The Athens post. [volume] (Athens, Tenn.) 1848-1917, 1868-10-16
CONFISCATION.
Important Opinion of the Supreme
Court OF the United STATES.

Some time ago we published news.
paperTetcrcnoe to very important de.
cision rendered by the Supreme Court
affecting the proceedings in confiscatiou
cases. Our attention has just been call.
ed to the subject by being furnished by
a legal friend. Col. Ramsey, who has
had considerable personal interest in
such matters, with Il copy of the opin.
ion itself, as delivered by Chief Justice
| Chase. The case is known as that OF
Armstrong; Foundry and came uI
| by appeal from the State of Louisiana
and the nature of the case is fully stated
in the opinion.
Judge Chase delivered the opinion as
follows: H. 3. III.
Upon the case presented, it is ne.
ccssary to consider u single question
only.
1t was insisted in argument that the
pardon pleaded by the appellant cannot
avail to relieve him from the forfeiture
of the property seized, because the liza
| billy to seizure arose under the statute
| from the mode in which the property
was employed, and was not to be re-
garded as penal consequence of the
act Of the owner. ....i ......
I'VE are unable TO concur in this
view. We think it clear that the stat
ute regarded tho consent of the owner
TO the employment of his property in
aid Of the rebellion us an oilcnsc, and
Inflicted forfeiture as Il penalty. Tho
general pardon of Armstrong, there
fore, relieved him of so much of the
penalty as accrued to the United States
We think it unnecessary to express an
opinion at present in relation TO the in
former.
"Thc proceedings below related to a
seizure of land, and though conducted
under the statute in the form of ADM.
rability. must be regarded as a case OF
common law jurisdiction, Il final deci
sion in which can be reviewed here only
on writ of error.
"The decree Of the Circuit Court
! therefore must be reversed as irregular
and the cause remanded with direction,
to allow new trial: the proceedings III
which shall be coniormed in respect tc
the trial by jury and exceptions to evi
dcncc to the course of the common law
sec Wallace's reports, volume 6, page
! 7G9.'
1.-Two other cases were decided at tho
same term OF the court involving tho
same principle. Union Insurance Com.
pany rs. United States and st. Loui;
Foundry. See Same volume. pages 7Gl
and 40. The Chief Justice delivered
the opinion in both eases"
This opinion will be read with deer
interest by many of our citizens, as il
affects the validity of nearly. if not en-.
tirely. all the judgments in Tennessee
in regard to the cCntiscation of pro
pcrty.
We believe that all the property solo
or seized, Tor the purpose Of being con-
| tiscated in Tennessee and all Other
Estates in rebellion. was sold or seized il
the forms and practice of admiralty
without the Intervention of jury. The
supreme Court hold that such proceed
Iings are irregular. and that the proceed
ings shall be cCn!iormcd in respect tC
trial by jury and exceptions to cvidenc,
to the course Of the common law. Tha
being the law laid down by the Suprem,
i Court of the United States, NAV no
parties whose property has been confs
Gated and sold sue and recover it bacl
again; or. il it be personal property. j
they cannot recover the property. may
they not recover its value at the time i
was sold? Another important question
arises: where property has been restor
ed to the proper owners, upon the pies
ofamnesty, and large fees were allowed
to the District Attorney, Clerk ant
Marshal, for their services. and the pro
ceedings being irregular and voidablc
(if not null and void cannot those par
ties who have had those fees to pay, in
stitute suits and recover what they have
paid out? We PROFOUND the question
for the serious consideration of thos,
concerned.-HAoccWc Press and Her
aid.