Court Opinion

ID: 9416907
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 19:58:07.292245+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:34.021820
License: Public Domain

*504Mr. Justice BRADLEY,
dissenting..
I dissent from the judgment of the court in this case.. The officer in command of the armies of the United States, after the possession of New Orleans had been secured, required debtors in New Orleans of creditors in the enemy’s lines to pay such debts to the proper receiving officer of the army. That the debt's due from the citizens of a belligerent state to the'citizens of the state, with whom the former is at war may be confiscated is undoubted international law. If such coiifiscation is, in fact, made by the military authorities, and if the action of those authorities is assumed or confirmed by the sovereign authority, the confiscation is perfect.
In this case the acts of the military authorities have-been substantial!}' adopted and confirmed by the Federal government in' passing a law exempting military officers from all actions and suits for any acts done in their military capacity.
By this act, if any wrong was done, the government as-' sumes it and holds itself responsible to the injured party, if any illegality occurred.
One party must suffer in tbi,s case, either the debtor or, the creditor; and, as the debtor was compelled to pay the debt to the military authorities it ought not to be compelled to pay it over again to the creditor. Let the creditor apply to the Federal government for relief, by which the acts of the military authorities have been, in effect, assumed and confirmed.
In any judgment, such-.a disposition of the case would' better accord with "the principles of international law and the mutual rights and relations of all "the parties concerned.