The dollar weekly bulletin. [volume] (Maysville, Ky.) 1862-1864, 1862-11-13
IMPORTANT JUDICIAL DECISION.
Inc Federal COnfscatiOn Act Decided to
be Unconstitutional.
H. Taylor for Plaintiff. F. T. Hord for

H. Taylor for Plaintiff. F. T. Hora for
Defendant
AT the present session of the Mason Circuit
Court, the Hon. L. w. Andrews, Circuit
Judge, presiding, an action for the recovery of
note OF $1,000, instituted by Rebecca Doni.
phan John Doniphan and James Doniphan.
against Darius Norris was tried. The defen-
dant IN his answer to the action averred that
the plaintiffs James Doniphan and Rebecca
Doniphan, at the commencement of the pres
ent rebellion were citizens of Missouri-bnt,
sympathizing with the rebel cause, had re-
moved to the State of Arkansas, where the
plaintiff james Doniphan had entered the SER
vice as an officer in the rebel army, and had so
continued. That the plaintiff Rehecca Doni
phan had removed to one ofthe seeded States,
and was there giving aid and comfort to those
In rebellion against the lawful government of
the United States, and that each had conse-
quently forfeited to the Government their
property, money, chooses in action &c, under
the provisions of the confscation act the Presi-
dent having issued his proclamation as provid-
ed for by said act warning,all those in rebellion
to return to their allegiance more than sixty
days before the commencement of the action,
and that plaintiffs notwithstanding the proc
IamatIon continued their rcbellous practices.
This defence brought directly before the
Court the constitutionaity of that section of
the confscation act which declares that of all
who shall for SIXTY days after the Presidents
proclamation continue in rebellion their
property shall be forfeited to the Government,
and authorizes the President to seize it and
appropriate it to the Of the United States
The act further declares tha. it shall be n bar
TO all actions plead and prove that the plain
tiff is in rebellion against the Government.
The ID section of the 81 article Of the Con-
stitution OF the United States says: The Con-
gress shall have power to declare the puni sh-
ment of treason; but attainder shall work
corruption of blood or forfeiture except dur
ing the lie of the person attaintcd.' If the
object and intentions of the confsctison act is
to work Il forfeiture of the estate of the rebel
without previous Indictment trial and convic-
ton for the crime of treason in court of
competent jurisdiction. argued then
in the udcment of the court it was clear in
fraction of that portion of the Constitution
quoted above. In sustaining this view of tho
question the court aptly alluded to the practi
cal working of the law, if carried into 'execu-
ton. In effect it clothes every judicial officer
from the Chief Justice of the United States
down to the police judge of the pettiest village
with power Indirectly to try every suitor,
plaintiff, in his court for treason-and that too,
not under the regulations governing crininal
trials, but according to 9 C practice of the civil
tribunals of the country. Then too the cit.-
zen, under this law mi sht be deprived of hi
property by II judgment OF civil Courts, and
afterwards upon Indictment and trial in the
criminal courts be pronounced innocent
The other case involved quest; on OF less mag
nitu.ie, but of general interest. y creditor of
the city OF Maysviic hoidin" some Of her bonds
issued in payment Of her subscri ption st ok
t, the defunct Maysville and Lexington rail
road had obtained judg dgment against the city
upon coupons to these bonds for interest, and
IL return of nulla bona upon executions there /
for against the city. The city having failed to !
provide by taxation fund to pay these cou
pons as required by the charter of the rail
road. company, only having levied enough to
deirav the ordinary current expenses of the
city, the creditor proceeded by attachment
against the city, seGuesterin@ in the bonds OF
the tax-pavers the taxes due by them under the
annual levy and praying that these taxes
IN. .ht be applied to the satisfaction OF
Judgment. r,e city by her assessor denied
the power Of the chancellor to direct the funds
which she had provided for maintaining the
proper municipal government of the city, her
public schools, poor, and other annual expen-
ditures necessarily growing out OF her char
tered obligations, and appropriate them to the
payment of the interest upon the rail road
bonds That all those for whose benefit these
taxes had been levied might equitably be re-
oarded as creditors of the city, and that 1t
would be unjust to take these funds from one
class of creditors and bestow them upon anoth-
or In this defence the creditor interposed
demurrer. and after argument by the Hon.
W. H. Wadsworth and John II. Clarke. Esq,
for the creditor and the Hon. Il. c. Phister,
for the city, the Court overruled the demurrer
and adiudred the defence to be valid; remark
ing that the remedy of the creditor was by
mandamus to compel the city council to levy
the requisite tax to pay the interest upon the
bonds. The power of the court to compel the
pavment of this interest, in its judgment, is
plenary If the city authorities failed to do
this duty, and suffered for their contempt in
nrison. still the remedy of the creditor and
IL H.