Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1885-10-27
LAMAR'S COTTON CLAIM.
THE SUPREME COURT SUsTATNS
THE ADVERSE DECISION.

Story of the Seizure by Agents OF the
Recommendations and Florida
Cotton the GrOwth-A Company to
Run the BlOCkade-JurisdictiO of the
Court.
WASHINGTON, Oct. 96.--In the SUI
preme Court of the United States to-day
Justice Blatchtord announced the decis-
ion Of the court in the case in error from
the Circuit Court of the Southern district
Of New York, brought by G. DeRosaet
Lamar, executor of Gazaway b. Lamar,
deceased, against Hugh McCulloch, ex-
Secretary of the Treasury. This action
was originally brought in the Supreme
Court Of the State of New York in Sep
tember, 1878, and was removed into the
Circuit Court of the United States by the
defendant. The declaration was framed
to recover $l502S0 as the value of 57S
bales of cotton known as Thomasville
cotton, and $l10,76 as the value of 426
other bales of cotton known as Florida
cotton. The suit was afterwards discon-
tinued as to the ThOmasYille cotton.
THE SEIZURE.
The cotton In question was seized in
1850 by special agents of the Treasury
Department as captured or abandOned''
property and shipped to New York and
sold. According TO the letter of the
special agent, it was owned by "the Ex-
porting and Importing Company of
Georgia, &. b. Lamar president engaged
in the sole business Of blockade running
and holding said property for the purpose
of aiding and abetting rebellion" The
court quotes the act of March II, 1858,
authorizing the Secretary OF the Treasury
to appoint special agents to receive and
collect all abandoned or captured prop
erty in the States then in insurrection,
and giving authority to any person claim
ing to have been owner Of any such cap
tured or abandoned property to prefer his
claim to the proceeds thereof in the
Court Of Claims at any time within two
years after the suppression OF the war.
INTENT OF THE ACT.
1t also quoted from the act of July 2T,
1868, declaring 1t to have been the true
intent and meaning of the act of March
y, 1865, that the remedy given in cases Of
seizure made under said act by preferring
the claim in the Court OF Claims should
be exclusive, precluding the owner of any
property taken by agents of the Treasury
Department in virtue Of said act from
suit at common law, or any other mode of
redress whatever before any court or tri-
bunal other than said Court of Claims
The court says that 1t is manifest that
the act of July 27, 1868, was intended to
cover, and does cover, case like the
present.
NO ROOM FOR DOUBT.
Whatever doubt there might have been
before the act was passed there could be
none now, even though the property taken
was private property. If it was taken by
an officer or agent of the United States
under claim that it was abandoned or
-sre- -.
OF the act of March II, 1868, or in virtue
thereof, or under color thereof, the juris-
diction of every court, but the Court Of
Claims, in respect to every mode Of re-
dress is taken away when it is pleaded or
alleged in defense that the property was
taken by the defendant AS such officer or
agent in the administration of the act, or
in virtue or under color thereof, and that
fact is sustained by proof. The Circuit
Court mad instructed the jury to find a
verdict for the defendant, and this judg-
ment the Supreme Court afiirms.