The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1867-06-17
JEFF DAVIS COTTON AGENTS.
Their Bankruptcy and Property In England
Were the Southern Rebels American JacI
Cndes or Oliver CromvvelIs


Their Bankruptcy and Property in England
Were the Southern Rebels American Jack
Cades or Oliver CromwclIss
VICE cHANCErLoRs COURT LONDON, MAY 80
Before Vice Chancellor Sir w. r Wood.
Prioedu The United States Of america and ANDREW
JohnsN.-This before the court upon excep-
tons to the put in by the defendants the United
Trenholm Co.. which was nIed for the purpose Of o.
tanning discovery in aid Of their defence TO the original
bill Of the United States
occasions reported that will be sufficient to state that
the original bill died by the United States for the
during the late rebellion or war Of secession to the de-
fendants hesss Proeau and others, carrying busl
ne under the nrm Of Fraser Trenholm Co. as agents
the style OF the governments Of the Confed-
crate States. which assumed the administration
the United States" The bin, after stating that the
rebellion at end alleged that the association
so-cailed Confederate governments bad been dissolved,
and ceased TO s and that the several persons who
had formed themselves into the 90 pretended
ment and whose account the cotton was being
eminent OF the United States and had expressly ceded
TO them all the joint public property Of the pretended
tom that such persons did not claim 70 be entitled 70 or
interested In the cotton and were not necessary parties
and thai the .s q the United States % the cotton was
title paramount thereto In their answer TO the original
bill Asra Fraser Co insisted that the United states
the dissolved de fdco Confederate government could
only take subject TO to all rights and liabilities created
The United States had sucosedsd and also that ss this
particular cotton had been shipped from the State
Of Texas, now-accordng TO the law Of that State,
bona vacdnid, 70 the federal Union, but
particular State They had nled . bill against
the United States and President johnson for the purpose
or obtaining discovery in aid Of their Defence and their
nerrogatoes were directed 10 the footing which the
Confederate governments were regarded by the United
purposes OF the suit that such Confederate
was de- fdcto government and not band OF pi-
busters. Interrogatores also directed TO
the state Of the law Of the United States Is to bona va
cdnta, whether property that condition did belong
to the particular State IN which II found and to
the federal Union; and again, whether money prop
cry contributed by inhabitants Of the sovereign states
forming the federal Union for any purDose legal ille
The United states had filed long and elaborate
answer Of which will be sufficient to state that the
plaintiffs 10 the cross suit Eraser Co. had excepted
United States had not answered the interiors; tores
~ as to whether there was any law OF the United
individuals as inhabIiants or any Of the sovereign
States forming the federal Union for any purpose
legal illegal, vested in such federal Union; C2)
the law OF each OF the separate sovereign States and
particularly Of Texas, relating to bona pdcud and (3
whether the United States claimed the cotton being
to OF the Confederate government and to
the position Of such Confederate government whether IL
regarded by the United States de fdcto govern
exercising authority the state Of Texas. The
fourth exception similar 10 effect to the first
Mr.. W. NJ James, q. c.; Mr.. Kay, O. G. ; Mr.. Charles
Hail. and Mr. j. p BENJAMIN, for the plaintiffs In the
suit appeared IN support OF the exceptions Sir r.
Mr. Wickens, on behalf OF the United States, opposed
the exceptions
The vceChancsor said that the FIRST aud fourth ex
ceptions by which the United states required TO
state their laws which formed part OF their must
be overued as the party intcrrogang, although ent
tied TO obtain Information from his opponent ms 70 his
tiile could not compel discovery OF that which
related to the opponents title The third exception stood
upon different footing, and must be allowed. II
OF the utmost Importance TO the plaintiffs Ia the cross
suiLthat they should know whether the persons from
whom they had acquired the cotton In question
were regarded by the United states body OF men
who had violently and by force OF arms exacted
contributions and seized upon property, which
they employed against the United states, or
there acts Of authority exercised the southern
states. The distncfion mort important and might be
illustrated BY comparison between fw sporadic
ssnf Of anarchy much a. Jack Cadss rebellion ne one
The United States had not answered this nterrogatory,
and especially that portion Of which related TO the
atons between the alleged Confederate and
the state Of Texas. THIS important point TOR
the plaintiffs lin the suit to obtain information
upon, most materially affected their position In
spect OF the cotton claimed In the original suit He
might add that the United states In statnstha of Their
tate OF Texas pretended quality government this
has lawful power to take judicial cognizance
IT, according 70 the established laws OF England
into any inquiry OF fact regarding same mad
only might but must take Judicial cognlzance
the purposes OF this suit Of whether the Confederate
government or was not de fdco government The
third exception would, therefore, be allowed II the
second exception had stood he should not have
been disposed 10 have allowed IT, although the answer
omitted all reference the State OF Texas 10 the
relating 10 bona vacdnfia. Such special inquiry
quired q special answer and under the circumstances
however the exception would be allowed The result
therefore, was rst fourth except ons we're
overrued and the second and third allowed.