The National tribune., 1884-02-28
One of Lincoln's Christmas Presents.


many of our veterans will remember, was
one from certain General VIM. T. Sherman,
who about that time, having completed his
march through Georgia to the sea, turned
up at the city of Savannah, and thoughtfully
placed it at the disposal of the Executive to
be served up with his plum pudding.
The prize that thus fell into our hands
consisted, in part, of some 1860 bales OF
cotton, the property of the Georgia State
government and valued at from $350,000 to
000,-quite a nice little sugar plum, in
fact. That was almost twenty years ago,
and at the time the State of Georgia, being
prone on its belly, so to speak, did not pre-
sumo to question the regularity of the trans
action. 1t appears, however, from report
that has just been submitted to the Senate
from the Committee on Claims by General
Henderson, of Nebraska, that in Georgia, as
in poetry, hope springs eternal in the
human breast and that the government of
that Commonwealth has at this late day
decided to lay claim to this confscated
cotton and demand determination of its
title by the Court of Claims This modest
request takes the form of bill IS. 601l to
remove in this particular case the limitation
imposed by law as to the time of making
application to the court, and the reasons
which the agent of the State urges in its
support are, as the committee incidentally
remark in their report, truly ingenious.
They all rest upon the assumption that the
property rights of a State in reyolt-a bel
! ligerent-are identical with those of pri-
vate individual, and they are in substance
as follows:
! l. That under the confscation act NO
confscation of property could take place
except in pursuance of a legal judgment
[Supreme Court decisionl and it is admit
ted that there was none in this case; and
2. That upon the execution of such a
judgment, and the covering of the proceeds
into the e. S. Treasury, no change of owner
ship could take place, but, ON the contrary,
they were required to be held in trust for
those who might afterwards be recognized
as the legal owners Eanother Supreme Court
decisionl, which also has not been done in
this case; and
g. That by reason of the general amnesty
granted in the proclamation Of December
25. 1864. previous disloyalty is no bar to
the claim Of the original owners to the pro-
ceeds [another Supreme Court decisionl /;
and
4 That as there was no legal State gov
eminent in Georgia, with capacity to sue,
prior to August 20, 1868, when the two
years from the close of the war, within
which period claims were required to be
presented, had expired
Therefore, the State of Georgia ought now
to have access to the Court Of Claims for the
proving of her claim, the question at issue
being whether the United States did act
ually and legally, not rightfully, confscate
her property.
OF course the sophistry of this line o.
argument consists in the falsity Of the major
premise. namely. that the rights of the State
and the individual are one and the same
and the Senate committee have been prompt
to detect If. When The State of Georgia
passed the ordinance Of secession and resist
; ed the authority of the Federal Government
! with force Of arms, its attitude at once be
r came that Of an active belligerent, and rem
dered it liable to be treated as such; and
7 as it is a @ell-setiled maxim of internationa
: Law that one belligerent has the right t.
7 deprive the other of everything which
7 might add 10 his strength and enable hin
e to carry on hostiIities and certainly no on
e VIII dispute the fact that it was by th
g sale Of cotton, carried abroad by biockad
5 runners, that the Confederate government
!. managed to obtain the siuews of war-th
= seizure of the cotton in question was IN
d guestionably lawful act of war, and a
Il actual change of ownership occurred imme
diately upon its passing into the Govern
+ ments possession. The conclusion reache
by the committee, therefore, is that
IS The United states did take and appropriat
the cotton Of toe State OF Georgia in peeembe
1854, AS il might legally do, and did confscate III
IS property of this State then in armed rebellion
IL efIecluaIy that complete change of ownershi
followed condemnation proceedings in cou
le or elsewhere were necessary. Possession was a
i that was required and claimants show that posses
sion was taken and held Itfollows, then, that ii
Oh United States when it sold the cotton and tGrne
se the money into it, treasury was simply converln
its own property ito money.
Therefore. there IS no trusteeship--no neeounta
W bliiy 10 eestui que trust. Even had the state
Georgia been in position TO bring suit III the Cou
y, Of Claims within the two yenrs after the snppre
IL sion Of the rebellion" she could not have mai,
tanned her action IL this view Of the case, ii
:" committee do not deem it necessary 60 eonsid
DIS the question of the re1noyal OF the.bar Of the sta
nte Of Limitations. except TO say that The propos
~ ton Of claimant is one of the most remariSab
IN attempts TO take advantage Of partys own wron
- that has come under its observation
= Your committee, therefore. recommend that Il
It. bill be indefinitely postponed
Of When it is remembered that this is onl