Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

Rev. Stat., 827, 834, 989), was, by the act of July 28, 1866 (14 Stat., 329, sec. 8), enlarged to include suits for acts done under the captured and abandoned property acts (March 12, 1863-12 Stat., 820; July 2, 186413 Stat., 375), the enlargement carried with it the exception which the proviso to the act of June 27, 1864 (13 Stat., 196, sec. 2-Rev. Stat., 834, first clause), engrafted on the act of February 26, 1853 (10 Stat., 165, sec. 3-Rev. Stat., 833), by exempting from emolument returns compensation earned under section 12 of the act of March 3, 1863 (12 Stat., 741-Rev. Stat., 827). Thus, said section 12 of the act of March 3, 1863, as enlarged by section 8 of the act of July 28, 1866, has effect for the purpose of this case precisely as if the enlargement was a part of the original act of March 3, 1863. See 5 Op. Att.-Gen., 724.

This conclusion is, in principle, supported by authorities. Thus, in B. and O. R. R. v. Wilson (2 W. Va., 556), it is said:

"That when an action founded upon one statute is given by a subsequent statute in a new case, everything annexed to the action by the first statute is likewise given."

If everything annexed to an action under the first statute is given to the action in the new case, everything so annexed by another statute relating to the first would seem equally to be so given. Again, it is said that:

"Clauses of reference, incorporating provisions of former statutes, take effect as fully as if they had been repeated, and re-enacted in the body of the latter act, with relation thereto. * All the general powers and provisions given and made in acts in pari materia, shall be virtually incorporated in this, but such provisions as are

always considered as special provisions, shall not" (Potter's Dwarris, Stat., 218; Rex v. The Justices of Surrey, 2 T. R., 504; Rexford v. Knight, 15 Barb., 627).

Sedgwick (Construction Stat. and Const. L., 2d ed., 68) says that: omission committed

made to correct an *

"An act in a former statute of the same session, relates back to the time when the first act was passed; and the two must be taken together as if they were one and the same act, and the first must be read as containing in itself, in words, the amendment supplied by the last."

It can make no difference whether the two acts were passed at the same or different sessions. The principle thus stated by Sedgwick is, that a statute which supplies an omission in a former statute is for all purposes to be read as if incorporated in the first statute. "An earlier enactment may qualify a later" (Bishop, Written Laws, 128). In City of Louisville v. The Commonwealth (9 Dana, 75) it was held that, provisions for enforcing one statute applied to a supplemental statute subsequently enacted. The act of Congress of March 3, 1825 (4 Stat., 118, sec. 13), defining the crime of perjury, was held to apply to false swearing under a statute subsequently passed (United States v. Nihols, 4 McLean, 23). Again, it has been said that:

"If a statute creates a new variety of something which previously existed at common law (for instance, if a new kind of felony is created

by statute) all common law incidents will attach to that new variety" (Hardcastle, Statutory Law, 165, citing Hawkins, Pl. Cr., Book II, 444; Id., Book I, 107; The Coalheaver's case, 1 Leach, Crown Cases, 66; Gray v. R., 11 Cl. and Finn., 427; Levinger v. R., L. R., 3 P. C., 282).

So here, when Congress added a new variety of duties to those which previously existed by statute, all the previously existing statutory incidents attached to that new variety.

The principle deducible from these authorities as applied to this case is this: that, when one statute making general provisions applicable to specified objects, duties, or purposes, is subject to exceptions, or limitations, imposed either therein, or by a subsequent statute, and a still later statute, by specifically referring to the statute making provisions so applicable to said specified objects, duties, or purposes, enlarges and extends its operation to a new class of objects, duties, or purposes, the statute as thus enlarged and extended is also subject to such exceptions or limitations. This is the result of the enlargement of the statute. The enlarged statute occupies, in respect to the exceptions or limitations, the position of the original statute before it was enlarged. It may reasonably be supposed that the purpose of Congress in making such enlargement was to secure this result. The original statute existed cum onere; the enlarged statute occupies the same status. But, when one statute making general provisions applicable to specified objects, duties, or purposes, is subject to special exceptions, or limitations, as stated, and a later independent statute in general terms, without referring to the former statute making general provisions, makes the same provisions as to a new class of objects, duties, or purposes, the later statute is not subject to the exceptions or limitations mentioned. This must be so; because the later independent statute, being general in its terms, and not incorporating by reference the provisions of the former statute, but making the same provisions anew as to another class of objects, cannot be subjected to its exceptions by inference. Generalia verba sunt generaliter intelligenda (Broom, Leg. Max., 7th Am. ed., 647; Claims Assignment case, 3 Lawrence, Compt. Dec., 29; Osage Land case, Id., 367, 368). An exception, which by its own terms is only applicable to cases mentioned in one statute, cannot extend to cases of a different character mentioned in another independent statute, without some provision, which expressly or by clear inference so applies such exception.

The result of all the provisions of the statutes in relation to cases "in which the United States will be bound by the judgment rendered therein" (Rev. Stat., 834) is, that there is no case of that character which is subject to the operation of the last clause of section 834 of the Revised Statutes, unless it should be, as it is not now, and never has been, held to apply to compensation of District Attorneys in suits against internal-revenue officers. In the above view, said last clause is wholly without any present effect; though it would apply to cases coming within its terms, which might hereafter be provided for by an independent statute (Bishop, Written Laws, 128, citing Holmes v. Tutton, 5 El. and

Bl., 65; Attorney-General v. Moore, 3 Ex. D., 276; Barber r. Tilson, 3 M. and S., 429; Reg. v. Smith, Law Rep., 1 C. C., 266, 270; In re Perrin, 2 Dr. and War., 147; Williams v. Drewe, Willes, 392; City of Louisville . The Commonwealth, 9 Dana, 70; The State v. Becton, 7 Baxter, Tenn., 138).

It seems also, that the first paragraph of section 2 of the act of June 27, 1864 (13 Stat., 196), now the last clause of section 834 of the Revised Statutes, was wholly unnecessary, since its purpose was already covered by the act of February 26, 1853 (10 Stat., 165, sec. 3-Rev. Stat., 383). Said first paragraph seems to have been used as an unnecessary declaration of an economic purpose in order to add the proviso which follows it, and which relieved it of the apparently economic purpose.

The conclusion arrived at is that, the claimant is not required to include in his emolument returns his compensation for the services rendered in the suit against the Secretary of the Treasury for acts done under the captured and abandoned property acts.*

TREASURY DEPARTMENT,

First Comptroller's Office, January 19, 1885.

*As to the emolument return, see foot-note at the end of the next case. Much valnable information concerning captured and abandoned property may be found in the following:

"An act to provide for the collection of abandoned property and for the prevention of frauds in insurrectionary districts within the United States," approved March 12, 1863 (12 Stat., 820).

"An act in addition to the several acts concerning commercial intercourse between loyal and insurrectionary States, and to provide for the collection of captured and abandoned property, and the prevention of frauds in States declared in insurrection," approved July 2, 1864 (13 Stat., 375).

Lawrences Law of Claims against Governments,-House Report No. 134, second session. Forty-third Congress, pp. 237-244.

Treasury compilation of

"Acts of Congress, and rules and regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury, in pursuance thereto, with the approval of the President, concerning commercial intercourse with and in States and parts of States declared in insurrection, captured, abandoned, and contiscable property, the care of freedmen, and the purchase of products of insurrectionary districts on Government account-Reprint, Washington, Government Printing Office, 1872."

CAPTURED AND ABANDONED PROPERTY CASES IN COURT OF CLAIMS REPORTS:

Aiken's, vol. 1, p. 192; Anderson's, vol. 4, p. 467; Armstrong's, vol. 5, p. 623; Armtrong's, vol. 3, p. 243; Aubert's (administrator), vol. 3, p. 84; Austell's, vol. 7, p. 599; Ayres's, vol. 4, p. 422; Backer's, vol. 7, p. 551; Barringer's, vol. 3, p. 358; Bates's, vol. 4, p. 569; Beall's, vol. 9, p. 299; Bellocq & Co.'s, vol. 8, p. 493; Benton's, vol. 5, p. 692; Berg's, vol. 5, p. 632; Bernheimer Bros'., vol. 5, p. 549; Blewett's, vol. 10, p. 235; Block's, vol. 8, p. 406; Bond's, vol, 2, p. 529; Bond's (executor), vol. 9, p. 419; Bramhall's, vol. 4, p. 51; Brown's, vol. 3, p. 119; Brown's, vol. 6, p. 171; Brown's, vol, 5, p. 571; Bruning's, vol. 3, p. 242; Bulwinkle's, vol. 4, p. 395; Bynum's, vol. 8, p. 440; Byrnes's, vol. 3, p. 195; Carlisle & Henderson's, vol. 6, p. 398; Carroll's (administratrix), vol. 5, p. 620; Carroll's, vol. 3, p. 355; Cartwright's, vol. 8, p. 465; Cattel's, vol. 6, p. 278; Clark's, vol. 3, p. 228; Claussen's, vol. 3, p. 253; Cole's, vol. 3, p. 164; Collie's, vol. 9, p. 431; Cones's, vol. 8, p. 329; Coogan's, vol. 7, p. 510; Cook's, vol. 9, p. 288; Coté's (assignees of), vol. 3, p. 64; The Cotton Cases, vol. 2, p. 529; Cramer's (et al.), vol. 6, p. 381; Crussell's, vol. 4, p. 533; Culliton's, vol. 5, p. 627; Cutner's, vol. 6, p. 415; Daniels's, vol. 7, p. 447; Dauphine's, vol. 6, p. 221; Bebian's, vol. 6, p. 377; Deeson's, (administratrix), vol. 5, p. 626; Deeson's, vol. 6, p. 227; De Give's, vol. 7, p. 517; Dent's, vol. 8, p. 474; Dereef's, vol. 3, p. 163; Desmare's, vol. 10, p. 385; Dillon's, vol. 5, p. 586; Donnelly & Eagan's, vol. 3, p. 276; Dothage's, vol. 4, p. 208; Douglas's, vol. 7, p. 604; Ealer's, vol. 4, p. 372; Edmonds's, vol. 3, p. 179; Elgee heirs, vol. 7, p. 605; Ensley's, vol. 6, p. 2-2; Fain's, vol. 4, p. 237; Faulkner's, vol. 5, p. 612; Fennerty's, vol. 3, p. 437; Fernandez's, vol. 7, p. 541; Lapene & Ferré's, vol.

6, p. 363; Fichera's (et al.), vol. 9, p. 254; Fisher's, vol. 6, p. 235; Foley's vol. 3, p. 53; Foley's, vol. 7, p. 449; Fordham's, vol. 4, p. 459; Foster's, vol. 5, p. 412; Gaither's, vol. 3, p. 191; Gallaudet's, vol. 9, p. 210; Gaussen's, vol. 7, p. 605; Geilfuss's, vol. 4, p. 478; Gerstman's, vol. 3, p. 233; Gilbert's, vol. 4, p. 585; Gordon's, vol. 6, p. 292; Gowdey's, vol. 6, p. 328; Graver's, vol. 3, p. 83; Green's, vol. 8, p. 412; Green's, vol. 8, p. 496; Grissett's, vol. 9, p. 327; Grosmeyer's, vol. 4, p. 1; Habersham's (administra rix), vol. 4, p. 433; Hall & Roach's, vol. 9, p. 170; Hamilton's (executor), vol. 7, p. 444; Hancock's, vol. 3, p. 177; Hardee's, vol. 8, p. 316; Harrison's, vol. 6, p. 323; Haycraft's, vol. 8, p. 483; Hayden's, vol. 4, p. 475; Hayes's, vol. 4, p. 489; Haym's, vol. 7, p. 443; Headınan's, vol. 5, p. 640; Hebrew Congregation's, vol. 6, p. 241; Henry's, vol. 6, p. 389; Hilborn's, vol. 3, p. 270; Hill's, vol. 8, p. 470; Hill's, vol. 8, p. 361; Holland's, vol. 4, p. 465; Home Insurance Co.'s, vol. 8, p. 449; Houston's, vol. 8, p. 446; Howe's, vol. 3, p. 231; Hudnal's, vol. 3, p. 291; Hunt's, vol. 4, p. 438; Igoe's, vol. 3, p. 226; Jencks's, vol. 4, p. 587; Jenkins's (executor), vol. 8, p. 464; Johnson's, vol. 8, p. 454; Kenney's, vol. 3, p. 366; Kidd's, vol. 8, p. 259; Kilduff's, vol. 6, p. 250; Knee's, vol. 4, p. 583; Koester's, vol. 5, p. 642; Koester's, vol. 3, p. 95; Kohns's, vol. 4, p. 436; Kohns's, vol. 5, p. 603; Kuper's, vol. 3, p. 75; La Plante's, vol. 6, p. 311; Laporte's, widow of, vol. 9, p. 336; Lobsiger's, vol. 5, p. 687; Low's (et al.), vol. 7, p. 515; Lowrey's, vol. 4, p. 377; Lynch's, vol. 3, p. 392; Lynch's, vol. 6, p. 246; Mahan's (et al.), vol. 6, p. 331; Martin's, vol. 7, p. 450; Mayer's, vol. 3, p. 249; McElhose's, vol. 3, p. 240; McKay's, vol. 3, p. 181; McMahon's, vol. 3, p. 120; Medway's, vol. 6, p. 421; Meldrim & Doyle's, vol. 7, p. 595; Meyer's, vol. 3, p. 55; Millar's, vol. 8, p. 407; Miller's (et al.), vol. 4, p. 288; Mills's (et al.), vol. 6, p. 253; Mims's (administrator), vol. 4, p. 521; Minor's (executrix), vol. 6, p. 393; Mintz & Fass's, vol. 4, p. 471; Mix's, vol. 6, p. 410; Molinas's, vol. 6, p. 269; Moore's, vol. 7, p. 356; Moore's, vol. 10, p. 375; Mott's, vol. 3, p. 363; Mott's, vol. 3, p. 218; Nugent's (jr.), vol. 6, p. 305; O'Keefe's, vol. 5, p. 674; Oliver's, vol. 3, p. 62; Padelford's, vol. 4, p. 316; Parsons's (assignee, and 67 other cases), vol. 10, p. 502; Pollard's, vol. 4, p. 328; Potter's, vol. 3, p. 390; Price's, vol. 7, p. 567; Price's, vol. 9, p. 328; Price's (administratrix), vol. 5, p. 706; Pullen's, vol. 7, p. 507; Queyrouze's, vol. 7, p. 402; Quinby's, vol. 4, p. 417; Reilly's, vol. 7, p. 504; Reils's, vol. 3, p. 61; Reynold's, vol. 3, p. 232; Rodden's, vol. 6, p. 308; Ross's, vol. 10, p. 424; Rubey's, vol. 3, p. 59: Randolph's, vol. 3, p. 356; Schreiner & Son's, vol. 6, p. 359; Scott's (executor), vol. 8, p. 457; Sevier's, vol. 7, p. 387; Sheppard's (executor), vol. 8, p. 456; Silverhill's (for Schiffer & Co.), vol. 5, p. 610; Silvey's, vol. 4, p. 490; Spain's, vol. 5, p. 598; Spencer's, vol. 8, p. 283; Sprott's, vol. 8, p. 499; Stanton's, vol. 4, p. 456; Starke's, vol. 4, p. 280; Stern & Oppenheimer's, vol. 5, p. 596; Stoddart's, vol. 4, p. 511; Sundry Cotton Cases, vol. 10, p. 502; Sykes's, vol. 8, p. 330; Tait's, vol. 4, p. 579; Tait's (for use, &c.), vol. 5, p. 638; Tayloe's (executors), vol. 5, p. 701; Terry & Carnes's, vol. 8, p. 277; Thomas's, vol. 3, p. 52; Tibbetts's, vol. 1, p. 169 Tibbetts's, vol. 5, p. 607; Villalonga's, vol. 8, p. 452; Villalonga's, vol. 10, p. 428; Wagner's, vol. 5, p. 637; Waltjen's, vol. 3, p. 238; Waring's (executor), vol. 7, p. 501; Watts's, vol. 3, p. 269; Wayne's, vol. 4, p. 426; Weed, Cornwell & Co.'s, vol. 8, p. 405; West's, vol. 3, p. 341; Whitfield's, vol. 9, p. 276; Wilber's, vol. 7, p. 480; Wilde's (et al.), vol. 7, p. 415; Wilkinson's, vol. 3, p. 60; Willis's, vol. 6, p. 385; Wilson's (admin istrator), vol. 4, p. 559; Witkowski's, vol. 6, p. 406; Witkowski's, vol. 7, p. 393; Woodruff & Bouchard's, vol. 8, p. 605; Wylie's, vol. 6, p. 295; Zellner's, vol. 4, p. 480; Noble's, vol. 11, p. 608; Craft's, vol. 12, p. 178; Walker's (executors), vol. 12, p. 408; Ross's, vol. 12, p. 505; Sharp's (et al.), vol. 12, p. 638; Young's (assignee of Alex'r Col lie), vol. 12, p. 648; Hamuer's (administrator), vol. 13, p. 7; Erwin's, vol. 13, p. 49; Quigley's, vol. 13, p. 367; Douglas's (et al.), vol. 14, p. 1; Winchester's (executor of Jenkins), vol. 14, p. 13; Gilmer's, vol. 14, p. 184; Smith & Hine's, vol. 14, p. 189; Calhoun's (administrator), vol. 14, p. 193; Fluker's (administrator), vol. 14, p. 252; Rhine's, vol. 14, p. 268; Johnson's (administrator), vol. 14, p. 276; Murphy & O'Neil's (administrators), vol. 14, p. 537; Goodman's, vol. 14, p. 547; Gooch's, vol. 15, p. 281; Patten's, vol. 15, p. 288; Smith's, vol. 16, p. 1 ; Carver's, vol. 16, p. 361; Whitney's (administrator of), vol. 18, p. 19; Duncan's (executor of), vol. 18, p. 230; Irvine & Field's, vol. 18, p. 615; Thomas's (administrator), vol. 18, p. 683; Hodges's, vol. 18, p. 700.

CAPTURED AND ABANDONED PROPERTY CASES IN SUPREME COURT REPORTS:

Anderson's, 9 Wall., p. 56; Armstrong's, 13 Wall., p. 154; Carlisle & Henderson's, 16 Wall., p. 147; Carroll's (administratrix), 13 Wall., p. 151; Crussell's, 14 Wall., p. 1; Cutner's (for Schiffer), 17 Wall, p. 517; Elgee's (Cotton Cases), 22 Wall., p. 180; Grossmayer's, 9 Wall., p. 72; Haycraft's, 22 Wall., p. 81; Home Insurance Co.'s, 22 Wall., p. 99; Klein's (administrator of Wilson), 13 Wall., p. 125; Lane's, 8 Wall., p. 185; Lapene & Ferre's, 17 Wall., p. 601; La Peyre's, 17 Wall., p. 191; Mahan's, 16 Wall., p. 143; Mitchell's, 21 Wall., p. 350; Montgomery's, 15 Wall., p. 395; O'Grady's (executors of), 22 Wall., p. 641; Padelford's, 9 Wall., p. 531; Pargoad's, 13 Wall., p. 156; Sprott's, 20

Wall., p. 459; Villalonga's, 23 Wall., p. 35; Hall & Roach's, 92 U. S., p. 27; Ross's, 92 U. S.. p. 281; Whitfield's, 92 U. S., p. 165; Spencer's, 92 U. S., p. 577; Sundry Cotton Cases, 92 U. S., p. 651; Desmare's, 93 U. S., p. 605; Gillis's, 95 U. S., p. 407; Erwin's, 97 U. S., p. 392; Pugh's, 99 U. S., p. 265; Clark & Fulton's, 99 U. S., p, 493; Quigley's, 103 U. S. p, 595; Walker's (et al.), 106 U. S., p. 413; Carver's, 111 U. S., p. 609; Mrs. Alexander's (cotton), 2 Wall.. p. 404; Lane's, 8 Wall., p. 185; Browne's (et al.), 92 U. S., p. 187; Winchester's, 99 U. S., p. 372; Kouns's, 110 U. S., p. 720.

EXECUTIVE DOCUMENTS RELATING TO CAPTURED AND ABANDONED PROPERTY, ETC. AS FOLLOWS:

Thirty-ninth Congress, second session, House of Representatives, Ex. Doc. No. 63′ Suits against Fraser, Trenholm & Co.

Thirty-ninth Congress, second session, House of Representatives, Ex. Doc. No. 97. Captured and forfeited cotton.

Thirty-ninth Congress, second session, Senate, Ex. Doc. No. 37. Letter from the Secretary of the Treasury, relative to the proceeds of sale of cotton, &c.

Letter from the Secre

Thirty-ninth Congress, second session, House of Representatives, Ex. Doc. No. 114. Letter of the Secretary of the Treasury, relative to cotton claims. Fortieth Congress, second session, Senate Ex. Doc. No. 22. tary of the Treasury, relative to captured and abandoned property. Fortieth Congress, second session, Senate Ex. Doc. No. 56. Letter of the Secretary of the Treasury, relative to the sale of captured and abandoned cotton.

Fortieth Congress, second session, Senate, Ex. Doc. No. 58. Seizure and confiscation of property under act of July 17, 1862.

Fortieth Congress, second session, House of Representatives, Ex. Doc. No. 102. Property seized in Louisiana.

Fortieth Congress, second session, House of Representatives, Ex. Doc. No. 304. Confederate property in Europe.

Fortieth Congress, third session, House of Representatives, Ex. Doc. No. 82. Letter from the Secretary of the Treasury, relative to the proceeds of captured and abandoned property.

Forty-first Congress, third session, House of Representatives, Ex. Doc. No. 113. Letter from the Secretary of the Treasury, relative to the sale of captured vessels, cotton, &c.

Forty-third Congress, first session, House of Representatives, Ex. Doc. No. 146. Letter from the Secretary of the Treasury, relative to captured cotton and other property.

Forty-third Congress, second session, Senate, Ex. Doc. No. 23. Report of Acting Secretary of the Treasury, February 1, 1875, relative to cotton seized after the close of the war.

Forty-fourth Congress, first session, House of Representatives, Ex. Doc. No. 189. Letter from the Secretary of the Treasury, relative to cotton-claims.

« AnteriorContinuar »