The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-02-25
UNITED STATES CIRCUIT Coua!.

A Chapter In the Military History Of General
BENJAMIN II. Buiisr-liis Seizures and Con-
nscations'at New Orleans.
Yesterday Judge Batchtord rendered an i'm.
1pOrtant decision the case OF William A. Britton
vs. Benjamin r. Butler. The matter at issue relates
TO certain seizures which were made at New Or
leans during the war by order OF General Butler
while he was In command OF the Department OF the
Gulf. We give below the material portions of the
JUDGES
DECISION
This suit was brought IN a state Court ana trans.
ferIed into this Court The declaration is in as
suDapsh on the money counts and an account
stated. The damages are laid ut $4,000. and the
causes Of acuon are alleged to have occurred at
New Orleans on the LIST OF september, 1852 The de-
PENDANT pleads The general issue ana TWO special
pleas To each OF the special pleas a SPECIAL de-
murrer Is lnterposed by the plaintiff. alleging
special plea avers tns from FEBRUARY e
1862 until the l6ta oil December, 1862,
volunteers In the Department OF the Gulf, and as
sucn took possession OF the city or New Orleans and
places adjacent ON the lst OF september, 1852, the
plCket5 or the outer lines OF the camp al New Or
leans capture person endeav0rin9 TO make his
way iurtively from the lines and territory occupied
by the enemy at Natchez tnen IN the occupation OF
the Conlederates, TO tue clty OF New Orleans Upon
this person were found concealed drafts or checks
upon business firms In New Orleans. The proceeds
OIL the drafts, when collected, were ordered by Gen.
eral Butter TO be turned over 10 TIE treasury Of the
United States, and they have been duly passed
upon. audited and credited 10 him by the order OF
the President or the United States General Builder
pleads that he did this act under the circumstances
OF the war; and not otherwise. The Judge says that
on the facts set up III tue nrst special plea IL clearly
appears that, on the lst OF September, 1862, and
when the matters alleged IN the plea took place,
commercial intercourse between the Stale OF Mis-
s1ssippi ana the CITY OF New orleans was unlawful
That being so the drafts checks or bills OF exchange
mentioned III Jnat plea were Illegal ana VOID insru
ments, having been drawn by persons dong BUSH
ness IN Natcnez, Miss, on persons dong business
IN New Orleans, both places being al the time
pied by contending forces, enemies IN a state OF
war.
the defendant contends that as the bills OF ex.
change were thus void they we're subjects oi con
hscatlon mat, as martial law prevailed ana there
were Courts and no cvi authorities, the bills OF
exchange became contscate al the wiD OF the Com
mandlng General, without any OF the ordinary pro-
cesses OF law that the bills thus became the prop
erty OF the United states, 10 the hands o. tue
United States, and It's agent, collected
the amounts FOR which they were drawn, oeng
the same moneys 10 recover WHICH ms suit Is
brought, ana that that Is u defence 10 the suit.
Il Is dlhcuit to see how tne consequence logically
VOID then, even if they were conhscaDle by mere
seizure, II is dlfcult TO see how their seizure AMI
c0nIScaflon passed title TO the United states 10
the moneys IN the hands OF the drawees OF the bills
In New Orleans, winch the deendant sets up that
The bills are not averred to nave been accepted by the
drawees before they were seized. Tae coniscailon
by the seizure, If u ANYTHING was merely OF the
naked pieces OF paper seized IL gave wand claim 10
The United states To collect IRON the drawees the
moneys expressed In the bills. II the moneys were
Beized In the possession OF The drawees the transac
ton different rom what IL would nave been
II the bills OF exchange nad never been drawn or
seized. The transaction set IN the first special
plea comes down 10 thls--lhat the defendant, by
OF the President, ellher took received the
moneys referred 10, which are the moneys referred
TO- me drafts We're not seized Whine passing De-
tween loyal ana dlsoya territory They were IN loyal
territory. There IL no warrant Tor saying that the
transaction, set up IN the plea, of seizure,
was lawful. The moneys are not even aver red TO
have been the property OF enemy or OF an lnsur.
gent. Even II the moneys were the property OF an
enemy Of the United states, or were the repreSen-
taCive OF debts due 10 such enemy the plea sets up
n N IA
ton Of war does not conIiscate enemy property or
debts due an enemy nor does II SO vest the prop
erty or the debts IN the government as TO support
IN d1cial proceedings Tor tue coniscation
the property or debts. without the ex-
through It's proper department, TO that ctect.
Under the consultation OF the United states the
power Of conflscating enemy properly anu debts
due to an enemy Is Ill Congress alone. tBTown VS..
United states, CraEch l00) IL tie moneys were
him by military power, the fact mat ne received
them MAJOR General, and In obedience 10 the
orders OF the President. and paid them INTO the
Treasury, and that such payment mas been ap.
proved by tile President, cannot vary his liability
TOR them to tie plantln, II he would be liable
for them III such TACT existed on
evidence to be adduced By the paintin
under mis- declaration. Whether, II the case ever
comes TO trial the plea OF The general ISSUE The
plalnun can make out the deiendants liability Is
defendant Is otherwise liable the facts set up III the
plea constitute defence TO the action
The demurrer 10 tue nrst special plea must there.
FORE be allowed, with eave 10 the defendant TO
amend on payment OF COSTS. The demurrer 10 the
second special plea Is allowed, with leave 10 the
defendant TO amend on payment OF costs
T. p. Wheeler Tor the plaintiff; John f. Devein
for the defendant