The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1871-08-28
!. RICHMOND. va, MONDAY MORN ING, ls5 = &

|. MONDAY NORM ING
the confscation acts or Congress from dis
posing byslast viii and testament, OF the
property confiseated by the United States.
or that portion Of it which under the laws
of sEonisiana, he had tle right to dispose;
OF, prior to Its rnnfiscation? -:
secopd3Did the purchasers Of the prop
erty cbnfscated obtain d title in fee yiffis
Die--that is5aH absolute title-or did they
only obtain the use and possession nj the
property during MIR. Slidelps lifetime? a..
:, Ihe tlrst OF these questions isone OF some
dtfhcutty, but as the determination of the
seeond" question may dispose or the first
question, or dispense with the nee essity of
an inquiry into it. we shall consider the Sc
cond question before entering into the first.
1le has been affirmed with earneatness, and
9enled, as, earnestly, that the confiscatibn or
dlVestment authorized by the acts, of Com:
gress was not only the life Interest of the
party proceeded against, but was the fee
simple OF the property, and entirely di.
vested the title of the accused and invested
1t in the purchaser, SO that he could sell mr.
otherwise dispose, of it absoEuteiy. Tie
question was settled by the Supreme Court
of the United States two years ago ia the
case OF Forrest. Forrest. O Son of Conmo-
dore frencn 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 a pro-
ceeding in one Of the courts of Virginia, The
object of which was to obtain possession of
certain landed estate IN Virginia which had
belonged to his deceased father, and had
been sold under the confscation laws. The
question was raised by the defendantsa as to
what had been soIdAwhether the absolute
title or only Commodore Forests personal
interest in the property. The case was
decided iD favor Of Forrest, and ap appeal
was taken to the Supreme Court of the
United States which Court affirmed the
decision of the State Court, and ordered tile
property to be delivered to the plaintiff
Mr. Forrest. The Court based its decision
| on the Joint resolution adopted by Congress
on July II, 1862, and. explanatory of the
confiscation act of that date. Said the
Court, per Mr.. Justice Strong: ~
| "That it WAS not intended ithe mere act
of seizure should vest the property seized
in the United States, is plain from the pro-
visions of the 7th section, which enacted
that to secure the condemnation and sale of
tany such property, after the same shalt
have been seized, proceedings inrem. should
/ luSllGuLCll Ill IL ulStlICU COull, tuu IL
| it@Aould be found to have belonged. to q
person engaged in rebellion, or who had
given aid or comfort thereto, it should be
condemned as enemy's property, and be-
come the property Of the United States,
and that it might he disposed of us the
ICuurt might decree. Concurrently with
I the passage Of this act, Congress also adopt
ed joint resolution explanatory of it,
whereby it was resolved that no punish
ment or proceedings under the act should
be so construed as to work a forfeiture Of
the real estate of the offender beyond his
lnSNlral life. p, The act and the resolution
arg to be construed together. and they ad-
init Of no doubt that all which could, under
the law, become the property of the United
States, or could be sold by virtue OF a de-
lcree OF condemnation and order Of sale,
was Il right to the property seized, term-
mating with the life Of the person for whose
act it had been sezed.' Itfi,llows, then, that
the estate acquired by the purchaser at the
MarsbaPs sale expired on the oath day OF
November, 1866, when French Forrest died.
Under the act Of Congress, the District
lCourt had no power to order sale which
should confer upon the purchaser rights
soutlusting the life of French Forrest -
Should the doctrine OF this dcrissi"cr' ,'', 10
IITnited states, Mr. eildcl's heirs, and all
lothrrs sin,iiarly situated, must recover the
possession and enjoyment oil their anccs-
tors estates. ,
Second. AS to the allegation Of the pub
lie administrator that Mr.. SliIcu could
not have disposed by last will and tesla
ment of the property contiscated as his,
it cannot be admitted at ALL. There IS not
q word in the Acts of Congress, known as
the cOntiscation acts, which lncaplcltates
or in any way divcSts these offenders OF
the power of making IL will. Congress did
not undertake tG Ratb Is 1hnfiGicfe hfiGif 'a With the
ISllcccssion laws OF The States. 1t had no
fright to say that the property conliScatcd
/ should 60 to the hctrs-at-law of the Offend
ing party. Grant that the property was to
ircvcrt at his death to his heirs. Congress
could not say who those heirs should be !;
and Congress did not by any precise words
and these were needtul ina penal statute
take away the right of dispOsing Of that
portion of the estate which the State law
| permitted The deceased to bequeath.
| According to the averments Of the Dcti-
ton of the public administrator, If Mr..
SlidelPS lilc-iuterCst in all his Louisiana
property were contiscated, and he could
not make will, then there is no succession
| to be opened, because he left nothing. The
only persons interested in this matter are
the purchasers of the property and Mr..
Slidells heirs, who may or may not wish
to open the succession in Louisiana. They
have the right to abandon all claim to the
property, if that course should seem proper
to them. 1t Is true that Mr. SlldelPs cred
tors-if he had aDy-misht also proceed
against his property, but SO fur Us is known
he had no creditors. u 80. id ac
| The State of Louisiana has no interest In
the question. We think the probability Is
that Mr.. Slidell has left Il will, and that the
document will be recorded in the Probate
! Court of Orleans parish in due time. Until
then it is probable nothing can be done To-,
wards the winding up and distribution of
the estate. .,...'r