The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1869-10-10
UNITED STATES SUPREME c0rRT.
A Cotton Cause.-The Legality Of Title 10 Pro-
pcrty Acquired bv Purchase Of n Rebel.


WASHINGTON, ID. c., oct. 8, 1859.
No. 2ca. John H. Mckee, Claimant ana Appellant,
rs. TIE United States.-Appedl from the District
Court for the Southern District OF Nifaois.-The
appellant the owner OF le9 bales OF cotton and
other valuable properly stored IN Alexandria, La,
when the expedition Of General Banks assembled the
Red river and took military possession Of thar coun-
Try in the spring Of 1864. He had purchased the
property from A. A. Mckee, a rebel, and paid him
for it in United States greenbacks. 1t was IN charge
OF his agent when Admiral Porter's fo.a appeared
at Alexandra, by VIII ich II was seized and after
ward lioelled at Cairo as prize OF war. Mckee flied
MS claim, alleging himself TO be loyal citizen OF
the United states and tina; he purchased under
granted to him by the Treasury Department unde
regulations established By the, Secretary OF the
Treasury aud approved by the President, and also
under permission Of the military commander OF the
Gulf. These grants authorized him to trade with
citizens In the rebel districts OF louisiana and gave
HIM authority to bring the results OF trade-cottOn,
&c.-from rebel districts TO New Orleans.
The trial OF the cause resulted In the dismissal OF
the claim, and this appeal Is taken, the argument
in its support being that there was no violation OF
the non-intercourse act OF July 1851, The trade
having been in pursuance OF authority granted by
; the executive department OF the government, aud
that IN case ike this the status OF the citizen does
not control and does not enter Into the question. It
was also contended that the Jaw OF natcns IN REFER
ence to prize OF war does not apply and cannot be
jure bell, the property OF citizen OF the United
states found within Its territory Nor Is the title Of
affected by the political status OF the vendor The
government insists that the purchase or the pro-
perry was liz direct violation OF the act Of July.
1851, and no title was acquired by the purchaser
The parties were not competent to make q contract,
because their permits were not lawful. All lawful
permits strictly prohibited commercial Intercourse
with localities beyond the military Ines. Nor had
the permit or license granted by the military CON-
mander any more force tnan II 1t had been obtained
from private citizen. But, independently OF any
question as to the character or validity Of the per-
mits, no title could be acquired OF A. H. Mckee by
r qJap Inf
the Confederate States and such AL property held
by him was condscable under the fifth section OF the
act OF 1862 and by the same section any such sale
by him as legal transfer was utterly void. Argued !
by r. III. Corwin for Mckee,, and the Attorney zen,
era for the government.
The Rights of CammeYcing Travellers in yir
ainia.
No. l39. Samuel B. Pau rs. the Commonwealth or
Tif'gnt1.-The case grows out OF pfesentment In
the Circuit Court OF the city OF peersburQ va
against Paul, Charging him VITA acting as agent for
certain insurance companies OF New York without
a license. The accused voluntarily appeared and
pleaded not guilty, and the result Of the trial was
conviction. The cause was then taken to the Su.
preme Court OF Appeals OF the state where the con.
vietion WAS affirmed, and 1t then brought here
The iacts ale these:By law Of Virginia or Febru.
ary 1867 II Is enacted that no insurance company not
Incorporated under the laws OF the State OF Virginia
snail garry on It's business within that state until
u shall have obtained q license; ana that no SUCH
license shall issue until the company making sppli.
cation shall have deposited with the treasurer OF
the state SIX per cent bonds OF the State or guaran
teed by the State or Board OF Residents Of the State
given for money loaned to an amount varying from
$4,000 to 500 000 according to the capital engaged:
and by statute OF the same State II 10 provided
that no person SHALL without license act as an
agent OF Insurance for foreign companies, under
penalty OF not less than fifty dollars nor more than
$500. The accused applied for license, but
II was refused, because his companies had
not compiled with the law by deposit, &C.
Thereupon he proceeded to business with.
out license and indicted the writ OF
error Is based upon the proposition that th1se IN
surance laws OF the state or virginia are a.. sonsti.
tutonal in that they are expressly forbidde " the
articles OF confederation, by which IL s pi svided
that the people of each state "shall have free nress
and egress to and from any other State and sbali
enjoy therein all the privileges OF trade and com.
merce, Subject to the same duties impo sitons ana
restrictions az the Inhabitants thereof
and that they violation OF article fonr OF fhs
constitution. IL Is also urged that these statutes Of
virginia are essentially regulation Of commerce
between that and other States, ana as such are
1t Is submitted that a Corporation
created by the laws OF one OF tue States or coni-
posed OF ciizens OF that State, citizen or shat
state within the meaning OF the constitution, ana
that such Is the rule OF International law.
On the part OF the State OF Virginia an these points
are contfoverted, and lengthy argument 10 sub.
Mtted TO show that these laws are merely sucb
necessary police regulations are required Tor tina
protection OF citizens OF the state.
j. VI. Carlisle and J. ID. Mcpherson for p,alntiH in
errori conway Robinson for the state vi Virginia. 4