The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1868-04-21
CoNFIsCATED PROPERTY.

j huOW ~ UIo lcQueSt VI LILLE
You said you wouldn't-and you did.
CoNFIscATED PROPERTY.
IMPORTANT DECISION OF THE SUPREME coCR1
OF THE UNITED STATES.
Spbjoined is an important decision OF the
United States Supreme Court Ito which We
have already made brief editorial allusion) },
in reference to the sale Of conisca.ed prop
erty:
SUPREME COURT OF The UNITED STATES.
No. 52-Decenaber Term, 1867.
The Union Insurance Company, Claimant
and Intervenor, Appellant, cs. the United
States and Crafts J. Wright ct aL-Appeal from
Circuit Court of the United States for the
Eastern District Of Louisiana.
Mr.. Chief Justice Chase delivered the opin-
ion of the court.
The first questions in this cause relate to
jurisdiction.
The suit below was by hbe. in the Circuit
Court of the United States for the Eastern Dis
trict of Louisiana. The libel described the
case as one of seizure and forfeiture, and after
reciting the act Of Congress of August g.,
1861, (which declared the property of all persons
VINO should knowingly use or employ it, or
consent to the use and employment of it in aid
Of the rebellion, to be lawful subject of prize
and capture, proceeded to allege that certain
property had been so used and employed. and
claimed q decree for its condemnation and for
feiture to the use c; the United States and the
informant.
Upon the fling OF this libel, notice was given,
monition was published, claims were inter-
posed, and testimony was taken in general
conformity with the practice Of Courts OF Adj
miralty, an0 8 decree was made restoring part
and condemning part Of the property.
1t was urged IL argument, that the act of
Congress does Dot authorize the proceedings
instituted in the Circuit Court.
The answer to this proposition must be
determined By the construction of the act.
The first section provides th property used
in aid of the rebellion, with consent of the
owner, shall be the ''lawful subject Of prize
and capture wherever found, and makes it the
duty OF the President to cause it ''to be seized,
coniscated, and condemned"
Thesecond section provides that such ''prizes
ami capture shall be condemned in the District
or Circuit Court Of the United States having
jurisdiction OF tbs amount, or in admiralty, in
any district in which the same may be seized,
or into which the same may be taken and pro-
ceedings commenced"
The third section provides that s'the Attor-
ney-Genaral, or any district attorney of the
United States, in which said property may at
the time be, may institute the proceedings Of
condemnation, and in such cases they shall be
wholly for the benefit of the United States; or
any person may file an informant with such
attorney, in which case the proceedings shall
be for the use of such informer and the United
States in equal parts"
It is sufficiently obvious that the general OBJ
ject of this enactment was 10 promote the
suppression OF rebellion by subjecting property
employed in aid of it with the owners consent
to confscation. 1t extended to all descriptions
of property, real or personal, on land CT on
water. AL alike were made subjects Of prize
and capture, and, under direction of the Presi-
dent, of seizure, confscation and condemna-
ton.
The act must be construed with reference to
this general purpose. In ordinary use the
words ''prizes and capture" refer doubtless, to
captures on water as maritime prize; but in
this section they plainly refer to properly
taken on land as well as on water, and the du-
ties prescribed to the President include the
taking of this property by civil process as well
proceedings for confiscation and condemnation
in civil course without regard to the mode Of
Seizure.
The second and third sections prescribe the
action to be taken in the courts. This action
is described, generally, in the third section, as
proceedings for condemnation" to be insti-
tuted by the Attorney General, or any district
attorney. And jurisdiction OF these proceed
ings" is given to the District or Circuit Court
having jurisdiction Of the amount, or in admi-
rally, in any district where the property is sez-
ed or into which it may be taken.
This languageis is certainly not clear. But we
think that the construction which, as we under
stand, has been generally adopted in the dis
trict and circuit courts IN cases OF proceedings
for the condemnation of zeal estate or property
on land, is substantially correct. That con-
struction treats the grant Of Jurisdiction in ad-
miraty as q grant of jurisdiction of the ''pro-
ceedings of condemnation" to the circuit or
district court, according to the amount in suit;
with power to both courts to shape those PRO
tice in admiralty.
Such proceedings do not necessarily co9s:i-
tute cause in admiralty. When instituted for
condemnation Of property on land, they have
relation exclusively to matters which, IN their
nature are not Of admiralty cognlzance. But
Congress may doubtless give jurisdiction OF
such proceedings to the circuit as well as to th3
district courts, and MAJ authorize the exercise
of this statutory jurisdiction in the form and
modes analogous to those used in admiralty.
And this, We think, was the purpose of the
act.
the terms in which jurisdiction is granted Ito
any district or circuit court having jurisdic-
ton of the amount, or in admiralty, in any dis
trict where the property is found" 1t Is said
that the use Of the disjunctire ''or" restricts
The jurisdiction in admiralty to the district
courts. And this view is certainly not without
some warrant in the phraseology Of the act.
But when We look beyond the mere words to
the obvious intent we cannot help seeing that
the word ''or' must be taken coplunctlvelv;
and that the sense of the law is that both the
circuit and the district courts shall have Jurls-
diction according to the amount" aad I'm ad-
mlralty.
This construction impairs no rights of par
ties. In cases of seizures on land the right OF
trial by jury Is not lnfringed. IL such cases
the proceedings must be in general conformity
to the course in admiralty; but issues Of fact,
on the demand Of either party: must be tried
by iu-v.t Where the seizure is made on navi-
gable waters, the course OF admiralty may be
strictly observed.
That this construction carries into effect the
true intention of Congress, sufficiently appears
on reference to the act ofJuly II, 1867, IN which
it is provided expressly that proceedings TOR
confiscation shall conform es nearly as may be
to proceedings in admiralty or revenue casts.
we think therefore, that the Circuit Court
had jurisdiction of the cause.
r. remains to be considered whether the de-
cree of the court can be reviewed here on ap-
neal. No appeal is expressly provided by the
Act of 1861. The constitution, however. gives
to this court appellate jurisdiction IN all cases
of which the inferior courts OF the United
States have original jurisdiction, subject to
such exceptions and regulations as Congress
shall make; and the act OF 1S0S provides
generally for appeals from decisions IN ad-