The New York herald., 1871-02-10
He CoyR rs.
4 suit IN Aamiralty-Alsssa iraudulspt sasb
ruptey Cass-An Old Erie Railroad suitsS
The Case Of John Thomas. Convicted II
Homicide-Action on Q Oontrsct
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.
NAAoAINoDe-.ELAA>~

RehcariuG Of Causes Argued nc me Lac, Terns.
WASHINGTON, Feb. Q, 1871.
No. 10. Scarlet AdDatntssyator, ~. YuHes-Ssror "a
the District court Of the Western District OF Arkass-
sGs-The only question In this case Is that Of its
removal from the State to the federal conrt Tha
suit was brought in the State court against coloneI
In the army to recover for the seizure Of certain
cotton In Arkansas during the war. The defence
was that the cotton was seized and disposed OF for
the use OF the United States In pursuance OF military
orders. Having been removed to the federal court
under the NTH section Of the act OF 1884, II is now
the removal for that this is not one Of the Class Of
cases OF wnich the federal courts are given Jursdc
H ~ ana ne ns
Of those courts Congress has the power to establish
new courts and Il may do SO, but those courts gan
never nave jurisdiction or q cause not embraced in
the class mentioned In the constitution. On the
other hand It is insisted that the regulation OF the
judicial power Of the United states belongs excil-
slvely to Congress- under the constitution, ana it
may establish new courts and prescribe their uris-
dIc!io1 Cause submitted on the printed briefs, by
and uosmer for defendant.
No. 49, Miller rs AcKenxe-Etror TO the Ci,,culs
OF Msstsstppt.-This was an action to recover for
seizure OF cotton In Mississippi during the war, and
the defence was that the act was done under and by
the authority OF the Governor the State Of Misss
sppl, the ofdcer making the seizure being a captain
OF the State troops The Court ruled that beligerent
rights having been accorded to those engaged in the
rebellion the Ofcers causing the seizure to &c made
were excused for acts done In pursuance VI orders
issued by their superors Under the rules OF civilized
warfare. The plarin mere insists that beligerept
rights are moi sovereign rights and that the States In
rebellion were not possessed Of lawful sovereign
power ana their officers were not invested with any
authority which could be pleaded as defence fOr
wrong done. Consequently the order OF the Gov
ern0r OF Mississippi IN this case TO the Oficer de-
tending was no answer aud the plaintiff should re-
cover. Thomas Wilson for plantin In error, de.
fendant not appearing.
No. IA. Gaynet Us. United States; No. Is. Same Is /
Same, ana No. 2s. AcVei0h cs. United Stotes-Evor
to the supreme court or the District or Columbia
ana the Circuit Court for the District OF Vtrgata-
These cases present the question Of the oonstitu-
tionality Of the confscation act. the plaintiff In
error insisting that it enacted TO punish treason
as indicated by its title and that being such the pro-
vision for the trial OF the oender upon the ch8eg0
OF crime by proceeding against his property TO De
tried without jury Is unconstitutional. The 0ffence
OF treason can be tried only presented In the con-
stitution, by jury ana there can then be c0nviC-
ti0n without the testimony Of two witnesses TO the
punishment OF crime, 1t Is said by proceedings in
rem. and by default-as was the fact In Of these
cases-is at war with the provisions OF the c0nstu
ton in respect thereto 1t Is contcnded that unless
the crime for the punishment OF which the nth and
sixth sections OF the act subject TO forfeiture OF
property shall be held to be treason felony these
the meaning OF the eighth amendment Of the con-
situtlOn; and II the crime be treason felony the
accused cannot be held TO answer, except In strict
conformity with the requirements OF the fifth artice
the constuti0nality Of the act and insists that in
the exercise OF Its municipal and sovereign rights
congress mas the power 70 prohibit under penalties,
!he offences named, and to provide that the penal
THESE cases were stated at length when formerly
argueQ ct the last term OF the court.