The daily phoenix. [volume] (Columbia, S.C.) 1865-1878, 1872-05-22
COTTON AND LOYALTY. Senator Nor
rill. OF Vermont, some three weeks ago,

CoTToN AND LOYALTY. Senator Nor
nli, OF Vermont, some three weeks ago.
introduced an amendment to an appro.
prlation bill limiting the jurisdiction OF
the Court of Claims upon the cotton
claims, and which was no better than
what was known as Drake's amendment
in the Act Of June 25, 1868, by which,
when a person brought suit for the pro.
ceeds OF cotton seized about the close OF
the war by United States officials, and
pleaded in support of his title the pro-
olamation restoring him to his rights OF
property, the pardon was to be taken as
quite sufficient to establish the fact that
he had been disloyal, but was altogether
impotent to go further and show he had
been purged and cleansed therefrom. So
monstrous an invalidation by Congress
OF the constitutional right Of the Presi-
dent to pardon, could not, of course,
stand the test of the law, and the Su-
preme Court decided in the case of the
United States os. Klein, January 20, in
this year, that the Drake amendment
was null and void. Congressional enact.
ment. it Was announced, could not in
validate the effect of the Executive
pardon, and that pardon having granted
the restoration of property rights, all
property illegally taken must be restored
Under this decision, the money SEQ
vered" into the Treasury was uncovered
out In plain words, restitution was ad-
judged Of the stolen property; and it
seemed as il long-delayed justice were
about to be fulfilled.
Senator Morrill,, in nowise discou-
ragged, revived tho Drake amendment in
another form, which the Senate concur
red in; his proposition declaring in
effect, first, that no judgment for these
cottons now unsatisfed shall be paid,
unless Congress by special Act shall find
the claimant was loyal; and, second, that
IN all future suits Of the same kind, 10y
atty must be proved.
Even IL THE bed passed the House of
Representatives., the Supreme Court
would no doubt have declared it, like its
predecessor, unconstitutional, but the
trouble is that it might have taken years
before the claimants could realize what
ls due them, and that they might have to
barter off their rights for mere song
before this result was reached, and pos
sibly this may have been the object of
the proposed legislation. The House Of
Representative, however, non -concurred
IN the Senate amendment, and in lien
thereof substitute was adopted autto.
rizing and directing the Secretary Of the
Treasury to pay to the owners or their
legal representatives. of property seized
since june 80, 1866. the net proceeds Of
the sales, without interest, taking re-.
oeipts In full on account Of such seizure.
and appropriating sufficient amount to
pay such claims. This amendment the
Senate, on Wednesday, agreed to. It
will be but scant justice, however, for
the amount which will be allowed said
claimant is far below the ACTUAL yalne Of
the property. It ia probable that not
more than half the amount of the cotton
robheries went into the Treasury, the
rogues getting the balance; but it shows
better disposition in the House than in
the Senate to do justice, this latter body
seeming to have become as demagogical
and partisan as it was formerly conserva-
tive and digniied. ed.-BaAimore San.