Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1871-11-23

THE MCVE1Gu CoNFIscATIoN CASE This |
case, styled in the law, as the U. s. VS.. lot
10 St. Asaph street. McVeigh claimant, is
the famous one in which Underwood is cousid
erably mixed up, and with which our readers
are we'll acquainted 1t originated in July,
1863, in the District Court Of the l. S. then
sitting at Alexandria, Judge Underwood pre-.
siding, and resulted in the contiscatlon and
sale OF ali of McV egh's property In said city,
for the reason that he was an officer both OF
the army and navy Of the Confederate States
he being Il contractor to furnish the Conicder-
ate Government with clothing, &c., tor tier
land and naval forces The case, after going
through the several grades of Courts, reached
the Supreme Court, which Tribunal sent it
Circuit, with the following enormous flea IN
the car of the District Judge
McVegh had been sued in the District
Court, but that Court refused to permit
him to plead by reason of his being an alien
enemy. The Supreme Court says. IF the
marty were assaulted in the lower Court be could
defend himself there The liability and the
right arc inseparable A different result would
be a blot upon our Jurisprudence and cvluza-
ton. We cannot hesitate to doubt on the
subject. 1t would be contrary to the first lrln-
ciples of the social compact, and Of the right
administration of justice. The Judgment OF
the District Court is reversed and the callSc
will be rcmanded to the Circuit Court with
directions to proceed in it in conformity to
| law
When the case was called in the Circuit
Court Judge Bond's) this morning, MIR.
Chandler, counsel for Mrs. Underwood, who
claims to be the lawful purchaser, moved Il
continuance on account of the absence Of Il
material witness, who is said to have gone to
| Texas
NIessrs. Brent and Howard, for McVcigh
moved to dismiss proceedings because the libel
| for cOnfscation was filed during the war. and
because after the war had ceased and McF clgh
had been parloned by the President of the
T. S. this court has no right to exercise the
right of couiscation They coutendcd that the
act of Congress was intended to exercise the
bel!igerent right of confscation, and if that
power was not exercised during the war, it is
too late to seek to exercise it when peace Is
declared
They were proceeding to argue that Mrs.
Underwood was not bona fidc purchaser at
the sale of McF Weighs property, and therefore
not entitled to protection rs purchaser as IN i
judicial sale.
judge Bond" 'lhc Supreme Court have
held that as soon as McEeiSh's answer was
stricken out in the former proceedings all sub
sequent proceedings were coram non ju,llcc:
anu void, and therefore there never has been
any sale of McVcighs property aul that the
pardon of NIcVcgh works il restoration Of all
his rights Of property, and is further protcc,
tio1 against contiScation.
Mr. Howard-lixactly SO, you Honor, and
therefore the parties Gun claim no right under
judicial sale. IT,,
The ruling of the Court was: that It he prop
CT proceeding is for McFeigh to plead the
Presidents proclamatiou-th L. 5. must de-
muir to that plea anil the Court will ovcrrule
the demurrer, and give judgment Tor NlcF cgh;
then the case can 90 the Supreme Court. -
Richmond NorS.