Daily national Republican. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1862-1866, 1865-07-22
THE SAVANNAH COTTON.
Important Decision by yAttorncy Gen.
cral Speed. "a

hTFOkNht obNhhAL = VfFtsh
July o, 1868
Hon. Hugh McCaltoch .Secretdry gfths Treasury.
Sir: have the honor to acknowledge the
receipt of your letter Of 18th ult., submit
ting for my opinion the questions that have
arisen in your Department in the case Of the
% Savannah ootton.'
The circumstances under which tho prop
eriy in question came into tho possession Of
the Government arc stated In your letter sub
stnntially as follows: .....l .--..ry.
On the occupation Of the city Of Snvnn-
nah, in December last, by tho United States
forces under Major General Sherman, some
thirty eight thousand (3S, 000) bales Of cotton
were found stored there. This property was
seized and taken possession of by the mill
tary authorities, and by them turned over to
agents Of the Treasury Department as cap
tured property" pursuant to tho provision
of the acts of Congress of March u, 1868,
aud July 2, 1864. az Stat. at Large, $50;
l3 ID 375.) After IL was thus received by
the appropriate agents, tho property was for
warjed to New York, and there sold at auc
tion as provided by law.
You state thnt number Of claims for the
proceeds of the sales are now being presented
to your Department, some Of the claimants
being residents Of Savannah, who aver that
they have been loyal to the Government
during the rcbcllion others being subjects of
foreign Governments, resident in Savannah
or abroad, ayerring that they were neutral
during the late conflict; others, again, be-
ing northern merchants, stating that they
came into possession of the cotton claimed
by thcm in payment Of, or security for, debts
contracted prior to the rebellion; and still
others claiming restitution Of their prop
crty, or its proceeds on the ground that the
cotton in question was not capturable, or
properly captured property and should
not bo held and treated ms such. .....
The first question arising on this state oi
facts that you submit is, whether the prop
erty to which reference has been made should
or should not be regarded as captured -
under the acts Of Congress Of March IL, 1863,
and July 2, 1864 ..... .,"..a
/ do not perceive that either of tho statutes
provides what property shall be regarded as
captured property" within the meaning oi
the law. A definition Of abandoned" prop
orty, however, Is contained in the first sec'
tion Of the act Of 1864. Tint statute provide;
that property, real or personal, shall be re-
garded as abandoned when the lawful owner
shall bo voluntarily absent thercfrom, aud
engaged, either in arms or otherwise, In aid
ing or encouraging the rebellion. (i3 Stat.
at Large, 376.) But approbend that there
need be no difficulty in determining, for ouI
present purposes, what property is compre
honded by the phrase captured property,
as used in these statutcs for the phrase is III
own sufficient explanation. l suppose thai
all movable property, other than that species
described by the proviso to the first section
of the act of 1868, actually aRd hOstiieiI
seized and taken on land, by military Off
Ger or soldier Of the United States, in n Stat,
or any portion of n State designated rs IL
insurrection against the United States, ma,
be regarded as captured" within the mean
ing of the statutes of 1858 and 1864
do not intend to say that no other prop
erty than that l have thus cndea,ored to dc
scribe may be denominated and treated ga,
captured property" under these statutes II
would seem by the 7th section of the act oI
1864, that certain property seized and taker
by naval forces, viz property seized by thu
Navy "upon any Of the inland waters Of th'
United States,'' may be dealt with In thu
manner provided by the laws under consider
alton, Q3 Statutes at Large, 3I7) Whethe
this section takes away the prize jurisdiction
of the courts in all cases of seizure of water
borne property on the inland waters Of tn,
, United States, effected there by naval com
missioned captors, and commits all jurisdic
ton over such cases to the Court of Claim
and to Congress, must remain for judicial de
termination. But the Supreme Court ha.
recently decided that private property seiZe'
by naval force on land bordering upon on
of tho inland waters Of the insurroctionar,
South, was not the subject of prize jurisdic
tion, aud was receivable by the TToasur!
agents under the statute of 1863. w. S. VS.
~ Bales Of Cotton, Dec. 7, 1864, No. 800.
This decision was rendered in case to whicl
the act of 1854 did not apply, the captur
there considered having been made prior t
tho passage of that statute.
l refer to it,. for the purpose Of showing
that certain cases Of purely naval captur
must pursue the course indicated in tn
statute for tho collection Of abandoned an,
captured property. have said that proper
ty seized or taken by any military person il
the insurrectionary territory is denominabl
as " captured;" but the 9th section of th
act of 1868 would seem TO niliX that characta
to "eOttOR, sugar, rice and tobacco " receipe
by any United States officer or soldier With
insurrectionary districts. The section pre-
vides that it shall be the duty Of every Office
or private soldier who may take or Teceir
abandoned property, or any cotton sugar
, rice or tobacco from persons in insurrectior
ary districts, or hate SHeh property under Ia
t control, to turn the same over to m agent G
the Treasury Department; and it further pre-
+; vides that refusal or neglect to do so shaI
subject such an officer or soldier to trial an
punishment az. Stat. at Large, s2l.)
Property of the foregoing character thu
turned over to Treasury agent, and in thn
manner ''rccciUd' by him, must be deal
with us the I'd section of the act provides
that is, 1t must be sold, and its proceed
paid into the Treasury, there to await tn
action Of the Court Of Claims when duly in
vOked
$ Thus it appears that all cotton received by
or that may have come under tho control ol
any military officer or soldier, whether it wa
, actually seized or captured by him or not
: must be dealt with us abandoned or car
tured property" / may have occasion here
a!t,r to comment upon the effect of this pre-
) vision.
= The statute, it may be said, thus afixes t
. all cotton, as well as all the other article
above stated, that may be under the contr,
; of military or naval officer in the Insured
!, tionary districts the de jHre character {
n captured" property, and when such proI
crty is received by n Treasury officer, al
, pointed TO execute the provisions of the act
of 1868 and 1864, it becomes, it may be said
!. de fact0 captured property, and must i
O disposed Of accordingly.
| am of opinion, therefore, that the cottO
found by our army ut Savannah, taken po,
session of there by the military authorities
and received from them by the agents of th
Treasury Department, is and should be r,
d gardod rs dc factO and dc .jHre captured
IS property, under the statutes of 1868 an