OPINION. 1. It is not sufficiently shown that the claimant is a subject of France. 2. It is not shown that the claimant does not come within the provisions of the Act of February 24, 1864. 3. It is not shown that, as Dupré was a permanent resident of Louisiana, the property of the claimant is not liable to capture as that of a public enemy, he not having withdrawn from the country within a reasonable time after the war broke out. With these views, the Department is not advised to act upon the present information. (Signed) July 28, 1864. WILLIAM WHITING, Solicitor of the War Department. [No. 723.] GENERAL BANKS'S ORDER RESPECTING GOLD. The Hon. Secretary of State encloses a copy of a communication from the British Minister relative to an order of the 18th ult., issued by Major General Banks, respecting gold, requiring it to be deposited under supervision of the military force of the United States. OPINION. The order of General Banks has been found necessary for the purpose of preventing imported gold from being used for the aid and comfort of the insurgents against the United States. It is a matter of favor on the part of the United States, to open to foreign commerce any port which has been effectually blockaded, especially when the introduction of gold or of merchandise may be prejudicial to the interests of the country, by giving aid and comfort to its public enemy. Commerce may be allowed, with or without restrictions, to the subjects of neutral countries in time of civil war, according to the necessities of the case, and certainly without infringement of any treaty between the United States and Great Britain. It would be extraordinary if, in fact, the government which admits the importation of foreign gold only on condition that neutrals will not abuse a privilege extended to them in good faith, and in full reliance upon their neutrality, should be deprived of the power of taking proper precautions for the preservation of that good faith, and for its own protection against the misuse of that privilege. All that is required of importers of gold is the temporary deposit of it in the Treasury, with the assurance that when withdrawn, it shall not be used illegally, or in violation of the neutral obligations of its owner. No good reason is presented why any bona fide neutral should object to this order. But whether objected to or not, it is justifiable, because required in a civil war and under the peculiar circumstances of the Department in which New Orleans is situated, as a necessary safeguard over the privilege of commerce extended to foreign citizens at that port. No elaborate argument is offered to vindicate the right of our government to make and enforce the order of General Banks, because such argument is not called for. Its reasonableness and necessity alone are shown, and furnish sufficient grounds for its justification. (Signed) July 28, 1864. WILLIAM WHITING, Solicitor of the War Department. [No. 730.] JOHN H. SOTHORON'S CREDITORS. OPINION. In the matter of Benjamin Adams and others, alleged creditors of John H. Sothoron, referred to me, without date, it appears that Sothoron is the secession rebel who, with his son, murdered the lieutenant who was recruiting colored men on his farm, in St. Mary's County, Maryland, and fled to Richmond; that for these reasons his property was sequestered and used for the benefit of the United States. It also appears that subsequent to such sequestration, attachments were issued, at the instance and for the benefit of the alleged creditors of Sothoron, by the Circuit Court of said County of St. Mary's one of whom, the abovenamed Benjamin Adams, had violently taken sides with Sothoron. They now claim that these attachments constitute a lien upon said property, entitled to priority, and that the decision of the judicial tribunal should prevail in their behalf, without prejudice from the acts of sequestration by the government of the United States. In this state of facts, I am of the opinion, that, 1. One of the claimants is disloyal, if not an active enemy. 2. The appropriation of Sothoron's property in liquidating his debts, would enure to his benefit as effectually as restoration thereof to himself. 3. The sequestration, being commenced before the attachment, is, in any event, a prior lien, and proceedings under the same must take precedence. 4. The sequestration is a process authorized and required by the statute, and no provision is made by law for payment of creditors' claims out of the estate sequestered. (Signed) July 26, 1864. WILLIAM WHITING, Solicitor of the War Department. [No. 731.] ANTOINE CAIRE. Claim for Cotton seized. The Secretary of State, May 18, 1864, encloses a translation of a note from the French Minister, relative to a claim for one Antoine Caire, of New Orleans, for indemnity for 188 bales of cotton seized by Lieutenant-Colonel S. B. Holabird, in June, 1863. Referred, July 21, 1864, to the Solicitor for opinion. OPINION. In the matter of Antoine Caire, an alleged French subject, referred to me on the 21st instant, for my opinion upon the validity of his claim presented through the Minister of France, for $43,261-4, the estimated value of 188 bales of cotton said to have been purchased by him on the 7th April, 1862, of C. W. Allen, planter, residing in the Parish of Pointe Coupée, Louisiana, and taken from the plantation of said Allen by order of Colonel S. B. Holabird, Chief Quartermaster, and sold under his authority by Prize Commissioner George E. Tyler, at New Orleans, July 30, 1863, I am of the opinion, 1. That it is not sufficiently proved that the claimant is a subject of France, the consular certificate, affirmed in his affidavit to be of registry at New Orleans, not being deemed conclusive proof, inasmuch as the character of evidence and the principles governing the consul as to the nationality of claimant, are not known to the Department, and cannot, therefore, be affirmed or denied. 2. It is not shown that the claimant does not come within the provisions of the Act of February 24, 1864. 3. The proof of ownership is not made out, and the sale may be not bona fide, as the terms of it and the papers which passed, are not produced. 4. The question whether this species of commerce is lawful, under the statutes of the United States, cannot be settled, on the facts stated, without further investigation. 5. It is not shown that the claimant was a resident of Louisiana; if he was, it does not appear whether, as such resident, his property is not liable to capture, as that of a public enemy, he not having withdrawn from the country within a reasonable time after the war broke out. With these views, the Department is not advised to act on present information. (Signed) July 22, 1864. WILLIAM WHITING, Solicitor of the War Department. [No. 935.] CASE OF GEORGE CAMERON. The Secretary of State, by letter to the Secretary of War, under date of October 6, 1864, refers to a note from the Department of State, of the 1st instant, and its accompaniments, relative to the case of George Cameron, now in "Prisoners' Camp" at Elmira; and encloses a copy of a note of the 21st ultimo, from J. Hume Bromly, Esquire, which represents that said Cameron was forced into the rebel service, under his written protest as a British subject; and proposes that a bond, with surety, be accepted from Cameron “that he will leave the country for Scotland, and not return to the South, or in any way aid the Confederates." (See 717.) Received by the Solicitor, November 11, 1864. OPINION. George Cameron was captured as a prisoner of war, at Petersburg, in arms with the forces of the Confederates. He now asserts that he is a neutral British subject, and that he was forced into the rebel service against his will. His assertion is not accompanied by any proofs. If Mr. Cameron was in fact a neutral British subject and denizen of the Confederate States, at the commencement of our civil war, he had a right to withdraw from the belligerent territory within a reasonable time, and would have préserved, by such withdrawal, his claim to be regarded as a neutral alien by the United States. Having voluntarily remained a denizen of the Confederate States, and having thereby subjected himself to the control of rebels in arms, claiming a de facto right to enforce their municipal law, he has lost his right to be treated by the United States as a subject of Her Majesty, not only by such voluntary continuance of residence, but by engaging in active hostilities, which he might have avoided by leaving the country in due season. Being thus captured as a prisoner of war, he may be lawfully held or exchanged as such; but, as it appears from his own statement that he was forced into the rebel army against his will and against his written protest, and as he is willing to leave the United States to go to Scotland, not to return to any of the Confederate States, or in any wise to aid or abet the rebellion in the United States or elsewhere, and as he proposes to give security accordingly, I recommend that Mr. Cameron be discharged, provided that he shall first make it appear, upon satisfactory evidence, by affidavits or otherwise, that he is bona fide a British subject, and was compelled to take up arms on behalf of the rebels against his will, and under protest; and further, that he shall give his sworn parole not to aid or abet the rebellion in the United States or elsewhere, directly or indirectly, or any person or persons sympathizing therewith, and to proceed with reasonable despatch to Scotland, and not to return to any State in rebellion during the present war, and provided also that he shall give bond in the sum of fifteen thousand dollars, with two sureties, approved by the Attorney of the United States, in the Southern District of New York, for the faithful keeping of his parole. WILLIAM WHITING, Solicitor of the War Department. (Signed) November 15, 1864. [No. 951.] Claim of Cowen & Dickinson for Indemnity for Two Hundred and Fifty-six (256) Bales of Cotton, taken by the United States Forces, for Use on the Fortifications at Knoxville, during the Siege of that City. Referred to the Solicitor "for his opinion as to the validity of this claim against the United States; and also whether there be any existing appropriation out of which it can be paid." November 30, 1864. OPINION. It is one of the belligerent rights of the army to capture, seize, and use in prosecution of the war, cotton, as well as any other personal property belonging to the inhabitants of districts which have been declared in rebel lion by the Political Departments of this government. The owners thereof, whether loyal or disloyal to the Union, are deemed in law as public enemies, and therefore they are not, by any existing statute, entitled to payment, at this time, for property so seized or captured. What provision, if any, shall hereafter be made for payment to those who, being loyal, shall have held themselves aloof from the rebellion, or to those who shall have supported the Union, must be hereafter determined by the government. The facts in this case, as to the loyalty of Messrs. Cowen & Dickinson, and their alleged losses, and as to the actual disposition made of their cotton, are, upon the evidence, left somewhat in doubt; but if they were fully established, as stated, there is no statute of the United States, and no existing appropriation, by virtue of which their claim can now be paid. I therefore recommend that this Department take no further action in regard to said claim. (Signed) December 12, 1864. WILLIAM WHITING, Solicitor of the War Department. [No. 1437.] TRACY IRWIN & CO. See No. 532. |