204 



CONFISCATION. 



CONGREGATIONALIS1 b. 



been commenced and are pending and undetermined 

 in the district or circuit courts of the United States 

 for your district, against a person charged with acts 

 of rebellion, and not of the excepted class, whether 

 they be by indictment or seizure and libel of his 

 property for confiscation, the rights of other parties 

 not having intervened, you will discontinue and put 

 an end to these proceedings, whenever the person so 

 charged shall produce evidence satisfactory to you 

 that Tie has, in good faith, taken the oath and com- 

 plied with the conditions prescribed by the Presi- 

 dent's proclamation of the 8th of December, 1863. 

 Nor is it necessary that the evidence he produces 

 should be a deed of pardon signed by the President. 

 It would be quite impossible for the President to 

 furnish the multitude who are now availing them- 

 selves of the benefits of the proclamation, and who 

 are likely to do so hereafter, with this formal evi- 

 dence of pardon ; it will be sufficient to justify your 

 action if the party seeking to be relieved from fur- 

 ther proceeding shall prove to your full satisfaction 

 that he has in good faith taken the oath, and brought 

 himself within the conditions of pardon and amnesty 

 set forth in the proclamation. 



If in any case you have good reason to believe that 

 the path has been taken for the mere purpose of ob- 

 taining the possession of personal property seized 

 under the confiscation acts, with intent to remove it 

 from the subsequent reach of the officers of the law, 

 you will make report of the facts and reasons for 

 your belief at this office before discontinuing the 

 proceedings or restoring such property to the pos- 

 session of the owner. 



Fugitives under section 5 of the act of July, 1861, 

 chapter 3, are not of the class reached by the Presi- 

 dent's proclamation ; for under that act, the question 

 whether the property seized is subject to forfeiture 

 depends upon the predicament of the property itself, 

 and not upon the personal guilt or innocence of its 

 owner. In this respect, forfeitures under that act 

 have more resemblance to cases of prizes of war 

 captured at sea as enemy's property, than to pro- 

 ceedings under the act of August, 1861, and July, 

 18fi2. Such forfeitures are provided, not so much to 

 punish the owner for disloyal acts, as to prohibit 

 commercial intercourse and weaken the public ene- 

 my, which are always efficient instruments and legiti- 

 mate effects of public war. But although the remis- 

 sion of forfeitures under the act of July, 1861, is 

 thus not within the scope of the proclamation of 

 pardon, still ample power is conferred on the Secre- 

 tary of the Treasury by the 8th section of that act to 

 mitigate or remit all forfeitures and penalties in- 

 curre_d under the act. And it is not to be doubted 

 that in all proper cases under that act, where the 

 owner of the property residing in the territory in re- 

 bellion complies with the condition of the proclama- 

 tion, the Secretary of the Treasury will exercise the 

 power of remission of such forfeiture in the same 

 spirit of generous forbearance and liberality which 

 inspired and characterized the proclamation. 

 Very respectfully, &c., 



TITIAN J. COFFEE, Acting Att'y-Gen. 



In conflict with the opinion of Judge Betts, 

 of the U. S. District Court for the Southern 

 District of New York, in the case instituted 

 against Leroy M. Wiley (AmsruAL CTOLO. for 

 1863, p. 220), there was given the decision of 

 Judge Davis, of the Supreme Court, rendered 

 in the U. S. Circuit Court at Indianapolis. 



In the case of the United States vs. Two sec- 

 ond-hand Steam Engines, the proceeding was a 

 libel under the act of July, 1861, to confiscate 

 the engines, which were the property of John 

 Cannon, alleged to he a rebel. The property 

 w^sjn New Albany. Captain G. W. Stewart, 

 of New Albany, intervened, claiming to have 



purchased the engines from Cannon, the al- 

 leged rebel, and setting up that Cannon wag 

 not a rebel. Judge Smith, of the District 

 Court, had decided, at the previous term, that 

 it was not competent for Stewart to set up 

 that Cannon was not a rebel ; and Cannon hav- 

 ing been notified merely by publication in a 

 newspaper of the pendency of the libel, a de- 

 fault was taken against him, and a decree of 

 condemnation of the property was rendered, 

 without any proof whatever. Judge Davis, 

 deciding the case on appeal, reversed the deci- 

 sion on both these points, holding that it was 

 competent for Stewart to plead the loyalty of 

 Cannon, and that proof must, in all cases of 

 default, on notice by mere publication, be of- 

 fered of disloyalty. He also held that the cir- 

 cumstance that the property seized belongs to 

 a citizen of a rebellious State, does not preclude 

 the defendant from appearing to the action, 

 and contesting the allegation that he is a rebel. 



This decision substantially corroborated a 

 recent decision made in the Floyd Circuit 

 Court, by Judge Bicknell, in the Knoefel case. 



The action of all the courts in reference to 

 the declaration of the forfeiture was in oppo- 

 sition to the decision of Judge Underwood. 

 (See AisTTUAL CTCLO., 1863, p. 229.) On June 

 8th, fourteen cases, prosecuted under the con- 

 fiscation act of July 17th, 1862, came before 

 the U. S. Court at Washington. The court 

 passed decrees of confiscation, and ordered 

 early sales after due advertisement of all the 

 right, title, and interest in the estate of the re- 

 spective owners for and during their natural 

 lives, excepting one case, in which the property 

 was personal, and the forfeiture, therefore, ab- 

 solute. 



In one of the cases passed upon by the court, 

 an undivided half was libelled as the property 

 of Hon. Geo. S. Houston, of Alabama. A 

 quantity of evidence, however, was brought to 

 the notice of the court, that he had adhered to 

 the Union throughout the troubles. On mo- 

 tion of the District Attorney the case was sus- 

 pended indefinitely. 



This conforms to the opinion of Judge Davis, 

 cited above. 



CONGREGATIONALISTS. Returns from 

 all the Congregational churches in this coun- 

 try give the following result : Total number of 

 churches, 2,856 ; number of members, 268,015 ; 

 of whom 34,398 are reported absent. The ad- 

 ditions were 16,225, of whom 9,328 were by 

 profession. The removals by death were 4,937, 

 and by excommunication 641 ; infant baptisms, 

 4,462 ; members of Sabbath-schools, 286,798. 



For some time a movement has been going 

 on among the Congregationalists of the United 

 States to effect a National organization, after 

 the example of the Congregational Union of 

 England. During the year 1864, this move- 

 ment assumed a more definite shape. In Au- 

 gust, an informal meeting was held in New 

 Haven, at the house of Rev. Dr. Bacon, of 

 deputies of the General Associati :>n of Conneo- 



