The Birmingham age-herald., 1913-01-24

of amnesty was sufficient to dispense
with proof of actual loyalty. The SUI
preme court took the ground that the
constitutional eff ct of a pardon was to
wipe out the of hse of disloyalty.
| The attorneys representing the claim
ants do not believe that this defense
/ can be sustained at the present time,
| but that the supreme court will declare
that its earlier decision are directly ap-
Tlicable to the present claims. Indeed, 1t
seems open to grave question whether in
the face of these supreme court decisions
on this subject 1t is proper for the Uni
ted States to endeavor to reopen qies-
tions of this sort nearly fifty years
alter the close. of the war and
thus take over the embers
Of half forgotten fires. Representative
Watkins Of Louisiana has introduced d
bill on this subject in the House of Rep
the House, declaring that the defense OF
resentatives and secured its passage by
disloyalty should not be set up py the
government in these claims That bill
has been referred to the judiciary commit
tee in the Senate and is likely to sleep
theer unless the senators from Alabama,
Mississippi and Louisiana take steps to
have 1t reported from that committee.
The claimants do not fear this issue of
loyalty, but they object to the time which
IL Will take to thrash it out in court,
since undoubtedly If the defense is urged
by the government, the test case would
have to go to the supreme court of the
United States in order to decide this ques-
tion.
Title of Confederacy
THE other chief defense to be made
by the United States is that OF Confed-
crate title to the cotton taken In the
1852 and Ia nfa1a 70
ernment purchased a large quantity of
cotton, particularly in Alabama and Mis-
sissppi. The payment was made in bonds
and these bonds were in nearly every
case slowed away by the owner of the
cotton and remained in his possession
until the close of the war rendered them
valueless. The cotton was left by the
Confederate government in the planters
possession and so remained until the
close OF the war. 1t is an old established
doctrine OF the common law that when
a sale is made of personal property and
the seller keeps it in his possession and
the purchaser afterward becomes bank
rupt, title reverts to the seller. 1t was
contended many years ago that that doc
trine applied to such cotton and that
the cotton held by the planters after a
sale to the Confederate government for
bonds which turned out worthless, re-
mained the planters property and that
the United States had no right to take
1t as Confederate property. The supreme
court of the United States applied a very
harsh rule of war to such cases and held
that the United States had the right and
title to the cotton. The attorneys now
representing the claimants declare that
Congress did not intend that this harsh
rule should be adopted in the adjudica-
tion OF claims under the act of 1911. rhey
maintain that Congress knew when it
passed this act that the claims which
would be brought under Ii would be for
cotton which had thus been sold to the
Confederacy and that Congress did not
intend to invite these claimants to go
into the court of claims in the hope of
relief and. when once in court order
them all out again in a body on account
of Confederate title. This would De
charging Congress either with ignorance
of the existing conditions, or with cruel
~ toward the claimants in raising vain
hopes. For this reason, they argue that
the relief intended was real and that the
purpose of Congress was to waive this
defense of Confederate title common to
all these cotton claims.
"A bill has been introduced by Repre-
sentative Gambler of Mississippi, declar-
ing that this defense of Confederate title
shall not be valid In the court of claims
in any cases where it appears that .he
cotton remained in the possession of the
planter until the close of the war. Mr.
Gambler has been vigorously pushing this
bill. but so far, has not succeeded in Sc
curing favorable report from the COM
mittee to which 1t was referred. Its pas
sage would relieve these claims of all
technical defenses. The opinion has been
very generally expressed that the time
is past when the government should take
advantage of defenses in such claims
which arose entirely out of the feelings
and prejudlces engendered by the civil
war;
No Time Set for Cases
Mr.. CARRIER was not able to state any
time when the test cases would be tried
That depends upon the speed with which
the attorney representing the government
prepares his defense 1T is said that at
the present time he is awaiting some
official reports from the treasury de-
partment. The court of claims would
probably be prepared to hear the case
as soon as the government is ready to
proceed
Mr.. CARRIER thought 1t very important
that the citizens of the south who are
interested in these claims should invite
the attention of their senators and rep
resentatives to both the Watkins and the
Gambler bills, as these are necessary
to relieve the claims of inequtable de-
fenses which would defeat the purpose
of the original act.
The total proceeds in the treasury of
cotton taken after June /, 1865. are S4,-
$4,000. A part of this is not identified
as the property of any particular person.
1t would be very difficult to obtain proof
showing the ownership OF such cotton. In
other cases, individual accounts are small
and the heirs are numerous. so that
many claims will not be presented simply
because of the difficulty of establishing
T.. D.
exceed s4,000,000 at the outside would be
paid out in case of the passage of both
the Watkins and the Gambler amend
ments to the present law.