[No. 117.] CLAIM FOR CORN CONDEMNED. Claim of H. H. Thompson for proceeds of 5607 bushels of corn condemned as lawful prize, and forfeited to the United States. By Samuel H. Treat, District Judge, Southern District, Illinois. OPINION. It appears from the papers in this case, that "in an expedition sent out through Southeastern Missouri, our troops captured a quantity of corn, as property of a rebel (one Shelby Thompson); that H. H. Thompson, the claimant, was captured as a rebel, having been caught near the same place in which the corn was seized, and which belonged to a relative of his, then in the rebel service. The corn was appropriated, as is usual in such cases, to the use of the army. Subsequently, on the 22d October, 1861, an information appears to have been filed, in the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Illinois, against this corn, by Lawrence Weldon, District Attorney of the United States for that district; and it appears that the Marshal of the United States had attached 5607 bushels of corn (presumed to be the same), upon process issued in pursuance of said libel. How the corn came to be removed from Missouri into Illinois does not appear; but it is probable that it was transported thither by the captors, and was used by them as part of their military supplies. The legal proceedings in this case are presumed to have been instituted under the provisions of the "Act to confiscate property used for insurrectionary purposes," approved August 6, 1861. Whether the property captured came within the provisions of that Act is not shown upon the evidence, as it does not appear that the owner of the corn, though himself a rebel, purchased, sold, kept, used or employed it for the purpose of aiding the rebellion, or the rebels. It appears that the corn was found on the farm where it was or might have been raised, and for all that appears, it may have been the intention of the owner to prevent its being used by rebels, or in aid of the rebellion. That the property was lawfully captured, on other grounds and by other authority than that claimed in this statute, is not material to the rights of this claimant, who can maintain his claim only under this statute. The next question is as to the claim of H. H. Thompson. He was arrested as a rebel, but, though discharged, there is no evidence of his loyalty. The information was filed by the United States Attorney, in accordance with the 3d section of the Act above cited, which provides, "That the Attorney-General, or any District Attorney of the United States in which said property may at the time be, may institute the proceedings of condemnation, and in such case they shall be wholly for the benefit of the United States. Or any person may file an information with such Attorney, in which case the proceedings shall be for the use of such informer and the United States in equal parts." There is no provision in this Act for the substitution of an informer for the Attorney of the United States after an information has been filed, and a fortiori after condemnation. The Attorney of the United States must be presumed to have intended to perform his official duty in filing the information as required by law. By what right, after condemnation, the Court, or Attorney of the United States, have allowed a new party to be introduced into the record, and thereby to allow him to deprive the United States of one half of the value of the property captured and condemned, does not appear; and when it is more than suspicious that the claimant is himself disloyal, the whole transaction is such as to require explanation on the part of the presiding Judge and the Attorney for the United States. It is obvious that when enemy's property is captured on land, the title of the United States thereto is completed by capture itself, without legal proceedings. This is a well-settled principle of international belligerent law, and is applicable to a civil war such as now exists. If the army could not use military supplies captured from the enemy until after legal condemnation thereof, one of the most effective means of war would be lost, viz., the right to subsist upon the enemy. The power of the Union would be crippled by such legal entanglements. But in fact, the government is in the lawful exercise of full belligerent rights against those sections of country which are in rebellion; and of those rights, none are more unquestionable than that of acquiring legal title to enemy's property on land, by capture, without judicial proceedings. The object and purpose of the statute of August 6, 1861, which was passed near the commencement of hostilities, was not to deprive the country of its belligerent rights, but to render liable to capture and prize certain classes of property owned by persons who should buy, sell, or hold it, or allow its use with an intent to aid the rebellion thereby, wherever such property might be found. This statute was only a step towards the application of belligerent law a precautionary or preventive act calculated to deprive the enemy of such things as were likely to be applied to their use in carrying on war. If such property be seized by the civil authority, as by the Marshal of the United States, there would be great propriety in requiring it to be condemned by civil tribunals, as title would not otherwise pass; but it cannot be deemed requisite that after lawful capture has been made by military forces in the army, the civil authorities should recapture it, or, in the words of the statute, "That it shall be the duty of the President to cause the same to be seized, confiscated, and CONDEMNED.” If this view of the statute be erroneous, if all captures of personal property on land by military forces must also be seized by the Marshal, confiscated and condemned, then the President must commence a lawsuit every time a detachment of troops captures a gun, a bushel of corn, or a stack of forage from the enemy, and he must share the fruits of victory with an army of informers before he can feed his soldiers with the provisions they have captured. Such a mode of carrying on war is unheard of, and is impracticable. As the title to the corn was perfect without the proceeding in Court, as above stated, it would seem that the institution thereof was unnecessary, and without justification. The only result or effect it could have was to make costs, and deprive the United States of that which was already legally and justly their own. The claimant has been deprived of the expected fruits of his legal process; and if there were no other objection to his claim, there is no appropriation from which this Department would feel at liberty to pay the same. It is recommended that payment be refused. (Signed) April 24, 1863. WILLIAM WHITING, Solicitor of the War Department. [No. 195.] CROW, WYLIE, & CO. The Secretary of State asks attention to the enclosed copy of a note from Lord Lyons relative to certain lumber at Pensacola, the property of Messrs. Crow, Wylie, & Co., of Liverpool, who desire to remove the same, it having been bought before the outbreak of the war and the establishment of the blockade. OPINION. There is not sufficient or satisfactory evidence that the title to the lumber, &c., was, at the time when hostilities commenced, legally vested, in part or in whole, in the claimants. There was an efficient blockade upon Pensacola before any attempt to export said timber, &c., was made by or for said claimants, of which they had notice, and which still remains in force. For these and other reasons, I recommend that this Department decline to interfere in relation to the claim of Messrs. Crow, Wylie, & Co. (Signed) May 28, 1863. WILLIAM WHITING, Solicitor of the War Department. [No. 332.] Claim for Seized Property. MRS. EUGENIA P. BASS. Claimant for property taken by the United States army from her plantation in Mississippi, for the public service. OPINION. Mrs. Eugenia P. Bass, claimant against the United States for property alleged to have been taken by the forces of the United States from her plantation in Mississippi, in February and April, 1863. The only evidence offered in support of the claim of Mrs. Bass is her own affidavits, in which she testifies to her belief of facts of which she has been informed. From this testimony, it would appear that the forces of the United States have captured certain mules, oxen, beef cattle, bacon, chickens, potatoes, wines, sheep, horses, cotton, &c., in the months of February and April, 1863, from the plantation of the claimant in the State of Mississippi. That this property was captured, would appear probable from the fact that receipts were demanded, as the claimant says, and were refused. The items charged are not known by the affiant to be correct, either as to quality, quantity or value of the things alleged to have been taken. Her testimony is in accordance with the best information she can obtain, as she alleges. Her loyalty to the United States is averred, and in confirmation she produces a copy of an oath alleged by her to have been taken voluntarily and subscribed; and she also produces a certificate of permission given by General Grant to ship and sell certain cotton. But the property captured had been seized in February and April, 1863, and the oath does not purport to have been taken until some weeks afterwards, viz., May 22, 1863. The permission of General Grant was dated September, 1863; and hence it is obvious that neither the oath nor the permission proves the loyalty of the claimant in the preceding period of February and April. The oath merely pledges Mrs. Bass to loyalty from and after the date thereof, but does not allege that she had been loyal previously, nor that she had taken no part with the rebels prior to that time. It may have been sincerely taken, pledging her future loyalty, with a view to recover the property which had been previously captured. In relation to the permission given by General Grant to the claimant to sell cotton she then had, no evidence is offered to show what representations were made to him, whereby that permit was issued, nor is it probable that he intended to have such permit used as evidence to sustain the present claim. No report has been asked for or obtained from the military authorities by whom the capture is alleged to have been made, and it would be impracticable to protect the rights of the government if this case were to be adjudicated on the evidence as it now stands. If property of the character above named is seized by the forces of the United States in time of war in a belligerent district, it is a fair presumption that it has been lawfully captured. It is true that this presumption may be overcome by proof. But if property contraband of war has been captured in a district which is engaged in a territorial civil war against the United States, even if the owner of it is friendly to the United States, and if he has taken no part in the rebellion, I am not prepared to say that he has any legal claim for indemnity therefor, without further legislation by Congress. Congress has, as yet, made no appropriation for payment of such claims. For the reasons therefore, 1. That the proof of quality, quantity, and ownership of the property in question is insufficient ; 2. That the loyalty of the claimant at the time the property was taken is not sufficiently proved; 3. That if these two points were established, there will still be no legal claim for indemnity for property contraband of war captured in a belligerent district; 4. And that there is no appropriation in this Department which can be applied to the liquidation of such claims, I recommend that the claim of Mrs. Bass be not allowed. (Signed) WILLIAM WHITING, Solicitor of the War Department. [No. 361.] INDEMNITY TO FRENCH SUBJECTS. The Secretary of State forwards a translation of a communication of Viscount Treilhard, who writes on behalf of the French Minister respecting the claims of some French residents of New Orleans, from whom the Federal authorities are alleged to have forcibly taken arms which have not been paid for. OPINION. The communication addressed to the Secretary of State from the Legation of France, asking attention to the claims of certain French residents of New Orleans, has received a careful examination. The statements of loss, and consequent claims, are preferred by four persons, viz. :— 1. Pierre Mattie. 2. A. Chièvre. 3. B. Phillipe, and 4. J. Gilbaux. |