policy and action of the Government, the real estate of such a distinguished Confederate as John Slidell, minister to France, whose property was in the possession of the Treasury agents during the war, would have been among the first to be confiscated. The liberal terms granted to General Lee, when he surrendered to General Grant, are part of the history of this country, and need not be repeated here. "The rebellion had not been suppressed in all parts of the South when, on the 29th of May, 1865, the President of the United States issued a proclamation granting to all persons who have, directly or indirectly, participated in the existing rebellion, except as hereinafter excepted, amnesty and pardon, with restoration of all rights of property, except to slaves.' No' political conditions were laid down.' There were excepted cases in the proclamation, but the parties were afterward pardoned, either by the President or by acts of Congress. "It is true in some cases private property was taken and used by the Union armies, without compensation at the time, but Congress, by the act of March 3, 1871, provided a commission to adjudicate these claims. "You are aware that the act of March 3, 1863, which provided for the appointment of special agents to collect captured and abandoned. property, provided also that 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.' "Thus, during the war and until August 20, 1868 (the rebellion was officially declared suppressed August 20, 1866) your honorable court had jurisdiction of all claims for captured and abandoned property. The records of your court will show that judgments were entered for large sums in favour of persons who had been active and prominent in the rebellion. "A large amount of cotton was seized by the Treasury agents after the rebellion had collapsed but had not been entirely suppressed. "The right to file claims in the Court of Claims having ceased August 20, 1868, Congress provided another remedy for those who claimed that cotton had been wrongfully seized, and passed the act of May 18, 1872, which provided that the Secretary of the Treasury should return the proceeds derived from the sale of cotton illegally seized after June 30, 1865. A large number of claims were filed under this act, but in nearly all cases it was found that the claimants had sold the cotton to the Confederacy, and it was, therefore, Confederate cotton when it was seized. "In reply to the specific inquiry of your correspondent I will state that confiscation through the courts, as near as can be ascertained, amounted to less than $200,000. “You state that my reply will not be made public without my consent. As the facts above stated are public history, you are at liberty to use this reply as you may deem proper." Letter of Mr. Shaw, Sec. of Treasury, to Mr. Nott, Ch. J. of the Court of Claims, Feb. 18, 1902. This letter was sent by Chief Justice Nott to his correspondent in England, Mr. George F. Parker, by whom it was published in the London Times. (The Times, weekly, April 4, 1902.) With regard to abandoned and captured property, the sale and proceeds thereof, and the claims allowed, see Treasury Department Circular No. 4, Jan. 9, 1900; and the reports of Lewis Jordan, esq., Chief of the Miscellaneous Division, Treasury Department, Nov. 28, 1894, and Dec. 14, 1901. For the reports of the Southern Claims Commission, see the following documents: First General Report, Dec. 11, 1871, H. Mis. Doc. 16, 42 Cong. 2 sess. Letter from the Commissioners, case of Waddy Thompson, May 7, 1872, Second General Report, Dec. 9, 1872, H. Mis. Doc. 12, 42 Cong. 3 sess. Fourth General Report, Dec. 14, 1874, H. Mis. Doc. 18, 43 Cong. 2 sess. Fifth General Report, Dec. 20, 1875, H. Mis. Doc. 30, 44 Cong. 1 sess. Sixth Annual Report, Dec. 4, 1876, H. Mis. Doc. 4, 44 Cong. 2 sess. (5) COTTON. § 1153. "Being enemies' property, the cotton was liable to capture and confiscation by the adverse party. (Prize Cases, 2 Black, 687.) It is true that this rule, as to property on land, has received very important qualifications from usage, from the reasonings of enlightened publicists, and from judicial decisions. It may now be regarded as substantially restricted to special cases dictated by the necessary operation of war,' (1 Kent, 92), and as excluding, in general, the seizure of the private property of pacific persons for the sake of gain' (id. 93). The commanding general may determine in what special cases its more stringent application is required by military emergencies; while considerations of public policy and positive provisions of law, and the general spirit of legislation, must indicate the cases in which its application may be properly denied to the property of non-combatant enemies. "In the case before us, the capture seems to have been justified by the peculiar character of the property and by legislation. It is well known that cotton has constituted the chief reliance of the rebels for means to purchase the munitions of war in Europe. It is matter of history, that rather than permit it t ocome into the possession of the national troops, the rebel government has everywhere devoted it, however owned, to destruction. The value of that destroyed at New Orleans, just before its capture, has been estimated at eighty millions of dollars. It is in the record before us, that on this very plantation of Mrs. Alexander, one year's crop was destroyed in apprehension of an advance of the Union forces. The rebels regard it as one of their main sinews of war; and no principle of equity or just policy required, when the national occupation was itself precarious, that it should be spared from capture and allowed to remain, in case of the withdrawal of the Union troops, an element of strength to the rebellion." Chase, Ch. J., Mrs. Alexander's Cotton, 2 Wall. 404, 419. Where, after active hostilities had ceased in Georgia, cotton, as private property, was seized there by the military forces of the United States, in obedience to an order of the commanding general, during their occupation and actual government of that State, it was held to have been taken from hostile possession within the meaning of that term, and was, without regard to the status of the owner, a legitimate subject of capture. Lamar v. Browne, 92 U. S. 187. "All property within enemy territory is in law enemy property, just as all persons in the same territory are enemies. A neutral, owning property within the enemy's lines, holds it as enemy property, subject to the laws of war; and, if it is hostile property, subject to capture. It has never been doubted that arms and munitions of war, however owned, may be seized by the conquering belligerent upon conquered territory. The reason is that, if left, they may, upon a reverse of the fortunes of war, help to strengthen the adversary. To cripple him, therefore, they may be captured, if necessary; and whether necessary or not, must be determined by the commanding general, unless restrained by the orders of his government, which alone is his superior. The same rule applies to all hostile property." Young v. United States (1877), 97 U. S. 39, 60. The act of the Confederate Congress of March 6, 1862, by which it was declared to be the duty of all military commanders in the service of the Confederate States to destroy all cotton, tobacco, and other property that might be useful to the forces of the United States, whenever, in their judgment, it should be about to fall into their hands, "assumed to confer upon such commanders no greater authority than, consistently with the laws and usages of war, they might have exercised, without the previous sanction of the Confederate legislative authorities, as to any cotton within their military lines likely to fall into the hands of the Federal forces. They had the right, as an act of war, to destroy private property within the lines of the insurrection, belonging to those who were co-operating, directly or indirectly, in the insurrection against the Government of the United States, if such destruction seemed to be required by impending necessity for the purpose of retarding the advance or crippling the military operations of the Federal forces. Whether the redress here sought could, consistently with the provisions of the Federal Constitution, be denied to one who, by the laws of war, is to be deemed an enemy to the lawful government, solely by reason of residence within the insurrectionary district pending the struggle, but who, in point of fact, was a loyal citizen, adhering to the United States, giving no voluntary aid or comfort to the rebellion, it is not necessary for us now to decide. No such question is here presented, and we forbear any expression of opinion upon it." Ford v. Surget (1878), 97 U. S. 594, 606, 607. This was an action for damages by the owner of the cotton against the person who, under military orders, destroyed it. As cotton, within the military lines of the Confederacy, being "the chief reliance of the rebels for means to purchase the munitions of war in Europe" (Young v. United States, 97 U. S. 39; Mrs. Alexander's Cotton, 2 Wall. 404), was "not only enemy, but hostile property," and as such liable to seizure or destruction by the Federal Army, without regard to the individual sentiments of the owner, for the purpose of strengthening that army or of crippling the enemy, it would seem to be a "logical deduction" that "the destruction of the same cotton, under the orders of the Confederate military authorities, for the purpose of preventing it from falling into the hands of the Federal Army, was, under the circumstances alleged in the special pleas, an act of war upon the part of the military forces of the rebellion, for which the person executing such orders was relieved from civil responsibility at the suit of the owner voluntarily residing at the time within the lines of the insurrection." Ford . Surget (1878), 97 U. S. 594, 605. Bills of sale given by the owners of cotton given to the purchasing agents of the Confederate Government, found in the rebel archives in Washington, are evidence to show that the title of the property passed to the Confederate Government and vested in the United States a right of conquest. Gilmer v. United States, 14 Ct. Cl. 184. "The loan made by European capital is a direct engagement with the armed insurgents who have assumed to control, supply, and deliver cotton for the reimbursement of the money advanced, with interest. You will give notice to Earl Russell that this transaction necessarily brings to an end all concessions, of whatever form, that have been made by this Government for mitigating or alleviating the rigor of the blockade in regard to the shipment of cotton and tobacco. Nor will any title of any person, whether citizen of the United States or subject of a foreign power, to any cotton or merchandise, which title is derived from or through any pretended insurgent authority or other agency hostile to the United States, be respected by this Government." Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Mr. Adams, min. to England, April 10, 1863, As to blockade-running, see S. Ex. Doc. 11, 41 Cong. 1 sess. I. 719. Cotton was "made use of by the Confederacy in carrying on the war, both by accumulating it in large quantities for sale, when it could be passed through the lines, and by destroying it when in danger of being seized by the United States troops; in this way aiding a cotton famine in foreign countries, so as to stimulate and secure recognition of the Confederacy as a separate member of the family of nations. "Cotton was useful as collateral security for loans negotiated abroad by the Confederate States government, or, as in the present case, was sold by it for cash to meet current expenses, or to purchase arms and munitions of war. Its use for such purposes was publicly proclaimed by the Confederacy, and its sale interdicted except under regulations established by, or contract with, the Confederate government. Cotton was thus officially classed among war supplies, and, as such, was liable to be destroyed when found by the Federal troops or turned to any use which the exigencies of war might dictate. "The military importance of cotton to the Confederacy is shown by the fact that as early as February, 1861, an act passed by the provisional government of the Confederate States to raise money for the support of the government and to provide for the defense of the Confederate States of America' levied a duty on all cotton in the raw state exported from the Confederate States; and in May of the same year an act was passed prohibiting the export of cotton from the Confederate States, except through the ports of said States. |