The Wheeling daily register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1864-1878, 1871-08-30

q
Estate Because ft was Conhisea-
ted?
From the New Orleans Bee,l
THE LOUISIANA ESTATES OF TIE LATE Mr..
JOHN sLIDELL.
At the breaking out of the war in
1861, Mr.. Slidell was possessed of con-
siderable landed property in louisiana,
situated in different parishes of the
State, and he owned also a number Of
valuable buildings in New Orleans,
bringing in a large rental. In 1863 or
1864 these buildings in New Orleans
were seized as the property of Mr.. Sill
dell, by virtue OF the confscation acts OF
Congress OF 1862, and were sold to va
rious parties by the United States Mar
shal, acting under decree pronounc-
ed by Judge Dursll, Of the United
States District Court. To the purchas.
ere these investments proved to be very
profitable, and, Of course, they will be
unwilling to surrender the property to
Mr.. Slidells heirs; but We see that
steps have been taken by the public
administrator o: the parish Of Orleans,
Mr.. P. B. Fouke, to obtain possession
OF it on account Of the heirs, who are all
absent from the State The admins
traitor has applied to Judge Duvigneaud,
of the Second District Court, for author
ity to take possession Of everything be-
longing to the succession Of Mr.. Sill
dell, and for the appointment Of an at
torney to represent the absent heirs.
He also asks that inventories OF the
property and effects be taken, and that
apprasements be made according to
law. The administrator proceeds upon
the theory that Mr.. SlidelI died legally
incapacitated to make will, because
the right to dispose OF his property had
been taken from him by decree Of court
in confscation proceeding. He allie
ges that, so far as the property confis-
Gated is concerned, Mr. Slidell must be
regarded as having died intestate, be-
cause, says he, "since the date Of con-
fiscation the deceased could not dispose
by last will OF the property confiscated.
Judge Duvigneaud, we see, has grant.
ed the prayer Of the petition and ordered
that P. B. Fouke, public administrator
of the parish Of Orleans, be appointed
administrator Of the succession Of John
Slidell, and as such, be put in possession
Of all the property left by the deceased.
A notary public has been appointed to
make an inventory, appraisers have
been appointed to estimate the value OF
the property, and an attorney to repre-
sent the absent heirs.
So far as Mr.. Slidell's property is
concerned and its distribution among
his heirs, this is a private matter, with
which the public has nothing to do, but
the questions which it is probable will
will be raised in the judicial proceeding
thus instituted are of public interest,
and We therefore propose to inquire into
them. We presume those questions
are:
First-Was Mr.. Slidell incapactated
by the contiscation acts Of Congress
from disposng by last will and testa-
ment, of the property confscated by the
United States, or that portion of 1t
which under the laws Of Louisiana, he
had the right to dispose OF, prior to it's
confscation
Second-Did the purchasers OF the
property confscated obtain title in fee
simple-that is, an absolute title-or
did they only obtain the use and posses
sion of the property during Mr.. Slidelrs
lifetime?
The first Of these questions is one OF
some difficulty, but as the determlna-
ton Of the second question may dispose
Of the first question, or dispense with
the necessity of an inquiry into it, we
shall consider the second question be-
fore entering into the first.
1t has been affirmed with earnestness
and denied as earnestly, that the con-
fiscation or Investment authorized by
the acts Of Congress was not only the
life interest Of the party proceeded
against, but was the fee simple Of the
property, and entirely dvested the title
of the accused and invested it in the
purchaser, 80 that he could sell or 9TH
erwise dispose OF it absolutely. The ques-
ton was settled by the Supreme Court
of the United States two years ago IN
the case OF Forrest Forrest, son OF
Commodore French Forrest, who was
an officer in the navy of the United
States prior to the war, and during the
war an officer in the Confederate States
navy, instituted proceeding in one OF
the courts of Virginia, the object OF
which was to obtain possession OF Ger
tain landed estate in Virginia which
had belonged to his deceased father,
and had been sold under the contisca-
ton laws The question was raised by
the defendants as to what had been
sold-whether the absolute title or only
Commodore FORESTS personal interest
in the properly. The case was decided
in favor OF Forrest, and an appeal was
taken to the Supreme Court OF the
United States, which court affirmed the
decision OF the State Court and ordered
the property delivered to the plaintiff
Mr.. Forrest. The Court based its de-
cision on the joint resolution adopted by
Congress on July II, 1862, and explana-
tory of the confscation act OF that date.
Said the Court, per Mr.. Justice Strong:
That it was not intended the mere
act of seizure should vest the property
seized in the Uuited States, is plain from
the provisions OF the 7th section, which
enacted that to secure the coudemna-
ton and sale of any such property. after
Il nan ahal have heen seized nr0-