"This decision would have been correct, and been sustained, had the Government of the United States confined its action simply to the enforcement of its rightful powers as a belligerent, and had not surrendered its rights as a belligerent to appropriate property of a particular kind taken in the enemy's country, belonging to a loyal citizen. "In Brown v. United States, 8 Cranch, 110, 122, 123, the court said that it was conceded that war gives to the sovereign full right to take the persons and confiscate the property of the enemy wherever found, and observed that the mitigations of this rigid rule, which the humane and wise policy of modern times had introduced into practice, might more or less affect the exercise of this right, but could not impair the right itself. "Substantially the same thing was said in Young v. United States, 97 U. S. 39, 60: All property,' was the language of the court in that case, within enemy territory is in law enemy property, just as all persons in the same territory are enemies. A neutral, owning property within the enemy's lines, holds it as enemy property, subject to the laws of war; and, if it is hostile property, subject to capture.' "But in another case, that of Mrs. Alexander's Cotton, 2 Wall. 404, 419, this court said that this rule, as to property on land, has received very important qualifications from usage, from the reasonings of enlightened publicists, and from judicial decisions. It may now be regarded as substantially restricted "to special cases dictated by the necessary operation of the war," and as excluding, in general, "the seizure of the private property of pacific persons for the sake of gain." "The act of Congress of March 12, 1863, providing for the collection of abandoned and captured property in the insurrectionary territory, (12 Stat. 820, c. 120,) declared that all such property might be appropriated to the public use or sold. But it also said, in substance, that the property of friend and foe can not at the time be separated; and all the property of that kind found within the Confederate lines will be taken, sold, and when sold its proceeds will be deposited in the Treasury; but if afterwards within two years after the suppression of the rebellion the owner can establish to the satisfaction of the Court of Claims his title to the property thus taken, and his loyalty to the Union cause, then the portion of the proceeds belonging to him shall be restored, after deducting the expenses attendant upon its capture, removal and custody. United States e. Anderson, 9 Wall. 56, 67. . . . The records of the Court of Claims show a multitude of cases where this law has been administered, and many loyal people have had the proceeds of their property returned to them, which had been captured because of the fact that it was situated within hostile territory. "In the present case, the petitioner was allowed [by act of Congress, June 4, 1888, 2 Stat. 1075, c. 348] the same right to present his claim for the proceeds of the property belonging to his testator which would have been allowed if the testator himself had presented his claim within two years after the capture. The question was as to the loyalty of the testator of the claimant, and also as to his ownership of the cotton. His loyalty was found by the court, and also the bona fides of the sale of the property. After these facts had been established the only question that could have been properly considered was the amount of the proceeds which the petitioner should receive. That was not considered by the Court of Claims." The judgment of the Court of Claims was accordingly reversed. Briggs v. United States (1892), 143 U. S., 346, 355-358. Where, during the civil war, cotton situated in Mississippi passed into the possession of the Federal Government by fair capture, the only legal right which the owners possessed was that of having it disposed of according to the provisions of the abandoned or captured property act. And when it was turned over by the officer in charge to third persons, the owners were deprived of their legal right, and their indemnification for such deprivation is a proper subject for legislative discretion. Vance v. United States, 30 Ct. Cl. 252. "I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 12th inst., in which you state that a friend in England makes inquiry' whether confiscations were made after the civil war; and, if so, to what extent.' "While the inquiry is limited to what was done after the close of the war, it may interest your correspondent to know what policy was pursued by the Government during the war. "By the act of Congress approved March 12, 1863, the Secretary of the Treasury was authorized to appoint special agents to collect captured and abandoned property in the States in insurrection. The Southern Confederacy had agents in all the cotton States, buying cotton and paying for it in Confederate bonds or currency. The cotton so purchased by the Confederate agents comprised almost the only property captured' by the United States Treasury agents during the war. If a mistake was made by these Treasury agents in taking possession of property wrongfully, the Secretary of the Treasury, upon appeal, released the property; or, if it had been sold, the proceeds. Under the above act, the Treasury agents took possession of abandoned plantations, but they were all returned to their owners, some during the war, others afterward, and no proceedings to confiscate this property were instituted. If such had been the policy and action of the Government, the real estate of such a distinguished Confederate as John Slidell, minister to France, whose property was in the possession of the Treasury agents during the war, would have been among the first to be confiscated. The liberal terms granted to General Lee, when he surrendered to General Grant, are part of the history of this country, and need not be repeated here. "The rebellion had not been suppressed in all parts of the South when, on the 29th of May, 1865, the President of the United States issued a proclamation granting to all persons who have, directly or indirectly, participated in the existing rebellion, except as hereinafter excepted, amnesty and pardon, with restoration of all rights of property, except to slaves. No political conditions were laid down."' There were excepted cases in the proclamation, but the parties were afterward pardoned, either by the President or by acts of Congress. "It is true in some cases private property was taken and used by the Union armies, without compensation at the time, but Congress, by the act of March 3, 1871, provided a commission to adjudicate these claims. "You are aware that the act of March 3, 1863, which provided for the appointment of special agents to collect captured and abandoned property, provided also that any person claiming to have been the owner of any such abandoned or captured property may, at any time. within two years after the suppression of the rebellion, prefer his claim to the proceeds thereof in the Court of Claims.' Thus, during the war and until August 20, 1868 (the rebellion was officially declared suppressed August 20, 1866) your honorable court had jurisdiction of all claims for captured and abandoned property. The records of your court will show that judgments were entered for large sums in favour of persons who had been active and prominent in the rebellion. "A large amount of cotton was seized by the Treasury agents after the rebellion had collapsed but had not been entirely suppressed. "The right to file claims in the Court of Claims having ceased August 20, 1868, Congress provided another remedy for those who claimed that cotton had been wrongfully seized, and passed the act of May 18, 1872, which provided that the Secretary of the Treasury -hould return the proceeds derived from the sale of cotton illegally seized after June 30, 1865. A large number of claims were filed under this act, but in nearly all cases it was found that the claimants had sold the cotton to the Confederacy, and it was, therefore, Confederate cotton when it was seized. In reply to the specific inquiry of your correspondent I will state that confiscation through the courts, as near as can be ascertained, amounted to less than $200,000. "You state that my reply will not be made public without my consent. As the facts above stated are public history, you are at liberty to use this reply as you may deem proper." Letter of Mr. Shaw, Sec. of Treasury, to Mr. Nott, Ch. J. of the Court of Claims, Feb. 18, 1902. This letter was sent by Chief Justice Nott to his correspondent in England, Mr. George F. Parker, by whom it was published in the London Times. (The Times, weekly, April 4, 1902.) With regard to abandoned and captured property, the sale and proceeds thereof, and the claims allowed, see Treasury Department Circular No. 4, Jan. 9, 1900; and the reports of Lewis Jordan, esq., Chief of the Miscellaneous Division, Treasury Department, Nov. 28, 1894, and Dec. 14, 1901. For the reports of the Southern Claims Commission, see the following documents: First General Report, Dec. 11, 1871, H. Mis. Doc. 16, 42 Cong. 2 sess. Letter from the Commissioners, case of Waddy Thompson, May 7, 1872, Second General Report, Dec. 9, 1872, H. Mis. Doc. 12, 42 Cong. 3 sess. Fourth General Report, Dec. 14, 1874, H. Mis. Doc. 18, 43 Cong. 2 sess. Fifth General Report, Dec. 20, 1875, H. Mis. Doc. 30, 44 Cong. 1 sess. Sixth Annual Report, Dec. 4, 1876, H. Mis. Doc. 4, 44 Cong. 2 sess. (5) COTTON. $1153. "Being enemies' property, the cotton was liable to capture and confiscation by the adverse party. (Prize Cases, 2 Black, 687.) It is true that this rule, as to property on land, has received very important qualifications from usage, from the reasonings of enlightened publicists, and from judicial decisions. It may now be regarded as substantially restricted to special cases dictated by the necessary operation of war,' (1 Kent, 92), and as excluding, in general, ‘the seizure of the private property of pacific persons for the sake of gain (id. 93). The commanding general may determine in what special cases its more stringent application is required by military emergencies; while considerations of public policy and positive provisions of law, and the general spirit of legislation, must indicate the cases in which its application may be properly denied to the property of non-combatant enemies. "In the case before us, the capture seems to have been justified by the peculiar character of the property and by legislation. It is well known that cotton has constituted the chief reliance of the rebels for means to purchase the munitions of war in Europe. It is matter of history, that rather than permit it t ocome into the possession of the national troops, the rebel government has everywhere devoted it, however owned, to destruction. The value of that destroyed at New Orleans, just before its capture, has been estimated at eighty millions of dollars. It is in the record before us, that on this very plantation of Mrs. Alexander, one year's crop was destroyed in apprehension of an advance of the Union forces. The rebels regard it as one of their main sinews of war; and no principle of equity or just policy required, when the national occupation was itself precarious, that it should be spared from capture and allowed to remain, in case of the withdrawal of the Union troops, an element of strength to the rebellion." Chase, Ch. J., Mrs. Alexander's Cotton, 2 Wall. 404, 419. Where, after active hostilities had ceased in Georgia, cotton, as private property, was seized there by the military forces of the United States, in obedience to an order of the commanding general, during their occupation and actual government of that State, it was held to have been taken from hostile possession within the meaning of that term, and was, without regard to the status of the owner, a legitimate subject of capture. Lamar v. Browne, 92 U. S. 187. "All property within enemy territory is in law enemy property, just as all persons in the same territory are enemies. A neutral, owning property within the enemy's lines, holds it as enemy property, subject to the laws of war; and, if it is hostile property, subject to capture. It has never been doubted that arms and munitions of war, however owned, may be seized by the conquering belligerent upon conquered territory. The reason is that, if left, they may, upon a reverse of the fortunes of war, help to strengthen the adversary. To cripple him, therefore, they may be captured, if necessary; and whether necessary or not, must be determined by the commanding general, unless restrained by the orders of his government, which alone is his superior. The same rule applies to all hostile property." Young r. United States (1877), 97 U. S. 39, 60. The act of the Confederate Congress of March 6, 1862, by which it was declared to be the duty of all military commanders in the |