New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1869-09-02
THE CONFEDERACY IN COURT
ITS sEouEsTRAT1oS ACT VOID.

and ali proceeding hereunder are TO treated as abso
nteg nnli and void and Court OF Eqnity Ti uo'ieo
2 II corporation fail to bring SUIT Tor It's Wo0o
Opulion Of ne court 5y M. ChiefJusIee chase
The bill In this was filed by the painp III ms own
and contribute TO the expenses OF the suit IL Is stated
that the shares in the Charleston Gaslght company
stock belonging to the planuh and others We're d
tered under act Of the Confederate Government ana
sold during the cyi war IL Is also stated th a" mon
were delivered to the purchasers and the PRAYER
declared invalid that they may he ordered TO be dey'
cred up cancelled that the defendants may be re-
company may be- restrained from allowing such transfer
and from the payment Of dividends To this bill there
a general demurrer filed by part of the defendants ana
motion to dissolve the injunction already granted Ing
S Sg isl anv relief c this coT upon the ease made
by the bill This question is twotOld-hrst, whether me
Court has jurisdiction of controversy between the
plaintiff and defendants II is not claimed that the trans
fer OF shares seQueercd and sold under the authority OF
the Confederate Government conveyed exclusive te 10
the defendants II has been repeatedly decided Dgh ny
the Circuit Courts ana the supreme court Oh tlo u'e
States, that all acts OF the Confederate Government OF
the Government Of state hostile TO the united state,
and prciudlcal to the rights OF clens OF states a9hchs
to the Union void ana convey no title Perdtas Is
adjoining State. 1t is proper to add hatt the
Gaslght Company mas hGed upon ne st S ~
II that it erased from the books the names ol e
ScquesratiOn act and issued new certificates to the ph
chascrs But tins during the war Since the war
ended IL has rclustacd the Of the original stock
holders and recognized fully their right to dividends
The certificates issued TO the purchasers from the con
federatc Receiver, however still outstanding Per
ot If the Court against the defendats Who in virtue
purchases from the Receiver assert claim to be
recognized stockholders upon an equality WIN MN
self II is very clear that Mr. Percards has good case
equity II thew hole stock had belonged to Stockholders
residing in other states, and had been sold under the
Sequeslration act and 1t can be maintained aIter the
war. that the purchasers are entitled TO recognition
equally with the original stockholders. It is very clear
onehaE This shows very clearly the equity of Mr. Per
dcars There is no way by winch ne can pG renewed Gn
cept by Court OF Equity But 1t Is insisted mat the
! Company itself should bring suit, and that Per,
. being only @ mot area SSnnS tot PI nSa e%
It denied that the Company had refused TO inst-
no principle of equity administrator which denies to
stakeholder protection IN Court Of Equity i'm true
ana this would perhaps DO most appropriate
that the corporation should bring suit for ~ own pro
stockholders. But has at least neglected and omitted
proceed We think the bin filed in this by plain.
tn FOR his benefit and for the benefit OF his coaock
holders properly conceived and that upon the case
made by The plaintiff entitled to the relief asked the
demurrer must be oyerued and the motion TO dissolve
the injunction must be denied The defendants VIII nave
| leave to answer under the rule,
CIRCUIT COURT, U. s.-DIsrRIcT OF souTH cARoLINA.
sEUREs By TREASURY AGENrs-vHEN uSL'wTuL-E'hIs AND
| Mcleod sgt Calcoit-IIeoe Jury.)
No agent the Treasury Department justified in
receiving after June 80 1861 captured property an
less heretofore surrendered much less IN making any
capture OF unsurrendered property Ir0oerty suren'
dcred by the military authorities OF TIC Con derae Gov
any state Provost Court. Treasury agent, acting
under color Of law undor mistaken sense Of duty,
charge 10 he Jury BY lf,. ChiCCJ,wtee chase.
| GENTLEMEN or rHt JURY: The District Attorney has
asked for various Instructions which the Court viii
decline not that doubt the general correct
but we prefer give you what conceive 10 De the
law the case ~ our own language emOOdyiug the in
strucons asked so far as we think them correct In
what say. This Ia action OF trespass brought by
Alexander Mcleod against l. {. CahcoiL The plaintiff
alleges that bales OF cotton, belonging 70 him.
wrongfuy taken by defendant and converted 10 his
Tho defendant pleads IN Justification, not denying
special Supervising Agent Of the Treasury Department
OF the United -tatcs ana IN accordance with law The
plantn replies, denying the truth Of this ayermcnt,
| and insisting that III what Caicoit dId ne
ala not act ms agent hut wronguly and without justih
cation IN law. The pleadlngs present the issue which
FIRST: Did this cotton belong TO Alexander Mcleod, the
nlartn m October l-Gji Was Il bis property that
datcf And second was the defendant Justified iu what
he did by virtue OF his Office as Supervising Agent OF the
That the cotton belonged the plaintiff unless his
toned The second question alone thcreioTe Il 'p"I
war supervising agents Of the Treasury Department
were appointed IN the several insurgtHt States aud
charged with certain specific duties Among these
was that OF receiving from the military officers OF the
United States all property captured by them WIN n
United states and Tor account In respect 10 cit
zcns who had maintained loyal adhesion to the Gov
H. thciT nropcTiy or proceeds should be returned to
them upon making the necessary proofs IN the Court OF
Claims AT any within two years after the close of the
Rebellion. II is alleged ana net denied that Calcott
was Supervising Agent, and had tins genera! authority
II was s duty To receive rom lhc mIH'aiy o',Ia ahu
from the private soldiers all property captured by the
his agency II this case depended this general author
y tho only question 10 be determined would Ice whether
Is something IN this case These supervising agents
were appointed by the secretary Of the Treasury, under
! regulations approved by the President Of the United
States and subject In all respects 10 his direction
and control aud the general regulations established had
relation only TO state Of Now, actual hO.tiltcs
between the nsurgent States and the United states ter
minated practically IN May, oC5. In the state Of South
Carolina "A provisional government organized under
proclamation Of the President In June or July OF that
year; and the Secretary Of the Treasury, having refer
eucc changed condition OF affairs, the 2lth OF
June 1866 addressed circular Ia those Treasury Agents
which he prescribed rule for their government IN the
new state OF things The ChicfJustlce here read the
fourth section Of the circuar This section provides
that officers charged with the duty OF receiving
| and collecting having IN their possession
under their control captured, abandoned cOnscabc
personal property, Will dispose OF the came In accord
aucc with regulations heretofore prescribed aud refrain
from receiving such from military or naval authorities
0ired Mr. Calcott all captured property from
officers Of the United states, thus rescudcd
27th Of June, 1865 with the following Limitation This will
not be considered interfering with the operations Of
agents engaged In receiving collecting the proper
~ cautucd b on surrendered Ia the forces OF the
limited states whether by or included in
the records delivered TO the United Statos military
Treasury authorities by Rebel military officers or cotton
agents. Thcuew regulation prohbitOry order there
fore did extend property which had been captured
nr sTrcndered Inv the military officers OF the Confrderatc
Government TO the United States But with that excep
ton, the prohibition complete ana maj, and agent
Of Tie Treasury Department. was justified in receiving
after the 3Oth June 1865 any captured property unless
! heretofore surrendered; much less any
! such officer warranted IN making any capture Of
unsurrendored himself, after that date, with
without military aid. lie had authority TO do All
his powers, have sand 10 you, derived from
the Treasury Department and when the Treasury De-
parmen withdrew that general authority II was at
end The question then, la this Is whether tins
a part the property which had been surrendered by
the military authorizes OF the Confederate Government
TO the United States prior to the 9th OF june 1865. You
have heard all the evidence, and IL is your province
determine whether not this property that cate
CORY lit was then It CalcOtrs duty receive 1t.
and transmit the authorities Of the United States for
sale aud the only remedy which the owner claimant
OF the cotton could possibly have would be by application
TO the Court of Claims OF tine United Sat95 The whole