Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1868-10-15
CONGREGATION
Important Decision of the su-
Preme Court.
A Pardon AnnuIs Forfeiture OF
Property.

A case known ss the "Armstrong'
Foundry" case, recently came up by ap
peal from the State Of louisiana before
The Supreme Court. Chief Justice CHASE
delivered an opinion on L, which Is o
deep interest 10 every portion OF th'
South, where co~DfiscstioD and seizure o.
property has been carried on with q nigh
and ruthless hand, by military satrspS
and csrDet-bag governments. Here 10
Ceuusssee it will be read with especial
interest, as il affects the validity Of nearly
very decision made by the Courts OF
this State on this subject.
Ia- nature OF the case Is explained in
the opinion, which is as follows:
Upon the case presented, it is neces-
ssry To consider 9 single question only.
It was insisted in argument that the
pardon pleaded by the appellant cannot
avail to relieve him from The forfeiture
Of the property seized, because the la
0ility to seizure arose under the statute
from the mode in which the property
was employed, and was not to be re-
yarded as q penal consequence Of the act
OF the owner. We are unable to concur
IN this view. We think it clear that the
statute regarded the consent Of the owner
10 the employment of his property In aid
If the rebellion as al o~flense, and in
hioted forfeiture as 3 penalty. The geEe-
cal pardon Of Armstrong, therefore, re-
Iieved him Of 30 much Of the penalty as
accrued to the United States. We think
it unnecessary to express any opin-
ion At present In relation to the
rights OF the informer. The pro-
ceediups below related to q
seizure CT land and though conducted
under the statute In the form OF admi-
rality, must be regarded as a CASE OF
common law Jurisdiction, 8 final decis.
on liz which q be reviewed here only
on a wit of error. The decree OF the
Circuit Court therefore must be reversed
As irregular and the cause remanded with
directions to allow a new trial; the pro-
cseGings in which shall be concerned in
respect to trial byjuly and exceptions to
evidence to the course OF the common
Jaw. See Wall2ce's reports, vol. 6, page
769.
1.-TWO Others casesswere decided at the
same term of the Court involving the
same principle. Union Insurance Com
pany VS.. United States and st. Louis
Foundry. See same vol, page 76I end
10. Chief J Justice delivering the opinion
10 both eases.h
In referring to and commenting upon
the above the Press and Herald, Of
Knoxville, hss the following interesting
legal suggestions, which we recommend
TO the attention Of al those VINO have
been muieted and robbed Of their property
under the garb and nRuse OF the law:
"We believe that all the property sold
or seized, for the purpose Of being conhs-
Gated, ia Tennessee ana all other States
10 rebellion, was sold or seized in the
forms and practice of admiralty, with
the Intervention Of q jury. The
Supreme Court hold that such proceed
Gre irregular, and that the proceed
ings shall be concerned in respect TO
trial by jury and exceptions to evidence
10 the course OF the common law. That
being the law laid down by the Supreme
Court of the United States, may not
whose property has been conhs-
Gated and sold sue AID recover IL back
again or, # it be personal property, II
they cannot recover the property may
they not recover its value at the time 1t
was sold? Another im soTtsnt question
arises: where property has been restored
to the proper owners, upon the ples OF
amnesty, and large lees were allowed to
the District Attorney, Clerk and Mar
shEi, for their sSIVicss, and the proceed
being Irregular and VOidable, (f not
luil and void cannot these parties who
nave had these fees TO pay, institute
luits and recover what they have psid