Daily union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1865-1866, 1865-12-20
NO. a..
The Operation of the Confiscation Law.

From the New York Times
Many people of property in the southern
| States are exercised about the bearings of
the confiScation law and the effect upon con-
fiscated property Of Presidential pardon.
The Supreme Court at Washington has be-
| fore it the case of Leroy NJ Wiley which
was tried before the United States District
| Court in this city, and excited some attention
in the early part of the year. The appeal is
to reverse the decision given here, which
covered the "cOnhscatiOn and forfeiture of
seventeen hundred and ifty-six shares of the
capital stock of the Great Western Railroad
Company Of 1859, and of upward of S50,-
OOO Que on coupons of bonds of the same
corporation, and involved the question.
Does the Presidents pardon remit the SEN
tence OF forfeiture of rebel property and re-
Instate the rebel in all his rights therefor
The decision of the Supreme Court will be
looked forward to with great interest by large
numbers of persons in the Southern States
whose cases will be affected by the result of
this appeal r-r - sEL
couple of instances in which the military
authorities have very recently taken action
upon conhscation cases NAV be mentioned in
this connection. The we'll known General
Pillow had two hundred mules taken from
his plantations in Arkansas by our army,
and learning that many of these were still at
1t. Louis, andtbelieving, rs he SAYS, that the
effect of his pardon was TO entitle HIM 10
the restoration of all property uhich kGd not
been sold By decree of any courts under the
contiscatiOn law he made application to the
military commander of the division, Gener-
al Sherman, to restore to him the mules.
General Sherman referred the application 10
the quartermaster, who made an endorse
ment on 1t, that as General Pillow had been
pardoned by the President, he was clearly
entitled to all property taken from him |
which had not been sold by decree of a court
of competent jurisdiction. General Sher-
man then referred the application to the |
Secretary of War, and asked if he should |
restore the mules. Secretary Stanton de-
elIned restoring them; and there the matter 1
now rests. r.. .r ...
General Candy, commanding in Louisiana, /
has also just had case before him, in which I
MIR. Luther RonaldsCn made application for
the restoration of fifty-one acres of land, with
the improvements, lying within the brcast-
works at Port Hudson. To the application
he replies that =" this property was captured
from the public enemy at the expense Of
much blood and treasure, and that the title
Is nov in the Government Of the United
States as captured property lie adds:
| have no idea that this title will be re-
or the property restored, 50 long
as the control of the Mississippi river is of
any value to the United States The legal
reclamation Of the applicant is against the
late rebel government, and not against the
Government Of the United States II he is.
in equity, entitled to any relief it is under
the constitutional provision that private
property shall net be taken for public use
without Just compensation, or under the
provisions of the third section Of the act Of
March II, 1868. In either case, the claim
must be supported by clear proof of title,
oyalty at the date of the original seizure,
md that no compensation was paid, or agreed
o be paid, by the rebel Government"
These military decisions will undoubtedly
&c appealed from rs soon as civil law re-
umes its full sway. There will be vast
lumber Of cases involved, and the general
esult arrived at is of great Importance to
he country, as well as to the parties inter-
sted .-.