as to transactions of or with the so-called a despatch from one of their generals in Ken-
government of the Confederate Stat; but tucky, October 31, 1861, to the secretary of
it declared the records and papers in such the navy, that the price of the Eastport was
archives, or duly certified copies thereof, to $12,000, a reply of the secretary of war
be competent evidence of such transactions. of the same date, giving authority to the
Section 882 of the Revised Statutes, also, general to buy her if thought worth that
re-enacting earlier acts of Congress, provides sum; a letter of January 5, 1862, from
that "copies of any books, records, papers, or the general to the secretary of war in-
documents in any of the Executive Depart- forming him that, by virtue of that au-
ments, authenticated under the seals of such thority, he had bought her, and she was
Departments respectively, shall be admitted | being converted into a gunboat; a letter of
in evidence equally with the originals there- January 16, 1862, from the secretary of war
of." And, by section 1076, the court of to the general, saying that he would at once
claims has "power to call upon any of the order to be forwarded the necessary funds
Departments for any information or papers for the Eastport; and a statement of dis-
it may deem necessary;" "but the head of bursements, dated February 2, 1863, by the
any Department may refuse and omit to general to the secretary of war, in which one
comply with any call for information or item was a sum of $9,688.82, "expended in
papers, when, in his opinion, such com- purchase of Steamer Eastport."
pliance would be injurious to the public in-
terest."

The certificate of the officer of the United States in charge of the Confederate Archives Cffice, embodied in the findings of fact, would appear to have been furnished upon a call from the court of claims; and it is not open, at this stage of the case, to objection for not being under the seal of the War Department, since that court has found that the papers in that office show the facts stated in that certificate. Those facts consist of official communications, between high civil and military officers of the Confederate States, including 1176

*Not going beyond what is required for the[798]
purposes of this case, we are of opinion that
the originals of these communications, and
consequently the certified copies thereof
from the Confederate Archives Office, are
competent and persuasive evidence that the
Confederate authorities did not obtain pos-
session of the Eastport by capture or by other
forcible and compulsory appropriation.

The claimant therefore wholly fails to sup-
port the allegation of her petition that the
Eastport was captured by the insurgents.
Judgment affirmed.

174 U. &.

FOLLOWING ARE MEMORANDA

OF

ALL CASES DISPOSED OF AT OCTOBER TERM, 1898,

WITHOUT OPINIONS, AND NOT ELSEWHERE OR OTHERWISE REPORTED IN THIS EDITION.

TENTH RULE.

SOPORI LAND & MINING COMPANY, Appel-
lant, v. UNITED STATES et al. [No. 38.]
Appeal from the Court of Private Land
Claims.

MARIANO S. OTERO, Appellant, v. UNITED
STATES. [No. 158.]

Appeal from the Court of Private Land
Claims.

Mr. T. B. Catron for appellant. The At

Mr. George Lines for appellant. The Attorney General for appellee. torney General for appellees.

October 11, 1898. Dismissed, pursuant to the 10th Rule.

JAMES T. STARK, Plaintiff in Error, v.
UNITED STATES. [No. 87.]

In Error to the District Court of the
United States for the Northern District of
Alabama.

Mr. John T. Morgan for plaintiff in error. The Attorney General for defendant in

error.

December 6, 1898. Dismissed, pursuant to the 10th Rule.

SARAH WILLIAMS, Plaintiff in Error, v.
STATE OF GEORGIA. [No. 101.]

In Error to the Supreme Court of the
State of Georgia.

Mr. John R. Cooper for plaintiff in error.
Mr. J. M. Terrell for defendant in error.
December 9, 1898. Dismissed with costs,
pursuant to the 10th Rule.

MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY,
Plaintiff in Error, v. CROWELL LUMBER &
GRAIN COMPANY. [No. 135.]

In Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Nebraska.

Messrs. John F. Dillon and W. S. Pierce for plaintiff in error. No counsel for defendant in error.

January 12, 1899. Dismissed with costs, pursuant to the 10th Rule.

RAILROAD COMPANY, Plaintiff in Error, v. LEONIDAS W. GRANT. [No. 141.]

In Error to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia.

Messrs. Enoch Totten and R. Ross Perry for plaintiff in error. No counsel for de fendant in error.

January 18, 1899. Dismissed, pursuant to the 10th Rule.

UNION PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY, Plaintiff in Error, v. DAVID GOCHENAUER et al. [No. 204.]

In Error to the Supreme Court of the
State of Kansas.

Mr. John F. Dillon for plaintiff in error.
No counsel for defendants in error.
January 24, 1899. Dismissed with costs,

pursuant to the 10th Rule.

FRANCIS G. POSEY et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. JULIA HANSON. [No. 205.]

In Error to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia.

Mr. F. H. Mackey for plaintiffs in error. Messrs. H. Randall Webb and John Sidney Webb for defendant in error.

January 24, 1899. Dismissed with costs, pursuant to the 10th Rule.

JOSEPH RAYMOND, Appellant, v. CITY OF
NEW ORLEANS. [No. 234.]

Appeal from the Circuit Court of the
United States for the Eastern District of
Louisiana.

Mr. Samuel T. Fisher for appellant. No counsel for appellee.

April 3, 1899. Dismissed with costs, pursuant to the 10th Rule.

JOHN W. SCHOFIELD et al., Appellants, v. HORSE SPRINGS CATTLE COMPANY. [No. 251.]

Appeal from the Supreme Court of the Territory of New Mexico.

Mr. W. B. Childers for appellants. Messrs. J.H. McGowan and H. L. Warren for appellee. April 14, 1899. Dismissed with costs, pursuant to the 10th Rule.

January 13, 1899. Dismissed with costs, ALCINDA M. CHAPPELL et al., Plaintiffs in Erpursuant to the 10th Rule.

ror, v. EDMONDSON AVENUE, CATONSVILLE, & ELLICOTT CITY ELECTRIC RAILWAY COMPANY. [No. 258.]

In Error to the Circuit Court of Baltimore County, State of Maryland.

Mr. Thomas C. Chappell for plaintiffs in error. Messrs. John N. Steele and William H. Buckler for defendant in error.

April 18, 1899. Dismissed with costs, pursuant to the 10th Rule.

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

NETTIE L. Cox et al.

FRED. J. KIESEL & COMPANY, Petitioner, v. | MICHAEL JESKE et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. SUN INSURANCE OFFICE OF LONDON. [No. [No. 217.] 391.] In Error to the Superior Court of Milwaukee County, State of Wisconsin. Mr. Rublee A. Cole for plaintiffs in error. Mr. Howard Morris for defendants in error. October 24, 1898. Dismissed on the authority of Missouri P. R. Co. v. Fitzgerald, 160 U. S. 582 [40: 542]; Meyer v. Cox, 169 U. S. 735 [42: 1207]; McLish v. Roff, 141 U.

Mr. Abbot R. Heywood for petitioner. Mr.
T. C. Van Ness for respondent.
October 17, 1898.

Denied.

JOHN B. RUSSELL, Petitioner, v. FREDERICK S. 661 [35: 893]; Union Mut. L. Ins. Co. v.
STEARNS & Co. [No. 410.]
Kirchoff, 160 U. S. 374 [40: 461].

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

Messrs. Henry M. Campbell, Ephraim Banning, and Thomas A. Banning for petitioner. Messrs. R. A. Parker and C. F. Burton for respondent.

October 17, 1898. Denied.

AARON H. ZECKENDORF et al., Appellants, v.
LOUIS ZECKENDORF, Guardian, etc.

[No.

46.] Appeal from the Supreme Court of the Territory of Arizona.

Messrs. Francis J. Heney and Duane E.

JESSE L. MACDANIEL, Petitioner, v. UNITED Fox for appellants. Mr. E. M. Marble for appellee.

STATES. [No. 416.]

CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, Appellant, v. JOHN
S. WARNER. [No. 336.]

Appeal from the United States Circuit
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Messrs. Samuel L. Gilmore and Branch K. Miller for appellant. Messrs. Richard De Gray, J. D. Rouse, Wm. Grant, and Wheeler H. Peckham for appellee.

October 24, 1898. Dismissed on the authority of Tennessee v. Union & P. Bank, 152 U. S. 454 [38: 511]; Sawyer v. Kochersperger, 170 U. S. 303 [42: 1046]. (Mr. Justice White took no part in the consideration and disposition of this motion.)

October 24, 1898. Decree affirmed, with costs, on the authority of Gray v. Howe, 108 U. S. 12 [27: 634]; Salina Stock Co. v. Salina Creek Irrig. Co. 163 U. S. 117 [41: 93].

J. HENRY JURGENS, Sheriff, etc., Appellant, | EUGENIA A. WEBSTER Ross, Plaintiff in Erv. YOT SANG. [No. 50.] ror, v. GEORGE GORDON KING, et al. [No. 400.]