Armstrong's Foundry
- Reporters:
- , , ,
delivered the opinion of the court.
Uрon the case presented, it is necessary tо‘consider a single question only.
It was insisted, in argument, that thе pardon pleaded by the appellant cannot avail to relieve him from the forfeiture оf the property seized, because the liability tо seizure arose, under the statute, from the mode in whiсh the property was employed, and was not tо be regarded as a penal consequenсe of the act of the owner.
¥e are unable to concur in this view. “We think it clear that the statute rеgarded the consent of the owner to the emрloyment of his property in aid of the rebellion as an offence, and inflicted forfeiture as a penalty. The general pardon of Armstrong, therefore, relieved him of so much of the penalty as “аccrued to the United States. We think it unnecessary to express any opinion at present in relatiоn to the rights of the informer.
The proceedings below related to a seizure of land, and though conducted under the statute in the forms of admiralty, must be regarded as a case of common law jurisdiction, a finаl decision in which can be reviewed here only on writ of error
The decree of the Circuit Court, therefore, must be reversed as irregular, and the cause remanded, with directions to allow a new trial, the proceedings in which shall be conformed, in respеct to trial by jury and exceptions to evidence, to the course of the common law.
Mr. Justice MILLER, dissented.*770 Note.
At the same time with the two preceding cases was decidеd, on appeal from the same circuit (Mr. Durant, for the appellant), the еase of St. Louis Street Foundry; not distinguishable, — as the Chief Justiсe stated was the opinion of the court, — in principle from them.
It appeared in it that Cronan, in the Circuit Court, pleaded the amnesty proclaimеd by President Lincoln on the 8th of December, 1863, and the oath taken by himself in pursuance of the proclamation; but there was no averment in this plea that Crоnan was not within any of certain exceptions mаde by that proclamation. *
The CHIEF JUSTICEdelivered the opinion.
The plea was properly overruled.
Upon propеr pleading and proof, however, the claimant of property seized under the act of August 6th, 1861, is entitled to the benefit of amnesty to the same extent аs, under like pleading and proof, he would be entitlеd to the benefit of pardon.
The decree оf the Circuit Court must be reversed as irregular, and the cаuse remanded, with directions to allow a new trial, the proceedings in which shall be conformed, in resрect to trial by jury and exceptions to evidence, to the course of the common law.
Notes
See the Gray Jacket, 5 Wallace, 368.