The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1868-06-23
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.

Seizures ON Land-The ConHscation Laws-
Construction OF the Acts Of July ~, 1892
and March 3, 1864.
The United States APPELLANTS vs simeon Har.,
ana T,ro other Cdses-Mr. Justice Nelson delivered
the opinion OF the Court in these cases:-This Ii an
appeal from decree Of the Supreme Court Of the
Territory Of New Mexico. The libel is Med In this
case under the sixth section OF the act Of Congress
passed July H. 1862, which subjects to seizure and
conhscation the property Of any person within any
OF the States or Territories OF the United States
being engaged in armed rebellion against the gov
eminent OF the United States, or aiding and abetting
such rebellion after public warning by the President
Of the United States. The property seized was real
estate belonging to Hart, situated in the town OF
Franklin, Ell Paso county, State Of Texas. The libel
was nled in the District Court of the United States
for the Third Judicial district of the Territory OF New
Mexico. Such proceedings were had that on the "a
day OF December 1865, decree was entered con-
demning property and directing II to be sold.
An appeal was taken from this decree to the SUI
preme Court OF the Territory which reversed the
ing that court to dismiss the for want OF juris
dicton OF said court over the real estate In tho
on District
Jurisdiction In the cause upon his construction OF
the act Of Congress, passed March 1884, which re-
vlved an act passed August 2 1883 that gave TO the
District Court Of the Territory Of New Mexico juris-
dlction arising In the collection district OF
Ell Paso In the administration Of the revenue laws.
The second section confined the jurisdiction over
citizens In Ell Paso TO not instituted by inct-
ment and the trial and proceedings for violations OF
the revenue laws as In other district courts OF the
United States invested with admiralty powers. Q2
st. at L., p 1911 The Supreme Court, In reversing
the judgment below held that this act did not extend
to or embrace proceedings under the act OF 17th
July, 1862, providing for connscati0n Of the property
OF persons engaged In aiding and abetting the
belion, Of the correctness OF which decision can
entertain no doubt. IL the District Court below could
have, under any circumstances, Jurisdiction of the
case, according to the practice as settled in
the cases OF the Union Insurance Company Va
the United States, George Cronan vs. the same, ana
Armstrong Vs. the same, decided at the present
term, as has been tried the admiralty side Of
the court the proper disposition OF II would be to
reverse the decree and remand the cause to the COURT
below, with directions TO enter decree RENTING ie
to the District Court. that it might be tried the
common law side, with q jury, the seizure having
been made on land and not on waters navigabla
from the sea- But as the Supreme Court OF the Ter
ritory has reversed the decree OF conscation, for
the want OF jurisdiction In the correctness OF which
Judgment we concur, the predispositon OF II will be-
to arm the Decree this reaches directly the right
conclusion In the case.
United States Is. Josiah r. CROSBY ct dL-This ID
an appeal from o decree Of the supreme Court OF
New Mexico. This case Is governed by the opinion
In the case OF United states vs.. Simeon Hart, 70
which we refer. Decree affirmed
The United States Us. H. s. GiReu and y. s. Gft-
let-Thls Is an appeal from decree OF the Supreme
Court Of the Territory OF New Mexico. The case ID
governed by the opinion In the case OF the United
States 81 neon Hart, and TO which we refer. The
decree below affirmed .fff...