The Sun.
London, England, 1865-07-31 00:00:00

BY ELECTRIC TELEGRAPH.

GRAVESEND, Monday Morning.
Arrived, July 31.—Catherine Seed, and Baltic, from'
Dantsic.
Arrived, July 31.—Lady Milne, from Bermuda; Tigner,
from Soderham.

• DEAL, Monday Morning.
Passed, July 30.—Athol, ship, from London for Liver-
pool; Fergus, from Quebec for Hull ; Matilda, from Soffo
London.

An influx of 14,000 sovereigns took place at the
Bank on Saturday.

The traffic receipts of the Metropolitan Extension
Railways of the London, Chatham, and Dover
Company this week show an increase of £420 over
the corresponding week of last year.
The report of the English, Scottish, and Austra-
lian Chartered Bank, presented to the meeting of
shareholders to-day, for the half-year ending March
31 in the colonies, and to June 30 in London, states
that the balance of profits, after making provision
for bad and doubtful debts, was £22,538. They
therefore recommended that out of the balance of
£22,538 17s. 7d. a dividend at the rate of 7 per
cent., free of income tax, on £600,000, the paid-up
capital, which will require £21,000 ; that the pre-
mises and furniture accounts be reduced by £l,OOO ;
and that £538 17s. 7d. be brought forward to the
current half-year.

At the meeting to-day of the shareholders of the
Joint Stock Discount Company the report was
adopted, which showed a gross profit of £54,073,
inclusive of £3,248 brought forward. After deduct-
ing rebate of interest on bills not due, and the cur-
rent expenses, the directors recommend a dividend
of six per cent., carrying forward £6,573. Of the
amount of the company's claim against the Leeds
Banking Company more than 10s. in the pound has
been already received, and the directors believe the
entire amount, with interest, will be realised.

The RIGHT OF PROPERTY IN AMERICAN COTTON.
—An important case, the United States of America
v. Prioleau, was argued before Vice-Chancellor Wood on
Wednesday. It was a motion to restrain the defendant, a
Confederate agent, and others, from disposing of a freight
of cotton, consisting of 1,500 bales or thereabouts, which
had been shipped from Havana per the Arline, to be turned
into money for the purposes of the Confederates, and which
was now lying in the Mersey Company's docks, at Liver-
pool. The plaintiffs claimed the property as the lawful
governors of the United States. Thbdefendants insisted
that their title as successful runners of the blockade was a
good one, and that even if it were not, the title of the
United States was subject to the rights 'in the cotton of
Prioleau, who alleged he was a loser of £20,000 and
upwards by the Confederates. The Vice Chancellor said
he was clearly of opinion that the plaintiffs were entitled
to the cotton in question ; but whether or not subject
to the agreement between the defunct Government
and Mr. Prioleau was a more serious question. The
transaction was a transaction between a Government de
facto and the citizen of a country not connected with the
belligerents. In the first place it was for the Court to
see to whom the cotton belonged at the time when the
transaction was entered' upon. Upon the evidence it
could not be doubted but that it was the property of the
Confederate States. It was the produce of moneys con-
tributed to be levied as taxes by the Government of
those. States. It was not the property of any individual
state of America ; if it had been, the peculiar constitution
of the United States in this respect might have led to
difficult questions. But it was plain that the money
which produced the cotton was levied in more than one
state, and was the property of the Government of the re-
volted Confederation. Next to be considered was this:
What was that Government ? It was not a more band of
marauders ; not a set of persons plundering a country
and living upon the plunder they levied. It was an
actual, a de facto " government," exercising authority and
receiving submission as such. It had now come to an
end, and its functions been resumed and its authority
suppressed by the plaintiffs. What was the law appli-
cable to this state of things ? It could not be doubted .for
a moment. International law—the consent of all civilised
nations—had settled beyond dispute that when ade facto
government came to an end, and was succeeded by
another government, the
property of the de factogovern-
ment
passed to its successors. But then arose the ques-
tion, did not the successors take such propertybound
of
their
predecessors ? Subject to any argument
by the agreements, and affected by the equities eNtvihmitttes hmioltebeir
adduced
sotiti theeesshearingrs
were so
bound. o f thecause,end. clearly,
it clearly
therefore,appeared
tat the e e
as at present advised, the plaintiffs must take this cotton
subject to the agreement between the lato Government
and the defendant Prioleau. But upon that agreement
nuich question might arise. The expenses of transit
should come out of the amount, but beyond this there
was much question. One half the residue appeared
pretty certainly to be the property of tho defunct.
Government, under the agreemeut, and of course that
would pass to the plaintiffs. As to the other half, more
question attached. All those questions, however, wore
matters for determination at the hearing, and the Court
had nothing to do now but to take care that, considering
the lame amount at stake, the plaintiffs were held harm-
less. The value of the cotton, in round numbers, appeared
to be about X,19,000, awl the elder
•tllcrefore, that
Prioleau hi; appoiuted reeeiv el. in which
would enabla hint to dispose of the celi,et. and pay all
proper charges. 3:c.), he either giving se.•w ity for 24000.
or paying that amount into court. a he might think
before the beevnti. of uelt term.