« ForrigeFortsett »
shortly before Wood took her within thc Con 226, 402. And the appropriations for the federate lines. At that time she was an un. War Department in 1882 included one "for armed vessel, and fit for commercial pur traveling expenses in connection with the poses only.
collection of Confederate records placed by It is stated in the finding of facts that it gift at the disposal of the government. did not appear what disposition Wood made Act of August 5, 1882, chap. 389, 22 Stat. at of the Eastport, nor whether he was paid 1.. 241. Congress has also occasionally made purchase money for her, nor whether he ever appropriations "to enable the Secretary of accounted for such money to the other own. the Treasury to have the rebel archives and ers, nor whether they had received any part records of captured property examined, and of it, nor whether she came into the posses-information furnished therefrom for the use sion of the Confederate forces by capture, of the government.” Acts of March 3, 1875, or by purchase from Wood.
chap. 130, 18 Stat, at L. 376; March 3, 1879, If the matter rested here, there would be chap. 182, 20 Stat. at L. 384; June 16, 1880, nothing to warrant the court in concluding chap. 235, 21 Stat. at L. 266. It has once, that the Eastport came into the possession at least, made an appropriation "for colof the Confederate forces by capture or other lecting, compiling, and arranging the naval forcible appropriation. But it does not rest records of the war of the rebellion, includ. here.
ing Confederate *naval records.” Act of July(796) Upon the question whether the so-called : 1884, chap. 331, 23 Stat. at L. 185. And Confederate States acquired possession of it has made appropriations "for the preparathe Eastport by capture or by purchase, the tion of a general card index of the books, extracts from the Confederate archives, muster rolls, orders, and other official papers made part of the facts found by the court of preserved in the Confederate Archives ‘Ofclaims, appear to this court to have an im- fice.”. Acts of May 13. ?892, chap. 72, and portant bearing, and to be competent, though March 3, 1893, chap. 205, 27 Stat. at L. 36, not conclusive, evidence.
an organized and actual government, were wholly inadmissible in a court of jus-
except to those portions of them protected which, in the nature of things, can hardly (795)"from its control by the presence of the armed be satisfactorily proved in any other man.
forces of the United States; and the United ner. States, from motives of humanity and ex
The act of March 3, 1871, chap. 116, § 2, pediency, had conceded to that government provided for the appointment of a board of some of the rights and obligations of a bel commissioners, “to receive, examine, and conJigerent. Prize Cases, 2 Black, 635, 673, sider the justice and validity of such claims 674 [17: 459, 478); Thorington v. Smith, 8 as shall be brought before them, of those Wall. 1, 7, 9, 10 (19: 361, 363, 364]; Ford v. citizens who remained loyal adherents to the Surget, 97 U. S. 594, 604, 605; (24: 1018, cause and the government of the United 1021); The Lilla, 2 Sprague, 177, and 2 States during the war, for stores or supplies Cliff. 169.
taken or furnished during the rebellion for No better evidence of the doings of that the use of the Army of the United States in organization assuming to act as a governo sto tes proclaimed as in insurrection against ment can be found than in papers contempo- the United States, including the use and loss raneously drawn up by its officers in the per- of vessels or boats while employed in the formance of their supposed duties to that military service of the United States.” 16 government.
Stat, at L. 524. By the act of April 20, For the collection and preservation of such 1871, chap. 21, § 1, it was enacted that "all papers, a bureau, office, or division in the looks, records, papers, and documents relaWar Department (now known as the Con- tive to transactions of or with the late sofederate Archives Office) was created by the called government of the Confederate States, Executive authority of the United States or the government of any state lately in in. soon after the close of the war of the rebel-surrection, now in the possession, or which lion, and has been maintained ever since, may at any time come into the possession, of and has been recognized by many acts of Con- | the government of the United States, or of gress.
ar.y department thereof, may be resorted to For instance, Congress, beginning in 1872, for information by the board of commis. has made frequent appropriations to enable sioners of claims created by act approved the Secretary of War to have the rebel ar- March 3, 1871; and copies thereof, duly cer. chives examined and copies furnished from tified by the officer having custody of the time to time, for the use of the Government.” same, shall be treated with like force and Acts of May 8, 1872, chap. 140, and March efect as the original.” 17 Stat. at L. 6. 3. 1873, chap. 226, 17 Stat. at L. 79, 500; | The latter act thus not only allowed a par. August 15, 1876, chap. 287, March 3, 1877, ticular board of commissioners, appointed to chap. 102, 19 Stat. at L. 160, 310; une 19, pass upon certain claims against the United 1878, chap. 329, 20 Stat, at L. 195; June 21, States for property taken for the use of the 1979, chap. 34, June 15, 1880, chap. 225, Army during the war of the rebellion, *to(797) March 3, 1881, chap. 130, 21 Stat. at L. 23,' have access to such archives for information
as to transactions of or with the so-called a despatch from one of their generals in Kengovernment 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 anthority 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 indocuments 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 p.2 pers, when, in his opinion, such com- purchase of Steamer Eastport." pliance would be injurious to the public in- *Not going beyond what is required for the(798) terest."
purposes of this case, we are of opinion that The certificate of the officer of the United the originals of these communications, and States in charge of the Confederate Archives consequently the certified copies thereof Cffice, embodied in the findings of fact, would from the Confederate Archives Office, are appear to have been furnished upon a call competent and persuasive evidence that the from the court of claims; and it is not open, Confederate authorities did not obtain posat this stage of the case, to objection for not session of the Eastport by capture or by other being under the seal of the War Department, forcible and compulsory appropriation. since that court has found that the papers in The claimant therefore wholly fails to supthat office show the facts stated in that cer- port the allegation of her petition that the tificate. Those facts consist of official com Eastport was captured by the insurgents. munications, between high civil and military Judgment affirmed. officers of the Confederato States, including 1170
FOLLOWING ARE ICEMORANDA
ALL CASES DISPOSED OF AT OCTOBER TERM, 1898,
WITHOUT OPINIONS, AND NOT ELSEWHERE OR OTHERWISD REPORTED IN THIS EDITION.
MARIANO S. OTERO, Appellant, v. UNITED SOPORI LAND & MINING COMPANY, Appel- STATES. (No. 158.]
lant, v. UNITED STATES et al. (No. 38.] Appeal from the Court of Private Land Appeal from the Court of Private Land Claims. Claims.
Mr. T. B. Catron for appellant. The AtMr. George Lines for appellant. The At. orr.ey General for appellee. torney General for appellees.
January 18, 1899. Dismissed, pursuant October 11, 1898." Dismissed, pursuant to the 10th Rule. to the 10th Rule.
UNION PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY, PlainJAMES T. STARK, Plaintiff in Error, v. tiff in Error, v. David GOCHENAUER et al. UNITED STATES. (No. 87.]
[No. 204.] In Error to the District Court of the In Error to the Supreme Court of the United States for the Northern District of State of Kansas. Alabama.
Mr. John F. Dillon for plaintiff in error. A1r. John T. Morgan for plaintiff in error. No counsel for defendants in error. The Attorney General for defendant in January 24, 1899. Dismissed with costs,
pursuant to the 10th Rule. December 6, 1898. Dismissed, pursuant to the 10th Rule.
FRANCIS G. POSEY et al., Plaintiffs in Error,
0. JULIA HANSON. (No. 205.] SARAH WILLIAMS, Plaintiff in Error, O. In Error to the Court of Appeals of the STATE OF GEORGIA. (No. 101.)
District of Columbia. In Error to the Supreme Court of the Mr. F. H. Mackey for plaintiffs in error. State of Georgia.
Messrs. H. Randali Webb and John Sidney Mr. John R. Cooper for plaintiff in error. Webb for defendant in error. Mr. J. M. Terrell for defendant in error. January 24, 1899. Dismissed with costs,
December 9, 1898. Dismissed with costs, pursuant to the 10th Rule. pursuant to the 10th Rule.
JOSEPH RAYMOND, Appellant, 0. CITY OF MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY, NEW ORLEANS. [No. 234.]
Plaintiff in Error, v. CROWELL LUMBER & Appeal from the Circuit Court of the GRAIN COMPANY. (No. 135.]
United States for the Eastern District of In Error to the Supreme Court of the State Louisiana. of Nebraska.
Mr. Samuel T. Fisher for appellant. No Messrs. John F. Dillon and W. S. Pierce counsel for appellee. for plaintiff in error. No counsel for de April 3, 1899. Dismissed with costs, fendant in error.
pursuant to the 10th Rule. January 12, 1899. Dismissed with costs, pursuant to the 10th Rule.
JOHN W. SCHOFIELD et al., Appellants, v.
HORSE SPRINGS CATTLE COMPANY. (No. WASHINGTON & GEORGETOWN RAILROAD 251.]
COMPANY, Plaintiff in Error, v. LEONIDAS Appeal from the Supreme Court of the W. GRANT. [No. 141.)
Territory of New Mexico. In Error to the Court of Appeals of the Dis. Mr. W. B. Childers for appellants. Messrs. trict of Columbia.
J.H. McGowan and H. L.Warren for appellee. Messrs. Enoch Totten and R. Ross Perry April 14, 1899. Dismissed with costs, pur. for plaintiff in error. No counsel for de suant to the 10th Rule. fendant in error.
January 19, 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 Com. JULIAN MARTINEZ et al., Appellants, 0. PANY. (No. 258.) UNITED STATES. [No. 156.)
In Error to the Circuit Court of Baltimore Appeal from the Court of Private Land County, State of Maryland. Claims.
Mr. Thomas 0. Chappell for plaintiffs in Mr. T. B. Catron for apy ts. The error. Messrs. John N. Steele and William Attorney General for appellee.
8. Buckler for defendant in error. January 17, 1899. Dismissed, pursuant April 18, 1899. Dismissed with costs, purto the 10th Rule.
suant to the 10th Rule.
HENDERSON NATIONAL BANK, Plaintiff in Er. THE UNITED STATES, Appellant, V. THE ror, v. CITY OF HENDERSON. [No. 201.) MIGUEL JOVER & CARGO. (No. 378.]
In Error to the Court of Appeals of the Appeal from District Court of the United State of Kentucky. States for the Southern District of Florida. Mr. Malcolm Yeaman for plaintiff in error,
The Attorney General for appellant. Wil Mr. J. F. Olay for defendant in error. helmus Mynderse for appellee.
October 11, 1898. Dismissed, per stipulaAugust 24, 1898. Dismissed pursuant to tion. 28th Rule.
FRANCIS I. GOWEN, Sole Receiver, etc., PlainTHE UNITED STATES, Appellant, o. THE CAT- tiff in Error, v. LAURA B. BUSH, Adminis
ALINA, EDUARDO FANO, Claimant. (379). tratrix, etc. (No. 42.] Appeal from District Court of the United In Error to the United States Circuit States for the Southern District of Florida. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
The Attorney General for appellant. Wil Messrs. Samuel Dickson and John W. Mchelmus Mynderse for appellee.
Loud for plaintiff in error. Mr. W. H. 8. August 24, 1898. Dismissed pursuant to Clayton and Jos. M. Hill for defendant in 28th Rule
October 14, 1898. Dismissed with costs.
per stipulation. MISCELLANEOUS. CHARLES J. MEADOWCROFT, et al., Plaintiffs UNITED STATES, Appellant, o. CITY OF ALBUin Error, v. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLI
QUERQUE. [No. 40.] NOIS. [No. 33.)
Appeal from the Court of Private Land In Error to the Supreme Court of the Claims. State of Illinois.
The Attorney General, the Solicitor GenMessrs. Edwin Walker and Arthur J. Eddy eral, and Mr. Matt. G. Reynolds for appelfor plaintiffs in error. No counsel for de- lant. Mr. Frank W. Clancy for appellee. fendant in error.
October 17, 1898. Decrees reversed on the October 10, 1898. Dismissed with costs, authority of United States v. Santa Fe on motion of counsel for plaintiffs in error. 165 U.S. 681 [41: 8771 and cause
manded with directions to proceed therein in the matter of amendments, new parties, and otherwise as justice and equity may re
quire. DURANGO LAND AND COAL COMPANY, Appel
lant, v. ROGER C. Evans et al. (No. 131.]
Appeal from the United States Circuit KATE MCDONNELL, Surviving Partner, et al., Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Petitioners, v. MERCANTILE TRUST Com
Alessrs. David C. Beaman and Lucius M. PANY et al. [No. 311.] Cuthbert for appellant. Alr. John R. Smith
Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the for appellees.
United States Circuit Court of Appeals for October 10, 1898. Dismissed per stipula- the Fifth Circuit. tion.
Messrs. Gregory L. and Harry T. Smith for petitioners. Messrs. W. A. Blount, D. P. Bestor, and Leopold Wallach for respondents.
October 17, 1898. Denied. ČOVINGTON & CINCINNATI ELEVATED RAIL
ROAD & TRANSFER & BRIDGE COMPANY, Plaintiff in Error, v. WILLIAM F. WILSON. MUTUAL RESERVE FUND LIFE ASSOCIATION, (No. 173.]
Petitioner, v. J. K. DuBois, AdministraIn Error to the Circuit Court of the
tor. (No. 330.) United States for the District of Kentucky. Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the
Mr. C. Simrall for plaintiff error. United States Circuit Court of Appeals for No counsel for defendant in error.
the Ninth Circuit. October 10, 1898. Dismissed with costs, Mr. J. B. Foraker for petitioner. Mr. R. on authority of counsel for plaintiff in error. E. McFarland for respondent.
October 17, 1898. Denied.
THIRD NATIONAL BANK OF PHILADELPHIA, MARIANO S. OTERO, Appellant, 0. UNIFED Petitioner, v. NATIONAL BANK OF CHESTER STATES. (No. 179.]
VALLEY. (No. 337.) Appeal from the Court of Private Land Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Claims.
United States Circuit Court of Appeals for Mr. T. B. Catron for appellant. The At. the Fifth Circuit. torney General for appellee.
Mr. Henry B. Tompkins for petitioner. October 11, 1898. Dismisseil, on author. | Mr. W. D. Ellis for respondent. ity of counsel for appellanto
October 17, 1898. Denied.
FRED. J. KIESEL & COMPANY, Petitioner, 6. MICHAEL JESKE et al., Plaintiffs in Error, o.
SUN INSURANCE OFFICE OF LONDON. [No. NETTIE L. Cox et al. [No. 217.) 391.]
In Error to the Superior Court of Mil. Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the waukee County, State of Wisconsin. United States Circuit Court of Appeals for Mr. Rublee A. Cole for plaintiffs in error. the Eighth Circuit.
Mr. Houard Morris for defendants in error. Mr. Abbot R. Heywood for petitioner. Mr. October 24, 1898. Dismissed on the auT. C. Van Ness for respondent.
thority of Missouri P. R. Co. v. Fitzgerald, October 17, 1898. Denied.
160 U. S. 582 [40: 542]; Meyer v. Cox, 169
U. S. 735 [42: 1207]; McLish v. Roff, 141 U. JOHN B. RUSSELL, Petitioner, o. FREDERICK S. 661 [35: 893]; Ūnion Mut. L. Ins. Co. v. STEARNS & Co. (No. 410.)
Kirchoff, 160 U. S. 374 [40: 461]. Petition for a Writ of C'ertiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Messrs. Henry M. Campbell, Ephraim Ban- AARON H. ZECKENDORF et al., Appellants, o.
Louis ZECKENDORF, Guardian, etc. (No. ning, and Thomas A. Banning for petitioner.
46.] Messrs. R. A. Parker and C. F. Burton for respondent.
Appeal from the Supreme Court of the October 17, 1898. Denied.
Territory of Arizona.
Messrs. Francis J. Heney and Duane E. JESSE L. MacDANIEL, Petitivner, o. UNITED Fow for appellants. Mr. Ė. M. Marble for STATES. [No. 416.]
appellee. Petition for a Writ of. Certiorari to the
October 24, 1898. Decree affirmed, with United States Circuit Court of Appeals for costs, on the authority of Gray v. Howe, 108 the Fourth Circuit.
U. S. 12 [27: 634); Šalina Stock Co. v. SaMt. Tracy L. Jeffords for petitioner. The lina Creek Irrig. Co. 163 U. S. 117 [41: 93). Attorney General and Assistant Attorney General Boyd for respondent. October 17, 1898. Denied.
HENBY GARDES, Petitioner, UNITED
STATES. [No. 426.] KATIE McK. IRVINE, Appellant, o. UNITED Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the STATES. (No. 441.)
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Appeal from the Court of Private Land Circuit. Claims.
Mr. J. R. Beckwith for petitioner. The October 17, 1898. Docketed and dis- Attorney General and The Solicitor General missed, on motion of Mr. Solicitor General for respondent. Richards for appellee.
October 24, 1898. Denied.
JACOB GOLD et al., Appellants, 0. UNITED
STATES. (No. 442.] Appeal from the Court of Private Land LOUIS GALLOT, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES. Claims.
Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the October 17, 1898. Docketed and dismissed, on lotion of Mr. Solicitor General United States Circuit Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit. Richards for appellee.
Mr. J. R. Beckwith for petitioner. The TOLLESTON CLUB, OF CHICAGO, Plaintiff in Attorney General and The Solicitor General
for respondent. Error, 0. JOHN H. CLOUGH. (No. 219.]
October 24, 1898. Denied.
Mr. Frederic Ullman for plaintiff in error. Messrs. Frank J. Smith, Addison L. Garden, CITY OF ATTICA, HARPER COUNTY, KANSAS, and Randall W. Burns for defendant in er- Petitioner, v. SPRINGFIELD SAFE DEPOSIT
& TRUST COMPANY. (No. 346.) October 17, 1898. Dismissed, per stipula- Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the tion.
United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Mr. Wm. T. 8. Curtis for petitioner. Mr.
October 24, 1898. Denied.
Messrs. Samuel L. Gilmore and Branch K.
Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the October 24, 1898. Dismissed on the au- United States Circuit Court of Appeals for thority of Tennessee v. Union & P. Bank, 152 the Eighth Circuit. U. S. 454 (38: 511); Sawyer v. Kochersperg- Messrs. M. B. Philipp and Frederic D. Mo er, 170 U. S. 303 [42: 1046). (Mr. Justice Kenncy for petitioner. Mr. Smith P. Galt White took no part in the consideration for respondent. and disposition of this motion.)
October 31, 1898. Denied