
    James S. Clark et al., appellants, v. The United States, appellees.
    
      On the claimants’ Appeal.
    
    
      ht JDeeember, 1651, a cargo of cotton is seized by the military on its arrival at New Orleans, though brought under a permit of the President. The owners pay the acting provost-marshal general to procúre from the officer in command his signature to the permit. Subsequently the provost-marshal is arrested, themoney seized and paid into the Treasury. The owners claim that the seizure of the cotton was illegal, and the payment of money for its release of the nature of extortion.
    
    The court below decides that money paid to a public officer with the corrupt purpose of procuringtbeofficial action of another officer, andsubsequently seized and paid into the Treasury, though the payment was made to procure the release of cotton illegally detained, was bribery under the Ael 26th February, 1853. (10 Stat. L., 170, § 6.)
    The judgment of the court below affirmed, on the ground that the seizure in the first instance was not wrongful and that the claimants were guilty of bribery.
   The Chibe Justice

delivered the opinion of the court, Der cember 13, 1880.  