The New York herald., 1869-01-13
NEW YORK CITY.
THE COURTS.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.

The Great Cotton Case-Argument M Couu-
sel-Important Decision The Jury Iustruct-
ed TO Find for the Defendant Stevenson md
Against the Governmeut-The Ruling Of
the Court to be Appealed Againat.
Before Judge Blatchford.
The United States cs. Vernon X. SleueasOn.-This
was adjourned from the previous day before the
usual rising Of the court to give the remainder OF
the day and up to yesterday morning an interval
within which the principal government witnesses
in the case might arrive to give their testimony.
At the opening OF The court Mr.. Courtney intmated
to the Bench the arrival OF the expected Witness
and that he was in consequence compelled to rest his
case
The Court wish to hear counsel's views on the
law OF the case.
ARGUMENT OF COUNSEL.
Mr.. b. K. Phelps, Assistant United states District
Attorney, then proceeded to submit the points OF
law on which the government relied for the con-
demnatiOn OF the cotton in question. He contended
that the cotton in the suit became forfeited TO the
United States by force OF the Nonnterc0ursc act,
by transportation from one State to another, and
this irrespective OF the fact that both the states
named We're IN rebellion. See the language OF the
acts, regulations OF the Treasury and decisions In
prize, in Blatchfords decision on schooner Falcon,
Bl. prize cases o.; schooner Captain speddon. Bl.
BY force OF the confscation acts and that neither
individual pardon nor acts OF general amnesty are
any defence to this claim OF forfeiture That these
are not pleaded and, II pleaded, they could only
be an effectual shield against penalties conditioned
upon the personal status OF the owner, his par
c ne % s He p eoaa aa not
apply to forfeiture incurred under Non.mtercourse
act or any other forfeiture conditioned upon the sit
dati0n orthe property itself, independent OF
the personal character status of the person exer
clslng control or claiming ownership OF It.
Forfeiture under either Of these acts accrued at the
instant the act making the forfeiture performed
very complete review OF all the cases and an
nouncemsnf Of this doctrine in the opinion Of Judge
Ballard In United States vs. 90 bbls whskey 10 Amer
Law Report page 80; also reported internal Rey.
ene Record, vol 4 p. 1o6. According to the Case OF
Caldwell w. the United States Howard az ssi :,
the goods at the time the offence Is committed
The right TO the goods being vested in the United
States by the commission Of the offence, any inter-
meddling with them afterwards is a conversion
more especially f 1t be ny the party who committed
the forfeitin9 Offences and the right OF the United
States to maintain Its action is complete Roberts
vs Witheread, u Mod. Rep. s2; Salked 2z3. VIII
kins vs.. Despard, 81 r. IL United states vs. 800
bags coffee Or, s9&. United States vs.. $50 chests
Ir be urged that the rule is applicable here that
If the statute declaring forfeiture at the same time
strictly, prevents maintaining this action. In reply
TO that the N0nntercourse act Is not such statute
aea i sa not to Wss @
BILE for the United States to proceed In rem, for that
would be permitting him to profit by hts own wrong
suppose that, TO prevent its SEIZURE ana cOndeInna
tion defendant had burnt up the cotton In his pos
session, would he not be liable for its value, and Tor
the damage occurring to the United States BY his
There il nothing in the form Of pleading to inter-
fere with our recovery. The title Of the United
nothing limiting II. II the affidavit Of Hambleton
be taken as part of the information, that clearly
bases the claim upon all the acts now urged.
The title and right OF the United States having
existed st. during and before the alleged time Of
conversion, there Is nothing either in principle or
laid in the information. q Philips ON Evidence page
s54; Lester vs Jewett J. Kern, 460; Lynn vs.. Clark,
Seldom, page I4s; Cotter vs.. Thompson. q Barber,
- xy1 Rusln IN
vs. Harrison, Q Hanford; Dietus vs. Fnss.)
In view OF these principles Il follows inevitably
ages for Re OF this propery would be- an
act Of gross injustice and render IL less powerful to
protect Its own rights than the mcanest suior In its
tuated by motives OF avarfe, treachery or hate to
deprive II Of its property Without possibility Of re-
DRESS
sTRrcrED TO RENDER A VERDICT AGAINST THE
Judge Blntcilford, in reviewing the case said that
the District Attorney, Mr.. Phelps, had alluded to all
the principles which could be invoked to sustain the
action during the progress OF the Az matter
@ nave Deen IN ny mind s
those have been the very points which counsel had
presented. | have given the subject o great deal
been some views suggested by counsel which
perhaps might not have anticipated as q
ground OF recovery on the part Of the government
recover from the points | considered that con-
ciuded there must be some other suggestions which
did not occur TO me; but as none have been pre-
sented, I am now quite prepared TO dispose OF the
case 1t IA therefore entirely clear to me that there
can I've no recovery the part OF the government and
shall therefore, both on the facts and the law,
instruct the jury to nnd for the defendant; but
this is case OF some importance, VIII state my
views at some length on the subject
In the first place. the entire right Of the govern
ment rests npon municipal statutes, and nothing
else; The recovery BY the government is sought
capture on land This is not suit in
rem: for the recovery Of property cap.ured on
thereto and therefore it does not fall within the
class OF captures made on the high seas, Jure be,
which follows the law OF prizes Now, the law has
been settled BY repeated adjndications In reference
to captures OF property on land, claimed thereby TO
be forfeited to the government under the operation
made eauvalent to that; otherwise there il no foun
datton whatever for the action. That u the grUnd
here taken; that the government may recover in this
seizure; that the defendant mas taken the cotton and
disposed OF IT, ond thai II can be recovered by law
the acton e Ine Of ie 20 m
II IL had been seized by and was afterwards re-
moved by the defendant.
early 1911, case OF the United States va Browne,
II was settled by the supreme Court OF the United
prae o lure
lied by the law OF nations. and the claim TO IL could
pe only upheld by the municipal laws OF the nation
seeking the forfeiture. That decision was approved
and held by Chief Justice Nelson OF the Circuit Court
OF this city, In the case OF the prosecution against
stock OF the Great Western Railroad OF Illinos356
shares Of stock belonging TO Leroy N Wiley. And
In that case Judge Nelson cited the case Of the
United States vs.. Brown, and he held that II came
under the act OF August, 1851; May, 1882 and July,
1852. That was suit 10 rem. And In speaking Of
the acts OF Congress In reference TO suits under these
acts, prosecution Of rights under these acts, he
tiudge Nelson) remarked that the act-cxpressy pro-
vtded that all such proceedings should conform to
proceedings In admiralty cases, and that IL was the
Intention OF these acts that proceedings for ccndem
nation and forfeiture OF property should he analogous
~ proceedings In prize cases for the forfeinre or
enemiesa goods sczed upon the high seas Judge
Nelson's conclusion was that all those acts which
have been alluded to from 1851 down, were nothing
but an extension, bv favor OF Congress TO enemies
property upon land Of the rule which, according 10
International law. would be always applied to
enemies property seized on the high scas and that
the same rule should be applied TO property seized
upon the land. The purpOrt therefore, ~ that these
rights, which the United states are now seeking 70
enforce IN this suit and the rights would he seek
ing II u had seized this cotton any other property
under the law by proceedings ~ rem are entirely
diforeHt but the night II now seeks rests wholly and
entirely on the statute, and nothing In the world
eau be cAsimed by the United States here but what