The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1869-06-01
U. S. CIRCUIT COURT T--CHLEFJUSTICE
8. n CHASE, PRESIDING.

Tho court opened at 10 o'clock yesterday
Oh the bench.
The jurors answered to their names.
In the case Of A. Mcleod VS. T. G. Calicott,
which was tried last Saturday, and which has
excited much interest, the Chief Justice charg-
ed the jury as follows: ~.
Gentlemen Of the Jury-The District At
torney has asked for various instructions,
which the court will decline to give; not that
we doubt tho 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. SO far as we
think the n correct in what we say. ,.s,',,.
This Is an action OF trespass brought by
plaintiff alleges that thirty mine bales Of cot
ton, belonging to him, were wrongfully taken
by defendant and converted to his own use.
nyin9 the taking, but averring that, what he did,
was done as special supervising agent Of the
Treasury Department OF the United States,
and in accordance with law. The plaintiff re-
insisting That in what Calicott did, he did not
Justification IN law. - >''
The pleadings present the issue which you
Alexander Mo Leod, the plaintiff, in October,
1852 Was 1T his property at that dateP And,
second, was the defendant justified in what he
did by virtue of his office as Supervising Agent
That the cotton belonged to the plaintiff
unless his title had been diverted by capture,
seems not to be questioned. The second ques-
tiOn alone, therefore, is important.
Under several acts Of Congress-, during the
late war. Supervising Agents Of the Treasury
Department were appointed in the several in
ciAc duties. Among these duties was that Of
receiving nom the military officers OF tho 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 fo !,
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
the Court Of Claims at any time within two
years from the close Of the rebellion. It is al
| legged, and not denied, that Calicott was super
vising agent, and had this general authority.
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
be whether the cotton in question was captured
| 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 tn 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.
| Now, actual hostilities between the insur-
| gent States and the United States terminated
practically in May. 1865. In the State Of South
Carolina provisional government was or
ganized under proclamation of the President
| IN June or July Of that year; and the Secre-
| tary of the Treasury having reference to this
changed condition of affairs, on the 9th of
June, 1865. addressed circular to those Trea-
| sury agents in which he prescribed rule for
| their government in the new state of things.
| The Chief Justice here read the fourth sec-
tion Of the circular. This section provides
| that officers charged with the duty Of receiv-
| ing and collecting, or having in their possess
sion or under their control, captured, aban-
doned, or confscable personal property, will
dispose OF the same in accordance with regu-
latlons heretofore prescribed, and refrain from
receiving such fro u military or naval authori-
| ties after the Goth instant"
The general regulation. which required MIR.
Calicott to receive all captured property from
scinded on the 9Th Of June, 1865, with the fol-
lowing limitation:
..This will not be considered as interfering
| with the operations Of agents now engaged iH
captured By or surrendered to the forces Of the
United Stat tss, whether or not covered by, or
! included In, the records delivered to the Uni
sass ma og BY
The new regulation or prohibitory order,
therefore, did not extend to property which
had been captured or surrendered by the mill
tary officers OF the Confederate Government
to the United States. But. with that excep-
| tion, the prohibition is complete and final, and
no agent OF the Treasury Department was JUS
any captured property unless theretofore sur
rendered; much less was any such officer war
ranted IN making any capture Of unsurrender-
ed cotton himself, after that date, with or with
ont military aid. He had no authority to do
| 60. All his powers, as we have said to You,
were derived from the Treasury Department..
and when the Treasury Department withdrew
that general authority. itwas ut an end.
The questd n, then. IN this case is, whether
this was part Of the property which had been
Confederate Governments to the United states
prior to the 27th OF June. 1865. You have
heard q. the evidence. and IL is your province
TO aesermne ts whethsr or not this property was
cott's duty to receive it, and transmit it to the
authorities Of the United STATES for sale. and
the only remedy which the owner or claimant Of
plication to the court OF Claims Of the 1nited %
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 Secretary's instructions Of
the 27th ofJune. II it was so included, then
the court charges You that neither the action
OF the Provoss Court. relied upon by the de-
could withdraw it from that cltegory, without
the consent OF the United States. Ii it was on
tne Isn Or June captured property, in this
srg taat e 81 by the
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 ifintended to have this effect, Was with
Il twas such property, il was the duty Of
the defendant to take possession Fit: If not,
his seizure was unlawful. But there is another
question. not necessarily determined BY the
character of the property, on which it is the
duty Of the court to make some observations.
BY an act passed on the 9th OF July, 1858.
Congress d:clared the intent Of the several
acts relating to captured property. Among
these was the Abandoned or Captured Property
act OF March Ii, 1868; 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
preferrlng claim IN the Court Of Claims should
be exclusive, preciuding the owner Of any pro
perty taken by agents OF the Treaeury Depart
ment. as abandoned or captured pfDperty, ID
virtue ''or under color Of said act" from s1lit
at common low, or any other mode of redress
whatever, before any other court or tribunal
han hn Ns,r <~QN t~s.~- r =