The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1876-01-14

expressly prohibited without reservation OF
qualification, no matter for what purpose the
debt was contracted. AS to the latter, the
constitutional prohibition only applies where
the debt was created for aiding the Confede.
rate cause. Whatever may be the policy OF
justice of this prohibition, however be nigh,
disapproye of it or the language in which j,
is expressed, it is the
SUPREME ORGANIC LAW
Of the land, and must be obeyed. When,
therefore, it appears that deDt contra cted
by a county during the war was contracted
for the purpose of aiding the struggle, the
payment is expressly prohibited by the Con.
sti,ution, and creates no binding obligation.
On the contrary, if it appears thut the debt Is
of such character as might have been con-
trac!ed in time of peace If it appertains to
the ordinary police regulations Of a county 5;
in other words, if 1t appears that the debt
was not created for the purpose of aiding in
the prosecution of the war, and is in other
respects valid, such debt is valid contract,
and must be paid.
Judge Staples said that hereafter he would
write out bis opinion in full.
The result is, in brief, that in no case be-
fore the court will the counties be compelled
to pay the claims for the salt In question.
A Citizen Rishied.
Judge Staples delivered the opinion In the
case of the Eastern Lunatic Asylum Us. Gar
rett.
This was an action Of trover brought by
George ". Garrett against the Eastern Lu.
natic Asylum, in which the certified evi-
hot ho nf
the year 1863 to the close Of the war the
Federal troops stationed at Williamsburg
controlled the asylum. Previous to this
the superintendent appointed by the Pier
pont Government had the management for a
brief period. There was no board of direc-
tors, the members having left, &c. Many of
the subordinate officers, however, remained
in the discharge of their duties. Uurirg
the time the military mad control they fur
nishcd supplies for the asylum, often send.
ing parties into the country and taking SUD-
plies from the citizens. In January, 1865. q
party Of
FEDERAL SOLDIERS.
under the command of captain. was sent
out for this purpose, and visited the resi-
dence Of plaintiff. They took all bis corn
and salted pork, suffi cient to fill ten four.
horse wagons, one OF which belonged to the
asylum. The wagons were first driven to
Fort Magruder. and from that place, with
out being unloadcj, were sent by the com.
mending officer directly to the asylum,
where the provisions were left for the use OF
the inmates. The ground taken by the Asy'
Inn is that the Federal COMMANDER had by
the laws Ct war the right to capture the
plaintiffs property; and the mere fact that
the property was subsequently appropriated
to the
USE OF TIE ASYLUM
cannot impose upon that institution any legal
liability to account for its value.
Judge Staples said in his opinion, of which
this is only synopsis, that the general rule
we'll settled by the humanity and policy oil
modern times is to abstain from taking the
property of private citizens without making
CONDENSATION unless in special caseS de-
cIared BY the necessary operations Of war
The exceptions are first, seizures by way oil
penalty for military offences second, pro.
perty taken on the field or in storming q
fortress or town, which is usually termed
booty and third, forced contributions or
leyies for the support Of an invading army
or as indemnity for maintaining order and
protection Of the Inhabitants.
ANOTHER EXCEPTION
TO the rule is sometimes found in the Pc
culiar nature of the property which is sub
iect TO capture. II the hostile power has an
interest in the property which is available
to him for purposes Of war that fact makes
it prinaa facie liable to capture. Thus cot
ton, being a subject OF foreign and domestic
commerce, and one of the main sinews o
war relied upon by the Confederate autbori'
tics for the purchase of arms and the preser'
yation and extension Of public credit, it was
ALWAYS held in the Federal courts to be 8
lawful subject of capture. In support o.
these views the learned judge cited mum
Der of authorities.
In the present caae the seizure of The
plaintiffs property
COULD NOT BE JUSTIFIED
.npon either of the grounds mentioned. The
ONLY one OF them which furnishes any sem
blance of warrant for the act Is that the
goods were taken by way of military requi
Si,ion or assessment. 1t will be observed
however, that the provisions were not taker
for the use of the army or for the benefit o.
the United States Government. 1t was MOI
the design of the officer to appropriate the
nroperty to either of these objects. Ii ]:
one thing to exercise the right OF capture
for the Government, and another and very
different thing to seize and capture the pro-
perty of one citizen merely for the purpose
of transferring it to another.
THESE POSITIONS
were enforced at considerable length by va
rious authorities and illustrations.
The result was the court held that the
Federal officer at Williamsburg could moi
denriye the plaintiff of his right Of property
by seizipg and appropriating the same to TIT
nse of The ASYLUM. The judgment of th'
Circuit Court OF James City County Wa
therefore affirmed.
From the opinion of the court Judg'
Christian diSSented.
Burruss 10 go TO Tie Penitenfiary.
Judge Moncure delivered the opinion o
the court in the case Of Burruss Us. The Com
mon wealth. Roger D. BurrusS, formerly
school.teacher, of Goocbland county, wa
| first tried iu the Hastings Court last sprlnl
| on the charge of forging the name OF Alier
e. Brother TO an order on Truman a. Parke
& Co. for S47.25. After the jury had beel
sworn in and the order produced in evldene.
| it appeared that the order was for "a "a
On account Of the variation between ID
allegation and proof a verdict of "no
guilty" " was rendered by the jury. Accuse'
vas held to answer another indictment
The second Indictment stated the amour
named in the order correctly, and Burrus
was found guilty and sentenced to
TWO YEARS IMPRISONMENT
10 the penitentary. There were variou
bills of exceptions filed during the secon
trial, but none OF them held good, and tn
Judgment of the Hastings Court of Rich
moDd was affirmed.
p,,rr,,.e u,bo has baan in iail for eight O