The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1872-12-02
THE CONFEDERATE STATES
C0NFISCATI0N ACTS.
r5aByr.rTY TIsEREVNDER.
IMPORTANT DECISION OF THE
s1rREME COURT OF APPEALS
or VIRGINIA.

very important case. settling the ques-
4 .;,r Of the liability Of parties for acts done
4 .,r4ar thc confiscation laws Of the Confcdc-
-,c STATES. was decided by our Court Of Ap-
,.,ls short time ago. As this decision Will
4 ,..rc great many cases which are now pend
4 .r. II other courts. and RS there has been
.-,,r demand among the legal profession and
lies Of The Stute for it, we have carefully
4 ,-rnarcd the following authentic and full re-
I ~,rl Of the decision:
r.--.a-. crr-utor, KS. Bushong 3 ais. r., resi-
-,, nj indiana during the late war, had legacy
-s..h had lpcn lcrI him which came To the hands
1 r. cxcrr,nr. in July, ,ssi, (and which Was de-
,s..,ra IN bank 10 the credit OF ~, executor ami
.7y.rd hy the executor 10 Confederate receiver
&c.,. rpr:>I.;ci under The contscttinn acts OF the
4 ..l S,.lcra'c States. Held
r.-,, ina; IN Il sait by Il. against N. since the
49,: to Jccoser this legacy, \. was not liable;
>,,.> were Obliged 70 obey lt$ laws and mandates
.., mach a< the citizens Of any other Government
,-.g gu3 that contracts made. rights vested. pay
,..,f,l,air liabilities incurred, and duties and obl!-
4 ,t,pu< performed under those laws are as valid
1 sa6 ing those made under any other Govern
Tl.ir!lv. Tho Confederate Governments, was a
.,,,rnuicui it }uc" In the highest sense Of that
= rn.
Il &. = W IL iE Ilut y FpNSi te .f"fNf
4 Jul-c Waller Il. Staples delivered the
unanimous opinion OF the court Is follows !:
4 The important question in this case relates
II - the legacy Of samuel BuShouS, resident
4 r. he State Of Indiana. This legacy was in
March, 1862. reported by the executor to n
runicieiate receiver, and was contiscated as
H. property Of an alien enemy. According
- the statement Of the executor, the fund
Ind been in his hands since July, 1861, part
| Of the proceeds of personal property belong
in: 10 the teStator. There is no
evidence Of the executors assent TO or par
.Dipa:ion in the act of contiscatlon. On the
c.UtIary. il is 10 be inferred that he only
.D,a"th report and payment because he was
rrrrcd 10 do 80 by the proper authorities.
Iir question is now presented whether the
ln,mcDt thus made protects the executor
a-un>t the claim Of the legatce? In order
vrHptriy 10 discuss this question the acts OF
unl>cation or scquc>tration passed by the
r,airdcratc Congress must be briefly no.
".cj. The first Of these was passed 30th
A4-,i>t. 1861; the second. amcndatory there
OF. The 10Th OF February, 1862. 1t is I'M
4 Necessary 10 State in detail the various pro-
q y,~oH> of these acts. 1t will he seen by refer
s-cHrri ihcrcto that it wa, made the duty of erery
-
A control the effects of an alien enemy speedily
4 70 Inform the receiver in his district Of the
,4,.. \ failure so to do was declared q high
Mi>dcm"anor, punishable by line and inn
A fri>1nmcnt, and also n forfeiture Of double
I "a" amount at the suit Of the Government.
/ / was also provided that any person who,
4 a.lrr giying such information, should fail TO
pay over and deliver on demand made by the
receiver the money or effects in his hands
should stand in contempt, and be proceeded
a-,,In>t as in other cases Of contempt ;and the
mlIt or Judge WAS authorized to imprisOn
I Ill" offender until he should fully comply
win the requirements OF the act. Under
liz provisions Of the original act the court
va, empowered to leave the Scquestercd pro-
nriy or effects in the possession Of the
Inplor or other person, requiring security for
l i, sair-keeping and payment or delivery
Whenever required by the court. The
amended act, however, makes very material
change in this respect. That act creates 4
distinction between persons an actual posses
aoH Of or hdring under their control
Ire elects Of alien enemies and persons
or,,q debts TO alien creditors. In the for
. mvr case immediate payment OF delivery
vas required 10 be made to the receiver
without qualification or condition. In the
Atter case payment OF interest was only eX.
i acted, and no execution could be issued du.
4 r!n@ the war against the debtor who faith
] fully complied with the statute in giving
information OF his Indebtedness. The reason
o. this distinction is apparent.
In this case the fund was deposited in bank
~ tir credit of the executor, and was, there
fore. under his control. lie WAS within the
tAp!,.s, terms Of the law, and the question
j.. Was he bound TO obey it! 1t will be
Observed that thesc provisions We're ot
Ai.,hly stringent character that the Con-
( !rlttratc Government had the power to en-
tpgce them, no one familiar with the his
Tory OF that period viii question. 1t was
Government OF paramount force, TO whose
aW, and mandates every citizen within its
jurisdiction WAS constrained to yield im-
piicit obedience indeed, this was conceded
in The argument. 1t Was said. however, that
Ills Government was an unlawful and treason
a lie organization, and that no act done under
is authority plejudiciai to the rights OF the
loyal citizens of the United States can be re-
r,gnized as valid by the courts. insupport OF
thI> view, an opinion of Chici-justice Chase,
delivered ut Richmond in "heppelPs adj
Illustrator Us. The Petersburg Railroad Com
puy,' is relied on. 1t seems that Mrs. kcp-
., was u stockholder in that company, ana
that Il bart Of her stock was coniiscated and
sod during the war. In suit against the
company by Mrs. keppelFS administrator
ID" company claimed Il credit tor the dtVl-
irnGS paid the Confederate receiver and TO
lie purchasers Of the stock sold. The learned
CJ!ci.Justice conceded that il the dividends
s"iougIng TO Mrs. keppcll had been setapart
to irg specially, aud the money thus set apart
had been taken from the officers Of the COM
plny without their consent, either actual or
IHemaCcd, under circumstances amounting to
a4rrss, the loss must have been borne by
her. But nothing Of the kind appeared no
1yidcrds were set apart there was no force,
g".la or threatened. On the contrary, the
conduct Of the company afforded rea-
"iilDlc inference that they were not
Involuntary accessories to the whole
,,%cion Of the Government. The facts Of the
cs>e are not reported in the volume to
which we have been referred. 1t is therefore
,on"what difficult to understand what Is
meant by the expression application OF
i0Gcc, actual or menaced, under cireum-
sauces amounting to dureSs." We are not
Io!d how far the person holding the effects OF
an alien enemy was required 10 go; what
amount of resistance he was expected TO dis
Play in defence Of property belonging to a
loyal citizen Of the Uuited States. A Coy
"rDmcnt OF supreme authority denoupcing
III" penalties OF fine, Imprisonment, and for
ir';Gre upon acts of disobedience TO its pro-
claimed wil affords rs strong an Illustration
u" iHcnacca force " as can well be imagined.
y nat does il matter that such Government
Il "niGecfui? q citizen may be justified lii
lr,ISiln. tyranny and ODDrcsSiOu. but he is