The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1867-06-19

CHARLESTON, S. I
Fraser, Trenholm d Co.
DEc1sIoN IN THE vICE-cHANCEILoR's COURT N
ENGLAND.
The following decision is announced in the Lon.
don Times as having been given in the Vice-Chan'
cellors Court on the 30th ult, in the above case:
'sPrioeau us. The United States Of America and
Andrew Johnson" This case came before the
court upon exceptions to the answer put in by @ the
cross bill of Messrs. Fraser, Trenholm d Co.,
which was filed for the purpose of obta lining dis
covery in aid of their defence to the original bill
Of the United States.
The original bill was filed by the United States
for the purpose of recovering certain bales OF
cotton consigned during the late rebellion or war
of secession to the defendants, Messrs. Prioeau
and others, carrying on business under the hrm
Of Fraser, Trenholm Co., as agents In t6ls
country for the pretended government under
the style of the government Of TIE Confederate
States, which assumed the administration Of pub
Lie affairs in part OF the dominion of the United
states.' This bill after stating that the rebellion
was at end, alleged that the association, or so
called Confederate government had been dis,
solved, and ceased to exist, and that the several
persons who had formed themselves into the so
pretended government and on whose account the
cotton was shipped, had submitted to the author n5
had expressly ceded, to them all the joint or
public property Of the pretended Confederate
Government, including the cotton in question;
that such persons did not claim to be entitled to
or interested in the cotton, and were not neces-
sary parties and that the title Of the United States
to the cotton was complete, Independently Of such
cession, and was title paramount thereto. In
their answer to the original bill Messrs Fraser d
in claiming the cotton State property Of the dis,
solved de tacto Confederate Government, could
only take it subject to all rights and liabilities
created in respect Of it by the Confederate
ss saeossde and Ma0n sso tha as S s
the State of Texas, it now ,taccordii1pg
to the law of that State, and Of the
other separate sovereign States) belonged, as
the particular state. They had filed cross bill
against the United States and President Johnson
for the purpose Of obtaining discovery in aid OF
their defence, and their interrogatories were di-
rected to the footing on which the Confederate
with view to obtaining an admission for the pur-
pose of the suit that such Confederate Government
was de fdcto government. and not mere band OF
pirates and flibusters. Interrogatories were also
States as to bona uacantia, whether property in
that condition did not belong to the particular
state in which it was found and not to the Federal
Union; and again, whether money or property con-
tributed by inhabitants OF the sovereign States
forming the Federal Union for any purpose, legal
or illegal, vested in such Union.
ssThe United States had filed long and elabo-
rate answer, Of which it will be suhcle 1T to sta'e
that the plaintiffs in the cross suit (Fraser Co.
had excepted to it as insufficient on the ground
that the United States had not answered the
interrogatories-(D as to whether there was
suy law of the United States by which money
or property contributed by individuals as inhabi-
tants Of any Of the sovereign States forming
the federal Union for any purpose, legal or llie-
gal, vested in such federal Union; (2l, as TO the
law of each Of the separate sovereign States, and
particularly Of Texas, relating to bona odcdnlG
and (9), whether the United States claimed the
cotton as being the successors OF the Confederate
Government and as to the position OF suoh gGn- nl
the United States as q de fdcto government exer-
cising authority over the State Of Texas. The
fourth exception was similar in effect to the first
1.-THE Vice-Chanc lor said that the first and
required to state their laws which formed part OF
their case, must be oyerruled, as the party inter
rogating although entitled to obtain informa alton
from his opponent as to his own title, could not
opponents title. The third exception stood upon
o different footing, and must be allowed; It was
of the utmost Importance to the plaintiffs In
the cross-suit that they should know whether
the persons from whom they had acquired the
cotton in question were regarded by the Umted
6C8C6b 66 d DOuy VI uRou WV ANA 'NSAOv 80
by force Of arms, exacted contributions and
seized upon property, which they employed
against the United States, or whether there
was de facto government by which these acts
OF authority were exercised in the Southern
States. The distinction was most important, and
might be illustrated by Q comparison between
ftfnl sporadic movement OF anarchy, such as
Jack Csde's rebellion, on the one hand, and the
protectorate Of Oliver Cromwell on the other.
The United States had not answered this IN.
tarrooatorv and especiaIly that portion of it
which related to the relations between the al
legged Confederate government and the state
Of Texas. This was most important point for
the plaintiffs lin the cross suit to obtain intorma-
tion upon, as it most materially affected their Po-
sition in respect of the cotton claimed In the ogl
nal suit. He might add that the United States
in stating that Of their Estate OF Texasl pretend
ed quality as government this court has no law
full power to take judicial cognizanoe, nor can 1t,
according to the established laws OF England en-.
ter into any inquiry Of fact regarding the same,
had framed their answer in a mistake OF the law,
as this court not only might, but must take judi.
cial cognizance for the purposes OF this suit OF
whether the Confederate Government was or was
not de facto government. The third exception
would, therefore, be allowed. II the second excep-
tion had stood alone, he should not have been dis
posed to have allowed it, although the answer
omitted all reference to the State OF Texas as TO
the law relating to bona u1cdntid. Such q special
inquiry required special answer, and under the
circumstances, however, the exception would be
allowed. The result, therefore, was that the first
and fourth exceptions were overruled, and the
second and third allowed"