The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-01-30
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.

1S63-An Appeal from the Court Of Claims
by the Administrator to tho Estate of .
Pardoned hebel-C0ngress and the Judiciary
mt variance-The Chief Justice Claims Full
Jurisdiction and Orders the Property to be
Returned 10 the suitor.
WASHINGTON, Jan. &c. 1872.
In the Supreme Court of the United States to-day
the following opinions were delivered:-
No. IL The United States vs. Klein administrator
OF Wilson-Appeal from the Court or Claims-The
question IN this case is whether or not the provlsO
relacng to suits for the proceeds OF Abandoned and
captured property in the Court OF CLAIMS.
contained In the Appropriation act Of July
~ iS n ana known as brakes amendment, de-
OF wilson the proceeds Of certain cotton belonging
TO defendants, which came into the possession OF
or abandoned property, and the proceeds OF which
were paid into the Treasury. The Court, after q
affected by the tate civil IN the hands of cltl
Zens engaged In hOstlIles against the government,
which into possession OF the government BY
capture or abandonment, except as to property
Invested out OF the Original owne no G and
L was for the government TO determine
on one not Se prose Of Ge to
OF all rights or property made In the proclamation
OF pardon and amnesty OF the sth OF December. 1862
decides that question afflrmatvely TO oil persons
who ayaiied themselves OF the piohered pardon. lr
was competent Tor the President to annex to mis-
Ofer OF pardon any conditions qualifications he
should see lit. But alter those conalllons quail
hcatlons had been satlsfnd the pardon and It's con-
necied promises took full effect The rest0ra-
ton OF the proceeds became the absolute right
OF The persons pardoned. on application
part promised for an equivalent Pardon and res
toration OF political rights In return for the
oath prescribed ana It's fuldlmenr. 10 repeal it
would be breach OF faith not less cruel and
astounding than to abandon the freed people whom
the Executive had promised to maintain in their
needom The owner OF the cotton In this case hau
done certain acts winch this Court has adjudged to
be acts In aid OF the rebellion but he had aban-
Department. by whom IL was sold, and the proceeds
paid into The Treasury, ana he took ana did not
proclamation Upon this the Court OF Claims pro.
nounced him entitled to Judgment for the proceeds.
rms d decree was rendered on the 26th OF May 1862
3lth OF June and flied here on the 18th of December,
1859.
The Judgment in the case OF Padelford 70 wall.
$50 wncn, In Its essential feature, was the same
with this case, was rendered on the 3Oth of
the Court of Claims in his favor Soon
afterwards the provIsO in question was introduced
as provlso TO the clause IN the General Appropria
ton bill, appr0priating sum OF money for the pay
ment OF Judgments OF the Court OF Claims, and be.
came part OF the act as assumed by this Court
with but little consideration In either House OF Con-
gress. The provlso declares in substance that no
pardon on acceptance oath or other acts performed
shall be admissible in evidence IN support
OF any claim against the United States in the
claimant to bring suit that Court or II already
put i'll evidence shall be used or considered on be-
halI OF the complainant ny said Court or by the
CURED TO be made according to the provisions Of
certain statutes, irrespective OF the effect OF any
or act OF oblivion and when judgment
has been already rendered on other proof
peal shall have no further jurisdiction Of the
cause and shall dismiss the same 1Or wan. OF juris-
dictlon. 1t Is farther provided that whenever any
pardon granted TO any sultOr IN the Court OF
Claims Tor the proceeds Of captured and abandoned
property shall recite the substance that the per-
0r nnk nrf In fhn nhnilIn
guilty OF any act OF rebellion or dlslOyaty, and
shall have been accepted in writing without ex.
press disclaimer and protestatlOn against the fact
so reciIed such pardon Or accep SNAIL be taken
as CONCLUSIVE evidence In the Court OF Claims,
and an allidavit that the claimant did give aid 10
the rebellion ana on proof ofsucn pardon accept
ance-wnch proof may be made summary or
jurisdiction of the Court shall cease
AMI the suit shall be forthwith dismissed. After
commenting upon the right to sue II the Court OF
Claims the Court sayslt is SAID that 1t Is evident
that the denial OF jurisdiction of this Court as well
as the Court of Claims, Is founded solely on the ap.
plloatlon OF rule OF decision prescribed by Con-
gwen point but when i is ascerained that Certain
state OF things exists Its jurisdiction and
it is required to dismiss the cause Tor want OF Iurs-
dction. 1t Is held tnat this Is not an exercise OF
The acknowledged power of Congress to make
exceptions and prescribe regulations to the
appellate power. In This case the Court or claims
rendered Judgment Tor the Claimant ana an appeal
Is taken to this Court, and 1t Is directed to dismiss
the appeal II IL he found that the Judgment must
be affirmed because OF a pardon granted to the
1nteState OF the claimants This cannot be done
rules OF decision TO tue judicial department. of the
government IN cases pending before It, 1t Is said
tnat Congress has Inadvertently passed the limit
which separates the legislative from the judicial
power, and 1t Is OF vital importance mat these
powers be kept separate Congress has already
PROVIDED that the Supreme Court shall have jurls-
dictiOn OF the judgments OF the Court Of CLAIMS,
on appeal and 1t cannot prescribe rule IN
conformity with which the Court must deny to
Itself the jurisdiction thus conferred, because Its
decision, In accordance with settled law, must be
adverse to the government and favorable to the
np0 4 Ilh n
lions as impairing the effect OF pardon. and thus
infringing the constitutional power Of the Execu-
live. The motion TO dismiss is Denied and the Judg
ment OF the Court OF Claims affirmed.
The chief Justice delivered the opinion.
Justices Miller and Bradley dissent. on the ground
that there was no interest In The former owner OF
the property, under The Captured and Abandoned
Property act, when the property mad been sold anu
concur as TO the constitutional question Involved
raised by the amendment In question.
No. 6. original-Kentucky VS.. the Secretary OF the
Treasury.-Thls Is the application Tor a mandanus
made py the commonwealth OF Kentucky to compel
the Secretary OF the Treasury to pay the claims
why the writ should not issue was now ordered.
No. 43l. Freedom Ship Protector-Appeal
from the Circuit Court Tor Alabama.-A decree was
rendered in this case on the sta OF April, 1861. The
present appeal was fled the 9th OF May, 1871. On
motion TO dismiss the CASE made as not
wheu 1t terminated. AS this Court mad recently
held, In Hanger VS.. Abbott That the period of the
time OF the statute OF limitations though no
such exception was mentioned In the statute,
it Is now ned that 1t would be 1mpracticable TO fix
precisely the day OF It's commencement rermina-
ton, and the Court therefore, looking to the action
OF the political department OF the government,
VIII, for the purposes OF this case assume
the proclamation OF the blockade to be the com
ton Of the President OF April 1866, declaring the
war terminated IN certain states, including Ala.
bama, as the termination OF the war as TO that state
The motion to dismiss the appeal granted IL Is
also held that by the acts OF 1888 and 1903 wrts Of
error appeals must be brought within i've years
from the rendition OF the judgments DEGREES The
Chief Justice delivered the opinion.
No. 81. Bark Delaware vs. The Oregon Iron Com.
pany-Appeal from the Circuit Court for District
OF CaliiorniaThe libel case was filed to for
the nondel,very or certain pig iron laden on the
bark at Portland, Oregon to De conveyed TO San
Francisco. The cargo was shipped under q clean
bill of ading, put slowed on deck and jetsoned
for the safety OF the ship, 1t being as
serted by the claimants that the mode of