The Opelousas journal. [volume] (Opelousas, La.) 1868-1878, 1874-01-30
The SBidell Case.
~IPicaEune, Jan. 23d.

The recent decision of the Supreme
Court of the United States, in Brogere
VS.. Slidel1, Heath VS.. Slidell, and other
owners of the property Of the late John
Slidell VS.. his heirs, in which the Su-
preme Court affirmed and ratified the
decision of Il W Supreme Court,
affects a large amount of property in
this city. Mr.. Slidell, when he went to
France as Commissioner of the Confed-
crate States, had large possessions in
New Orleans, in St. Landry and other
parishes; thosein the city being roughly
estimated by him as over 1915, 900 in
value. Whilst in France, the property
was seized, in accordance with the act
Of Congress of July II, 1869, confscated,
and sold in July OF August, 1865, q few
months after the termination of the
war.
The whole question in the case was,
what title did the United States, as con-
fiscatOr, sell these purchases, full prop
erty, as owner, with all the concomitant
rights of ownership, or simply D life in
terest? II the latter were the case, all
Of Slidelrs property reverted to his
heirs, at his death, some years ago, and
the present Il and holders were
responsible for fruits arising from these
properties from that time. The ques-
ton was decided a few months ago by
by the Supreme Court of this State, and
carried up by writ of error to the Su-
preme Courtof the United States, where
twas ably, elOquently and energetically
argued ; SO energetically, indeed, that
the court threatened at one time tocOm-
NIT one of the counsel for contempt of
court. This decision, rendered the
other day, finally settled the case in ia
vor of Slidelps heirs, the court holding
that contiscatiOn gave only a life in
terest; that Congress had no right to
pass o bill of attainder, disinheriting
the heirs Of a traitor, nor had they in
tended SO to do. The counsel for Bru-
gere, Heath and others had argued that
Slidell was not q rebel Dr. offender
against the United States, but an enc
my, and as such a co~ntiscation of his
property forfeited entirely and forever.
This, however, the Supreme Court over
ruled and denied e=f7TA "ef
The property of Mr.. Slidell, which
this decision returns to his heirs, cannot
be less than 100000, with about $4,000
of rent due from the time of Slidell's
death.
Most Of the holders of the Slidell
property had made some compromise
with the heirs before this decision was
rendered. The Citizens Bank, Mr.. 7.
B. blanchard and others, had repur-
chased these properties, and have, there
fore, a good and valid title now.
The present holders of the Siidell
PROPERTY who aid not This are !: w. R.
Fish, holding the building known as the
Germania Bank; Fritz Happenbauer,
holding the United States Restaurant,
Common street; No. "a and SO Common
street, held by tile heirsiof Thomas Hale;
BIanehard's stable on Baronhe, near
Poydras, held by j. MABurehard.
The remainder, some forty. properties
in number, are scattared all over the
city. A large amount of it being in the
rear of the city, on White, Dupre, Aglae
and Venus streets r. u" L.
The Slidell property In St, Landry
and other parishes, was not sold, it
being SO unproductiye that no one was
willing to pay any price fOrit, - "a
This suit, therefore, may be regarded
as one of the greatest Importance, since
since it finally settles and puts at rest
the whole question of confiscation.