The New Orleans bulletin. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1874-1876, 1875-05-05
BY TELEGRAPH.
WASHINGTON.
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.

SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.
WASHINGTON. May 3.-Case of Mechanics
and Traders Bank vs.. Union Bank of Louisi-
ana. Error to the Supreme Court of Louisi-
ana. The plaintiff sued in the Sixth District
Court in the parish of Orleans. to recover of
the Union Bank s13O, 600 which they had paid
under compulsion Of judgment by the Pro-
vost Court of New Orleans ia 1862, when the
city was occupied by Government troops un-
der Gen. Butler.
The argument was that the establishment
of a provost court, the appointment of the
Judge, and the proceedings in the case before
them were invalid, because in violation of the
Federal Constitution, which vests the judicial
power of the Government in one supreme
court and in such inferior courts as Congress
may from time to time establish.
1t is here held, reaffrming the decision in
the case Of the Grape Shot. that the court in
stituted in this case by authority of the Presi:
dent as commander-in-chief, to hear, try, and
determine civil causes. was lawfully author
lied to assume such jurisdiction. Its estab
lishment by military authority was held to be
no violation of the constitutional provision
referred to above, and it is said that that
clause has no application TO the abnormal
condition of conquered territory in the occu-
parcy of conquering army.
The power to establish by military author
ity courts for the administration of civil as
we'll as criminal justice in portions OF the in
surgent States occupied by the National
forces, is precisely the same as that which
exists when foreign territory has been con-
anered and occupied by the conquero.s.
What that power is has several times been
decided.
The case Of Lietersdorfer Houghton
against Webb, growing out of the conquest OF
New Mexico in 1916, in 20 Howard, page 49,
is cited as q notable illustration of the power.
These similar courts were established without
any legislation of Congress, and they were
held to be lawfully instituted by this court.
In view of these decisions. it is said that it
is not to be questioned that the Constitution
does not prohibit the creation by military au-
thority of courts for the trial of civil cases
during the time of war in conquered portions
of the insurgent States. 1t was but the exer-
else of the ordinary rights OF conquest The
plaintiffs, therefore, were properly subjected
to the power of these courts, and had no
right of immunity.
Gen. Butler, being in command in Loulsi-
ana, was invested with all the powers of max
ing war, except so far as they we're denied to
him by the Commander-in-C Chief, and among
these powers was that Of establishing courts
in conquered territory.
It must be presumed that he acted under
the order OF his superior officer, the Presi-
dent, and that his acts in the prosecution OF
the war were the acts of his commander-in-
chief. Although the order by which the
court was created did not define the nature
and extent Of its jurisdiction, ard while it is
true that a provost court ordinarily has cogni-
zance only of minor criminal offenses, still
a larger jurisdiction may be given to it, but
whether such further jurisdiction was given
in this case, the court are not called upon to
determine Having affirmed the decision
blow as to the right questioned, the only
poin. which entities the case to be heard here,
this court declines to inquire whether the
Provost Court acted within its jurisdiction or
not, that it is said to be question exclu-
sively for State tribunals.
Tue State Constitution of 1868. ordaining
that all judgments, contracts, ETC., obtained
and made in good faith and In accordance
with existing laws of the State between the
goth of May, 1861, and the adoption OF the
Constitution, should be valid, impaired no
implied contract on the part of the Union
Bank to refund in case the judgment of the
Provost Court was void for want OF jurisdic-
ton: because if the court was lawfully estab-
lished, no such promise was raised.
Besides, the court cannot admit that the
Legislature OF State may not validate the
Judgment of court In fact, though in giving
the Judgment the court may have transcribed
its jurisdiction. Affirmed.
Mr.. Justice Strong delivered the opinion.
Mr.. Justice Field dissentel.
WASHINGTON, May An the case OF Rodd
against Heartt and others, Justice Bradley
read the opinion OF the court reversing the
Judgment of the Circuit Court for the District
of Louisiana, holding that there was no lien
in favor Of material men for supplies in a
domestic port, and directing judgment in
favor Of appellants, also holding that the ad-
miralty jurisdiction under the twelfth rule
extended to liens for such supplies only so
tar IS they have been created by the State
Legislature and those furnishing supplies
have complied with the provisions OF State
enactments, thus establishing q less liberal
course than was carried out under the rule as
adopted in 1914. Mr.. Justice Cliff ord read
8 very able and exhaustive dissenting opinion
in favor OF lien of such cases holding that
there was a maritime lien and that the judg-
ment of the Lower Court should be affirmed.
Mr.. Justice Field concurred in the dissent.
In the Elgee cotton case the judgment OF
the Court of Claims was reversed and the
proceeds of the cotton ordered to go to the
Elgee succession. Elgee's heirs, however, get
nothing.
d. B. withers, of New York, has judg-
ment against Elgee and succession OF $500.
coo of the proceeds of the cotton; Sl2O, 1000
will be retained by the government to meet
prospective judgment which 1t Is expected
will be rendered in a suit Of the United States
against the administrator, brought against }.
X. Elgee as surety on bond OF Barrett,
former Collector OF the port of New Orleans,
wherein it is alleged Barrett was a defaulter
for about 81, 100000.
The retention of this money is in accord
ance with an act OF Congress, passed last ses-
sion. The Ames Brothers, OF st. Louis,
claim to have purchased the cotton, and the
probable result will be that nobody will get
anything.
Guessen, executor, etc. vs. United States
and three other cases, appeals from the Court
of Claims. These are the cases known as the
Elpee cotton cases. Ano Their question raised
on the argument was whether the contracts
under viii ch tbs several parties claimed We re
forbidden by the non-intercoarse acts, and il
not, whether by their true meaning the claim
| -u,wo o,t;tlo1 IN racnvar