooley . United States (1901), 182 U. S. 222, 230, citing Halleck, Int. While the power of the military commander occupying a conquered country is "necessarily despotic, this must be understood rather in an administrative than in a legislative sense. While in legislating for a conquered country he may disregard the laws of that country, he is not wholly above the laws of his own. For instance, it is clear that while a military commander during the civil war was in the occupation of a Southern port, he could impose duties por merchandise arriving from abroad, it would hardly be contended that he could also impose duties upon merchandise arriving from ports of his own country. His power to administer would be absolute, but his power to legislate would not be without certain restrictions-in other words, they would not extend beyond the necessities of the case. Thus in the case of the Admittance, Jecker v. Montgomery, 13 How. 498, it was held that neither the President, nor the military commander, could establish a court of prize, competent to take jurisdiction of a case of capture, whose judgments would be conclusive in other admiralty courts. It was said that the courts established in Mexico during the war were nothing more than agents of the military power, to assist it in preserving order in the conquered territory, and to protect the inhabitants in their persons and property, while it was occupied by the American arms. They were subject to the military power, and their decisions under its control, whenever the commanding officer thought proper to interfere. They were not courts of the United States, and had no right to adjudicate upon a question of prize or no prize,' although Congress, in the exercise of its general authority in relation to the national courts, would have power to validate their action. (The Grapeshot, 9 Wall. 129, 133.) "So, too, in Mitchell . Harmony, 13 How. 115, it was held that, where the plaintiff entered Mexico during the war with that country, under a permission of the commander to trade with the enemy and under the sanction of the executive power of the United States, his property was not liable to seizure by law for such trading, and that the officer directing the seizure was liable to an action for the value of the property taken. To the same effect is Mostyn ». Fabrigas, 1 Cowp. 161. “In Raymond . Thomas, 91 U. S. 712, a special order, by the officer in command of the forces in the State of South Carolina, annulling a decree rendered by a court of chancery in that State, was held to be void. In delivering the opinion, Mr. Justice Swayne observed: Whether Congress could have conferred the power to do such an act is not the question we are called upon to consider. It is an unbending rule of law, that the exercise of military power, where the rights of the citizens are concerned, shall never be pushed beyond what the exigency requires.' Without questioning at all the original validity of the order imposing duties upon goods imported into Porto Rico from foreign countries, we think the proper construction of that order is, that it ceased to apply to goods imported from the United States from the moment the United States ceased to be a foreign country with respect |