Lapas attēli

Stott's Case.

"In the case of James Stott, No. 271, it appeared that the claimant, domiciled in the State of Maine, was arrested at Dexter, Maine, September 2, 1863, on the charge of being a deserter from a cavalry regiment in the United States service; was sent thence to the regiment from which he was alleged to have deserted, at Warrenton, Virginia, where it plainly appeared that the charge was unfounded, it being a case of mistaken identity. He was detained until the 9th of November 1863, and for the purpose of making him some compensation as to loss of time, and of giving him transportation back to his home, was mustered into the United States service and discharged with the pay of a private soldier for the time he had been detained, and with transportation back to his home.

"An award was made for $775 in favor of the claimant, in which all the commissioners joined.

Crawford's Case.

"John I. Crawford, No. 79, was arrested in the city of New York on the 10th of May 1864; sent to Fort Lafayette and there detained until the 27th of July 1864, when he was brought to trial before a military commission in the city of New York, on the charge of violation of the laws of war in passing through the military lines of the enemy, first, from South Carolina, by way of Richmond to New York; second, from New York again, by way of Nassau and Wilmington, through the blockade, to South Carolina; and again from South Carolina, by way of Richmond, to New York; and also by purchasing goods in New York, and sending them thence through the lines to Richmond, Virginia. He was convicted on all the specifications except that relating to the purchasing and sending of goods, and was sentenced to give bonds in such sum and with such sureties as should be satifactory to the general in command of the department that he would not visit, traffic, or correspond with the States in rebellion, nor give aid, comfort, or information to the enemy during the war, in default of giving such bonds to be confined at hard labor during the war. The bond was immediately given and Crawford was discharged. The proofs before the commission fully sustained the findings of the military tribunal.

"On the part of the claimant it was contended that the military tribunal was without jurisdiction, and that the claimant's imprisonment and detention were unlawful.

"The memorial claimed $500,000 as damages, and the commission unanimously disallowed the claim.

"In the case of John Carmody, No. 85, it

Carmody's Case. appeared that the claimant, domiciled in New Orleans, was in March 1865 conscripted into the military service of the United States. The notice of his conscription requiring him to report for military service was addressed to him by the name of John Kemdy, and on receiving it he procured from the British consul at New Orleans a certificate of his British nationality, which he alleged that he presented to the officer in charge of the office at which he was required to report, but two days after was arrested by a squad of United States soldiers and was detained in a military prison for some five or six weeks. The arrest and detention evidently arose from mistake growing out of the confusion of names. The memorial claimed $100,000 damages, besides interest, and the commission unanimously awarded the claimant $500.

Patrick's Case.

"In the case of William Patrick, No. 97, it appeared that the claimant, a British merchant, domiciled in New York, was on the 28th of August 1861 arrested and committed to Fort Lafayette, where he was detained till the 13th September following, when he was discharged. His arrest was based on the charge that the firm in New York of which he was a member, and which had a branch house also at Mobile, Alabama, was a channel for carrying on correspondence between rebels in Europe and those in the insurrectionary States. Representations by highly respectable citizens of New York of Mr. Patrick's loyalty were made to the Secretary of State, and the British minister also intervened in his behalf. Investigation showed that the charge against Mr. Patrick was without foundation, and he was discharged after a confinement of seventeen days. The proofs established Mr. Patrick to have been a gentleman of high social and business standing, and also to have been in conduct marked by loyalty and good faith toward the government during the rebellion, and to have furnished liberal contributions. in its aid. His arrest was undoubtedly caused by false or erroneous information.

"On behalf of the claimant punitory damages were claimed. On the part of the United States it was insisted that no such damages could be allowed; that Mr. Patrick, domiciled within the United States, was exposed in the same degree with citizens of those States to arrest on false charges or erroneous information, and that, having been discharged within a reasonable time for inquiry to be made, he was not entitled to

claim damages against the United States; that if any damages were awarded to him, they should be such only as would afford him fair compensation for the injury inflicted.


"The memorial claimed $100,000, besides interest. commission awarded the claimant $5,160, Mr. Commissioner Gurney dissenting on the question of amount.

Bevitt's Case.

"In the case of Joseph J. Bevitt, No. 104, the claimant, until that time domiciled in South Carolina and Virginia, left Richmond in April 1863 and passed through the rebel lines to the Potomac River, was there taken on board a United States transport steamer on the 30th April 1863, taken to Washington, detained in the Old Capitol prison until the 19th May, and then sent back into the Confederacy.

"On the part of the claimant it was contended that Bevitt, being a British subject, and not having offended against the laws of the United States, or taken part in the domestic strife then in progress, was entitled to such egress without molestation by the public authorities.

"On the part of the United States it was maintained that the attempt of the claimant to enter the loyal portion of the United States from the enemy's country, and through his military lines, after having voluntarily remained within the enemy's country during two years of the war, was one which the United States might lawfully prevent or punish, and that their sending him back into the enemy's country, from which he came, was an act permitted by public law.

"The commission disallowed the claim, Mr. Commissioner Gurney dissenting.

Ashton's Case.

"In the case of William Ashton, No. 325, the claimant, until then domiciled in the State of South Carolina, in February 1863 came north through the Federal lines under a pass from the Confederate General Lee, and while crossing the Potomac River into the State of Maryland was arrested by the naval patrol on the 7th February 1863. He was taken to Washington, there detained until the 11th May 1863, and then sent back through the lines into the enemy's country.

"On the part of the United States it was contended that the case was parallel with that of Bevitt, above reported, and that the arrest, detention, and return of the claimant were lawful acts under the recognized laws of war.

"The commission awarded to him the sum of $6,000, Mr. Commissioner Frazer dissenting.

"The undersigned finds difficulty in reconciling the decision of the commission in this case with that in the case of Bevitt. It may be noted, however, that Bevitt was detained but twenty days before being sent back, while Ashton was detained three months and four days.

Barry's Case.


"In the case of Thomas Barry, No. 127, the claimant, domiciled at New Orleans, alleged that on the 15th March 1864 he was arrested without any cause or provocation, but arbitrarily and maliciously, by a provost-marshal under the orders of General Banks, then in command of the department; was committed to the parish prison, there confined for ten weeks, and then released on giving a bond conditioned that he should report daily to the provost-marshal in the city of New Orleans. That he continued so to report until the 31st December 1864, when the bond was canceled and the claimant fully discharged. He claimed damages $50,000. The proofs showed that he was arrested in the act of clandestinely and in disguise attempting to pass from New Orleans through the lines into the enemy's country, having upon his person letters to residents within the enemy's lines, and carrying Confederate money, the use of which was forbidden by the Federal authorities. That only two months before he had perpetrated the same offense in the same disguise; had visited many places within the enemy's lines, and had returned into the Federal lines in the same clandestine manner. Before his arrest he had applied for permits to go within the Confederate lines for the alleged purpose of looking up and bringing back cotton alleged to have been owned by him; but such permission had been refused. "The claim was unanimously disallowed.

Glover's Case.

"In the case of Henry Glover, No. 134, the claimant, a resident of the State of Georgia, was in November 1864, in company with a companion, in Jones County, Georgia, within the enemy's territory, overtaken by a detachment of cavalry from the corps of General Kilpatrick, forming a part of the flanking force of General Sherman's army in the march from Atlanta to Savannah. His companion fled and was fired upon; claimant waited, was arrested and detained for twenty-four hours, when he was discharged, it appearing that he was a civilian and a British subject.

"His claim was disallowed, all the commissioners agreeing.

Facer's Case.

Syme's Case.

"The case of Thomas H. Facer, No. 203, was similar in character to that of Glover, and was disallowed in like manner.


"In the case of the administrators of James Syme, No. 139, it appeared that the decedent had been for many years domiciled at New Orleans, and there carrying on a large trade as a wholesale and retail druggist; that on the 28th August 1862 he was arrested and taken before Major-General Butler, then in command of the Department of the Gulf, and there arraigned on charges styled in the memorial false, wicked, and malicious,' to the effect that he had aided and abetted the socalled Confederates by the shipment of sulphur, drugs, and medicines into their lines, and that he had violated his neutrality. General Butler, being satisfied of the truth of the charges, condemned him, without the intervention of any court or military tribunal, to be imprisoned at Fort Pickens for three years at hard labor with ball and chain; the ball and chain were, however, within a few days, and before the commencement of execution of the order, remitted. He was detained in confinement at New Orleans for about six weeks; then sent under guard to Fort Pickens, in Pensacola Harbor, Florida, and there confined until about the 1st March 1863, when he was brought back to New Orleans, and there detained during an investigation by a military commission, which reported him not guilty of the charges upon which he was imprisoned. Pending the proceedings of this commission he was discharged from confinement by order of General Banks, who had succeeded General Butler in command, on giving a bond, with surety, in the sum of $20,000, conditioned for his appearance on requirement by the government. Upon the report of the commission the bond was canceled August 28, 1863. At the same time with his arrest his drug store and contents in New Orleans were seized and appropriated to the use of the United States, and remained in their possession until about the 1st May 1864, when the store, with so much of the stock of drugs, etc., as had not been used, was surrendered to his possession by order of the War Department.

"A large amount of testimony was taken on both sides upon the question of his guilt or innocence of the charges on which he was imprisoned.

"On the part of the United States it was also proved that the decedent, in November 1861, and again in March 1862,

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »