Price.] -"To [Dec. 18, 



recognize so gigantic a rebellion as belligerents, from motives of human- 

 ity, that the war might be conducted upon the principles of civilized war- 

 fare, to prevent indiscriminate slaughter, and that there might be an 

 exchange of prisoners of war. This, he held, might be done without 

 "recognizing the rebel leaders, or their organization, but constantly- 

 denying them to be a government de facto or dejure, or as possessing the 

 powers to issue letters of marque and reprisal, or to fit out privateers, or 

 armed vessels, or to make captures, or to establish prize courts which 

 could condemn as leg<il prizes the vessels captured by their cruisers." 

 (47 St. R. 180.) 



An opinion of the Supreme Court, delivered by Justice Read in 1865, 

 is interesting to science and to every one who travels by railroad. It was 

 a suit by a widow and children against a railroad company for the lo5s of 

 the life of a husband and father, by alleged negligence, under one of the 

 modern statutes in such case. It is held that at the common law no 

 action was maintainable against a person who caused the death of another ; 

 also that an opinion of the value of the life lost, by competent judges, 

 is lawful evidence. The loss to be computed is simply that which would 

 be compensatory to the surviving family, in the ability of the deceased 

 to provide for his family. It is therefore held to be a proper inquiry of 

 a witness, from his knowledge of decedent's age, habits, health, and 

 physical condition, how long he would have been useful to his family. 

 From liability for the company's negligence they cannot stipulate for 

 exemption. (51 St. R. 315.) This seems a very mercantile estimate of 

 the value of human life ; yet, considering the ready sympathy of juries 

 with the bereaved family, it is the only one that carrying companies can 

 endure and live. 



In 1866 several cases involving the validity of the legal tender act, 

 came before our Supreme Court, and its constitutionality was sustained. 

 Judge Read's opinion gives a history of paper money in America. (52 St. 

 R. 71.) In 1819 the Supreme Court of the United States had decided 

 that Congress had the power to create a bank whose bills or notes should 

 be receivable in all payments to the United States. If Congress could 

 do this, the logical inference was that Congress could directly create a 

 currency. In making such issues a legal tender Congress did but what 

 the dependent Colonies had done. The Constitution, while denying the 

 like power to the States, gives expressly to Congress the power to coin 

 money, to regulate the value of domestic and foreign coins in circulation, 

 and, as a necessary implication froip positive provisions, to emit bills of 

 credit. Congress was expressly clothed with power to enact all laws 

 necessary and proper for carrying into effect the enumerated powers ; 

 and this act was necessary to that end. "This was done at a time and 

 under circumstances which admitted of no other means to carry those 

 great powers into full and effective operation." It was a measure re- 

 quisite to save the Government and protect the people, in the war of the 

 rebellion ; and will be a measure necessary to save and protect them in 



