of Nov'r 16th last, I have now the honor to make | ton collected by him, and shipped to you from Jacksonville, Fla., on the 25th of January last, and The above mentioned cotton which was seized by me, &c., was owned by the Exporting and Import ing Company of Georgia (president, G. B. Lamar), a company engaged in the sole business of blockade running, and holding said property for the purpose of aiding and abetting the rebellion, as stated in my communication to you of the 16th Nov. last. [172] pany in [173] Most of the cotton purchased for the above commade by one who signs himself as W. W. Cheever, agent for G. B. Lamar,' as will more fully hereafter appear when reference is made to certain lots of cotton by me seized and shipped. It also appears that the said cotton was purchased by the agents of Mr. Lamar and left on the plantations subject to their order." This letter proceeds to give an account of the various lots of cotton making up the 272 bales, stating where in Florida they were seized or taken by Mr. Cabell, and transmitting various documents, and among them, an account showing that he had paid out $6,654, as expenses relative to the cotton, before it was shipped to New York. The letter says: "It will thus be seen, from the papers submitted, that I have been engaged since July last, in seizing and otherwise obtaining this two hundred and seventy-two (272) bales of cotton for the Government"; and concludes with asking as compensation for the services, one third of the cotton, or 90% bales. Mr. Cabell also asks a per diem allowance as a com- claims. You will, of course, require proper receipts for The $13,887.89 was paid by Mr. Draper, May On the 25th of May, 1867, the defendant sent to the Commissioner of Customs the following letter: "May 25, 1867. On the 27th of February, 1866, Mr. Cabell the matter. On the 4th of May, 1866, the defendant sent the following letter to Mr. Draper, the United States Cotton Agent at New York: You will, therefore, please issue your requisition [174] [175] [181] [182] for delivery to the payee, under such instructions | doned property in the disloyal States." In his relative thereto as he may have or receive. Very respectfully toms." letter of May 25, 1867, to Mr. Sargent, the defendant speaks of the 272 and 268 bales as being "held by Government as captured or abandoned property," and directs the $4,881.10 to This settlement was made on the basis of giv-be paid out of the "proceeds of captured and ing to Mr. Cabell one fourth part of the gross abandoned property. value of the cotton as sold at New York, and deducting therefrom the $6,654 and the $6,883.89, and also one fourth part of the expenses on the cotton before its shipment at Jacksonville, and for its transit from there to New York, and at New York, and adding $500 in respect of the Thomasville cotton, making a total allowance of $4,881.10, which sum was paid to Mr. Este, for Mr. Cabell, by Mr. Spinner, as special agent, by a draft on the Treasurer of the United States, May 27, 1867. By section 1 of the Act of March 12, 1863, chap. 120 (12 Stat. at L., 820), the Secretary of the Treasury was authorized to appoint special agents "to receive and collect all abandoned or captured property" (with specified exceptions), in any State designated as in insurrection by the Proclamation of the President, of July 1, 1862 (12 Stat. at L., 1266). Florida was such a State. By section 2, the property collected, if not appropriated to public use, was to be for warded to a place of sale in the loyal States, and sold at auction, and the proceeds paid into the Treasury of the United States. By section 3, the Secretary of the Treasury was to cause "books of account to be kept, showing from whom such property was received, the cost of transportation, and proceeds of the sale thereof." Section 3 further provided as follows: "And any person claiming to have been the owner of any such abandoned or captured property may, at any time within two years after the suppression of the rebellion, prefer his claim to the proceeds thereof in the Court of Claims; and on proof to the satisfaction of said court, of his ownership of said property, of his right to the proceeds thereof, and that he has never giv en any aid or comfort to the present rebellion, to receive the residue of such proceeds, after the deduction of any purchase money which may have been paid, together with the expense of transportation and sale of said property, and any other lawful expenses attending the disposion thereof." By section 3 of the act of July 27, 1868, chap. 276 (15 Stat. at L., 243), it was declared to have been the true intent and meaning of the Act of March 12, 1863, "that the remedy given in cases of seizure made under said Act, by pre The foregoing written documents show me connection of the defendant with the case. Mr. Cabell's application or petition of November 16, 1865, claimed compensation for having collected or secured cotton, cedar timber and cattle. It enumerated the property. The defendant, in his letter of November 17, 1865, to Mr. Cabell, refers to it all as "captured property," but says that as none of it had been actually placed in the possession of any agent of the Treasury Department, or removed from the places where it had been discovered, he desires that Mr. Cabell will return South and do all in his power "to secure to the Government the cotton named" by him, and "to transport the same to a proper place of shipment." Only cotton was to be secured; and it is a fair interpretation of the letter, that the cotton was to be secured as having been "captured property," and that it was referred to by the defendant as a part of the "captured property" enumerated by Mr. Cabell. Mr. Cabell, in his letter to the defendant of December 11, 1865, speaks of the 170 bales he had already shipped as cotton "formerly owned by the Exporting and Importing Company." The defendant, in his letter to Mr. Cabell of December 29, 1865, says that his letter of November 17, 1865, was intended to empower Mr. Ca-ferring claim in the Court of Claims, should be bell to take into his possession "any cotton be- conclusive, precluding the owner of any proplonging to Government not in the custody of erty taken by agent, of the Treasury Depart [183 any other officer of the department, and which ment as abandoned or captured property, in might not otherwise be secured by them"; that virtue or under color of said Act, from suit at a perusal of that letter will show that it was not common law, or any other mode of redress intended to do more than secure his services in whatever, before any court or tribunal other connection with the lots of property which had than said Court of Claims; and in all cases in been specified by him; and that "no indiscrimi- which suits of trespass, replevin, detinue, or any nate seizures and collections were contemplated other form of action, may have been brought by it." Mr. Cabell's letter to the defendant, of and are now pending, or shall hereafter be February 17, 1866, says that the 272 bales he be brought, against any person, for or on achad shipped from Jacksonville to New York count of private property taken by such person on January 25, 1866, were "owned by the Ex- as an officer or agent of the United States in porting and Importing Company of Georgia virtue or under color of the Act aforesaid," (president, G. B. Lamar), a company engaged "the defendant may and shall plead or allege, in the sole business of blockade-running and in bar thereof, that such act was done or omit holding said property for the purpose of aiding ted to be done by him as an officer or agent of and abetting the rebellion." In his petition of the United States, in the administration of one February 27, 1866, to the defendant, Mr. Cabell of the Acts of Congress aforesaid, or in virtue states that he had been appointed by Mr. Alex- or under color thereof, and such plea or allega ander, in July, 1865, to "collect and receive all tion, if the fact be sustained by the proof, shall the cotton, tobacco and other property belong- be, and shall be deemed and adjudged in law to ing to the United States," and speaks of the 268 be, a complete and conclusive bar to any suit or bales as "government cotton," and speaks of action." This statute was in force when this Mr. Alexander as agent of the Treasury De- suit was brought, and when the issues in it partment, "under the regulations of said depart- were joined and the provision as to the jurisment for the collection of captured and aban-diction of, and conclusive remedy in, the Court 115 184] of Claims, is re-enacted, in substance, in section | party aggrieved might find a court of general those living in the insurrectionary districts, ex- of a loyal State, in respect to property owned by The occasion for the enactment of the provisions of section 3 of the Act of July 27,1868, appears to have been this: "One Elgee brought a suit in a state court in Missouri, against one Lovell, to recover the possession of some bales of cot ton. Lovell removed the case into the Circuit Court of the United States for the Districts of Missouri, on the ground that he was in posses-rights of property, except as to slaves, to all sion of the cotton as agent for the Government of the United States, which claimed it as abandoned property, under the Act of March 12, 1863. Elgee having died, the suit was continued in the name of his administrato It was decided by the Circuit Court, held by Mr. Justice Miller and District Judges Treat and Krekel, in October, 1965, and is reported in 1 Wool. 103, as Elgee's Admr. v. Lovell. The opinions of the court, for there were two, were given by Mr. Justice Miller. To the ordinary declaration in detinue the defendant pleaded that the cotton had, before the suit was brought, and in March, 1864, been taken, received and collected in the State of Mississippi, as abandoned property, into the possession of one Hart, ader it, and as the only remedy of a loyal citizen special agent, appointed by the Secretary of the Treasury to receive and collect abandoned or captured property, under the Act of March 12, 1863, Mississippi having been designated as in insurrection, by the Proclamation of July 1, 1862; that the cotton was in possession of the defendant, at St. Louis, as agent of the United States, in its transit to a place of sale, and he was holding it for and on behalf of the United States, and not otherwise; and that the cotton was claimed by the United States as abandoned property, under said Act. The plaintiff deurred to this plea, and the demurrer was overuled. The Circuit Court said, in regard to the plea: "It shows that the cotton mentioned in The declaration was seized as abandoned property in one of the districts declared by the Proclamation to be in a State of insurrection, by a special agent of the Treasury Department for that district; and that, when this suit was brought, it was held by the defendant as an agent of the Government, with a view of disposing of it under the Act. The objection taken to it is, that it does not aver that the property, when taken possession of by the treasury agent, was captured or abandoned property, It is manifest, we think, that section 3 of the nor in any other manner show that it was right- Act of July 27, 1868, was intended to cover, fully seized.*** The question is, whether and does cover, a case like the present. The Congress intended to make the remedy given Act, in terms, includes a suit for what is in fact by this Act exclusive of all others, or to permit private property, taken by an agent of the Unitthe Treasury agents to be sued for the posses-ed States, as being abandoned or captured sion or proceeds of such property wherever the property, in the administration of the Act of There was a final judgment against the plaintiff, and the case was brought into this court by a writ of error sued out by Elgee's administrator, and was No. 63 on the docket of December Term, 1867. Briefs for both parties were filed, and the case was argued orally. The court was equally divided in opinion, eight judges sitting, and the judgment was consequently affirmed on the 27th of January, 1868. Subsequently the bill which became a law on the 27th of July, 1868, was introduced into the House of Representatives and passed by it and by the Senate, and was approved by the President. It is proper to assume, from this history and the contents of the Act, that it was introduced and passed because of the difficulties which had attended the decision of this court in the Elgee Case. [186] [181] [182] for delivery to the pays under mich instructions ¿cuaed property in the disloyal States." In his Very respectfully, EYC.cch. Nathan Sargent, Eqre, Commissioner of Cusing "held by Government as captured or aban to me." This settlement was made on the basis of giv ing to Mr. Cabell one fourth part of the gross value of the cotton as sold in New York, and deducting therefrom the 36, 454 and the 36,588.99, and also one fourth part of the expenses on the ection before it shipment at Jacksonville, and for its transit from there to New York, and at New York, and adding $500 in respect of the Thomasville cotton, making a total allowance of $4.81.10, which sum was paid to Mr. Este, for Mr. Cabell, by Mr. Spinner, as special agent, by a draft on the Treasurer of the United States, May 27, 1967. doned property," and directs the $4,881.10 to be paid cut of the "proceeds of captured and abandoned property." By section 1 of the Act of March 12, 1863, chap. 120 (12 Stat. at L., 820), the Secretary of the Treasury was authorized to appoint special agents to receive and collect all abandoned or captured property" (with specified exceptions), in any State designated as in insurrection by the Proclamation of the President, of July 1, 1862 (12 Stat. at L., 1266). Florida was such State. By section 2, the property collected, if not appropriated to public use, was to be for warded to a place of sale in the loyal States, The foregoing written documents show we and sold at auction, and the proceeds paid into connection of the defendant with the case. Mr. the Treasury of the United States. By section Cabell's application or petition of November 16, 3, the Secretary of the Treasury was to cause 1865, claimed compensation for having col-"books of account to be kept, showing from lected or secured cotton, cedar timber and cattle. whom such property was received, the cost of It enumerated the property. The defendant, transportation, and proceeds of the sale therein his letter of November 17, 1865, to Mr. Ca- of." Section 3 further provided as follows: bell, refers to it all as "captured property," but "And any person claiming to have been the says that as none of it had been actually placed owner of any such abandoned or captured propin the possession of any agent of the Treasury erty may, at any time within two years after Department, or removed from the places where the suppression of the rebellion, prefer his claim it had been discovered, he desires that Mr. Ca- to the proceeds thereof in the Court of Claims; bell will return South and do all in his power and on proof to the satisfaction of said court, of "to secure to the Government the cotton named" his ownership of said property, of his right to by him, and "to transport the same to a proper the proceeds thereof, and that he has never giv place of shipment." Only cotton was to be se- en any aid or comfort to the present rebellion, cured; and it is a fair interpretation of the let- to receive the residue of such proceeds, after ter, that the cotton was to be secured as having the deduction of any purchase money which been "captured property," and that it was re- may have been paid, together with the expense ferred to by the defendant as a part of the "cap of transportation and sale of said property, and tured property" enumerated by Mr. Cabell.any other lawful expenses attending the dispo Mr. Cabell, in his letter to the defendant of De- sion thereof." cember 11, 1865, speaks of the 170 bales he had already shipped as cotton "formerly owned by the Exporting and Importing Company." The defendant, in his letter to Mr. Cabell of December 29, 1865, says that his letter of November 17, 1865, was intended to empower Mr. Ca-ferring claim in the Court of Claims, should be bell to take into his possession "any cotton belonging to Government not in the custody of any other officer of the department, and which might not otherwise be secured by them"; that a perusal of that letter will show that it was not intended to do more than secure his services in connection with the lots of property which had been specified by him; and that "no indiscriminate seizures and collections were contemplated by it." Mr. Cabell's letter to the defendant, of February 17, 1866, says that the 272 bales he had shipped from Jacksonville to New York on January 25, 1866, were "owned by the Exporting and Importing Company of Georgia (president, G. B. Lamar), a company engaged in the sole business of blockade-running and holding said property for the purpose of aiding and abetting the rebellion." In his petition of February 27, 1866, to the defendant, Mr. Cabell states that he had been appointed by Mr. Alexander, in July, 1865, to "collect and receive all the cotton, tobacco and other property belonging to the United States," and speaks of the 268 bales as "government cotton," and speaks of Mr. Alexander as agent of the Treasury Department, "under the regulations of said department for the collection of captured and aban By section 3 of the act of July 27, 1868, chap. $76 (15 Stat. at L., 243), it was declared to have been the true intent and meaning of the Act of March 12, 1863, "that the remedy given in cases of seizure made under said Act, by pre conclusive, precluding the owner of any prop erty taken by agent, of the Treasury Depart ment as abandoned or captured property, in virtue or under color of said Act, from suit a common law, or any other mode of redres whatever, before any court or tribunal othe than said Court of Claims; and in all cases in which suits of trespass, replevin, detinue, or an other form of action, may have been brough and are now pending, or shall hereafter b be brought, against any person, for or on a count of private property taken by such perso as an officer or agent of the United States i virtue or under color of the Act aforesaid, the defendant may and shall plead or allege in bar thereof, that such act was done or omi ted to be done by him as an officer or agent the United States, in the administration of on of the Acts of Congress aforesaid, or in virtu or under color thereof, and such plea or alleg tion, if the fact be sustained by the proof, sha be, and shall be deemed and adjudged in law be, a complete and conclusive bar to any suite action." This statute was in force when th suit was brought, and when the issues in were joined and the provision as to the juri diction of, and conclusive remedy in, the Čou is re-enacted, in substance, in section | party aggrieved might find a court of general the Revised Statutes, which gives juris- jurisdiction. *** The Act evidently contemthe Court of Claims to hear and de- plates that, in some instances at least, property claims for the proceeds of captured will be seized which ought to be returned to its [185] d and property, as provided by the Act owner, or for which compensation should be ch 12, 1863, or by the Act of July 2, made by paying him the proceeds. Otherwise 22518 Stat. at L., 375), and then it were unnecessary to provide any means of Provided, That the remedy given in determining when a return should be made. sferure under the said Acts, by prefer- And the remedy applied to property taken by in the Court of Claims, shall be ex- mistake, or by the unjustifiable act of the precluding the owner of any property agent, equally as to property which has been gents of the Treasury Department as abandoned or captured. *** I am of opinion Land or captured property, in virtue or that Congress intended to prescribe to all claimCart of said Acts, from suit at common ants who should prove their loyalty and their ny other mode of redress whatever, right to the property, this remedy for all cases any court other than said Court of of seizure by agents, under this law, whether made in a strict accordance with its provisions She cension for the enactment of the provi- or not." Upon this decision, the plaintiff filed on 3 of the Act of July 27,1868, ap- a replication to the plea, which averred that the are been this: "One Elgee brought a suit cotton before it came into the possession of Hart, a court in Missouri, against one Lovell, was the property of Elgee; that by the Proclamaer the possession of some bales of cot' tion of the President, of December 8, 1863 (13 Level removed the case into the Circuit Stat. at L. 737), there was promised a full parthe United States for the Districts of don and amnesty, with restoration of all their on the ground that he was in posses- rights of property, except as to slaves, to all on as agent for the Government those living in the insurrectionary districts, exted States, which claimed it as aban- cept certain classes of persons therein menerty, under the Act of March 12, tioned, who should thereafter take, subscribe Love having died, the suit was contin and keep inviolate a certain oath therein preLame of his administrato It was scribed; that, before the suit was brought, Elby the Circuit Court, held by Mr. Jus- gee, then living in said'insurrectionary districts, and District Judges Treat and Kre- not being one of the excepted persons, took and Uber, 1965, and is reported in 1 Wool. subscribed the oath required and had kept it inExp Admr. v. Lovell. The opinions violate; and that his rights of property in the tur, for there were two, were given cotton were thereby restored to him. The deJustice Miller. To the ordinary dec-fendant demurred to this replication. The dedetinue the defendant pleaded that murrer was sustained by the Circuit Court, had, before the suit was brought, and which held, in its decision, that as the Act of 14, been taken, received and col- March 12, 1863, contemplated that the property State of Mississippi, as abandoned of loyal citizens might and would be taken unto the possession of one Hart, a der it, and as the only remedy of a loyal citizen st, appointed by the Secretary of of a loyal State, in respect to property owned by to receive and collect abandoned him, seized by a treasury agent in an insurproperty, under the Act of March rectionary district, as abandoned property, was Mit pi having been designated as by an application to the Court of Claims, parto, by the Proclamation of July 1, don and amnesty could not place the disloyal the cotton was in possession of the citizen in any better position than that occupied St. Louis, as agent of the United by the loyal citizen. transit to a place of sale, and he There was a final judgment against the plaingit for and on behalf of the United tiff, and the case was brought into this court by ot otherwise; and that the cotton a writ of error sued out by Elgee's administraed by the United States as abandoned tor, and was No. 63 on the docket of December aid Act. The plaintiff de- Term, 1867. Briefs for both parties were filed, ple, and the demurrer was over- and the case was argued orally. The court tuit Court said, in regard to the was equally divided in opinion, eight judges that the cotton mentioned in sitting, and the judgment was consequently seized as abandoned prop- affirmed on the 27th of January, 1868. Subseef the districts declared by the Proc- quently the bill which became a law on the 27th be in a State of insurrection, by a of July, 1868, was introduced into the House of test of the Treasury Department for Representatives and passed by it and by the and that, when this suit was Senate, and was approved by the President. It beld by the defendant as an is proper to assume, from this history and the Government, with a view of dis- contents of the Act, that it was introduced and der the Act. The objection taken passed because of the difficulties which had does not aver that the property, attended the decision of this court in the Elges Ms pession of by the treasury Case. ra aptured or abandoned property, It is manifest, we think, that section 3 of the her manner show that it was right Act of July 27, 1868, was intended to cover, *** The question is, whether and does cover, a case like the present. The ed to make the remedy given Act, in terms, includes a suit for what is in fact tuve of all others, or to permit private property, taken by an agent of the Units to be sued for the posses-ed States, as being abandoned or captured of such property wherever the property, in the administration of the Act of [186] |