Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1870-11-04
Seizures ofPrivate Property During
the War.

Seizures ofPrivate Property During
the War.
From the st. Louis Times, Oct. %.
1t was stated yesterday that the suit OF
William 6. Clark VS.. Mlyron Ticknor, Jr..
Charles Il. Robbins. and Edwin Ticknor,
growing ont OF the seizure of his buildings by
the military authorities during the war; was
compromised in Circuit Court No. By enter
ing judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of
$739 81. This we ind, however, TO be a
mistake, as the settlement Of the suit was not
in the nature OF a compromise.
The Government, by its Secretary of State,
William II. Seward, having authorized the
employment of counsel in the case, Mr. George
Z. Strong, as such counsel, used every exer-
tion to defend Ticknor 4 Co., and the judg-
ment was rendered. without compromise or
quarter given on either side.
This suit and two or three others of similar
character, BY the same Plaintiff against Tick
nor & Co.. Robert II. Frankliu, and Mitchell,
Rammelsturg & Co., all turn upon the same
points, and as one goes so will, of coursc, 90
the rest. The particulars are quite familiar to
number of our citizens, but not, perhaps,
generally understood. Gen. Schofield, while
in command at St. Louis, in 1862, issued an
order to assess five hundred thousand dollars
upon the 'secessionists" of this city and their
friends to pay and equip the Missouri militia
then being called out by Governor Gamble,
and appointed as a board OF assessment our
late Mayor, James S. Thomas. as president Of
the board Giles F. Flley, Daniel r. Garri.
son, and others. When the board organized
one OF their first acts was to notify some Of MIR.
Clark's tenants not to pay to him or to any
agent OF his any rents; but to James S. Tho
mas or his agent, acting for the board of assess
mcnt.
AS funds were needed at once, visit was
made to the tenants named, who declined to
pay. General 8. r. Curtis had now supersed-
ed General Schofeid in command OF the de.
partment, with headquarters of St. Louis, and
the tenants were brought before him, who di
rccted them to pay as notified, or he would en-
force payment, which meant, Of COURSE, "tuSi
ness (Gratiot street, for instarce). aud as
conse uucnce the money was promptly forth
coming. This continued tor several months,
until President Lincoln ordered tie discnntin-
uanCe of proceedings under The assessment or
der not, however, until Mr.. Thomas had col
cctcd from the Messrs Tickuor, Mr.. Il. Ii.
Franklin, and Mitchell, Rammesburs & Co.,
the very handsome sum In all OF three OF four
hundred thousand dollars.
The tenants were all occupying Mr. Clark's
building under written leases OF some i've years
unexpred time. After the discontinuance OF
the assessment, Mr.. Clark or his secrts were
allowed to commence the collection of his rents
again. tits suggestive circumstance in this
connection, however, that while the assessors
were arranging their lists amounts, &c, they
frequently had witnesses brought before the
board-amopg others the vile OF the plaintiff
OF whom many inquiries were made as TO thee
size OF bis family, their ages, &c. and as they
had seized and stopped the entire revcnue OF
this gentlemen it was proposed very literally
to allow the family (Mr. Clark being then and
for years afterwards absent in Minnesota the
sum of $3.50 monthly for their support, which
was respectfully declined.
MIR. Clark returned in 1865. and at once
commenced suits against Tickuor & Co, r.
II. Franklin, and Mitchell, Rammesourg &
Co.. Tor rents due and unpaid for the months
of August, September, and OctobeT, 1862,
with interest. The defendants at once saw his
Honor, cx Mayor Thomas, who wrote to Mr..
Seward, by whom the employment OF George
Z. Strong as counsel was authorized, the plain
tiff employing ty Gov. Polk and Glover &
Shep'ey. The first Of these cases was finally
decided ou Wednesday in Judge Ronbauer's
court, who gave judgement in favor OF Mr.
Clark for the whole amount sued on.
Ii was not a jury case, but, on agreement,
was left to the court, who, after repeated ar
cumcnts for the last two or three years, decl-
dcd that no legal payment had been made to
Mr. Clark, or, in other words, that the Gov.
crnmcnt, nor its agents, nor Its 3thcers had
authority TO give receips for Mr.. CLARK. How
now with Messrs. Thomas Garrison, and Fill
ley? Whether they are 10 escape responsl
bty by the statute Of Limitations or not, will
doubtless be hereafter determined.
OF course the Government has ample means
and will probably take the case up. 1t is too
good q thing for the lawyers with client OF
this kind, TO stop here Mr. Clark may as
we'll overhaul his money bags, if he has any
lett. Tor he will doubtless be kept well worried
until he is better reconstructed. The plaintiff
in this suit has never been politician, was
notin The Southern army, nor has been proven
that he did single disoyal act during the
WAL though always considered bitter "reb, "
who had some money and not a lew enemies.
ATMOSPHERIC Conclusion RAIN PRoDUC
Fra Chicago civil engineer, In com NUM-
cation to the New York Times, calls attention
to the TACT that heavy rains genera ly follow
great battles. This TACT, SO generally observed
during our late civil war, has been especially
prominent during the war DOW waging on the
soil OF France. During portion OF the siege
Of StraSborrg daily thunder Storms occurred.
The Rhinc swellcd teyond its banks, filling
the cellars, and driving the people from those
places OF refuge against the canuonadc. Agalo,
at Sedan, the terrible conflict which terminated
in the surrender of McMahon and Napoleon
was followed by an immense rain fall. To these
facts others Of the same import might be
gathered from cable tclerrams aunou ncing the
successive operations of the hostile armies. &
The Times correspondent attributes this rain
fall 10 the concusson of the atmosphere and
the meeting OF opposing waves of sound pro
duced by he ccnnonaGing from different points
and at different angles, ttftcrinc condensation