
    Frederick W. Claussen v. The United States.
    
      On the Proofs.
    
    
      The claimant seeks to establish his loyalty by persons not his companions or intimate• friends, by one who is interested as purchaser from the claimant, in upholding his loyalty, and by his own testimony. His witnesses do not appear to have been loyal men, or known to the loyal men of Charleston.
    
    I. Under the “ Abandoned or captured property act” a claimant should establish the fact that he did not give aid and comfort by his intimate associates, or at least by witnesses of whom some knowledge exists that themselves, were loyal; not by his employés, or those interested in the property, the value of which is claimed.
    II. The court will regard with suspicion the loyalty of a person who held confederate bonds, or who embarked in the organization of a company designed to purchase steamers with a view to import and export merchandise, although, the company did not, when organized, proceed to the transaction of business. The willingness of a claimant to connect himself with an enterprise, the probable purpose of which was to violate the blockade, shows an absence of neutrality, and a desire to give aid and comfort to the rebellion.
    Messrs. Owen and Wilson for claimants:
    This is one of the cotton cases from Charleston, South Carolina.
    The plaintiff claims pay for 75 bales of upland cotton and 53 bales, of sea-island.
    
      The return of the Secretary of War certifies to the taking of that number from the plaintiff. No question can be raised as to the seizure; 'it is both proved and admitted.
    The return of the Secretary of War shows that there were taken— March 17, 1865. 10 bales upland.
    March 23, 1865. 37 “
    May 12,1865. 28 “
    75 “
    March 23, 1865. 53 “sea-island.
    Total. 128 “
    Forty-four hales he raised himself in 1863, as appears from the evidence.
    The hills of sale, with names, dates, &e., show the purchase of the balance, which, with the testimony of the plaintiff, proves his ownership.
    
      Loyalty of claimant.
    
    Without quoting at length from the depositions, we may say that the loyalty of the claimant is abundantly shown.
    All that is necessary to show in these cases is, that the plaintiff did not voluntarily afford aid or comfort, or give encouragement to rebellion. This is all the law requires, and this is all the court can require; and so far as a negative can be proved by the testimony of living witnesses, this fact is made apparent in this cause.
    The amount per'bale is fixed in other cases.
    The Assistant SOLICITOR for the defendants :
    The claimant in this suit seeks to recover the proceeds of 128 bales of cotton taken from his possession by the United States military authorities after the capture of Charleston, in February, 1865. He brings his suit under the provisions of the act of March 12, 1863, known as the captured and abandoned property act.
    The case of the claimant, as shown by his own evidence, is defective in two respects :
    1st. It is not sufficiently established that the claimant-did not give aid or comfort to the rebellion.
    2d. That as to 96 bales of said cotton, it was purchased at a time and under such circumstances as lead to the conclusion that it was not purchased in good faith. It falls within the rule laid down by the court in tlie case of Culliton v. The United States, decided at tbis term. ,
    The testimony as to the loyalty of the claimant is of the slightest possible character.
    The testimony taken by itself would he insufficient to overcome the legal presumption that this claimant was an enemy. It is not such testimony as will satisfy this court that this claimant was not in fact, as well as in law, an enemy', and aiding the rebellion.
    But we are not left entirely to the evidence the claimant has himself furnished. The testimony of W. J. Middleton establishes two important facts :
    l$t. That the claimant had so much faith in the bonds of the rebel government as to invest his money in them to a very large extent.
    2d. That he was a stockholder and director in a blockade-running company.
    It will be maintained, on the argument of this case, that both of these acts amounted to the giving of aid and comfort in a legal sense. This conclusion is inevitable. The purchasing of 'rebel bonds was an indorsement or recognition of the legality of the confederacy, as well as a means of furnishing to them the funds by which the rebellion could be maintained. Blockade running was a source of untold strength to the rebels. Through this source their arms and munitions of war, as well as clothing for their army, were mainly derived. Those who engaged in it were required to pay tribute to the rebel cause.
    We come now to examine the claimant’s ownership of this cotton. Ninety-seven bales of cotton, of which the claimant now claims the proceeds, were purchased at a time, when, in the language of Judge Nott, in the Culliton case, it was-morally certain that Charleston would be captured by the Union forces. The claimant avers that 11 bales of the cotton specified in said bills belonged to Nicholas Culliton. This would leave the claimant 86 bales, which is in the same situation as was the cotton in the Culliton case. He cannot recover the proceeds of the balance of the cotton claimed by him, because he does not sufficiently prove the .fact that he had not given aid or comfort to the late rebellion.
   Peck, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court:

Frederick W. Claussen, who calls himself a naturalized citizen of the United States, seeks to recover out of the treasury the sum of $51,558 11, the proceeds of 81 bales of sea-island cotton, of different grades and qualities, and 47 bales of upland cotton, all of which, he alleges, were his property, and that they were tpken from him after the surrender of Charleston by the forces of the United States, and sold, and the proceeds thereof paid into the treasury.

Mr. Claussen does not make a favorable showing, in order to bring himself within the relief of the statute, as to not giving aid or comfort to the rebellion. Even on the score of neutrality, he was, at best, if neutral at all, a secession neutral, with all his leanings to the rebel side.

In the numerous cases we have had before us, seeking to recover the proceeds of cotton taken in Charleston, a class of witnesses have been examined who were known to each other and to the citizens of Charleston generally, as being loyal, in a greater or less degree, to the United States, and opposed to rebellion; in this case, with but one exception, we have new witnesses, who do not appear to have been known among the loyal faithful. Nicholas Oulliton is' the exception, and the testimony of this claimant exposes the fact that 11 or 12 hales of the cotton were held or bought for Oulliton.

Claussen testifies as follows : “ I was a foreigner and took no part in the rebellion, as I came here simply to make money and not to-bother myself in politics, and I did not. I took no sides between the two.” He admits that he had confederate bonds and that he invested his money in them, but denies that he subscribed anything to confederate loans. He also denies being interested in any blockade company or blockade running, but he does not, in his own behalf, affirm any act of loyalty or state any fact in evidence which shows his attachment to the Union. The witnesses examined to establish the fact that Claussen did not give aid or comfort to the rebellion were persons who had been in his employment; they were not his associates or intimate with him, nor cognizant of his general business, or of his daily walk, and they say what almost any stranger could, that they have not any knowledge that Claussen gave aid or comfort to the rebellion. The testimony taken by the Solicitors is unfavorable to the pretensions of the claimant. Nicholas Oulliton, who had been in his service, says of him: “I don’t know what his sentiments were during the war; as a general thing he was reputed a Union man.” Such testimony, which is as favorable for him as any in the record, is but a poor proof to sustain his loyalty.

Patrick, another witness, who labored for claimant the last two years of the war, says: “He worked for him a good while and never heard whether Claussen did or did not sympathize with rebellion.” William J. Middleton, also a resident of Charleston, who knew claimant and bought and sold for him, says: “ He was himself president of the ‘ Commercial Trading Company,’ of which he thinks Claussen was a director. The company never transacted business, hut its object was to purchase steamers and import and export merchandise.” The willingness of claimant to embark in such an association, the very purpose of which was to violate the blockade, shows an absence of neutrality, and a desire to give aid and comfort to the then present rebellion. Middleton also says: “ He knows that Claussen owned confederate bonds, but does not know to what amount. The usual size of confederate bonds,” he says, “was $500, $1,000, and $10,000, and he recollects that Claussen had some of all three denominations.” If he had some of all the denominations, the omission of claimant to explain the amount and to show how they were acquired, leaves us to infer that any explanation he could offer would not relieve him from the odium of having given aid and comfort to the rebellion. If he could have rebutted the presumption which arises from the fact, he would doubtless have done so.

Much of the cotton, of which the proceeds are claimed, was acquired about the time that Charleston was evacuated, and when its surrender was inevitable, too late to be recognized as a fair business transaction entitled to the favor of the laws or the court.

This claimant has failed to furnish proof, to the satisfaction of thi3 court, that he has never given any aid or comfort to the late rebellion; therefore he cannot recover the proceeds of his cotton by force of the third section of the act, under which he has presented his claim, and. his petition is dismissed.  