Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1872-01-31
THE SUPREME COURT.
Decision Of an Appeal from the Court Of
Claims.

WASHINGTON, January 29.-The
supreme court to-day, delivered an
opinion against what is known as the
Drake amendment, which, in effect,
! rohibits the reception by the court of
| claims of the evidence Ofamnesty and
pardon on the part of suitors, but al.
lows the opposite party to refer to
such amnesty and pardon as evidence
of disloyalty, unless at the time of re-
ceiving the pardon and amnesty the
recipient protested against the impli-
cation of previous disloyalty con-
tanned in the official document. The
court adverted to the proclamation of
Abraham Lincoln, of 1853, which
granted amnesty and pardon on con.
dition of taking the oath, ETC.,
with a restoration of all property,
excepting in slaves. The court asserts
the full power OF the president as to
the granting of pardon and amnesty,
the acceptance of which cannot, it
says, be rendered Of no effect by the
legislation of congress. In this case
the court of claims rendered Judgment
for claimant, and an appeal is taken
to this court, and it is directed to dis
miss the appeal If it has been found
that Judgment must be affirmed be-
cause Of the pardon granted to the
intestate Of claimants. This cannot
be done without allowing that the
legislature may prescribe rules of de-
cision to the judicial department Of
the government in cases pending be-
fore It.
1t is said that congress has inadvert-
emily passed the limit which separates
legislative from judicial dover, and it
is of vital Importance that these
powers should be kept separate. Con-
gress has already provided that the
supreme court shall have Jurisdiction
of judgments OF the court of claims on
appeal, and it cannot prescribe any
rule in conformity with which the
court must deny to itself Jurisdiction
thus conferred, because its decision,
in accordance with settled law, must
be adverse to the government and
favorable to the suitor. Motion to
dismiss Is denied, and Judgment of
court of claims affirmed.
The chief Justice delivered the
opinion, and Justices Miller and Brad
ley dissent on the ground that there |
was no interest In the former of prop |
erty, under the captured and aban-
dOned property act, when property !
had been sold and the proceeds paid |
into the treasury under it. They con-
cur as to the constitutional question |
involved that is raised by the amend |
ment in question.
The case of Kentucky vs. the secre-
tary Of the treasury is an application |
for mandamus, made by the common
rroa1fh ~ Konfnobrxy IN no
the secretary of the treasury to pay /
the war claims OF that State. A rule
to the secretary to show cause why |
writ should not issue was now or
dered.
In case of appeal from the circuit |
court Of Alabama, the question arose
as to when the war began and when
it terminated. The court, for the /
purposes of this case, assume /
that the proclamation OF blockade
to be the commencement of the war,
and take the proclamation of the /
president Of April 8, 1866, declaring
the war terminated In certain States,
including Alabama, as the termins-
ton of war as to that State.
In the court of claims to-day, Judge 1
Knott delivered his opinion de-
nying the motion of the United
States for new trial In the case Of
John Silvey, involving about s27, 900
worth of cotton seized at Atlanta.
The motion was made under the
statute enacted years ago, authoriz-
ing the government within two years
after the decision Of case, to move /
for new trial upon the discovery Of
fraud, wrong or Injustice to the United /
States, and this decision is important
as it gives the construction of the |
courts to the statute in regard to the
diligence required on the part Of the
government and kindred questions.
Chief Justice Drake and Judge Lor-
ing dissented.