New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1865-09-22

the overwhelming triumph of the Nation III 10
close, have all combined to raise diiiicui' ""N
embarrassing questions of law.
Among the most prominent oil tneso W
tons, just at this moment, IL inc co"',' w.:
which has arisen over the decision oil VICE
Chancellor Wood of England in the case OIL inc
United States agt. Prioleau. IL VIII 10 icni'n'
bered that Prioleau (who is one OF the iaii'ouS
blockade.rnning house of Fraser, Trenholm
Co. of Liverpool), had in his possession large
ar,onnt of cotton shipped to him by the Con-
tolerate Government, upon the pledge OF which
he had as a factor, advanced the sum OF t2o'-
600. Tie United States sued for the possession
of this cotton, claiming it free from oil liens
Vice. Chancellor Wood held that the United
States was entitled to the property, subject,
however, to the specific lien of Prioleau Tor
money advanced upon it.
We do not see that this decision affords any
ground for notwithstanding OF course, the
facts to be as above stated, in accordance with
the English report of the case. 1t is to be DID,
served that Proleau had specific lien upon the
cotton, and that this lien was accompanied by
actual possession. If he had actually bought
and paid for the cotton no one would dispute
the validity of his title. We cannot see now Il
factors lien for advances can be deemed less
valid than title by purchase. Mr. Seward, IN
his dispatch to Mr. Adams, does not appear to
object to this branch Of the decision but he
strongly disapproves of the declaration OF Vice.
Chancellor Wood that the Confederate Govern
ment must be regarded as government dc
facio. and the United States.as succeeding to
its property" as the "diSplacing Government.
The language of the Vice-Chancellor may not
be entirely accurate, but his assertion that the
Confederate Government was a de tdcto govern
ment seems to us a very simple statement OF
fact. No one can doubt that for four years the
Rebels did maintain a government in fact,
though not in law. A sentence Of death by
Justice of the peace would be void in law but
none the less real in fact. So the Confederate
ORGANIZATION was an undeniable fact, although a
nullity in law.
For some purposes the law must take notice
of utilities And one of the most inSurmount
able utilities is a rebel government, which
has existed in fact, though never recognized by
any nation. In the case in hand, il appears that
$50 bales Of cotton were in some way acquired
by the persons calling themselves the Conied-
crate Government. They never claimed title
| to il in their own private right. No other per-
sons laid claim to it, If the Confederate Gov
eminent is not to be regarded as having had
any existence whatever, it is difficult to see on
what ground the United States claims this cot
tor. fit was the private property OF Jefferson
+ Davis, no foreign government would recognize
! our right to seize il outside Of our own jursdlc
ton. If it is absolutely without an owner
= then Pricleau, as the party in possession ha
the best right to IT,
The whole trouble arises from the want Of nc
! curate legal phrases, and the misuse Of th'
phrases we have. It's very common to say tina
foreign nations ought to recognize government
de facto. But this is entirely erroneous
\ de taeto government, finally established
ought in general to be recognized. But
government that exists for half an hour, really
exercising the powers of government anC
obeycd as such, is government dc tacto, how
ever mOnstrous its usurpation, or absurd il
origin. And il is in this limited and literal sense
we presume, that the Vice-Chancellor used the
phrase. Certainly it would have been in The
highest degree indecorous for him to have used
| it in the broader sense, and to have adiudged The
Confederate Government to have had q valid and
legal existence. In such matters courts must
follow the action Of the political authorities; and
the British Govenmentneyer having recognized
the Confederate power as established, no British
judge could properly do so.
! On the other hand, the holders Of the Cor
lederate cotton loan bonds have put an inter-
sion which il will by no means bear. He held
that the United States succeeded to the prop
perty of the Confederate Government in the
State in which it was found, and subject to all
agreements affecting it," This is very general
language: but when restricted to the matter in
hand, as all judicial opinions must be, it
amounts only to this that the property must be
taken subject to any liens attaching thereto.
The claim of the Confederate bondholders 90 a
lien upon Confederate cotton is one which every
lawyer knows to be absurd. No lien upon per-
sonal property is valid unless the particular
tiipg TO which the lien attaches is specified
when the lien is created. If 100000 bales Of
cotton had been placed in London warehouse
as specific security for the cotton loan, and kept