New Orleans Republican., 1873-05-25

| dslOyalty. The government, then, did not
| condemn or sell the portion of lot No. Is
| belonging to Thomas j. Semmes, and it did
not sell aud could not have sold the other
portion of said lot, owned by a person who
| had net aided the rebellion. IL can not.
| therefore, be said that the decree OF con.
demnation was contemplated to cover lot
| No. l5. but by an error in the description
| the lot No. IA was substituted for No. Is.
A pardon of President johnson TO plain.
titf. dated October -, 1865, and its formal
| written acceptance, are III evidence. 1t is
| contended that the acceptance of that par.
| don precludes him from claiming any prop.
erty belonging to him sold by United States
authority. In this case as there was no
authority to sell, there could have been ns
sale. and he is only claiming from private
citizen who seized his property unlaw!uliy.
1t is urged also by defendant that as the
disputed property is shown to have BEEN
seized by the United States authorities pre.
yious to the filing of SAID libel, AMI placed
| by them in the care of Weed. this posses
| sion was continued IN the hand. Of the
| defendant, when the marsha. put linn in
| possession of the property
The act of March II, 1868 (2 Statutes
at Large. p. 500. to provide Tor .he col.
| lection o. abandoned and captured proper.
| " Il insrrrectionary districts within the
United States, did not confscate. or in anv
case absolutely d:vest the property o: the
original owner, even though dIsloyai. By
the seizure the government constituted IL.
self trustee for those who We're entitled.
or whom it should thereafter recognize as
| entitled. United States VS.. Klein. l3. Wal.
lace, 12S.
The fact that the plaintiff acted as hem.
Der OF Congress of the sO-calied Confe;
ate States. and is one of the persons de.
scribed both in the fifth and sixth sections
OF the said act OF 1862, are no good plea in
bar of this suit. because the pardon Of
| President johnson above referred TO.
granted on conditions. blotted out any ofs
tense that defendant may have committed
in aiding the rebellion, if he complied with
the conditions imposed, and it is not al.
| legged that ne did not. But whether he did
or did not comply with these conditions.
and whether the special pardon aforesaid
has oc has not the effect of blotting out the
! political Offenses aforesaid. and the dis.
| abilities attaching to them. there can be no
doubt that his political otfenses were
washed away on the twenty-ftth of Deeem.
Der, 1863 by the Presidents proclamation
! granting. Internationally and without
| reservation, full pardon and amnesty to
every person who had participated in the
rebellion. OF that proclamation this court
is bound to take judicial notice.
The plaintiff owned five lots in the suuare
above designated. Four of those dots were
condemned and sold by the United States.
In the war of the rebellion the United
States had belligerent as we'll as sovereign
rights; they had right to cOnfscate the
property of public enemies wherever found.
The right OF contiscation exists as fully in
the case Of civil war as it does when
the war is foreign, ana rebels in arms
against the lawful government may be
treated as public epemies. Tne coniscation
acts with the exception of the fist four
sections of the act of 1872. were an exer
else of the war power of rhe government.
and not al exercise OF its sovereignty or
municipal power Thomas j. Semmes
was not only an offender against the GOV.
ernment, but also one of its publ. enemies.
As an enemy his property was liable to
confscation without any reference Whit
ever to his personal guilt. The Uaited
States marshal, under a proper decree Of
the United States District Court. sold the
four lots above referred to. and they are
now irrevocably lost to their former ovne',
the plaintiff herein. The fifth lot. which is
but the half of lot No. 10. was never con.
demned by any competent court. and was.
in contemplation of law. never sold b: the
United States. the pretended sale and ad.
judcat;on Of it by the said marshal to said
Burbank to the contrary notwithstanding.
The piece OF ground in controversy was
and still Is vacant property: ii has no build.
ings on ii. and, with the exception Of els.
tern. no improvements. An estimation of
its rent by one witness was placed at $40
per annum. while another witness estimates
its rent at $40 per month There i. no evi.
dence that a dollar OF reveniIe was received
t ON that lot by the defendant from lS6. to
the present time. If the defendant had the
use of the lot for holding his c:stsrn curing
that time, l presume he was compelled to
pay taxes for it. and the taxes would seem
TO be a fair equivalent tor che use Of the
lot and the plaintiff would not De allowed
TO recover anything for rents or re evenues.
Let there be Judgment therefore. in favor
of the plaintiff. Thomas J. Sammes. and
against the defendant. Edward w. Bur.
bank. decreelng the said Semmes to be .he
lawful owner of said lot OF ground de.
scribed in the petition herein. and improve.
ments thereon. and that he is n.ltled to
the possession thereof. Aud il is further
ordered that said Burbank surrender pos.
session to sa;d Semmes. and that the sheriff
do put the said SeMmes in possession. and
tia: said Burbank pay the costs as suit.