Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1869-08-02
THE DECATUR COTTON CASE.
Letter from Judge COnHaIIy F. Trigg
on the Subject.

touching the celebrated Decatur cot
ton case, one of the most important
eases that has arisen since the war.
The principal points in the letter are
as follows:
1t was a case of great interest, and
more than three weeks were consumed
in its trial. The information charged,
first, that the cotton OJ00 bales) had
been sold or given, purchased or &C
duired, with the intent to he used in
aiding, abetting and promoting the
late Instruction, and that the same
was used by the owners, or by their
consent, in aiding, abetting and pro-
noting said instruction, in violation
Of the act of Congress, approved the
9th day of August, 1861, and thereby
became a lawful subject of prize and
capture; second, il was charged that
the cotton had been purchased in and
was being transported from a State or
district in instruction against the
United States into some n of the
loyaI States, and that the same be-
came thereby forfeited TO the United
States, being in violation Of the act
of Congress, approved July IL, 1851.
The issues were made upon these two
charges in the information, and a vast
amount Of testimony, oral and writ
ten, was given to the jury. The YER
dict.of the jury in favor of the claim
ant upon the first charge in the infOr-
nation, | think, resulted mainly from
the charge of the Court as to the eff
feet of the proclamation of pardon and
amnesty issued by the President on
the 18th day Of December, 1868.
The Court charged the jury, Subs-an-
TALLY, that if the cotton in controversy
had been sold or given, purchased or
acquired, with the intent that the same
should be used in aiding, abetting or
promoting the Instruction in the
spring Of 1865, or if the owners con-
sented that the same might be so used
that the proclamation aforesaid, of the
18th of December, 1865, had the effect
to remove the guilt of the party thus
selling or giving the cottOntO be used,
and also the guilt Of the owner con-
senting to such use, and thereby re-
lieved the property itself from being a
lawful subject of prize, and capture
under and by virtue Of the said act of
August 8, 1861. The second charge in
the informatiOn-tO-wit, that the cot
ton had been purchased in a State or
district in Instruction, and was being
thence transported into some one of
the loyal States, in violation Of the
act of July -, lSGl-was decided in
favor Of the claimant, mainly, l think,
upon the charge of the Court to the
effect, substantially, as follows: That
the act last mentioned, commonly
termed the NOn-intercOurSe act, pro-
hibited all commercial intercourse be-
tween the inhabitants of the States
or parts of States declared i'm ~insurrec-
ton and the rest of the United States,
and such commercial intercourse
should be unlawful as long "as such
condition of hostility should con-
tinue.' That the act, by its own linn
i~tatiOn, would cease to be operative
whenever the insurrectiOuary forces
threw down their arms, surrendered
to the authority of the United States,
aud their hostile demonstrations had
ceased. 1t was cOntended on behalf
Of the Government that the Court
could not judicially know that hoStil-
tiles had ceased unless that fact had
been brought to its attention by plea
or motion, and not until the President
had issued his proclamation so de-
claring. But the Court being of opin-
ion that, inaSmuch as no formal de-
claratiOn was necessary in a domestic
war, the Courts would take judicial
cOgniZance Ofthe fact that war existed.
50 likewise when the war was ended.
1t could hardly be supposed that this
Court should affect ignorance OF a
great fact in the history of the cOun-
try, which was known TO every man,
woman and child throughout the
length and breadth of the land, and
keep its eyes closed until they should
be- open by the fOrmality Of a plea and
the proclamation of the President.
The Court accordingly instructed
the Jury that the rebel forces on
the west side Of the Mississippi
River, being the hast to do 50, having
surrendered to the authority of the
United States on the 9th or 18th Of
May, 1865, if they should believe from
the evidence that the cotton in cOntrO-
versy was not shipped from within
the rebel lines until after that time,
that then the nOn-intercOurse act, asst
is called, had ceased by its own Iimi-
tatiOn to be operative, and the cotton
WAS not forfeited under said act BY
coming from an insurrectionary State
or district into a loyal State or part of
a State not declared in Instruction.
There were other points iii the instruc-
tons given to the jury, such as per-
mits claimed to have been issued BY
the Secretary Of the Treasury and Mr..
President Lincoln, which may have
had some weight with the jury, but
as those stated doubtless mainly infiu-
enced the decision Of the case in favor
of the claimant of the cotton, ] deem
it needless at this time to recur to any
questions of law stated in the charge of
the Court.
Not having the leisure just now to
write out my charge IN egteaS0, /
thought it might not be uninteresting
to you to state the main points upon
which 1 apprehend the Ease was deci-
ded. lam sorry that l cannot COM
ply with your request by sending a
complete copy Of the opinion, but cir
cUmstances are such as to render it
impracticable at this time.
Very respectfully,
CONNALLY F. TRIGG,
Inited States nicfrfof TuIo.a