
    James Armstrong v. The United States.
    
      On the Proofs.
    
    
      The claimant produces as evidence of loyalty a certificate signed by five United States prisoners whom he had harbored and aided to escape. It is countersigned by Rear-Admiral Dahlgren immediately after the evacuation. Twenty bales of his cotton were paid for two days before the evacuation, but purchased three weeks prior to that time. It was not in Charleston at the time of the capture.
    
    I. A contemporary certificate of five United States prisoners, whom the claimant has harbored and aided to escape, attested by a rear-admiral of the United States navy, is the most satisfactory evidence of loyalty.
    II. “When the purchase of the captured property vras a sufficient time before the capture to relieve the parties from all imputation of fraud, the sale will not be deemed fraudulent under the “Abandoned or captured property act,” (12 Stat. L., p. 820,) though the purchase money was not paid till three days before capture.
    III. "When property treated as captured under the “Abandoned or captured property act ” was not within the captured city at the time, but was brought in subsequently by a loyal owner, it is not a sufficient objection to the claim that but three weeks elapsed between the time of purchase from an unknown or disloyal owner and the surrender of the city.
    
      Messrs. Cooley and Clarke for claimant:
    The claimant is a citizen, of Charleston, South Carolina, and his claim is similar to the other causes arising out of the capture of “ the Charleston cotton;” except, that claimant’s cotton was stored on his farm — by water 12 miles, direct six miles from the city, and outside-the fortifications.
    In March, 1865, in obedience to an official order which was published by the military authorities, “ claimant went to the office of Captain Sturdivant and reported to him 54 bales of cotton at his place on Wandoo river; it was about 10 or 15 miles from the city.”
    Captain Sturdivant instructed him to bring the cotton to the city. And such was his faith in the government, and that he, a Union man, would be protected and his cotton turned over to him at once on its arrival, that he procured a schooner at his own.expense and brought the cotton to the wharf at Charleston, when Mitchell, a government official, took possession of it for the government.
    
      Ownership and amount of cotton taken. — The claimant is a merchant and was dealing in the staple of the country, for himself and on commission, in the course of his business. In the two years before the evacuation he became the owner of the 54 bales of cotton which were taken by the United States authorities.
    There- were 53 bales of upland and 1 bale sea-island.
    Claimant owned, he says, 56 bales; his bills and vouchers show 54 upland and 1 sea-island, making 55 bales. But there may have been an error in count, (or possibly one bale was lost.) We, therefore, claim only for the 54 bales, 53 upland and 1 sea-island.
    The bills of purchase show from whom the cotton was bought, except the one bale of sea-island. This one bale was purchased from Hon. F. A. Sawyer, collector of internal revenue, and no bill was taken. The last bill does not show the correct date of purchase and of removal to claimant’s possession. Claimant says he had bought and taken possession of that lot about three weeks before the evacuation, but paid for it the date of the bill.
    The record of the War Department shows as follows :
    “ James Armstrong. March 25. No. 161. Fifty-four bales of cotton on Fordham farm, Wandoo river, six miles from the city.
    “He has a recommendation from Union prisoners for having showed them kiud attention in this city and Florence.”
    The time of the purchase of the lot of 20 bales, although but about one month before the surrender of Charleston, is, we think, not even sufficient to raise a presumption against the bona fide character of the transaction. Charleston had been assaulted and bombarded for more than two years. It was not known to claimant, though he prayed for the event, that it would fall for months. He believed at any rate when it did fall that he would be protected. He had money, and in his own words “ I wanted to invest it. That is why I bought the cotton. I did not buy it to screen rebel property; hut I bought it bona fide— ■in good faith.” This makes clear from doubt or suspicion any question as to the entire good faith and ownership of this property for lawful and praiseworthy motives.
    The court, Chief Justice Casey, says: “If he be the owner of the property, in good faith,” &c. Of that fact, from the character of the man as disclosed in the evidence, there can be no question. It was in the line of his business. He was able to buy. He bought from an old soldier of the United States. He had moved it to his farm. He reported it, which (it being in the country) he need not have done; ■all showing his entire good faith and reliance upon a just government which he loved.
    
      He was loyal. — No man, perhaps, in Charleston, (unless, possibly, ‘Quinby or Coogan,) was as open and bold in the expression of his Union sentiments. He was often cautioned by Union men to be more careful.
    
      Amount which claimant is entitled to recover. — We need not refer to testimony of Captain Sturdivant, which shows the disposition made of the claimant’s cotton, as the return from the Secretary of War shows a credit to him of 54 bales of cotton.
    The price per bale for Charleston cotton, net, has at last been fixed by the Secretary of the Treasury; and although at a very much lower rate per bale than the cottín from any other point, we must submit—
    ■53 bales at 1131 20. $0,953 60
    1 bale sea-island $237 64. 237 64
    Total. 7,191 24
    This case comes fully up to all the requirements of the law, as •expounded by this court.
    Hon. E. S. Hale, special counsel, for defendants :
    The claimant claims for 54 bales of cotton seized at Charleston in March, 1865.
    His loyalty and the seizure seem to be satisfactorily proven; and as to 34 bales of the cotton claimed, there seems to be no question as to his title.
    
      The remaining 20 bales claimed were bought by claimant of P. 1L Doucin, 16th February, 1865.
    This was barely two days before the occupation of Charleston by the Union troops, when the city was already in effect in their hands* blockade running ended, and cotton in the hands of rebel owners valueless.
    Nothing is shown as to the loyalty of Doucin, nor as to the manner of payment. The price ($1J50 per pound) indicates that it was paid for in Confederate money then in effect worthless.
    Under the doctrines established in the cotton cases (2 Ct. of Ols. B.., p. 529) and approved in the case of Nicholas Culliton, decided at the present term, and other cases, it is submitted that the claim of claimant cannot be sustained as to the 20 bales in question.
   Peck, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court:

James Armstrong, a resident of Charleston, South Carolina, seeks to recover the net proceeds of 54 bales of cotton, which it is alleged and proved were taken from him by the agents of the United States, and converted into money which is now in the treasury of the United States.

In regard to the attachment of this claimant to the federal Union, and his abstinence from favoring the rebellion we have the most satisfactory proof. He was for that vicinity pre-eminently loyal, and did not hesitate to avow, at all times and on all occasions, his ' desire for the success of 'the federal armies.

The national flag was offered for sale at public auction, and he was the only person who had the courage to bid#for it. He nourished and. secreted Union prisoners; he aided in theiri escape; he was not only an out spoken Union man but he performed various deeds of kindness to Union men. Take him all in all, he was a model Union man in the city of Charleston, so pre-eminent in its ‘treason.

We abstract from his deposition the following passages:

“ I can state under oath that I was always loyal to the United States and opposed to the rebellion, and never did anything to aid the rebellion ;• I voluntarily went and furnished the Union prisoners at the jail, racetrack hospital, and the workhouse; I went to Captain G-ayr for a pass for the purpose; he was the confederate provost marshal here; myself and my sons went; and I, in the night, often sent my servants with food, liquor, and other refreshments ; I kept four Union prisoners in my house; Captain Boram of the ship Arcóle, a man named Fitzgerald;. another man, Webb, of Sherman’s army-, and another named Eich; there was also C. D. Duncan, who belonged to the steamer Diotching; I used to take them to my house; they were confined in the building on King street near Line; there were several parties up-stairs; I passed the guard and went up to see them; they remained here several days after the Union army came in; they voluntarily gave me a testimonial of my aid to them; it is signed by them; the paper marked exhibit E by the commissioner is that paper.
“ There was a vessel captured here and they were selling her effects. Among them were three flags, one an English flag, one a confederate flag, and one a United States flag; on starting the auction none would bid on the United States flag; he said they seemed to he unwilling to bid on that dirty rag; I was close by the door and said I would start the flag, and offered #10; there was another man behind who nudged him and he threw down the flag; I hollered to him that was not fair; he said he could not dwell on such a rag as that.”

The testimonial referred to as exhibit E is as follows :

“ CHARLESTON, February 18, 1865.
“We, the undersigned, prisoners of war, recently paroled, take pleasure in hereby certifying to the unremitted kindness and attention shown us by Mr. James Armstrong, of Charleston, South Carolina, during our confinement in that city. He has shown himself to he a true Union man, and incurred not only the displeasure of rebel citizens but a great deal of danger, for his services tendered not only to United States prisoners in Charleston hut in Florence, alleviating the sufferings of our men, and not without pecuniary sacrifice. We would request from the United Spates authorities that whatever property Mr. Armstrong may have may remain unmolested, and in gratitude would esteem it a favor if our authorities would remember his loyalty to our cause and his untiring services to us.
“We are, &c.,
“ Charles D. Duncan,
“Acting Ensign United States Navy.
“A. F. Eich,
“Acting Master’s Mate United States Navy.
“W. H. Fitzgerald,
“Acting Master’s Mate.
“Dwight Webb,
“First Lieut. Co. F, 32d Ohio Vol. Inf., 17th Army Corps.
“Theodore Borbi-iam,
“Formerly Master Ship Arcóle, of New York.”
[Indorsed.]
“ CHARLESTON, June 14.
“ Asks for a passage in tlie Massachusetts; which is approved, whenever the applicant is ready.
“J. T. Dahlgrbn,
. “Rear-Admiral Commanding

It is a satisfaction to. know that one so inflexible, kind, and sincere in his patriotism, can, by the just legislation of the country he so esteemed, receive some compensation for the losses which war inevitably brings.

The registration book of cotton captured at Charleston, in the office of the Quartermaster General, has in it the following entry :

“ James Armstrong. March 25. No. 161. Fifty-four bales cotton on Fordham farm, Wandoo river, six miles from the city.
“ He has a recommendation from Union prisoners for having showed them kind attention in this city and Florence.”

There is no such evidence in the record as satisfies the court that one of the bales of the above number was sea-island cotton.

The special counsel for the defendants has filed a brief in the case, which as to the net proceeds of 20 of the 54 bales claimed, says that these were bought of one P. M. Doucin on the 16th of February, which was but two days before the occupation of Charleston, and that nothing is shown as to the loyalty of Doucin.

Francis A. Michell says in his testimony that claimant reported his cotton to the United States, and that it was at his place on the Wandoo river, some 10 or 15 miles from the city; that claimant brought it to Charleston in a schooner, and the United States took possession of it.

The other testimony in relation to the cotton is that of claimant, who says he purchased the 20 bales of Doucin “about three weeks before the evacuation,” but that he paid for it on the 16th of February. Claimant produces the original bill of the cotton and makes it an exhibit, saying that he had taken the cotton before that date.

The date of the purchase rather than the time of paying for it is what fixes the character of the transaction and indicates its good or bad faith. That the vendor was willing to give possession of the cotton before payment does not show that it was purchased to screen it from capture; and having been purchased, as it was, three weeks before the surrender of Charleston, the presumption does not attach that it was not a proper sale and purchase in the regular order of business. Both facts rest upon the same testimony; it is therefore as good for the time of purchase as for the time of payment.

We are satisfied tliat the cotton was purchased at the time claimant says it was. The cotton was not in the city, and the evacuation at one date or another did not bring these 20 hales within the limits of capture; nothiug was gained or lost-as booty, since the surrender did not place this cotton any more within the control of federal forces than it was without that.

Claimant is entitled to the net proceeds of 54 hales of cotton, which it is shown amount to the sum of $7,088 04, and we so order.  