New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1875-05-05
COURT RECOND.
NJ 3 -tnl o. -
TUESDAY. NAY 4. 1875.


Ir7 Supreme Court of the UnieeA states.
Meensniss and Ir,ss1. B:pt E2sn
paid defendant 10000 under comp0lsion of the
provost ourt established BY General Butler. The
President as commander in chhf, 70 hear. try and
determine civi causSs was lawfully authorized to
sssupe snch jarisdiction. l.s e. sbshuent by
tutionai provision Y. sting the judicial power in
| one supreme court and such inferior courts as
CODgress may establish 1t has no application 10
a conquered territory occupied by, . con9uering
| army. The power is he same % whom foreign ter
| rtory is conquered. Lieterscorfer vs. hou Ghton
20 How, l16. II 10 not to b que STONED that the
constitution does not PrOhibitthe creation by mi-
tary aui hoIity Of eourts fol he t1!al of civil
tons Of the il suIseas ssa,ssS 1t is the % exercise else
O: the ordinary rights OF conquest. General But.
ler waa invested with all the powers Of making
war, except those denied hy the constitution
| His acls were those Of his Commander In Chi+f
The order did not define the jurisdiction Of the
court. and this court declines to inquire il it
tribunals exclusively. The Louis siana coustitution
asSs aa1 e that m in good
no contract 10 refund for II the provost courts
| Judgment was valid no question was raised. The
Legislature may validate the jude ment OF o court
in tact though the court may have traDscend ed
its jurisdiction. Affirmed,
I Justice strong delivered the opinion, Justice
MI Justice Fields diesen. is Of such interest as
to require notice. Ia the opening he said that if
ne dssison had been PLACED on the Erouud that
PEELED to paw By the decree Of the provost court our
and therefore could not recover back, however
| made no objection to the ju9 gment, but as
| that ground IVES pass-d. and not only the
Legality Of the estabshaaent Of the provost court
affirmed. bub The constitutional validity Of the
Jurisdiction in civil cases also, he could find no
warrant Tor he doctrine thus ted in the actions
Of The government during tho war in the decisions
of this court. = 81 al II kE
The establishment of the provost court nv the
U
but it 10 denied that iis civil jurisdcio can be-
| upheld on the assumpsion that it had the assent
specific Instruct hs from the proper denat eat
should be sued to that ect before civil jurisac
tion could De conferred bv the commanding gen
eral and because the President, as is declared
| had refused 10 permit the exercise Of ~ such
jurisdiction during the war.
assent Of the President t 10 sa,d 10 uncalled for
and indefensible. Provost courts are military
courts: having wei! known jurisdiction which is
limited exclusively TO a minAr offense tending to
disorder and breaches Of the peace BY soldiers and
citizens within the lines Of the army, ard occupy
with reference to such ofenses, similar position
sent then proceeds 10 review the practice during
the the Cora aud tS.s asserts s the
to it
t. ns 10 the ,fy
Instances are cited showing ''eSi that Afhs thy
! ating from the department Of military ius.
tee we're uniformly in harmony with this view Of
how III the face Of these facts the assent Of the
President can be presumed as authority for the
acts Of the commanding general In sew Orleans IN
r ference to these courts. Bat it is said further
thai the assent OF the eyecutve can onlv be pre-.
snmed IN support Of such acts OF subordinate
officer as iegitinately fall within the sphere. OF
which is usually cbarg I'd, and the acts here sus-
| taned on this theory are who ly Inconsistent with
instances, of Ihe Is abIishrnen of such courts
cases CT New NJ xico and Calfornia referred to in
aDd 81 ss as are d
thority that in NO one instance was the author.
ity, here p esnmed exercised without the direct
order OF the executive department., and it is de-
eiarsd that none OF the eecisons OF this court
show any ufhOri v or sernbaDce of authority for
the doctrines announced by the majority OF the
court in their OpiniSus. But it is further pressed
in the dissent that even eupposing that rhe
nrovost couit was rightly Invested with civil
which i''stities It in Judgment in the case before
the court. The court had already given its iud,:.
dismissed; there its powers ended. The action on
the secoAd tIial was under the dictation of the
military superior. and SO with bitter sarcasm
proves, Judge said to the couns, i no law need he he
re d to him; that the commanding General had
ordered new trial and that the case would be
decided under orders" A iudgmt Mt bus rendered
wants all the elements Of a.iucicial determination
and is entitled to no respec in any tribunal where
u.
Tho commanding general was man competent
I" sit II dSment upon asstrnse ana difficult ques.
t"ns. hut re was not JUDI there, only military
its character as An arbitrafy' edict Of depetic
Tho position that the Judgment was validated
by the new constitution of Louisiana 10 not re:
gaded az meriting consideration. That ipstru.
ment req aires for the validitation Of the juds.
accordance with the laws of the State exist
ing At the time, and that sny laws of the
tabshment Of . provost court, or that such
court should rehear . case upon the mandate Of 9
CON mandlng eenel al Of tbs United States, 10 q
proposition Which tho dissent has bsrely the pa
oft. 80 -,
Mr. Justice Bradley did not cit in the hearing of
the ease. and took nd part in its decision.
kodd, administrator, VI. Heath.-The general |
maritime law has no inherent force of it, own
country. In matters of . municipal character the
r. esved maritime law may differ in dfferena coun-
. ,ss without an 0s the Es1sr:l int gritty Of the
to the true limits OF m ,itme Law and admiralty |
jnrisdiction Ia exciusvely judicial question.
and no State Law act OF Coz gress can make it |
troa err Or narrower than the judicial power may |
dstt rmire them t. be- The law depeuds upon
v, via! has been maritime usage Material men
home pnrt do not acquire thereby any lien upon
!h- vessel by the general maritime law of the |
U1ited States.
The maritime law is OF unaserable but it must
b. changed by Cong ss The States may legis-
Late Regulating commerce till Congress acts;
Of y s Of State
10 10 a. 2 vessel N ber home port in such State are
valid, though tae contract to furnish the same il
procoedi' 90 ln rem III the dis riot courts of the
United St tes. In the State courts partie, have
eniy G. mmon Law r-medies The lien for supplies
must be lerfected under tho State law. Judg-
ne of Cii cuit Court fer LIZ ulsiaps reversed
Justice Br dley delivered the opinion, Justice
1be klgee Cotton Cases-Elsee raised cotton in
Mississippi in company with Chambers, who atan. |
ioned his nler.s.. klget's sgent Gordon, agreed
n 0o0 bale. ct ten nts. and ESQ was paid on the
Lebdeil employed an agent to watch the
,s:oH IN NsT but 70 change
.re Of opinion that the contract was simply an
,greenent to sell. and that no title vested in Lob.
Tell Tn. stip iiation that rho cotton was at the
,,k Of L,bdell after the coutract and the payment
II the 50, 10 him, The latter do not make out
Of sale in face of all t. Q other circumstances
moving The contrary. Tho eontr sct was insutn.
'ent not showing what cotton was Sold and was
10" vague a d hidefnit4. 1t was but an
%, ton The result is that tho title remained in
.ige, and his pel sonal represertaves entitled
% the proc eeds: 1u gmsnto ot The Court Of Claims
rsersed Justice > rOig delivered the opinion,
Justices Bradley and Hunt dissenting
U tied SIs'es vs. Farragut It al-Arpeal from
he NUpr. me CouIt II the Dietrct Of Coiumbia
Tits Is the Of the commander and officers of
he heef engaged in tie capture of New Orleans,
o re yer p, z1 money aud salvaee. The court
lndihgs ~ the al albitrarors. that the capture was
he achit vement ot the f-et, aud not the CO.
oidt orei alton Of the army and navy and
lie vaiue OF all lhe captuIed vessels 10 to
70 computed i'll the dist ibution VIII as
lose which wera subsequently, restored to the
ts i owners nom whom they had been captured |
y the my as those winch were Condemned as
RE. The item I military salvage computed at
TN per cent ON the value Of the restored vessels |
; oistlioHed, and as TO the rest the decree is
fiji med. The court holtli1 & that they could not |
eVI W The ease The iaci s on app. al from the
ecisiOn OF the al biti at0rs there being no sega-
lis Il fraud Or other sufficient rounds for Ie- |
is'on. MI. Justice Miller aelrver d. the opinion.
d. b. Wiihers, OF New Yerk. has judgment |
gains 5 gee aid succession Il &85O,GCO. OF the