The Norfolk post. [volume] (Norfolk, Va.) 1865-1866, 1865-11-30


We stand upon our own merits or de-
merits, and not at all upon the falings
or default Of those with whom we may
have been associated.O ss 2nt o.
The language of General Banks rela-
tive to the action of the navy in making
capture of the cotton in question stops
short of any distinct charge that 1.-THE
officers of the navy and the men OF the
navyp "entered into any speculation
directly or indirectly in the cotton
captured by them. But the words used
are fitted, If not designed, to raise, upon
cursory reading at least, the nsinua-
ton that the officers and men of the
navy were engaged in that Cuisines"
Such insinuation is in all respects UNI
worthy of General Banks. If he knows,
or has sufficient reason to believe, that
there Is any truth whatever in the in
situation which he thus makes, orseems
to make, he Is bound to lay his proofs
before the country; or If he finds this
announcement or impossible, then he is
bound to abstain from making, or ap-
pearing to make, such insinuatiOn. 1t
will be observed that in the passage
cited from bis speech he attempts no
proof whatever, and leaves his apparent
insinlation standing entirely uhsup-
POltCi III It's ie$HNNs ''''P-'i''Ney "h'
justice.
He then passes to somewhat detailed
statement of the efforts made by the
navy to collect and bring in the cotton
which they captured in the course of
their belligerent opeDfiNps in the enc
my's country, and IN awarded to the
court for adjudication. a M
General Banks then proceeds TO in
sinuate, without distinctly alleging that
the Supreme Court of the United States
has held that this capture of the cotton
by the navy was unlawful, or, as he
phrases it, not Sin consistency with law
or duty"
Had General Banks, before making
this injurious insinuation, taken the
trouble to read the judgment of the SUI
preme Court to which he refers, he
would certainly in common prudence
have abstained from taking the respon
sibility of any such untounded intima-
ton. Because by reference to that
Judgment, us it stands recorded upon
pages 4l9, APO and 42l of the second vol
ume of Wallace's Reports OF the Su
| preme Court, it will be perceived that
the court very emphatically and with
reiteration declared the capture of the
cotton by the navy to be wholly kagJiH.
| HOT only uuuci VIC pupiio Ia" vi Nuii
but also under the statute law Of the
| land.
The court say
"Being enemies property the cotton
was liable to Capture and coniiscation
by the adverse party" ~
! And again: "In the case before us the
capture seems to have been justified by
| the peculiar character of the property
and by legislation ~
1.-The rebels regard il as one of their
main sinews of war; and no principle
of equity or just policy required, when
the national occupation was itself pre-
carous, that it should he spared from
capture aud allowed to remain, i'm case
of the withdrawal of the Union troops
an element of strength to the rebellion
And again, citing the acts of August
9th, 1861, and of July II, 1862, the cour
repeats that 1.-THE capture was justified
by legislation as well as by public pol
ICY"
Having thus fully ascertained and es-
tablislIcd tho lawfulness amp propriefy
of the capture as made by the navy, the
court proceeds to intimate its opinion
that the cotton so captured being cap.
tured on the land, in SO far as it should
appear to have been at the time of the
capture private property, was not con
demnable as maratime prize for the ben
eft of the captors but was on the con-
trary within the provisions of the ahan.
doned property act of March IL, 1863
Manifestly this was question proper
to be judicially determined, and the OIL.
GERS of the navy having thus made law
full capture of the cotton, proceeded, as
in other cases of capture, to send the
property into court for adjudication, in
order that they might be judicially in
formed whether or not it was good prize
of war and so TO be disposed OF. AS
soon as the cotton came within the jul
risdiction of the District Court, to which
it was sent by the captors, it was by the
law officer of the government for that
district promptly libelled in prize. The
court, after hearing the causel upon fur
Their proof passed decree Of restoration
| From that decree the government fol
itselfand i'm behalf of the captors brought
appeal to the Supreme Court, and upon
the appeal decree was entered reversing
the decree of restoration below, ant
directing the libel in prize to he dis
missed on the ground that the DISPOSE
ton of the property was governed by
the provisions of the abandoned prop
erty act of March II, 1868.
Now the point of all this, in reference
to the passage above cited from General
Banks speech, is the indisputable fac
that in all these proceedings from tin
act of capture to the final sentence nei
Their the District Court nor the Suprem
Court has uttered one word of censur
upon the course adopted by the officer
i. and men of the navy.
General Banks, therefore, if he see
fit to make further attack upon the ma
w, or T., let his present I'M curious ins!nu
, atoms stand uncorrected and unsuppoT
ted, can find no justification for such
course in the judgment of the Suprem
, Court, to which he has thus permitte,
p himself to make in that connection sucl
. unwarrantable reference. NAVY.
e SINGULAR TERMINATION OF A Law
SUIT. On Friday novel case was trie
. in the District Court of Philadelphia
The plaintiff, John Common, brough
4 suit against the Rev. VIM. Barnes,
y well known and esteemed clergy man c
that city. The action was to recover
!, penalty of ESQ for marrying a mino
u daughter of the plaintiff without tn
d consent Of the parents, ana Withou
II notification of the banns OF marriage
:, in accordance with the terms of an oil
n act of the Assembly OF this Common
IS wealth of Pennsylvania, passed In til
n wear 1901. After hearing the evidence
l. The Jury retired to deliberate, and. II
$, mained out all night, unable to agree
le - ~. .,,a.,;,,r nf tho Court on SATIN