Daily national Republican. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1862-1866, 1865-07-22

ito make rules concerning captures on La'id
aud raier" The present legislation, ap-
prehond, is clearly an exercise of that power |
This Is general and comprehensive sover.
eign prerogatiye Under other systems Of
government the suthorityto 10 make such rules
may be exercised by the political department.
But in this country the Legislative depart
ment Of the Government possesses exclusive
authority, both to establish rules for the reg.
uiation Of the right Of capture in time Of war,
and also 10 provide tho method by which all
questions touching captures may be determ.
ined. IN.
Tho present legislation ia not so much n
regulation of the right of capture-though
the 9th section Of the act Of 1858 may be in
terprotablo as authorizing, IL not command
ing, the seizure Of certain Kinds Of property
found by our military forces within the hos
tile districts of the South-as it Is provi.
sion for tho judicial ascertainment of the
rights of persons affected by captures that
may have boon, or may be, made in the pro.
gress Of our bellgerent operations set on foot
for the reduction Of the robollious Southern
country. Congress took notice Of the fact
that captures Of private property on land
had beon made, and would continue to bo
made, by the armies operating In and against
that territory, as q necessary and proper
means of diminishing the wealth, and thus
reducing the power of tho insurgent rulers.
II was not expected that such captures had
been, or would be, in all cases woll and wisely
made, or that, in the course Of such preda-
tory hostility, the innocent would not sOmo-
times suffer rs we'll as the guilty. Nor was
II thought well that tho administration, so
to speak, Of SO much Of the property within
| tho onamioa' tarritnrv might ha relu ced
into the possession Of the military forces
should be controlled by or under Executive
authority. In this view Of existing facts and
of just policy, the system provided by the act
Of 1868 was devised for the adjudication and
decision Of the cases contemplated by the
statute.
The Secretary Of the Treasury was author
lied to appoint agents to " collect oil aban-
donod or captured property" in the enomy's
country. To secure faithful and honest per-
formance of their duty, the Secretary was
authorized to require such agents to give
bonds, in such amounts as he might deem
necessary. The duty Of the agents was to
receive all property in tho insurgent States
which was in fact captured or seized out of tho
enemy's possession by the military authori-
ties. They had no duty or power to inquire
whether or not such property had been right
fully captured; whether the Generals who
reported II to them for collection had OBJ
served, in ohecting the captures, what are
called "the recognized usages Of war, or
had violated all the principles Of writer's on
what is styled the law of nations, supposed
to tend against the right of seiEing private
property on land, but 1t was the duty Of the
Treasury agents simply to receive all prop.
erty reported to them as having been cap.
tured irrespective Of any considerations
touching the legal exemption Of any of il
from seizure, and to dispose of it in the
manner provided by the law. r. .
After tho conversion Of the property into
money, the proceeds were directed to bo paid
into the Treasury. The words Of the statute
are: "The proceeds thereof shall be paid into
tho Treasury of the United States" But
these proceeds do not pass into the Treasury
as proceeds Of property sold under q judicial
sentence of confscation. They are not SO.
qucstered or condemned, but simply held by
the United States, so to speak, ia trust for
those who may, in the manner provided, and
in the time limited by the law, ultimately
establish legal right to receive them after
pacidcation.
When the insurrection has been suppressed
the owners are authorized to invoke the ju
risdiction Of the Court Of Claims, and obtain
there an adjudication Of their respective
claims.
The proceeds of the property arc thus in
the possession Of the United States, subject
to tho adjudicatiOns Of that court; and when
it shall have passed upon the claimants
rights, and decreed in their favor, Congress
has solomnly declared that they shall receive
restitution of their property. In the pres
ence of such egislation--coyoring, as it does
the entire subject matter, providing for the
safe custody Of the property in question
pending hostilities, and for tho final Judicial
: determination of the rights of the parties il
interest-I cannot see that the Executive ha
power to make different disposition of tn,
property from that provided by Congress, o.
authorize any one to determine the questions
which Congress has entrusted to the decision
of another forum. s,' ....-
am, therefore, Of opinion, In reply TO you
inquiry, that jurisdiction cannot be conferred
upon n commission, appointed either by tn
President or the Secretary Of tho Treasury
, to examine the claims in question, and I,
make restoration Of the proceeds of so mucl
: of this cotton as may belong to loyal claim
ants.
The third and last question you propounC
0 is what disposition should bc made Of tn
r proceeds Of the sales Of the property. thinl
. that it is your duty to SEQ that the directio,
Of the act Of Congress is obcyed by those /
whose hands these proceeds may bo. Tn
statute says that after the sale o
any abandoned or captured property 'fh
proceeds thereof shdH DO paid into ii
: Treasury Of tic United States" an
5 of opinion, therefore, that the proceed
l of the property in question should be pal,
into the Treasury there to await the action
Of the Court of Claims and of Congress.
Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
~ II