The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1869-04-03
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.

Beliigerent Rights and Consular Powers
Neutral Certificate OF Ownership for q Com
notwithstanding of Such Contract witt
Foreign COnsul-The Certificates Of MIR.
COppcll, British Consul ut New Orleans i'm
1S63-They Arc Pronounced NOnstr0us.
III. +. HdN ana B. T.. Mann pS George COppeH.-
This cause comes here by writ OF to the Circuit
Court for the Eastern District OF Louisiana. Cop
pell the defendant in and plaintiff below, was
in 1868, the acting British consul at New Orleans.
On the 14th day OF September OF that year plaintiff
in error Hail. sold to Coppel 1,1S9 bales OF cotton
then the parish OF St. Helena, for which Coppell
gave his two prOmssory notes, amounting TO
$175350. The cotton left in the hands of plain
tiff in error, Mann, CoDpell agreeing to extend
British protection over IL and transport 1t to New
Orleans, and TO retain a consideration One-hlrd
of the profits upon sale. The cost price OF the
ton was eight cents per pound, and upon sale the
amount due to Hall was to be endorsed upon
the notes. Hall citizen OF the United States,
domiciled, at New orleans. The cotton remained
In the hands OF Mann down to the close OF the war,
when the paintlfr in error alleged by the de-
endant violated the contract by attempt to sell
the cotton. This action was thereup0n brought and
7S9 bales OF the cotton sequestered. The trial
in the court below resulted In Judgment for the de-
fendant m error for the sum OF 5000 20, with
privilege upon the sequestered cotton. From this
Judgment writ OF error Is taken to this court and
IL IL contended by the plaintiff IN error that the
cotton part OF II to Coppell, its object and
effect being merely constitute Coppell factor
situated in a rebel region beyond the city, which
Hall undertook to furnish. Coppel had no right to
lated advances, and the damages recoverable by
him for breach or the contract by Hall could In
event exceed one-third OF the profits upon sale IN
New Orleans The chief objection OF the plaintiff in
error is, however, to the contract sought to
be made effective BY the SUIT below.
the jury-nrst that British subject domlclled in
New Orleans could make valid contr act during
the war, with a citizen OF the United States by
which such British subject should agree to cover
and protect with his neutral British name, cotton
situated in the hostile territory within the rebel
lnes and, second, that contract between such
citizen and q British consul al New Orleans, by
which the latter agreed TO issue false certificates
that such cotton was British property, with q view
to its protection within the rebel lines, was valid
contract enforceable In court OF the United States
submitted TO disclose the error of such rulings. In
the first proposition the ruling applied, not only 10
case where the property was owned In New Orleans,
but also to the case OF the ownership OF
the property sought TO be covered by
British title by persons residing within the rebel
Ines The court held that the contract was not void
I'm either case, whether the property was actually
owned within our jurisdiction or within the enemies
country. IL would hardly be supposed that
any one would have the hardihood to doubt
that such contract was absolutely void, as
against public policy and in contravention OF the
belIigerent rights OF the United States Nor Is it
believed that this court will tolerate for one moment
the monstrous doctrine that the issuing by British
fraudulent papers, asserting that property IN the
enemy's country belonged to British subjects, IL a
consideration which Will sustain contract between
that consul and q citizen Of the United states. IL Is
also objected that the cotton In the parish or st.
The date OF the contract ali commercial intercourse
with territory beyond our lines was strictly proIi
btcd except with the license of the President; and
the Treasury oficals named IN the Treasury regua-
tons OF september H. 1885, were only authorized to
license and permit trade between New orleans and
places within our lines The duty OF the plaintiff,
In the rebel region, 10 transport u from that region
& New , o5ean aa Han .ne' These tSiu 81 coad
not be done without holding that descrp-
ton OF intercourse with the insurrectionary
district which the laws OF war and the statutes OF
the United states strictly inhibited. The military
order, under which the contract proceeded. had no
efficiency TO give validity 10 the agreement, and
the court should have 30 instructed tho jury. The
contract being thus In cOntraventon OF the laws OF
war and the municipal laws OF the country no
rights accrued 10 Coppcll by or under It. and no
action was sustanable against plaintiff In error TO
enforce H. Other minor exceptions were also taken
and argued TO the ruling Of the court below. The
defendant In error MAINTAINS to.be settled beyond
controversy that two members OF the same comm u
nifty NAV make any transfer OF personal property
within the enemies lines, not based upon nor look
ing 10 communication with the enemy. The re-
s,raints upon the defendant "a British subject or
consul were even less than those spriDgsng
from his domicil viewed as member OF
attitude of his government in the prociarnation OF
her Majesty Of MAY 81, 1851, had not In the least
added to the ordinary duties Of neutras, nor I'M
posed any additional restraints upon her subjects.
One OF the rights Of neuras Is freedom W trade with
the respective belllgercnts In articles not contra
band, and with all places not under blockade. so
that, excluding the idea OF communication, the dc.
PENDANT In error had right TO make the contract In
question, either AZ an individual dbmiclled IN New
Orleans or ~ subject or consul Of her Majesty. As
TO tine communication with the rebel district IL Is
argued that the contract was that the cotton should
be transported according 10 the best advantage OF
the parties Interested, and that may well be be.
leved 10 have been after the close OF hosttes; or
before at times when the region embracing the cot
ton was within our lines. For 1t IN said that The
lines were every day changing; some days the cot
ton was within our lines and on others beyond them
J. Hubley Ashton and William M. Evarts for plain
tins In error; sullivan, Billings and Hughes aud