Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

had accepted commissions as surgeon-first with the rank of captain, and afterward with the rank of major-in the battalion of the Louisiana State militia designated as the British Fusiliers; that this battalion was a regularly organized portion of the State militia of the rebel State of Louisiana, but was organized under the reservation that its members should be required to serve only within the limits of the city of New Orleans; that on the acceptance of these commissions the decedent was required by law to take, and did take, an oath faithfully to discharge the duties of the office to which he had been appointed, and to support, protect, and defend the constitution of the State of Louisiana and of the Confederate States; that at the time of accepting these commissions, respectively, the decedent was above the age of forty-five years, and was exempt by the laws of the State of Louisiana from militia service by reason of age, even if otherwise liable by reason of nationality or domicil. Evidence was also given on the part of the United States to the effect that Dr. Syme, shortly after the occupation of New Orleans by the Federal forces, refused to sell medical and surgical supplies to medical officers of the United States Army. Dr. Syme died in January 1872, before the filing of the memorial, leaving a widow and one son entitled to inherit his estate, both born within the United States and always domiciled there.

"On the part of the United States it was contended that by the acceptance of these commissions and the taking of the oaths above recited Dr. Syme had deprived himself of the condition of a neutral alien and assumed the character of an enemy of the United States, and was not entitled to a standing as a British subject under the treaty; that the proofs fully sustained the charges upon which he was condemned by General Butler; that if any doubt existed upon the proofs now before the commission as to the truth of those charges, the evidence before General Butler and upon which he acted was certainly sufficient to sustain his finding and to justify the condemnation pronounced by him upon the proofs before him; that as military commander of a captured city within the enemy's country, then strictly and solely under military government, General Butler was vested with full authority to administer military law, either in person or through military courts and tribunals organized under his order; that the offense of which he found Dr. Syme guilty was a crime under

military law of a high grade, and justifying the sentence pronounced upon him.

"The memorial claimed damages for the arrest and imprisonment, $100,000; for the drugs and other property of the decedent taken and appropriated by the United States (less the value of the amount returned), and the rent of the store, $166,925; and damages by the breaking up of the business of the decedent, and the loss of profits which he would have derived from the business, $150,000, besides interest.

"The commission (Mr. Commissioner Frazer dissenting) made an award in favor of the claimants for $116,200. I am advised that this award included nothing for damages for imprisonment, but was made solely in respect of the drugs and other property taken and appropriated by the United States, and the rent of the drug store while occupied by them. Mr. Commissioner Frazer expressed his views upon the case as follows:

"Being over the military age, and exempt from military duty as a druggist also, Dr. Syme took a commission in the British Fusiliers and an oath of office to support the rebel confederacy, and evinced his hostility further, as I deem the weight of the evidence to show, by refusing to sell goods to the United States after New Orleans fell into Federal possession. This made him an actual enemy, and he could have no standing to prosecute a claim before this commission. The beneficiaries-his wife and child-have none, because they are Americans. His condemnation by General Butler was upon what appeared at the time to be satisfactory evidence, though it was subsequently shown before the military commission organized under the order of General Banks that he was probably innocent of the charges upon which he was arrested. He was restored to liberty as soon as an investigation could conveniently be had, and what remained unconsumed of his confiscated goods was also restored, together with the possession of his building.'

"In so much of this opinion of Mr. Commissioner Frazer as relates to the sufficiency of the evidence upon which General Butler acted to sustain his finding and sentence, and as relates to the probable actual innocence of Dr. Syme as appearing before the commission, I am advised that the majority of the commission concurred.

"In the case of William B. Booth, No. 143, Booth's Case. a claim was made for $56,000 damages for the alleged wrongful arrest of the claimant in the neighborhood of Fort Jackson, Louisiana, and subsequent imprisonment. He was arrested by United States soldiers on the

8th of August 1862, taken to Fort Jackson, and there confined till the 28th August; then sent to Fort Pickens, Pensacola Harbor, and there confined till the 15th August 1863; then taken back to New Orleans and detained till the 26th August 1863, when he was unconditionally released.

"Previous to his arrest Dr. Booth, who resided in Louisiana, two miles from the forts and outside the lines of military occupation by the United States, had been, on the request of Dr. Gordon, the surgeon of the forts, visiting and prescribing for the prisoners and Federal soldiers at the forts. Gen. Neal Dow, the commander, learning the fact, had notified him that he could not be permitted to visit the forts without taking the oath of allegiance or giving his parole of honor not to communicate information to the enemy. Dr. Booth declined to do either of these things. After his arrest he still continued his refusal to give the required parole, and, persisting in his refusal, General Dow ordered his transfer to Fort Pickens and his detention there. At this time Forts Jackson and Saint Philip, lying on the opposite banks of the Mississippi some one hundred miles or more below the city of New Orleans, were occupied by a United States force of about six hundred soldiers, and about the same number of liberated slaves, under the command of General Dow. The garrisons were weak, and a large number of the troops actually there were prostrated by sickness. General Dow deemed it of the utmost importance that a knowledge of the weakness of his garrison should be kept from the enemy. The refusal of Dr. Booth to give the required parole roused the suspicions of General Dow, and when persisted in led to his sending the claimant to Fort Pickens. During his stay at Fort Pickens, and after his retransfer thence to New Orleans, he still persisted in refusing to give the required parole, and was finally discharged, after a confinement of nearly thirteen months, unconditionally and without parole. Lord Lyons, during his confinement, in a letter to Mr. Coppell, British consul at New Orleans, stated that the required parole was deemed not unreasonable by Her Majesty's government, after consulting the law officers of the crown.

"On the part of the United States it was insisted that the arrest and detention of Dr. Booth were warranted as measures of just military precaution in regard to an enemy by domicil possessed of knowledge, the communication of which to the enemy would be highly dangerous to the United States, and who, by his refusal to give this proper and reasonable pledge,

had, in the language of Lord Lyons, entitled the United States to treat him as a suspected person.

"The memorial of Dr. Booth also included claims to the amount of $83,890, besides interest, for property of the claimant alleged to have been taken and appropriated by the United States.

"The commission (Mr. Commissioner Frazer dissenting) awarded to the claimant the sum of $24,900, which award was, as I am advised, wholly in respect of property taken, and included nothing on account of the arrest and imprisonment.

Cases of McCann and
Murta.

"John McCann, No. 173, and John Murta, No. 195, natives of Ireland and domiciled in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, were arrested there-McCann in September 1863 and Murta in November 1863-by United States troops, under authority of a provostmarshal; were taken to Fort Mifflin and there confined, McCann till March and Murta till April 1864.

"The proofs showed that at the time of their arrest an organized conspiracy existed in Luzerne County and vicinity to resist the Federal draft for troops; that great violence was used against Federal officers; that open defiance of the Federal authority was made in public meetings of the mining population; that loyal citizens sustaining the government had been assassinated, and measures had been adopted to ambuscade and massacre Federal troops, should they be sent there to enforce the draft; that the principal disturbing element in this conspiracy was the Irish Catholic miners; that not only secret associations were formed, but public meetings were openly held for the avowed purpose of stopping the mines and thus stopping the war; that a large number of persons regarded as the ringleaders and most dangerous persons in this movement were arrested, and among them these two claimants. No proof was made of the complicity of either of the claimants with the actual resistance to the draft or violation of law; but Murta was shown to have been a member of the organization known as the Knights of the Golden Circle,' created to oppose the draft and aid the rebellion. Neither of the claimants was ever brought to trial.

"In the case of McCann an award was made in favor of the claimant for $3,000, in which all the commissioners joined. In the case of Murta an award was made for $1,200, Mr. Commissioner Frazer dissenting.

Riley's Case.

"In the case of Thomas Riley, No. 192, the claimant, a resident of Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, was drafted into the United States military service in November 1863, was taken to Philadelphia and there held in the United States military barracks for about six weeks, when he was taken sick and sent to the hospital, and there remained confined by disease till the 6th of April 1864, when he was discharged by the War Department, through the intervention of Lord Lyons, as being a subject of Great Britain, having received his pay as a soldier for the time during which he was held.

"On the part of the United States it was contended that he was held simply in consequence of his failure to comply with the regulations of the provost-marshal's department in regard to showing proof of alienage. The case showed, however, that the proofs of his alienage were submitted by Lord Lyons to Mr. Seward in November 1863 within a few days after his arrest, and his discharge was not ordered till about four months after.

"The commission unanimously awarded him the sum of $800.

"Edward McCabe, No. 197, was drafted into McCabe's Case. the military service of the United States in Queens County, New York, in September 1863. He appeared before the enrolling board and claimed exemption; was informed of the regulation prescribing the method of making the necessary proof; was given time to file it, but failing to do so was arrested by order of the provost-marshal and detained for two days, when, having furnished the neces sary proof, he was discharged.

"The commission unanimously disallowed his claim.

"Patrick J. O'Mulligan, No. 476, was drafted O'Mulligan's Case. in Cayuga County, New York, in October 1863. He appeared before the board of enrollment and claimed exemption as a British subject, but failed to comply with the regulations for the proof of alienage. He was detained for twenty-four hours, and on physical examination by the surgeon was found unfit for military service and was discharged. For these grievances he claimed the sum of $800,000, besides interest.

"His claim was unanimously disallowed.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »