Knoxville daily chronicle. [volume] (Knoxville, Tenn.) 1870-1882, 1871-04-12

secretary Boutwell, having addressed q
ieCler 70 the Attorney General of the uni
tea states, asking his opinion as to wheth-
er the act Of March 3rd, 1871, creating the
Board Of Commissioners to hear and settle
claims OF Southern loyalists against the
government, repealed the joint resolutions
Of July 2Sth, 1866, and the act of February
2lst, 1867, extending the benefits and pro-
visions of the acts of July, 1864, to the
loyal citizens of Tennessee; and if SO, in
what situation it left the claims filed in
the Departments since the act of March
last has been answered by Attorney Gene
raj Akerman, and we give SO much of his
opinion as will be of interest to our read
ers. After reviewing the several acts and
resolutions, he SAYS: f,ssr.sssssr,
The act of July 4, 1864, as extended by the
resolutions OF June and July 1886, provided
for settling in the Departments claims of the
aehned classes arising in said State and coun-
ties. The act of March g. 1871 provides that
Claims considered by the board shall be reported
% the Speaker Of the House for submission to
Congress, PROVISION which would be nurs-
tory # the claims might meanwhile be settled
elsewhere. 1t shuts out from any Department
all claims within the act which but for this pro-
hi9ition some Department would entertain
" nat claims can these be except claims from
l am therefore, of opinion that the act of
March ., 1871, repeats the act of July 4. 1864
and the joint resolution of June Is and july |
zo, 1906, SO far as Tennessee and said counties |
are concerned, and places that State and those |
countles upon the same footing, in respect TO |
these claims, as other insurrectionary States. |
i our second question is as follows: If the |
nrst question be answered in the affirmative, |
wnen ald or viii such change in the Law become
State or counties submitted under the former /
law OF March 3 1871, be affected thereby7
The act of March 8, 1871, rs to the matter un-
der confederation, taking effect Immediately.
all such claims have been improperly submit
lga 70 the me, departments since the Sd day. of
The additional question which your letter
presents relates to supposed distinction be-
tween property taken and property far
nnllshed, !. as those words are used in the act of
Those words are not new in statutes upon this
subject. They are found in the act Of July 4.
1864, and also in the act Of February q, 1857.
The act Of July 4, 1864, indicates the different
senses IN nv which these words were used by Con-
GERS gave receipts is described as furnished" to
the army, and that for which the officers did
not give receipts is described as TAKEN In |,
me latter part of the second and third sections
the word furnished" but refer
ring to the same Transactions, the former word
describing the act of the officer and the latter
ne act OF the owner who delivered the property
The difference intended by Congress between
taken and furnished seems to be this: that
while both words signify such appropriation as
we're essentially inv voluntary on the part of the
wners, there was an exertion of force in cases
+ taking which did not exist in eases of fNr-
ssting. The giving of receipts in the latter, |
nd the failure to give receipts in the former,
ldicates, in the one case, ready submission by
ne owner to the caption of his property which
wanting in the other. s. - s. - IS n