Ocean Telegraph Company is thereby injuriously affected in contravention of its concession is one, the authority to determine which is not vested in the Attorney-General. Syl., Griggs, At. Gen., March 18, 1901, 23 Op. 425. For a report on the draft of a proposed order of the military government of Cuba authorizing the organization of railroad companies in the island and the construction, maintenance, and operation of railroads there, see Magoon's Reports, 391. As to the exercise of the pardoning power under the military government in New Mexico and the orders of the military government of Cuba relating to the exercise of the same power under that government, see Magoon's Reports, 501. After the raising of the siege of Peking, Aug. 14, 1900, a number of foreigners began to take possession of and to endeavor to purchase much of the burned and abandoned property in what was necessarily to be the future legation quarter. As Peking was not a treaty port where foreigners might buy land at will, and as there was danger that the entire Chinese-owned property in the quarter mentioned would be preoccupied so that the legation grounds could not be extended, the diplomatic body on Nov. 6, 1900, resolved and announced "that no purchase of ground from the Chinese since the commencement of the siege, in the quarter occupied by the legations, will be of any value without the consent of the foreign representatives." The Government of the United States, while recognizing the "exceptional character" of this resolution, considered it to be “justified in view of the inconvenience that might result from permitting foreigners to speculate in land intended to be occupied by the foreign legations, taken in conjunction with the fact that Peking is not a treaty port where foreigners may purchase land at will." As to its application, the American minister was instructed: "The Department would enjoin the withholding for the present of authorization of the acquisition of the land in question by private individuals. As regards bona fide purchases made before the action taken by the foreign representatives, it may be necessary to inquire into the circumstances of such purchases, before dispossession is resorted to, if that should ultimately prove necessary." Mr. Hill, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Rockhill, special comr. to China, May 3, 1901, For. Rel. 1901, App., p. 100. Mr. Conger in a report of March 4, 1901, in regard to the resolution, said: "On November 6 the allied powers, through their representatives, gave the notice embodied in the resolution quoted above. This was a restriction or qualification of private ownership and a limitation of the right of alienation which, during the military occupation, the dominant powers had a right to exercise, and no transfers within the time designated could be valid as against the United States or other powers represented here. The restriction was authorized by public law and necessary to prevent the acquisition of the property needed by private individuals for speculative or other purposes. It does not imply the forcible acquisition of property for legation purposes by the United States; but is a precautionary measure against the vesting of intermediate rights." (For. Rel. 1901, App., p. 97.) See, also. Mr. Adee, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Rockhill, special comr. to China, Aug. 3, 1901, For. Rel. 1901, App., p. 241. "26. Commanding generals may cause the magistrates and civil officers of the hostile country to take the oath of temporary allegiance or an oath of fidelity to their own victorious government or rulers, and they may expel every one who declines to do so. But whether they do so or not, the people and their civil officers owe strict obedience to them as long as they hold sway over the district or country, at the peril of their lives." Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the "39. The salaries of civil officers of the hostile government who remain in the invaded territory, and continue the work of their office, and can continue it according to the circumstances arising out of the war—such as judges, administrative or political officers, officers of city or communal governments are paid from the public revenue of the invaded territory until the military government has reason wholly or partially to discontinue it. Salaries or incomes connected with purely honorary titles are always stopped." Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the “ARTICLE XLII. Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. "The occupation applies only to the territory where such authority is established, and in a position to assert itself." Convention respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, The "ARTICLE XLIII. The authority of the legitimate power having actually passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all steps in his power to re-establish and insure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country." Convention respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, The Where the President, at the close of hostilities, appointed a military governor of one of the States, the people whereof had been in rebellion against the United States, held, that such appointment did not change general laws of the State then in force for the settlement of the estates of deceased persons, nor remove from office those who were at the time engaged by law with public duties in that behalf. Ketchum v. Buckley, 99 U. S. 188. A commanding general of the Federal forces at Memphis, in 1862, had the right to collect rents belonging to a citizen who had remained within the lines of the enemy, and hold them subject to such disposition as might thereafter be made of them by the devisions of the proper tribunals. Gates v. Goodloe, 101 U. S. 612. January 1, 1856, one citizen of Virginia gave to another in payment for certain lands eight bonds secured by mortgage and payable, one on the first of January in each year from 1857 to 1864, inclusive. All payments of principal and interest up to and including January 1, 1861, were made presumably in lawful money. The payments due in 1861 and 1862 were made in Confederate treasury notes, which at the time constituted the principal if not the only circulating medium of the locality. The payments due in 1863 and 1864 were made in what was commonly called Virginia money; that is to say, Virginia bank notes issued prior to the civil war. The payments up to January 1, 1861, inclusive, were made to the mortgagee; those due after that time were made to his personal representatives, the mortgagee himself having died; and in every case the bond so paid was delivered up. When the last bond was paid the personal reprepresentatives of the mortgagee gave a written order to the trustee in the mortgage or deed of trust directing the release of the lien created by that instrument. The trustee accordingly made a deed of release, which was subsequently recorded. In 1880 one of the children of the mortgagee brought suit to compel the payment "in good, lawful money" of such of the bonds as had been paid in Confederate notes and Virginia money, and in support of the action alleged that the obtaining of the bonds from the personal representatives of the mortgagee was done in execution of a fraudulent scheme on the part of the mortgagor to pay them off with "worthless, or next to worthless Confederate money." Held, that the whole transaction was conducted in good faith and with full acquiescence of all the parties, 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 v. 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 v. 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 v. Gibboney, ? Hughes, C. C. 382. The appointment of an administrator, though made during the war between the States, is valid. Allen v. 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 v. 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. (Overruling State . Sneed, 9 Baxter (Tenn.), 472.) Keith v. Clarke, 4 Lea (Tenn.), 718. 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 v. 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 |