The weekly clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1863-1882, 1875-06-30

and Transportatn Co United States.
Before the Hon. Joseph =. Bradley, AS
soeiate Justice of the Supreme Court
Hon. Robert A. Hill, District Judge
VIM. b. Pittman, Esq, for Appellants
w. y. NJ. Harris, Esq, for APPELLEE
Opinion of the Court by Justice Br
ley. 70.
; The respondents show that the M @
: cry of the steamer Natchez was
from the GnZoO river after Inc
the late war, under authori'
by contract with the Cove
United States by wb
were 10 have one-half
be realized after the ..yiilvu, Ol expenses.
Ii the steamer Natchez was impressed
into the service of the Confederate States
Government, and was burnt aud sunk
while in that service, and if full com
pensation for the vessels loss was paid Cd
the libellant by that Government. the
| property of the wreck thereafter belonged
/ 10 il, and at the close of the war became
the property of the Government Of the
! United States, which thereupon acquired
a right TO dispose Of the wreck as Il saw
I fit
| 1t is evident that the Government of
| the United States acted on the SUPPOSE
/ ton that it was the owner of, and entitled
to the control Of. the wreck. The nu-
! thOrity given to the wreckers, and the
contract made with them, are evidence
of this. The latter got only one-half of
the net proceeds Of the property Tho
balance was retained by the Government.
Without stopping to inquire whether
thus acting under the authority OF the
Government OF the United States would
or would not be "A full defence for the
wreckers and the respondents in this suit,
1t Is clear from the evidence that the
libellants transactions with the Conied-
crate States Government bear out the
hypothesis that he obtained therefrOm
the full value Of the steamboat, and that
whatever was left of her hull and ma
chinery belonged TO the Government.
and by consequence became the property
Of the United States.
The .libellant, however, testifes. no
doubt sincerely, that the amount received
by him from the Confederate Govern
ment, was received ms compensation for
the services of the steamboat. But "A
long period of time has elapsed since the
events occurred, and an examination of
the documents themselves is conclusive
that the said amount was the valuation
of the vessel itself, and was so under
stood by the lbellant at that time, and
received by him as such. IL is unncces-
sary to go into a minute examination of
the papers for the purpose of showing
the truth of this proposition it is too
apparent for argument.
1t is objected by the counsel for the
libellAnt, that the documentary evidence
in question is not properly anthem
ticated. We think it is sufficiently au-
thenticated to make it competent. The
original papers are on file in the War
Department, and cannot, without public
detriment and inconvenience, be re-
moved. Photographic copies are the
best evidence that the case admits Of.
The wonderful art by which they arc
thus reproduced, gives us, as we may
say, duplicate originals and in the case
of public records or documents properly
deposited in the public archives Of the
country, and which the public interest
requires should be there kept and pre-
served, no better evidence Of their char
acter and authenticity can be had than
such a reproduction Of them by the.op
ration Of natural agencies, and an au-
thentication of their genuineness i'm the
usual way, by proof Of handwriting
We think the evidence entirely compe-
tent and entirely conclusive.
We come to the conclusion, therefore,
that the libellant had no interest in the
wreck at the time of its recovery, and
that he cannot recover in this suit. The
conduct of the libellant since the war Is
corroborative Of this conclusion. He
lay by for almost or quite six years after
he says he saw the machinery at Vicks-
burg, on the vessel now attached, before
bringing his suit This is n period which
of itself would present strong evidence
of laches and a stale demand, which is
defence in Admiralty proceedings.
These views render ii unnecessary for
us to consider more fully the objection ns
to the validity Of the amendment made
in the libel-concerning which grave
doubts may well be entertained.
The decree Of the District Court must
be reversed, and the libel dismissed with
costs.