
    HILL’S CASE. Charles Hill v. The United States.
    
      On the Proofs.
    
    
      A British si$)jeet residing in England writes in October, 1861, to merohants in Savannah to purchase cotton on his account, to be stored and Tcept until the removal of the blockade, they to draw upon him for the purchase-money. The letter is received in December, 1861. The punchaseis made and bills of exchange are draivn which are accepted and paid in England during the rebellion. During the war the claimant is interested in two adventures for running the blockade, and subscribes money thereto, but it does not appear that the vessels did in fact run or attempt to run the blockade.
    
    I. An alien suing in the Court of Claims to recover the proceeds of captured cotton, is required to aver that he has not voluntarily aided, abetted, or encouraged the rebellion. Where the Government does not traverse the averment, it is presumptively true.
    II. Eesidence in England during the entire period of the rebellion by an alien raises a presumption in his favor of having preserved his neutrality.
    HI. Being interested in and subscribing money to two adventures for blockade-running by an alien residing in England does not overthrow the presumption that he preserved his neutrality, when it does not appear that the vessels did in fact run or attempt to run the blockade.
    IV. It appears that where an alien domiciled in England wrote during the rebellion, and after the establishment of the blockade, to his correspondent in Savannah to buy cotton and draw on him for the purchase-money, a good and valid title to the cotton might thereby be acquired.
    
      The Reporters’ statement of the case:
    The court found the following facts :
    The claimant is a subject of the Queen of Great Britain and Ireland, and during, the entire period of the war of the rebellion he was, and since has been, a resident of the city of Liverpool, England.
    On the 5th of October, 1861, he wrote from Liverpool, to William Battersby & Co., of Savannah, Ga., an order to purchase, on his account, three to five hundred bales of upland cotton, on the plantation, to be stored in the interior until the removal of the blockade, and authorized them to value upon him iu the best manner they could, and their drafts should have protection. This letter was received by Battersby & Co. on the 21st of December, 1861, and they thereupon purchased the cotton which is the subject of this suit, paying therefor about seven and a half-cents per pound, and drew upon tbe claimant for the purchase-money in bills of sterling exchange, which the claimant, during the rebellion, accepted and paid in England.
    This cotton was stored in the city of Savannah, when that city was captured by the military forces of the United States, in December, 1864, and was seized by said forces and shipped to Simeon Draper, agent at New York of the Treasury Department, and by him sold, and the proceeds, amounting to $175.33 per bale, or $37,695.95 in the aggregate, paid into the Treasury of the United States.
    At some period during the war of the rebellion the claimant was interested in two adventures with Alexander Collie & Go., of London, for running the blockade of the ports in the rebel States, subscribing money thereto; but it does not appear whether any vessel or vessels upon which those adventures were embarked did in fact run or attempt to run the blockade, or did in any way give aid or comfort to persons engaged in rebellion against the United States.
    
      Messrs. Denver & Peck for the claimant.
    
      Mr. Alexander Johnston (with whom was the Assistant Attorney-General) for the defendants.
   Drake, Ch. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court:

An alien suing in this court to recover the proceeds of cotton captured during the rebellion is required to aver in his petition that he has not in any way voluntarily aided, abetted, or given encouragement to rebellion against the Government of the United States; and this allegation may be traversed by the Government; and if, on the trial, the issue on this point be decided againsthim, his petition must be dismissed.

The petition in this case contains that averment, which is not traversed by the Government. Presumptively, therefore, it is true.

There is another presumption in that direction, growing out of the claimant’s residence in England during the entire period of the rebellion. This court has uniformly held that the residence of a party in the loyal States during the rebellion is prima-facie evidence of loyalty. The residence of an alien during that period in a foreign country, we think, should raise a presumption in favor of his having preserved his neutrality.

We do not consider the presumptions in favor of this party overthrown by the proof of the mere fact that he was interested in and subscribed money to two adventures for running the blockade of the rebel ports. The adventures may never have be6n put afloat, or, if they were, may never have reached the seat of the blockade. It seems to us to be necessary to show not only the purpose to give aid and comfort to the rebels, but the fact that the aid and comfort were given. This fact not being proved, we think the claimant entitled to recover.

Nott, J.,

dissenting:

In the case of Harrison, (6 C. Cls. R., p. 327,) I dissented from the judgment of the court upon the following grounds:

“1. Aliens, non-resident, have no right to resort to the courts of a country, and they come in only by treaty or through inter-' national comity. It is a controlling principle that courts will not aid' a foreigner to accomplish that which the laws of the country forbid to its own citizens. These alien claimants are like smugglers: if they had acquired the fruit of their traffic, carried on in defiance of the municipal law and public policy of the United States, courts of the United States would not disturb them in their possession j conversely, if the forbidden traffic failed to reach a result, they cannot ask courts of the United States to collude with them in eluding the laws of the United States.
“ 2. The Government, in these abandoned or captured property cases, is a trustee. The fund sought to be recovered is the fruit of the trust, with all the profits and advantages derived through the action of the Government, and not the mere eight cents per pound that the claimants paid for their cotton. It would be contrary to the true intent of the statute to decree the Government a trustee as to a transaction springing out of a traffic with the armed enemies of the United States, carried on by illicit means, in defiance of their laws, in violation of their blockade, and against their declared public policy. If the world could have anticipated tbe rule of law now insisted upon, there would have been no cotton owned -in the insurgent districts, and the United States would now be the trustees of the persons who most completely placed ways and means at the disposal of the rebellion.
“ 3. The claimants, knowing that the interests and declared policy of the United States alike required that their insurgent citizens should be cut off from commercial intercourse with the rest of mankind, voluntarily dealt with them, giving to persons engaged in the rebellion an available commercial credit in the manufacturing markets of the world. The act was aid and comfort to the rebellion, voluntary on the one hand, effective on the other.”

In addition to the facts established in that case, this one shows that the claimant voluntarily entered into a conspiracy for violating the lawful blockade which this Government had established over some of its own ports. During the rebellion a portion of the naval forces of the United States was engaged in carrying on hostilities against those persons who were in arms against the Government, and the remainder was engaged in keeping out of the southern ports those persons who were endeavoring to bring in material aid to the insurgents. I do not perceive the distinction which has been, drawn between the two classes of persons who thus resisted and engaged our naval forces. I am inclined to think that arms and ammunition sent into the insurrection ary districts from foreign ports were as effective aid and comfort to the rebellion as arms and ammunition manufactured on American soil; and I am not prepared to say that such aid and comfort was nothing because the persons who gave it were beyond the bounds of municipal law. It could not, I think, have been intended that, as a matter of legal right, the officers of the United States should carry on a trust, and the courts of the United States be required to enforce it, for the benefit of persons who.were endeavoring to defeat the efforts of the Government and prolong the war. The claim is not within the intent of the statute, and the claimant, if entitled to relief, should have sought it through his own government.

As to the want of evidence of the vessel having run the blockade, it is an error, I think, to confound the act which was done with the mere intent of an ordinary criminal to commit a crime. It is not necessary that a vessel actually violate a blockade; the attempt is sufficient ground for condemnation. Here the party colluded with blockade-runners, and did all that he could to aid them in carrying out their design. The question of their success or failure is secondary, and does not change the character of his act. It has always been deemed aid and comfort to the rebellion for a citizen in Charleston or Wilmington to engage in enterprises for violating the blockade. I am unable to perceive why one rule should be applied to the consignor and another to the consignee.  