Daily national Republican., 1863-03-12
ptsPosITION AND CONDEMNATION OF
PRIZE PROPERTY.
D1LLAToRLHEsS or CERTIFY DIS
TRICT COuRTS I.

The hedissentihg opinion Of fJustice Nelson TO the
decision Of the Supreme Court, announced from
The bench by Justice Gricr on Tuesday, and
publlshed exclusively in the RErUBuoAS, has
attracted considerable attention, and elected
much Inquiry, among thinking, fair.minded,
and patriotic citizens, TO ascertain what could
possibly be the motive for such dissent on the
part Of the distinguished Justice, whose circuit
embraces the great commercial city Of New
York. We have sought for a loyal motive,
other than the controlling influences Of politics
or the interests Of commerce, and, In our re-
search, have fallen upon an extract Of the re-
cent Official report Of Secretary Wells, to the
House Of Representatives, in the prize cases.
We give II below, the italics being ours. While
the recent opiuiou Of Justice Nelson may have
nothing whatever to do with the action Of the
United States courts within his circuit in New
York, 1ohere is decisions hare been dgaiRS ue iil
terestS fthe Government, evidently looking to a
Vcy different decision of the Supreme Court in
the prize casos from that recently rendered, VIC
confess that thore Is q strong resemblance in
the action and spirit manifested by that court
In disposlng Of and condemning periSdOlc
prize property and Justice Nelson's opinion.
Secretary Wells says;
"Tho tables exhibit very marked difference
in the expenses attending the disposition and
condemnation Of prize property In different dis
tricts. This, no doubt, arises, In part, from
the dlversities of practice In the courts. In
one district, captured property Is exposed for
sale as soon as practicable after 1t Is placed
within the Jurisdiction OF tho court, thus avoid
ing waste, deterioration, and long-continucd
expenses OF storage, wharfage, insurance, &C.;
tchlO n another district Is held for months be-
fore a sale Is duthorized-eTpenSeS, meanrhle,
rapidly decUmuidting, aud h'e property, IN some
iItStdRceS, largely deprecdting. There are cases,
oven, Of captures tcithiH thirty days from the
declaration Of ne blockade, where the property
| still remains unSotd-(a period Of nearly two
| years, the captures having been made in May,
lS61)-and, Of course, is largely deprecated, u
not entirely tcortllcSs. Should the Supreme
Court, 10 which these cases have been appealed,
decide that the captures were unlawful, DC
| GorerIule,u 'oiH Be required 10 reSpOnd IN hedVy
damages, without being able 10 indemnify It.
| self as icOlild hare been the odSe-at least to a
! considerable extsnt-hdd ne properly been sold
within reasonable timei while, II the capture is
sustained, and THO property ultimately con-
demned, the odptOrS and The Government ieW re-
ceiVc llte or nothing. IL would be well for Con-
ny with International law, make such statutory
enactments-by directing interlocutory sales,
and making other provisions to facilitate the
adjudication Of prize casos-as will, at the
same time, protect tho Government and the
| captors."
Congress, understanding with unusual clear.
ness the meaning Of Secretary Welles's sugges.
tion, and acting with more than ordinary
promptness, enacted new law to prevent the
repetition of Judicial decisions like those in
New York, which in any event must result in
loss to the Government. The following is the
important provision:
"That whenever any prize property shall bC
condemned In any district or circuit court ol
shall at any stage Of the proceedings be found
by the court to be perishing, perishable, OF liza
bic to deteriorate or depreciate, or whenever thC
costs of keeping the same shall be dispropor
tlonate 10 its value, or whenever all the parties
in interest who have appeared In the case shal
agree thereto, 1t shall be the duty OF the cour
TO order a sale thereof, and no appeal shal
operate to prevent the making or execution o.
such order"