The Republican journal., 1876-10-05
Blaine and tho Neal Dow Suit.

Blaine and tho Neal Dow Suit.
Last week Nh Blaine made speech at
Warren, Ohio, in which occurs strange
perversion of the suit brought by Bradish
johnson against Neal Dow for robbing his
house in Louisiana We make the follow
ing extract from Il report of the speech,
as published in the Bangor Wing
And now, gentlemen, more startling than
anything else, on Thursday Of last week there
was Il decision rendered in the city of Portland,
| State of Maine, in the United States Circuit
Court. Judge Nathan Clifford, presiding, with
| Daniel Clark, District Judge of New Hamp
| shire sitting with him-and 1 want the atten-
| ton of the lawyers agan-confrming the judg-
ment obtained against Neal Dow, Of the 18th
| Maine Regiment i'll Louisiana, giving judgment
to the rebel against Dow personally for the
| sugar seized on his plantation by II foragng
| party from his regiment. They were out for
| aging and seized some sugar, and the man sued
| for it, and Dow said, ''If you are a l1yal man
| we will give you receipt, and you will easily
| .;ct Your pay for it, Now the sugar was used
| and large part Of it sent to the hospitals.
| Dow says, off you will show me your loyalty,
| | will give you receipt" and he declined to
| do it. and got Judgment against Col. Dow in
| Louisiana court. The U. S. Circuit Court at
| Portland confirmed that judgment, and order
| ed execution to issue for $l,Il50. That being
| so, | say, gentlemen, will it not enable the
| man that owned the field at AppomatoX to col
| ect ground rent from Grant for the occupancy
| of it and destruction Of the fences and crops:
| There has never been so menaclng Il cloud as
| this hanging over a free people. More than
| that. this decision was warmly dissented from
| by Judge Clark of New Hampshire. lie was
brought up in the true faith; but the Supreme
| Court overruled him in the person of Clifford.
| Clifford is an ingram, hungry Democrat, double
| dyed and twisted, died in the wool, and coarse
wool at that. And i'll my Judgment he has
| carried that case for eight years and never Of
| fered that decision until he in his ignorance be-
| leved in Democratic triumph. If there
| should be a Democratic dreamer here, will not
| that gentleman tell me why any solitary battal-
| ion or division of the army in the South cannot
he sued for every article or trespasS:
Mr.. Blaine does not state this case fair
". The bulk of the sum sued for was for
silver ware, taken from Bradish Johnsor's
house by a military force, acting under
BOWS order. 1t was not a toraging par
ty, for the troops Were abundantly sup
piled, and there was 10 need Of forage.
The silver. it was charged, went into the
personal possession OF Dow The ques-
ton at issue, then, was whether the re-
cipicnt Of yaluables so taken was not per-
sonally responsible to the owner-in other
words whether the business of the army
was to fight rebels, or to steal silver ware
for the benefit Of the commander The
defence offered by Dow in Judge Cliff
tord's Court was that the Louisiana Court
had no jurisdiction. We have not seen the
text Of Judge Clitford's decision, but he
doubtless held that in Il case OF :respass
or larceny the state court had jurisdiction.
In unavoidable destruction by The opera
tinns nf ~. a",rv ~. "-,,~ ------'' = ,:nr
cnt. Ii IS not necessary to the success of
an army that it shall steal silver spoons
The fling at Judge Clifford is one Of
which Mr.. Blaine should be ashamed 1t
is not decent to speak in such u manner
of distinguished jurist, an honored mem
Der Of the highest tribunal Of the land
the members OF which in their great trusts
are above partisan bias, rs they are above
responsibility to politicians and especial
ly OF one whose learning and labors have
been SO conspicuous. MI Justice Clifford
sits in his high place to eXpound the law,
and has doubtless done SO in this case,
whatever imaginary terrors Mr.. Blaine
may conlure out of it to fright the souls
of fearful ;dversaries
Since the foregoing was put in type, we
have received the Portland Argus con-
tanning Il letter from Hon. Bion Bradbury,
who is counsel for plaintiff in the Dow
suit. That gentlcman's calm and candid
statement of the case places Blaine in
position not at all enviable. The follow
ing is the substance of Mr. Bradbury's
communication
The case to which Mr.. Blaine refers, as the
record shows, is Bradlsh johnson V. Neal Dow,
the former a citizen of the State of New York,
OF high character and undoubted loyalty; the
latter Brigader General in the Union army
during the war.
In suit the record shows, upon udg-
mcnt Which was rendered by Judge Howell Ga
loyal man), in the Sixth District Court of New
Orleans, in the year 1868, while that CITY was
under military control, which was court hay
ing general civil jurisdiction, recognized by
the military commander as a court of compe-
tent jurisdiction in civil causes.
The action was brought for an abuse of mill
tary power; and the complaint alleges ''illegaI.
wanton, oppressive and unjustiable acts and
doings' on the part of officers and soldiers act
ing under the command Of Gen. Dow, in taking
and carrying away quantity of sugar, three
guns, a family silver pitcher and silver knives
and spoons.
A very large quantity of sugar was taken,
and portion OF 1t was turned over to the Com
missary department, for which Mr.. johnson
was paid by the United States.
Mr.. Johnson's suit, SO far as the sugar was
concerned, was brought for that portion which
was taken away but not turned over to the |
Commssary department.