The south-western. [volume] (Shreveport, La.) 1852-1870, 1865-08-30
lotion Stealing.

Cotton Stealing.
During the time thatintervencd between the "brea
up Of the Confederate armies aud the occupation Q
Texas By the federal troops immense deal of cot
ton taken and carried of by Others than the own
ers Large lots of government cotton were lying a
depots awaiting transportation Most of it was tith
cotton and the remainder had been purchased by Con
federate agents In the forcble distribution OF pub
property by the Confederate troops, the distinctive
principle OF plezaa ct tenn to great extent los
sight of. The soldier reasoned within himself "tha
the property so taking belongs to the Confeder
ate government. The government owes me compen
saon for unrequted services toll. sacrifices and de
privations The government has ceased to exist, and
l am much entitled to this property az anybody
and ended by converting that which did not legally be-
long to him to his own use The example of the sol
der initiated by the citizen, who applied the
sophisry Of the other to his own case Nearly every
had lost something by the war or else held unpaid
certified accounts and the system OF repra against
defunct government that had caused this loss looked
reasonable and proper Of all species OF government
! property cotton was most sought after. Hundreds
and thousands of bales we're taken OFT and secreted
In some neghborhoods the divide" was made fair,
and those present had their share apporoned un-
to them In Others the old, but not altogether eie-
giant proverb every man for himself, &c, seems to
have been acted upon The cotton surreptitiOus-
~ taken off in the nightseason, under all the safe
guards of secrecy that could be devised. untortun-
ately in this divide Of government property the dis
elimination not always made, and private cotton
was frequently stolen under the Specious preence that
it had belonged to the government Much OF this
stolen cotton has been sold and great deal of it is
finding its way into Houston and NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS.
ing great trouble to the purchasers who buy IN good
faith and causing them in some instances the entire
loss of the cotton. The parties who have stolen
the cotton are generally irresponsible men, from
whom nothing can be made by an action for damages.
It is true that they become liable to criminal prosecu
tion and az many Of them have been discovered and
the stealing brought home to them, 1t Is more than
probable that some OF them will be called upon to do
the State some service when civil courts shall have
been re-eetablished.
The marks and baling Of the cotton stolen have
been, in many instances, obliterated and changed
Hence, the great difficulty Of identification, and the
ease with which the purchaser is imposed on. The
law is clear and explicit. The owner take his
property wherever he finds itno matter if it passes
:hro-h forty bands, and each of them bona fde pun
chasers TIE PARTY from whom the cotton may be
taken by the owner, has his redress agaii6: &c man
from whom he purchased; and 80 on back up to the
original converter Of the property, and against whom
the State has its criminal action In no case can the
purchaser hold the responsible tor anything
He takes the property where found.
If the owner traces his cotton into the hands of
certain party and notifies that party the cotton is his
and must not be disposed OF, the party holding it be-
comes responsible by the law and he dspose of the
cotton after such notification, becomes t6le to the
owner for the full valuef the cotton with costs and
damages.
Again, if the owner can trace his property into the
possession of any partyno matter whether that party
has acquired it in good falkland can prove on the
trial OF the cause the party in whose possession it was
becomes liable for the value of the cotton, though
notice had not been given. The allegation Of the suit
1t common law would be, that A B had lost his cot
on and that had found it and converted it to his
own use" 1t will be seen from this what fruitful
litigation will spring from the transactions in stolen
property. Ignorance s protection. The pur-
,haser is supposed to be ms guard and to satisfy
himself of good title before purchasing. He buys at
lis own risk. Some OF our merchants have already
ost by buying stolen cotton, and others will lose
That they have purchased i'll good faith no one can
ioubt but this does exonerate them from liability
We would suggest more caution on the part OF pur-
,hasers Either let them get their lawyers Tor else do
t in person. back the title to the cotton be-
ore buying. This be done by following back the
successive stages of its journey until It
las been found i'll the hands of the original
Afidayits judiciously taken the known res onsib
~ Of the party offering to SELL may also be sufficient
whence of title. These matters, however, that
ommend themselves to the discretion of the pur
haser and his attorney. We onlyrrpeat our caution,
,r the benefit of those of citizens who are likely
become losers by innocently dealing in stolen cot
IN Galveston News.