The national Republican., 1867-01-05

THIS proposed ADDITIONAL answer sets up, hftef ~
lsgiug certain facts as 70 ownership and dsstiha-
tion At the time Of ospturs, THAT subssqusnt 70
the present appeal thsrsfrom, the Secretary Of the
Treasury, BY warrant, under his hand and zeal Of
once, RENTED 70 the claimant all the right claim,
and demand Of the United States 10 this forsiturs
20 far as The same 'ga. inesrr.e undsr tbs pro-
visions Of the aot Of July 18Th, 1S61t and II 10
claimed that the allegations 10 this paper constitute
sufficient grounds for the reversal here OF the DO.
cree Of condemnation In the court belov,n
On the part Of the Treasury Department and Of
the claimant, II Ia insisted that the Grey jacket
and her cargo, N ooudemnabls were condemnabls
only under the provisions Of the act Of July 13th
1851, the supplsmsntsry act Of May 2oth, 1862
and the proclamation Of the President In compile
tion thereof .,I s.'- ...1
AZ . doctrine Of public law and the law Of na.
tons Il certain that In all cases Of rebellion civil
war, hostilities carried on between the legitimate
sovereign and his insurreotionary Subjects the mu-
nicipal power Of such sovereign continues perfect,
and unimpaired Of right, although Il be temporarily
interrupted In sons part or parts Of his dominion,
10 the degree OF constituting territorial war By
land and sea, Including blockade Of coast. Daring
the late unsuccsssfu attempt Of certain persons of
the United States TO effect the dissolution Of the
Government and set mp another within It's terri
tory, notwithstanding that the attempt oulminatsd
for awhile into hostiltss having some Of tho prop
critics Of territorial war, including blockade Of
coasts, still the Jurisdiction Of the United States
continued To be perfect Of right throughout the
constitutional limits thereof and was constantly
and consistently asserted as such BY the executive
legislative and judicial authorities thereof, from
the beginning 70 the end. Hence the act Of July
ID, 1851, and the acts supplemsntary thereto, and
other analogous aots rightfui exercise Of the
authority Of the United States. Independently Of
numerous decisions In the courts below II has been
expressly so adjudged BY this court The Review,
VOL, 22s; Alsxandsr's Cotton Ibid, 4o4i The Re-
form, 8 vol. CIT.
According to the universal public law and law Of
nations prize Of war belongs Of right TO the SOW
ereign, and distribution thereof among citizen or
subject captors In part or In WHOLE Is not right
jnrs bsN, but an act Of grace In the discretion Of
the sovereign. precisely as with the distribution Of
revenue forfeitures % Phil sut. Law, 1S9; The
Elsbo. s Rob, 49, Alexander vs.. Duke Of wei,
Russsis 4 Wylie, 81; Certain Sugar Vs. Boyle, Q
Cr., 1oli The Joseph Gall, sI+, ots)
There e nothing IN tho language Of the prize act
ofApr Is, 1900 and ts supplemsnts In force Of the
time Of the enactment Of the revenue forfeiture act
Of July 10, 1881, NOR In the language Of the acts
subssquent thereto providing for moro or less than
the adjudication Of the prize, and custody and dis
tribution Of priie.money. Tho revenue forfeiture
acts, II there be any supposabe conflict Of law be-
tween them and the prize acts. are to be deemed Of
paramount force, seeing that each class Of acts is
alike the declaration Of the sovereign will and the
revenue forfeiture acts the special declarations
Of that will gnodd hoe-that is for the case Of re-
belion a. distinguishablo from foreign war. What
ever question in this relation, II any might arise
regarding foreign captures, there can be none 70.
garding domestic oaptures-that is captures Of
property Of citizens Of the United States for the
cause Of rebellion. The question is Of new impress
sion In this court Older adjudieations In the case
Of foreign war do not Apply In two or three 70.
cent cases, whore the question might have besn
raised but was not, there was Of course, no adudi
cation Of this point, either express or implied.
The right Of revenue forfeiture, as against prize
In such mattar As the present, has boen assumed
BY each succeeding Secretary Of the Treasury, and
the paramount force Of the Revenue forfeiture acts
has boon affirmed In various cases before the dis
triet and circuit courts Of the United States.
On the part Of the Government and the oaptors
II is urged that the contents Of tho frt part Of
this proposed "answsr are In the nature and
character Of further proof" and the claimant 10
not entitled, under the law and practice Of prise
courts, to adduce further proof In his behalf
II the vessel and cargo were. in point Of fact In
course Of transit at tho time Of capture from the
State Of Alabama to loyal State, they were thus
prooeeding In violation Of the prohibition then In
force. against commercial Intercourse between the
revolted States and the rest Of the United States
and the plaintiff cannot bo permitted 10 aver such
vioi.tian Of ths ..a.i.,p~i lew ef the country ss
ground for restitution Of his property In . prize
| court
The fact Of the remission Of tho Secretary Of the
Treasury Of the forfeiture Of this vessel aud cargo
$50 far as tho same was incurred under the preyis
ions Of the act Of July 18th, ls61,"is fact to.
tally irresponsve to the present proceeding and is
| sue, because the present condemnation occurred
under and by virtue Of the public law Of war, and
hot In whole or In part under and by virtue Of the
statute Of July 18Th, 1851, and are therefore not
only not touched nor affected by the warrant Of 70.
mission now presented, but are BY the terms Of the
warrant expressly excluded from Its operation.
Even u this condemnation were not so excluded
from the operation Of the warrant Of the Secretary
Of the Treasury, his power to remit forfsiturss In
CURED BY tho statute Of 1861, is limited BY the
words Of the statute to cases Of seiIure and pro.
oeedings to enforce forfeiturss un2sr the staiuis
and does not extend to, and cannot DO exercised In
| cases Of maritime captures Of vessels and oargoei
under tho Law Of war, although such vessels and car
goes were might DO also ut the time Of such cap
ture liable to seizure and forfeiture under the stat
ute in another form Of proceeding on the admiralty
side Of the court.
II the Secretary Of the Treasury has power, ;,
virtue Of the act Of 1861, In the case Of vessel
captured and then libeled and condemned In
prizs-court a. q maritime prize, to remit tho con
demnAtion thereof so incurred and adjudged undsl
the Law Of war, on socount Of hostis oDnership
(which proposition 10 wholly denied.) still ho hsI
no power to remit, BY the torms Of the statute,
such condemnation Of such vessel incurred and
| adjudgsd under that law on account Of breach Of
blockade unLaigfti trading Vifh the msmy The
jurisdiction Of the Secretary Of the Treasury under
the act oflsoi to remit the forfeiture Of property
| othsr than Uesseis, extends, In any case only To
| merchandise taken in fransitu between the 70.
yolted States and the rest Of the United States;
and the cargo captured on board the Grey jacket
was not at the time Of capture so IN hansitu bs
tween those sections contrary to the hfth lection
Of the statute. But IL the cargo was thus proceed
ing, at the time Of capture, add was-liAble Il
seizure and forfeiture under tho hh section Of III,
aet Of 1891, still the Secretary Of the Treasury
not, by any exercise Of his power Of remission, as
limited by the terms Il the statute, affect th,
condemnation Of tho cargo, or Its liability TO con
demnAtion In the prize.court, under the law Of
as enemy property, or for breach Of blockade, oil
for unlawful trading with the enemy.
Irrespective Of all the considerations above stated
and as conclusive against the admission or opera
tion Of the paper presented BY the claimants, II II
maintained that In any case Of vessel and cargo
rightfully captured on the high seas jHrs belR By
duly commissioned belligerent naval force, ar,
liable and duly prosecuted to condemnation In q
prise court good prise under the law Of war such
capture, liability anu adjudication absorb and
supersede any statutory forfeiture or liability to
forfeiture Of such vessel or cargo for violation o
the municipal law bar the allowance Of any inter
ysuing claim to the property forfeited BY statute
or as released from such forfeiture and under th,
law Of the United States, as 1t stood at the time o.
this capture, and II now stands, control the dis
position Of the property so captured and condemned
| In prise, as against and above any such statutory
forfeiture or any liability thereto any remission
thsrereoE (rhs Rapid, 8 Or. l63-S The Sally, Id
3s4i The steamer Nassau and cargo, Blotoh priI,
cases, 866-6.)