The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1869-09-02

we think them correct In what we say. This il an
against 7. C. Callcott The palntin alleges that
thlrtynine bales OF cotton belonging to him were
wrongfuly taken by defendant and converted to MIS-
denying the taking, but averrng that what ne did
was done as special supervising agent Of the Irea-
ance with law. The plaintiff replies, denying the
truth OF this averment and insisting that IN what
fully and without justification In law. The
peadngs present the issue which you are TO try.
FIRST ana TINS cotton belong to Alexander Mcleod:
at that date And, second, was the defendant JUS
titled in what he did by virtue OF his office as super
vising agent OF the Treasury That the cotton be-
ionged to the plaintiff unless his title had been d.
vered by capture, seems not to be questioned. me
DER several acts OF Congress during the late war
supervising agents OF the Treasury Department were
appointed IN the several i1sargent states ,s and
duties was that OF receiving from the military ON
GERS Of the United States all property captured by
authorities for sale and for account. In re-
spect to citizens OF the United States who
ment OF the United states it was provided By
law that this property or proceeds should be re-
turned 70 them upon making the necessary proo ~
after the close Of the rebellion. 1t ID alleged.
and aIS,u not I'D denied mat Sscott was super.
1t was his duty to receive the military officers
and from private soldiers all property captured
oy tne forces OF ne United states during the recent
II this case depended on this general authority
whether the cotton In question was captured pro-
perty But there ID something more In this case.
These supervising agents were appointed By the
proved by the President Of the United States, and
were subject in ali respects Z. his direction and con-
relation only to state OF war. Now actual hos
Titles between the insurgents States and the United
State Of south Carolina q provisional governments
was organized under proclamation OF the Presl-
dent in June or July OF that year and the Secretary
OF the Treasury, navlng reference to the changed
condition Of affairs, on the 21th Of June, 1885, ad-
dressed q circular to those Treasury agents, IN
which he prescribed a rule for their government in
the new state OF things. The Chief Justice
here read the fourth section Of the circular.)
duty OF receiving ana collecting or having ia their
possession or under their control captured, aban-
donsd or confscable personal property, WI, dispose
tofore prescribed and refrain from receiving such
from military or naval authorities after the sOth
Mr. Caiicott to receive all captured properly from
Orrcers Of the United states was thus rescuded on
This viii not be considered as interfering with tho
operations OF agents now engaged In receiving OF
rendered to the forces Of the United States whether
or not covered by or included in the records de-,
livered 10 the United States military or Treasury
authorities by rebel military Officers or cotton
agents." The new regulation or prohibltory order,
therefore, did not extend TO property which had
OF the Confederate government to the United
States But, with that exception. the prohibition
Is complete and final, and no agent OF the
Treasury Department was justified In receiving.
after the Sotn Of June, 1865 any captured properly.
unless heretofore surrendered; much less was any
surrendered cotton himself, after that date, with
without military aid. He had no authority TO do
rived from the treasury Department, and when the
Treasury Department withdrew that general au-
thorty II was At an end. The question then, IN
which had been surrendered by the military auth,r-
tiles OF the Confederate government TO the United
States prior to the 27tn or June, 1866. You have
heard all the evidence and 1t Is your province to de-
termine whether or not this properly was IN that
category. II 10 was then II was CalicOtts duty TO
receive 1t and transmit 1t to the authorities OF tho
United States Tor sale, and the only remedy which
the owner or claimant OF the cotton could possibly
have would be by application TO the Court Of
Claims OF the United States The Whole matter
seems to be narrowed down to the simple PROPOSE
tou whether the evidence before you satisfies your
minds that the cotton inclu led In the surrender
referred to IN the Secretays instructions OF the eth
charges you that neither the action Of the Provost
Court relied on by the defendant nor the action OF
any State court couo Withdraw 1t from that cate
CORY without the consent OF the United States. II It
was the 27th OF June captured property in this
sense, that property surrendered BY the military
United States then 1t remained captured properly,
and could not be released by the action OF the Pro
erect, was without sanction OF law, and OF no avail
If 1t was such property 1t was the duty OF the de-
defendant to take possession OF IT. II not. his
question, not necessarily determined by the
character OF the property, on which II s the duty
act passed the 27tn Of July, 1858. Congress de.
ciared the intent OF the several acts relating TO cap
or Properly act Of March ne IL sS Of
which, well as OF the Others the true intent was
declared to be that the remedy given In cases OF
seizure by preferring claim In the Court OF Claims
should be exclusive, precluding the owner Of any
property taken by agents OF the Treasury Depart
inent abandoned or captured property, In virtue
cor under color Of SAID actn from suit at common
law any other mode OF redress whatever, before
any courl or tribunal other than Court CLAIMS.
IL win be for you to say whether the defendant in
taking this property proceeded under color Of that
act Il he was proceeding In good faith, believing
himself to be warranted as the OFFICER OF the national
government in taking charge Of the cotton under
that act we think he is covered by Its provision.
subsequent part Of the act it provided that ali
cases which suits OF trespass (which Is this CASEY
may have been brought or 81, snail hereafter be-
of private property taken by such person as an
officer Of the United states, by virtue OF any act re-
latng TO captured or a)andoLed property, and the
defendant shall plead. or aege IN bar thereof, that
such act was done or omitted TO be done by him as
an officer OF the United states, in the administrator
OF one OF the acts aforesaid, or in virtue under
color thereof, such plea or allegation If the TACT be
sustained by proof, shall be deemed and adJud2ed 10
law to be complete and conclusive bar any such
suit action. IL Is our duty under this act to say
to you that the plea OF the defendant in this case Is
conclusive bar TO this action, II you ind airmatlvely
that acts of his complained Of in the declaration
were done by MIN In virtue or under color OF any Of
the acts referred IL ~ MIN as super
vIsery or special agent under mistake as to the
character OF the property ne Is, IN our judgment
protected by this act. IL would not protect the
United States from demand in the Court OF Claims
for this property. but It would protect the officer
against private suit, II he acted under color of
this law, under o mistaken sense OF duty,
though not in strict pursuance Of the law. You
have heard all the evidence and 1t II for you to Judge
whether he acted uuder sense OF duty or not. You
can weigh the whole evidence and determine that
matter for yourselves.
The only remaining point on which it is proper to
instruct you hls:lI is claimed by counsel that II
IN the event you should lind for the plaintiff, you
NAV assess what are called vindictlye damages.
The court cannot say that TO you. III you lind for
the plaintiff 1t will be your duty to assess the value
OF the property at the time OF the conversion, the
21st OF october 1865, with lawful interest from that
date.
The Chief Justice added:--Tf there Is anything I'm
the evidence which satisfies you that the defendant
acted without any color OF awwllfully and in dag
rant disregard Of his duty-then you have RI ht
assess vlndictve damages But 10 Is for you to say