Wilmington journal. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1844-1895, 1872-05-24
from the baltimore suu
Cotton and Loyalty.

Senator Morrill,, Of Vernon. s0Iua three
weeks ago, Introduced an amendment To
an appropriation bill limiting the iiilis,iic-
tion Ot the Cont II Claims upon tleeotion
claims, and Hhich Y IS 10 better fhan what
was known as Dralle's amendment in the
act Of june -, 1865, by which, W hen y
person brought sut for the proceeds o.
COTTON seized about the close OF the war bv
UBited States officials, and pleaded in sup
port Of his tide the proclamation restoring
him 10 bis rights Of property, the pardon
was to be taken is quite sufficient lo Is
tabliSh 81 e fact that he had been csislOyal, but
was altogether imI0tent TO 90 further and
show lie had been pIlrgei and cleansrd
tnerefrOm. 50 uOHStTOus an iureIiilatia!.
by Congress Of the constitutional right #
the President 10 pardon co:!ld not Of cour.e
stand the test Of the law, and the &uprelar
Court decided in the case Gf Etbe United
States IS. Klein, January 20, IA u4is yea
that the Drake mdUndLIei.t was Lul ..,l,!
void. Congressional cIa.'tuicnt, IL was ajl-
rounccd, could not invaljdatc the effect Il
tie Executive pardon, and that paIdou
having granted the restoration of property
rights, all property illegally taken must br
restored. Under this decision tle Inonrv
covered" into the treasury was uncover-,.
ont. La plain words, restitution was a l.
jud-cd of the stolen property; and it SCENE
as il long-dclayGd justice W"re about to b
fIlhllcd.
Senator Morrill,, III 10 Use discouraged,
reviewed the Drake amendment in another
form, which the Senate concurred IL, his
proposition declaring in effect iifAt, tl.t 10
judgment tor these coltons now uEsatisfi-h
shall he paid unless Congress hy special
act shall find ile claimant was loyal and
second, that in all future suits Of the same
kind loyalty must be proved. 1Er
Even if this had passed the House ot
Representatives., ihc Supreme Court would
no doubt have declared II, like its prede-
c"ssor, unconstitutional, but the trouble ID
that il might have taken years before the
claimants could realize what is due them,
and that they might have 20 barter off their
rights for mere song before this result
was reached, and possibly this may have
been the object Of the proposed legislation.
The House Of Representatives, hOYcYer,
nOn-concurrcd in the Senate amendment.
aud in lieu thcreOfa substitute was adopted
authorizing arld directing the Secretary Of
the Treasury to pay 10 the owners or their
representatives If property seized since
June 30, 1865, tbc net procsefs ofthe sales,
without interest, taking receipts in fHl Oh
account or such seIZtlic, and appropriatiDg
a sufficient amount 70 pay such ciaiIns.--
This amendment the Senate, on Wcdues-
day, agreed to. II viii be but scant justice,
boa ever, for tie amount which viii be al
lowed said claimant is far below the actual
value Of the property. 1t is probable tha.
not more than half the amount Of the COZ
ton robbcr.es went into the treasury, the
io@Ics getting lie balance; Litt IL shows Il
better disposition in the House than in The
Senate 10 do justice, this latter body seem
lug 10 have become as dema, logical ard
PARTISAN as it was fsrmery yGonscrr1tive an4
digulica.