New-York tribune., 1872-01-30


fcctrd by the la,o civil War; in the hapds of citizens
ospcd m hostiltas against the Government concluded
that the title 70 the proceeds Of the property which
into the possession OF the Government by capture
abandonment except 10 property uscd in actual hos
,iIitlcs was in no case divested out Of tho original
owner and II Was for the Government 10 determine
whether the proceeds should be restored to tho
NOT The promise Of the reservation OF all rights Of prop
C The q oigsDs gssFsop .s and
Snrmatycy to all persons who avaled themselves of
IoeTsd pardon was sST p.ra6p 2r dnS t5S
conditions or qualifications he should ace ft But, after
those aud qualifications mad been satisfied the
aon and its connected promises took full effect Tho
restoration of the proceeds became the absolute right OF
the persons paIdoned on in part prom,e for ~,
equivalent Pardon aud restoration OF potioaI rign,s
To n would be breach Of faith not loss cruel and
astounding than to abandon te Iteen poopo WHOM ,mo
Tie owner Of the cotton IN ths casc had done &c certain a IN
acts which this Court has adlngso 70 oe . aos W W M @ m
sgept of the Treasury DeparmCn by whom y was 500
snd the proceeds pad into ,nS oa yor The % Pro
dents proclamation. Upon this. the Court OF Claims
him entitled 10 on ths SN m i0 MaV IS s snd
tbe appeal was taken o this Court on the aoth OF june
The Judgment in the case of Padelford % wall SD,
which In IT'S essential feature was the same win tns
asr was rendered on tho 3Oth OF April 1870 1t affirmed
the Judgment the Court of Claims his favor Soon
afterwsrd the provso In question was introduced as
appropristng of money for the payment OF judg'
ments OF the Court OF Claims and became part of tho
act assumed by this court with but litt consdera
ton in either House Of Congress. The proyiso declared.
in substance that pardon. acceptance oalh, or other
of Of pardon, shall be admissaOc in evidence in
support of claim against the United States III the
Court of Claims TO establish the right of any claim
To bring suit IN that Court ii already put i'll owl
dence shall be used or considered on behalf Of the com
peal Proof OF loyalty IA required TO be made according
% 10 s p nardSn or am
Desty, act OF oblivion and when judgment has been
Court appeal. shall have no further Jurisdiction OF
the cause, and shall dismiss the same for want
anS pdon ansd %1T to SnS sar ahaf
In the Court Of Claims for the proceeds Of captured and
Took e pd s Il s RssS s C vas as
guilty OF any act OF IRebeOn dislOyalty and shall
and rotestaon against the fact received such par
don or acceptance shall be taken as conclusive evidence
did give aid to the Rebellion, and n proof of such pardon
OF aGSeptantS Which proof max be made O. snamar m or
the suit shall DE forthwith dismissed.
After commenting upon the right tO in the Court OF
the denial of Jurisdiction of this Court well az to tho
Court Of Claims is founded solely the application of
bas jurisdiction of the cause TO given point but when
1t ascetaned that certain state OF things exists, its
jurisdiction is 10 and IL ts required 10 dismiss the
Sn sSercs OF the scfHoWcdced po%rT of Congress- to
make exceptions and prescribe regulation TO tho appel
ate power. In This case the Court OF Claims ren.
is taken 70 this Court and it is directed dismiss
the appeal II be found that the judgment must
I q done '% tS owS
that the Legislature may prescribe rules Of decision to
pending before It. IT, is said that Congress has mad
vertantly passed. the limit which separates the
legislative from the judicial power. aud 1t is of
vital importance that these powers De kept separate
Congress has already provided that the supreme Court
shan have Jurisdiction OF the Judgments OF the Court Of
Claims ON appeal and cannot prescribe rule IN con
jurisdiction thus conferred because It's decision in
eordanee WITH settled law must be adverse TO the GOV
is also liable TO exceptions mpairing the eject of
OF the Executive The motion to dmiss is denied, and
the judgment of the Court of Claims affirmed
Miier and Bradley dssented, tho ground that there
interest IN the fefmer Of the property
whom the property had been sold aud he proceeds paid
into the Treasury under IT, They concur as to the Con-
stitutiona question involved raised BY the amendment
! In question.
Freedom agt. ship Protector-Appeal from the Cir
cult Court for Alabana "A decree was rendered in this
the 5th OF April. 1861 the present appeal
filed the 9Th OF May, 1871.
ON Il motion to dismiss the case. made not within
war begun when IL terminated. As this Court had
previously held in Hanger ag Abbott that the period OF
the duration Of the 10 be deducted from the
time OF the Statute of Limitations though no such
exception mentioned In the statute, 1t Is
now held that 1t would be impractcable 10
tx precisely the day OF its commencement
and ermpatons and the Court therefore, looking TO
the action Of the political department OF the Govern
ment will for the purposes of this assume the
proclamation Of the blockade 20 be the commencement
dem of April a 1896 declaring tho war terminated
certain states, including Alabama the termination of
peal granted It ID also held that, by the acts Of
1906 writs OF appeals must be Drought
within five from the rendition OF The Judgments
or decrcos. The Chief-Justce delivered tue opinion
-