The daily phoenix. [volume] (Columbia, S.C.) 1865-1878, 1865-08-08


when the lawful owner shall be yolun-
tarily absent thereSrom, aud engaged
either III arms or otherwise, in aiding
or encouraging the rebellion" G3
Stat. ut Large, 376. But apprehend
that there need be no difficulty in de-
termlnlng, for our present purposes,
what property is colnprehcnded by
the phrase captured property a.,
used III these statutes, for the phrase
IS its own sufficient explanation. [
suppose that all movable property,
other than that species described 5y
the proviso to the first section of the
ACT OF 1863. actually and hostilely seiz-
ed and taken on land, by a military
officer or soldier of the United States,
IN State, or any portion Of State,
'ueagnatcd u as III Instruction against
the United States, may be regarded as
captured within the meaning of the
statutes of 1868 and 1864. lido not in
tend to say that no other property than
that l have thus ondeavorcd to dc
scribe, may be dcnominated and, treat
en- as captured property" under these
statutes. 1t would seem by the 7th
section of the Act OF 1864, that certain
property seized and taken by naval
forces, viz: property seized by the
navy upon any OF the inland waters of
the United States, may be dealt with
IN the manner provided by the laws
under consideration, 13 Stat. at
Large, 377;) whether this section
takes a0ay the prize jurisdiction OF
the courts i'll all cases Of seizure of
"ater-borne property Oh the inland
waters OF the United States, effected
there by naval commissioned captors,
and commits al Jurisdiction over such
eases to the Court Of Claims and to
Congress, must remain for judicial
determination. But the Supreme
Court has recently decided that pri-
vate property seized by naval forcr
on land bordering upou one of the
inland waters oi the i,lsurrcctionu.v
South, was not the subject of prize
jurisdiction, and wasrcceivable by the
Treasury agents under the statute Of
1858, u. S. 72 Bales Of Cotton, Dec.
Z, 1864, No. 360) This decision was
rendered in 2 case to which the Act of
1864 did not apply, the capture there
considered having been made prior to
the passage Of that statute refer to
1t for the purpose Of showing that
certain cases OF purely naval capture
must pursue the course indicated in
the statute for the collection of aban
doned and captured property. Ihavc
sad that property seized or taken by
any military person in the insured
tlonary territory is dencminated as
''eaptured;" but the 9TH section of
the Act of 1868 would seem to af1ix that
character to ''cotton, sugar, rice and
tobacco" received BY any United
States officer or soldier within insur-
rectionary districts The section pro
vldes that it shall be the duty of every
officer or private soldier, who may
take or receive abandoned property,
or any cotton, sugar, rice or tobacco,
from persons in insurrectionary dis
tIlcts, or have such property under
his CONTROL to turn the same over to
an agent Of the Treasury Department.;
and it further provides that the refusal
or neglect to do so shall subject such
an officer or soldier to trial and punish
ment. Q2 Stat. at Large, 32l.
Property Of the foregoing character
thus turned over to a Treasury agent.
and An that manner ''reccivcd'' by |
him, must be dealt with as the I'd sec
ton Of the Act provides: that is, it
must be sold, and its proce .is paid
into the Treasury, there to await the
action OF the Court Of Claims, when
duly invoked.
Thus it appears that all cotton re-
ceiyed by, or that may have come
under the control OF, any military
officer or soldier, whether it was ac-
tually seized or captured by him or
not, must be dealt with as 'abandon-
ed or captured property" L may
have occasion hereafter to comment
upon. the effect Of this provision.
The statute, it may be said, thus
af1iXcs to all cotton, us well as all the
oh .{o+ h.,&