Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1868-04-17
coNFIsCATED PROPERTY.
Decision Of the United States
Supreme Court.

SubJoined IS an Important decisioh Vi
the Supreme Court, in reference to the
sale Of con6scated property:
Supreme Court Of the United States. NO. o.
| December Term, 1857.
The Union Insurance Company, Claim.
ant and Intervenor, Appellant, VS.. the
United States and Crafts j. Wright ct al
Appeal from Circuit Court Of the United
States for the Eastern District OF Louis
lana.
Mr.. Chief Justice Chase delivered the
opinion of the Court
The first questions in this cause relate
| TO jurisdiction.
The suit below was by libel in the Cir
cult Court Of the United States for the
Eastern District of Louisiana The libel
described the case as one OF seizure and
forfeiture. and after reciting the act OF
Congress" Of August 6, 1861, which de-
clared the property of all persons who
should knowingly use or employ 1t, or
consent to the use aHd employment OF IT
| in aid of the rebellion, to be lawful sub
| ject of prize and capture, proceeded to
allege that certain property had been so
used and employed, and claimed a de-
cree for its condemnation and forfeiture
to the use of the United States and the
informant
Upon the filing of this libel, notice was
given, monition was published, claims
were interposed, and testimony was taken
in general conformity with the practice
Of courts of admiralty, and decree was
made restoring part and condemning
part of the property.
1t was urged in argument that the act
of Congress does not authorize the pro-
ceedings instituted in the Circuit Court.
| The answer to this proposition must be
determined by the construction OF the
act.
The first section provides that 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 81 to be seized, con6scated and
condemned" :,
The second section provides that such
"prizes and capture shall be condemned
| in the District or Circuit Court of the
United States having jurisdiction OF the
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 the
Attorney General, or any district attor-
ney of the United States, in which said
property may at the time be, may insti-
tute 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 information with
such attorney, in which case the pro-
| ceedings shall be for the use of such
| informer and the United States in equal
parts"
1t is sufficiently obvious that the gene
| raj object of this enactment was to pro-
mote suppression of rebellion by subject
| ing property employed in aid of it with
| the owners consent to confiseatiou. 1t
extended to ell descriptions OF property,
| real or personal, on land or on water
All alike were made subjects of prize
and capture, and, under direction OF the
President, of seizure, confiscation and
condemnation.
The act must be construed with refer
ence to this general purpose In ordi-
nary use the words "prizes and cap
ture" refer, doubtless, to captures on
water as maritime prize; but in this
section they plainly refer to property
| taken on land as well as on water, and
the duties prescribed to the President
include the taking of this property by
civil process as we'll as by naval or mill
tary force, and sanction proceedings for
| eonfscaton and condemnation in civil
course without regard to the mode of
seizure.
The second and third sections pre-
! scribe the action to be taken in the
| courts. This action is described, gener-
ally, in the third section, as 'Sproceed- :
ings for condemnation, to be instituted
by the Attorney General, or any district
attorney. And jurisdiction OF these
proceedings" is given to the District or
| Circuit Court having jurisdiction OF the
amount, or in admiralty, in any district
where the property is seized or into
which it may be taken.
This language ! is certainly not clear.
But we think that the construction which,
as we understand, has been generally
adopted in the district and circuit courts
in cases of proceedings for the condem-
nation of real estate or property on land,
is substantially correct. That construc-
ton treats the grant of jurisdiction in
| admiralty as a grant of jurisdiction of
the proceedings of condemnation to
the circuit or district court, according to
the amount in suit; with power to both
courts to shape those proceedings in
general conformity to the practice In
admiralty.
Such proceedings do not necessarily
constitute 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 cegnizsnce. But Congress
may, doubtless, give jurisdiction OF such
proceeding to the circuit as well as to the
district courts, and may authorize the
exercise Of this statutory jurisdiction in
!. the forms and modes analogous TO those
used in admiralty. And this, we think,
was the purpose Of the act.
The difficulty Of construction arises
from the terms in which jurisdiction Is
granted ito any district or circuit court
having jurisdiction Of the amount, or in
admiralty, 10 any district where the
property is found" Il is said that the
distinctive "or" restricts the Jurisdiction
in admiralty to the district courts. And
the view is certainly not without some
warrant in the phrsseology Of the act.
Bot when welook beyond the mere words
10 the obvious intent, we cannot help see
ing that the word or must be taken
conjunctively; and that the sense Of the
law is that both the circuit and the dis
trict courts shall have Jurisdiction ae-
cording 70 the amount, and in ad-
miralty." go
partses- In eases Of seizure o. and the
right oftriai By jury is DOT ininngea- ln