The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1869-06-01
o. s. CIRCUIT COURT--CHLEFJUS
8. p. CHASE, PRESIDING.

The court opened at 10 o'clock yesterday
morning. Chief Justice Chase and Judge Bryan
On the bench.
The jurors answered to their names.
In the case Of a. McLsod Va. T. G. Calicott,
which was tried last Saturday, and which has
excited much interest, the Ohief Justice charS-
ed the jury as follows:
| Gentlemen of the Jlry-The Districs At
torney has asked for various Instructions
| which the court will decline to give; not that
| we doubt the general correctness OF most OF
| the legal propositions contained in them, but
we prefer TO give you what we conceive to be
| the law Of this case in our own language, en-
bodying the instructions asked. 30 lar as we
think then correct in what We say.
This is an action OF trespass brought by
| Alexander Mcleod against T. @. Calicott. The
plaintiff alleges that thirty mine bales OF cot
| by defendant and converted to his own use.
| The defendant pleads in Justification, not oe'
nying the taking, but averring that what he did,
was done as special supervising agent OF tne
Treasury Department OF the United States'
and in accordance with law: The plalnun re,
insisting that in what Calicott did, he did not
act as agent, but wrongfully and without
justification in Law.
The pleadings present the issue which you
are to try. First. Did this cotton belong to
Alexander Mcleod, the plaintiff, IN October,
Was it his property as thss aases hst
did by virtue of bus Office as Supervising Agent
Of the Tres sury?
That the cotton belonged to the plaintiff,
unless his title had been diverted by capture,
seems not to be questioned. The second ques-
ton alone, therefore, is important.
l. Under several acts OF Congress-, during the
L III. M
Department were appointed in the several In
surgent States, and charged with certain spe-
ci3c duties. Among these duties was that OF
receiving from the military officers OF the UNI
ted States all property captured by them, with
| instructions to turn it over to the proper au-
thorities of the United States for sale and 10"
account. In respect to citizens who had main
| tanned loyal adhesion to the Government OF
the United States, it was provided by law that
| this property or proceeds should be returned
/ to them upon making the necessary proofs in
the Court of Claims at any time within two
years from the. close of the rebellion. 1t ls al
legged, and not denied, that Calicott was super
vising agent, and had this general authority.
It was his duty to receive .fiom the military
officers, and from private soldiers, all property
captured by the forces OF the United States
during the recent war, within his agency.
II this case depended on this general author
ity, the only question to be determined would
Do Wnetnef tne COteou III quesson w<so eaP'uc uco
property. But there is something more IN
this case. These supervising agents were ap-
pointed by the Secretary OF the Treasury, un-
der regulations, approved by th President OF
the United States, and were subject, in al re-
spects, to his direction and control; and the
general regulations established had relation
| only to state OF war.
gent States and the United States terminated
practically in May, 1866. In the State Of South
| Carolina q provisional government was Or
ganized under proclamation Of the President
IN June or July Of that year; and the Score
tary of the Treasury having reference to this
June, 1865. addressed circular to those Trea-
sury agents in which he prescribed rule for
| their government in the new state II things.
| (The Chic Justice here read the fourth sec.
| ton Of the circular. This section provides
| that officers charged with the duty CT receiv-
| ing and collecting, or having in their posses
sion or under their control, captured, aban.
doned, or con6scable personal property, will
dispose Of the same IL accordance with regu-
ations heretofore prescribed, and refrain from
receiving suoh non military or naval suthori-
| ties after the 80th instant"
The general regulation. which required MIR.
Calicott to receive al captured property from
ths officers Of the United States, was thus re-
scinded ON the eth OF June, 1855, with the fo!-
lowing limitation:
SThis win not be considered as interfering
with the operations Of agents now engaged IN
receiving or collecting the property recently
captured byor surrendered to the forces Of the
United Statss, whether or not covered by, or
included in, the records delivered to the Uni
ted States military or treasury authorities by
rebel military o(Reofs or cotton agents.
The new regulation or prohibitory order,
therefore, did not extend to property which
had been captured or surrendered by the mill
tsr 0f4ooru rrf fbe Nnnfa1erafa Qnyernnank
to the United States. But, with that excep-
ton, the prohibition is complete and final, and
no agent Of the Treasury Department was JUS
titled in receiving, after the 3oth Of June, 1855,
any captured property unless Heretofore sur
rendered; much less was any such officer war
ed cotton himself, After that date, with or with
out military aid. BE had no authority 10 do
90. All bis powers, "a We have said TO you,
were derived from the Treasury Department,
and when the Treasury Department withdrew
that general authority, 1t Was at an end.
The question, then, in this case is, whether
this WAS part Of the property which had been
surrendered by the military authorities Of the
tS ~ 70 ths
heard all the evidence, and il is your province
to determine whether or not this property was
In that category. II il vas, then it was Cali
colts duty to rec,ive 1t. and transmit 1t to the
authorities OF the United States for sale, and
the only remedy which the owner or claimant OF
tho cotton could possibly have, would bs by ap-
plication to the Court Of Claims Of the United
States. The whole matter seems to be mar
rowed down TO the simple proposition whether
the evidence before you satisfies your minds
that this cotton was included in the surrender
referred to in the Secretarys instructions OF
the 9Th ofJune. II it was 80 included, then
the court charges you that neither the action
Of the Provoss Court, relied upon by the de.
fendant, nor the action OF any State Court,
could withdraw it from that category. without
the consent Of the United States. II It was on
the 9th Of June captured property, in this
sense, that is property surrendered by the
military authorities OF the Confederate Govern
ment to the United States, then it remained
captured property, and could not be released
by the action Of the Provost Court. That ac-
ton, II intended to have this effect, was with
out sanction Of law, and Of NO avail
II it was such property, it was the duly OF
the defendant to take possession Of it; If not,
bis seizure was unlawful. But there is another
question, not necessarily determined by the
duty Of the court to make some observations.
BY an act passed on the 27th Of July, 1858,
Congress- clared the intent OF the several
acts relating to captured property. Among
these was the Abandoned or Captured Property
act Of March Ii, 1858; of which. as we'll as Of
the others, the true intent was declared to be
that the remedy given in cases OF seizure by
preferring claim In the Court OF Claims should
be exclusive, precuding the owner of any pro-
perty taken by agents of the Treasury Depart
- IL.