Worcester daily spy. [volume] (Worcester [Mass.]) 1850-1888, 1863-03-11
Decisions of the Supreme Court ia the
Great Almaden Case, and the Prize
Cases.

Decisions of the Supreme Court in the
Great Almaden Case, and the Prize
Cases.
WASHINGTON, March lO.-The previous
announcement that the supreme court of the
United States would to-day pronounce its de-
cisions in the great Almaden case and the
prize causes, attracted to the court room an
unusually large number of distinguished law
yers from different parts of the country. The
Almadcn case has been argued by Messrs.
ReaChy of California, O'COnnOr of New York,
and Reverdy Johnson of Maryland, for the
claimants, and by judge j. j. Black of Penn
sylvania, and B. r. Curtis, formerly associate
justice of the supreme court of the United
States. Associate justice Clifford occupied
about three hours in the reading of the decis-
ion. All the facts IN the case were particu-
larly cited, and the documents involved criti-
cally examined. The result reached by the
court is in substance =
First. That no grant could be made of
these quicksilver mines in Santa Clara in
California. except during the colonization
law, and that none OF the conditions were
complied with. The proposition of the
claimants could not stand as it was founded
an erroneous assumption of the dispatch of
of the Mexican minister, and therefore the
claim for two square leagues of land cannot
be sustained.
Second. The decision of the U. S. COM
missioner cannot be rejected
Third. Nothing like forfeiture is now pro-
posed, because the title had been acquired,
for the claimant did not pursue the necessary
steps to obtain it. There was no registry or
surety, no boundary fixed, no stakes set, SC.
And in addition, the claimant failed to show
that the Alcade had a right to confirm the
title.
Fourth. The parties most interested knew
the title was invalid, and the government of
Mexico must have known the claim was I'M
founded This position was maintained by an
examination fpapers connected with the case.
Justices Wayne, Catron, and Grier dissented
from this opinion, believing there was no
fraud.
The counsel in the several prize cases here
tOfore argued, were Messrs Lord and Ed
wards of New York, and Carlisle of Wash
ington for the claimants, and repre- sentative
Sedgwick and Mr. Evarts of New York, Mr..
Dana district attorney of Massachusetts,, and
Mr.. Eames for the United States. Justice
Grier delivered the opinion of the court in
the prize cases Of which the following is a
brief abstract. He said there were certain
principles of law which were applicable to all
Of them. That blockade de tact0 actually
existed by the presidents proclamation of the
18th April, 1861, is an admitted fact, and that
the president as chief executive of the gov
eminent and commander in chief of the
army and navy, was the proper person to
make such notification, is not questioned.
long argumentative statement of the case
concluded with the decision that the blockade
was according to the law of nations, and that
the captures were valid. Justice Nelson read
dissenting opinion, he differing from therest
Of the court on some points. He holds that
all captures previous TO the time when con-
gress authorized the blockade are illegal.
The court has also prepared decision, in
which the judges are unanimous, that it is not
in the power of a state to tax United States