The native Virginian. [volume] (Orange Court House, Va.) 1867-187?, 1868-12-11
THE C0NF1sCATIoN LAWS DECLARED
CONSTITUTIONAL,

In the Circuit Court of the United
States for Virginia, in Richmond, CHIEF
Justice Chase presiding, last week, the
decrees OF confiScation in the case oil
Semple VS.. the United States; Mallory
VS.. the same; and McVeigh VS.. the same,
| rendered by Judge Underwood, siUtin 0
as District Judge, were affirmed.
In the case of Semple, the Chief JUS
tice delivered an elaborate opinion, in
which he declared:
lst. That the contiscation laws were
constitutional.
End. That when there was 10 appear
ance and plea by the defendant. tile adj
miralty side of the District Court had
full jurisdiction TO make decree of
contiscation and sale.
The Chief j ustice indicated desire
that the case should be carried to the
| Supreme Court of the United States,
and on motion Of Colonel G.. w. Brent,
counsel for Mr.. McVeigh, writ OF err
ror was granted by the Judge in his
| case.
The case triea, and which decided the
other two, was that of "Scinple vs.. the
| United States.n The first question, the
constitutionality of the cOniiscation law
being one of vast Importance, we give
the decision on the point in full.
"Ihls case" said Judge Chase, ''comes
before us upon writ of error to the
District Court for the District OF V;r-
ginia.
Tho proceedings in that Court were
by seizure and libel OF information for
the condemnation, under the act of july
Z, lS62, of certain real estate of the
plaintitf, i'll error, situated in Elizabeth
City county, within the District of Vir-
ginia.
The seizure and libel were followed
by an order fixing Il short day for trial,
ana directing the issue of mention and
publication of notice according to the
ordinary course of admiralty. There
was no appearance, and the decree of
confscation or forfeiture, after exami-
nation OF witnesses. was made upon de-
fault, and the property was sold under
a writ of venditioni exponas.
TWO points were made in argument
for tile plaintiff in error.
The first is that the act under which
the proceedings for Condemnation were
hau. Is unconstitutional, Several cases
arising under this net aud that of Au-
gust, lSei., OF like tenor, have been con-
sidered by the Supreme Court. Union
insurance Company VS.. the u. States,
Wall 1853, and other cases in same VOL
ume.l
In neither of these cases was this
point made, either by counsel or by the
court; and it is fair conclusion that,
neither at the bar nor upon the bench,
was the constitutionality of the act
doubted.
We, at least, unless clearly satisfied
that the act is unconstitutional. and |
satisfied also that the point passed with
out observation in the Supreme Court, |
are bound here by the action OF that
court.
We shall hold, therefore, for the pre-
sent, that the act is warranted by the
Constitution; but shall be gratified if
the question is again submitted to the
supreme Court, and adjudged upon di-
rect argument and consideration.
The other point made for She plaintiff
In error is, that the suit in the District
Court was in admiralty; whereas, being
Tor condemnation of a seizure of land,
he remedy should have been sought on
he common-law-sid OF the Court.
We sec, therefore, no error in the
Judgment or decree of the District |
Jourt, and it must be affirmed.