The daily phoenix. [volume] (Columbia, S.C.) 1865-1878, 1865-08-08
.capturcd" property, and must b
disposed of accordingly

! NiAol'oSCl OI accordingly.
am of opinion, therefore, that the
cotton found by our army at Savan-
nah, taken possession of there by the
, military authorities, and received from
them by the agents Of the Treasury
department, is and should be regard
ed AS de J'tcto and tie .j"s'c captured"
property, under the statutes Of 1868
and 1864.
The second question which YOU pro-
pose Is, whether, if this property be
OF the character that l am of opinion
1t IS, tho power tests with the Secre-
tarx OF The Treasury, or the President,
to appoint :: Commission to examine
the claims, and restore to loyal claim
ants, the proceeds IF so much of the
property in question as they can show
TO have been legally theirs.
[ ann of opinion that neither the
President nor any other Executive
oihcer can restore ortauthorize such o
COMMISSION as you suggest, to make
reatoratlon of the proceeds of their
captured property to these loyal claim
ants. Congress, by the legislation
under consideration, has reserved to
itself .he power of finally dispos-.
ing OF the claims of the alleged
owners of this property; and, so
long as that legislation exists, the
claimants must pursue the remedy
which it indicates for the establish
ment and enforcement of their RIGHTS
by the Constitution, Congress has ex-
elusive power ito make l1les concern
ing captures on land and water" The
lreseut legislation, 1 apprcl1end, is
clearly an exercise Of that power.
Inns is a general and comprehensive
sovereign PreroSative. Under other
systems OF Government the AUTHORITY
10 make such rules may be exercised
hy. the political department.. But in
tins country the Legislative depart
mcnt OF the Government possesses
exclusive authority both to establish
rules Tor tbs regulation of the right of
capture III time .of war, and also to
provide the method by which I'LL
questions touching captures NAV be
determined. Tho present LEGISLATION
lS not so much Il regulation of tho
the right of captnre-thouch the
sixth section of the Act Of 1868
may beeinterprctcd us authorizing.
II not commanding, the seizure of
certain kinds OF property found bv onr
military forces within the hostile dis
tllcts OF the South--as it is n provi-
sion tor the jutlici:a ascertainment of
the rights of persons affected bv cap
lures that may have been, or NAV be.
nlade In the progress of our beliicer-
cht operations, set on foot for the re-
uuctlon of the rcbcllions Southern
country. Congress took notice of the
That captures of property on land
ilad been made, and would continue
10 be made, by the armies operating
III and against that territory, as a
necessary and proper means of dini-
nlshlnS the wealth, and thus reducing
the power, of the insurgent rulers. It
was not expected that such captures
had scen, or would be. in all cases,
we'll and wisely made, or that in the
course of such predatory hostility, the
innocent wonld not suffer sometimes
as we'll us the guilty. Nor was it
thought we'll that the Administration,
so despeak, if so much Of the property
WITHIN the encmy's territory as might
be reduced into the possession of the
military forces, should be controlled
by or under executive authority. In
this view OF existing facts, and of lust
policy, the system provided by the Act
OF 1863 was devised for the adiudica-
ton and decision Of the cases cont, ~
plated by the statute. The Secretary
OF the Treasury WAS authorized to ap- |
point agents to ''collect all abandoned
or captured property in the enemy's
country. To secure faithful ann hon
est performance Of their duty the
Secretary was authorized to require
such agents to give bonds in such
amounts as he iniYht deem necessary.
The duty OF the az -nts was to receive
all property i'll the insurgent States
which was in fact Captured or seized |
out OF the encmy's possession by the