The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1869-11-06
UNIFIED STATES SUPREME ecuaT.
The Lane Cotton C0ntracts-The Texns
Indemnity Bonds.

The Lnnc Cotton Contracts-The Texns
Indemnity Bonds.
WASHINGTON, Nov. 8, 1902
Stanley Matthew's, OF Ohio, and E. G. Camp, Of
Tennessee, were admitted to the bar to-day.
Nos. 1S9 and 1876. United Sotes as. Speed ct al
ana Same Us. Fiogd.-Argument concluded.
No. 100. The United States Us. Georqe ". Lane
Appeal from the Court Of C7atms.-Lane entered
into two contracts with the Treasury agent at Nor
folk, N c. one for the delivery OF 1000 bales Of cot
ton and one for loo nales which cotton was ON the
Chowan river, In North Carolina, and within the
lines held by the insurIectionary forces The COM
mander OF the military district gave nm safe con-
duct for himself, his vessel aud crew TO bring
out the cotton, and the Norfolk agent ap.
a quasi snpercargo to take charge OF the
outward or cotton cargo, which consisted OF
257 bales OF cotton, delivered TO the su6-aeent on
board the vessel by Lane. On the return voyage
the vessel and cargo were seized by order Of the
naval commander ON duty IN the inland waters OF
released, to De again seized before arriving at Nor
folk, by order OF Admiral Porter After detention
from the 9tn OF January until the beginning OF
March, 1855, they were turned to the Treasury
agent at Newbern as captured or abandoned pro-
Of the Treasury, the cotton was sent to New York
and the vessel to Washington. The latter was beIled
passed IA favor OF Lane. subsequently. the cotton
was restored to lane at New York by order Of
o ns ssG 95e the sso Tssuy ANA Tss
have been unauthorized by the government and
rendered Judgment In favor OF Lane for
OF cotton before the restoration TO MIN for
$31, $40 49, The government appeals, claiming that
the voyage upon which the capture was made was
IN violation OF law, and the contracts alleged and
the contracts found by the Court OF Claims have
been made illegal, and that no seizure by the
naval officers was proper and there IS legal cause
OF complaint 1t IS urged that as the United States
never contracted with the claimant that Its naval
vessels would not seize and detain his vessel and
cotton he has no cause OF action which the Court of
Claims has jurisdiction TO enforce The safe conduct
alleged was not contract OF the United States. The
government does not contract that 1t will not ex-
crcse Its general powers through Its officers, legisa
i've JUDICIAL ana executive by means OF contract
mad authority 10 make it. No implicit contract arises
from such state Of facts. But the agent, whose
authority Is relied on IN the case had no authority
to lind the government in the manner claimed.
Every contract, to be valid. MADE by the United
states, must be made by some agent clothed with
special authority make It. The claimant insists
that the acts and contracts OF the agent were The
acts contracts OF the United States and that tho
judgment for the claimants OF the Prize Court OF te
District Of Columbia Oh the subject of the vessel
bearing the cotton Is conclusive upon all the world
aud estops the United States from C0ilng in Ques-
ton the legality and regularity OF the voyage. 1t
was Judgment Of court OF competent and exclu-
sive jurisdiction and cannot be questioned. +. $.
DICK, Assistant Attorney General, for the United
states; 1. j. D.. Fuller for the claimant.
ae case OF the schooner Lucy against the United
TO dismiss the appeal for want OF jurisdiction.
No. o, original. me STATE or Texas us. White,
CNtteS et d.-Thls cause was also again before tho
court on motion to perfect the decree made by the
State, IL having been left open respect 10 certain
points involved. The principal question was as 10
the effect Of the payment OF thirty -four Texas inae-
MY bonds, held by Hardenburgh, one OF the defend
ants, before the service OF process upon him
III this case. such payment having been pre-
coded by the deposit OF large amount OF
United States seven-thirty bonds in the hands
OF r. W. Taylor, ss indemnity 20 Secretary
McCulioch against any personal loss damage or ex-
pense IN winch he might be involved by reason OF
The payment The State seeks to have the decree 80
framed as to defeat Hardenburgh's claims. Messrs
Brent and Merrck for the state and Messrs. Carlisle
and EvartS for the defendants
motion Is also submitted by Judge Hughes ask
ing renearng OF the case II being alleged that the
PENDANTS, found to have been nun AID void by the
court, has since been recognized by the loyal States
now existing by the release OF the securities OF
White ana Chllea in their bond for its executiop
The December term OF 1858 not being vet ended it
Is insisted that the motion Is IN order.
The Chief Justice announced that the court would
hereafter meet at twelve NJ. instead OF eleven
O'Clock.