New-York tribune., 1868-02-01
THE EFFECT OF PARDON UPON AN OWNERS
RIGHTS
The oase OF the Armstrong Foundery, John


claimant snd appellant agt The United states,
In the L. S. Supreme Court. was an appeal from Tie 'ii
cult Court FOR tho district Of louisiana IN ths case Tue
TonDdery were seized under the act Of August g. 1861
ard subsequently condemned as subject TO cohus'ato'
having used FOR nsurrectionary purposes FROM
guch Judgment and condemnation the claimant appeals
10 this Court and recently moved fur leave TO file -Re-
ca plea OF pardon such having been granted him by the
Prctdcnt Icndiug the cause in this Court The Attor
eyGenela objected to the filing of the plea, on the
ground that this has Only appellate jurisdiction abI
could lot permit amendment OF the pleadngs'
or give leave TO 1le new pleas " such amenn-
shond be iemnnded To- the Court below vi M Leave 70 the
panty file amendments there, Ia Gce"ldan ~ WIN me
established practice here such practice was shown by
eases cited The Court however granted the appellant
leave to ae tie proposed plea unless the AitoTneyGen'
oral proposed 10 contest tie furce ana eDect OF me par
don Us circumstances whcl may have occurred slbse-
Gmeny to its beng granted. But this decision aiIrms
lrouerty from cOusCaOu ard restore 1t TO the claimant
The appeal was heard on the merits, the clalmelt
taking he ground that when the law declares tIat liop
rry in celgin predcamcnt shall be forfeited y lensoh
% ihe ofes the fact VIII he ionDd stated IN Ehe stGut
leaving room FOR doubt o. 70 lie lncntloh Oh ny ee
lof The adjudcaons by the courts IN past cases OF
forfeiture cite tho sections declaring that te olcnse
tls act under which the libel IN this case 5 nled; &
merely declares that property used or employed WIN
consent OF the owner for oetan urnwfu purposes, sha
be !ul subject 10 prlzo and captIge ILesd hos
arc " technical import, aud relate to capture gTe
Jc Tie act does not declaie lie 0Vcsf shn oitfete
the forfeiture. and gnle,S e1pIn;1d Yea ~ iS-se TSe
o arms, DO property Is coul,eab.e under ms "cI. ne
Nasal Wall, 6tiD il case oi Iotieitu.e ne @ ~
passes he Oonse ia case 81 capture tbe tt dOe
pass CNgn by the Captuiei nut ic pILe s' " Vt
In fOr judicial inquiry into me tSay oi .e S"p ul'
The acailO @. The wOiG capture = 10 take ~ Ictco
arms, and not by ar Information ted win olsIict
attorney Such information must succeed tho csp'nFc
and win Justify proceedings !or condemlatlon never
was iutendod mat tae Information should lead 10
seluTs, 20 be called capture. such construction would
pcr.rrt the law. Ia this cause "capture was mpossE
bic Tor the CITY Of New Orleans had been i0rnal spD
iccted TO the Authority Of the Unite States IoEe than
eighteen months before the seizure was made, a1a tlc
claimant had been peaccaly employing te iohLdv y"
lar f business under the protection ar the mas cl Tue
United states fol all that Tine TheIe was. therefore 10
"cuptnre hnosn to the law On the contrary, me sen
the condemnation OF the Qa6 under the 0fTdNJ process,
in his cass, Woud open a chapter In public jurspu-
dcncc quite astonishing TO all publcsts who nave Writ
of he laws Of capture or or war III Is also urseu
that the Confederate GoI Icrnucnt TOOK iociDis pos
scss.on Of the fouEdery, Or threatened 10 90 so,
unless Armstrong consented 10 employ II n
opportunity had he desired, 10 quit his residence an We"
Orleans after the captu but De chose 20 Itnaln under
The terms announced IN the proclamation OF ne SoiA,
mnnding officer aud he Wat, ny tis coce fSul'tea OF
his proper allegiance 70 the United States and was ent
ted 10 his property had il been legally liable Or past Of
tense H. alleged this proceeding az law ana ot
admiralty cognizanco or equity jurisdiction,
linen It absurd that questions OF prize such as present.
cd here cannot he tried common law Court ON the
question Of forfeiture the insists On the same
rules presented IN several preceding cases tha under
the the penalty Of forfeiture attaches the moment
the Oifonse Is committed. The effect OF tho pardon is
discussed ut length and the argument susias the follow
Ing proposition: " IN respect Of property forfeited IN
virtue Of cOntscahe quality Impressed upon II by the
unlaWfal predlcameut In which 'I may have been IN
,oyed and not hy Ofrho personal cIinaty Of rho
grantee the pardon docs not operate TO deCat scn Tor
feiture destroy the right OF the government 10 seize
and c0niscate H. when property Is tainted with for
feituro which depends upon aud arises out OF Us own
don cannot avail him rs bar To prosecution for such
forfeiture" II submitted that the proceeding Is az
common law.
Humphrey Marshall FOR claimant: Mr. stanbery and
NJ. Ashtou fot Government.