
    ELIZABETH WHITE, Administratrix, v. THE UNITED STATES.
    [Congressional 9600.
    Decided April 25, 1898.]
    
      On the Proofs.
    
    The claim, originally presented to the Southern Claims Commission, is referred to this court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives. The case is tried on its merits and decided adversely to the claimant (28 C. Cls. R., 57) and reported to Congress. Thereafter the Senate passes a resolution that a hill providing for the relief of the claimant he “ transmitted to the Court of Claims to find and report the facts.”
    
    I. Under the Tucker Act, 1887, J 11, the. court is required to report to the House of Congress from which the resolution of reference comes “ the facts in the case.’’
    
    II. Notwithstanding that the court has once found the facts in a case under the Bowman Act, and has held that the claim was compromised, yet if it he again referred hy one of the Houses of Congress under the Tucker Act, the court will reexamine the case and again report the facts.
    
      The Reporters' statement of the case:
    The claim in this case was originally presented to the Southern Claims Commission, before whom evidence was adduced, and by that tribunal disallowed, because not satisfied of the loyalty of the claimant’s decedent, and for the further reason that the payment to the claimant of the proceeds of the steamboat as hereinafter set out was intended 11 by both parties as final payment both for the value and the use of the boat.”
    The claim was thereafter presented to Congress, and while pending there the same was, on February 12,1887, referred by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives to this court under the act of March 3,1883, known as the Bowman Act.
    Thereafter, the claimant, being the same as in the above-entitled cause, filed be'r petition under No. .1373, averring therein, among other things—
    “that she is a citizen of the United States1, residing in West Feliciana Parish, State of Louisiana, where decedent resided during the late war of the rebellion; that at different times during said period the United States forces, by proper authority, took from the decedent quartermaster stores and commissary supplies of the value of $169,300, and appropriated the same to the use of the U. S. Army, as follows:
    “ Taken by the United States forces, for their use, between the town of Bayou Sara and Port Hudson, in the parish of West Feliciana, Louisiana:
    1 steamboat, named. Red Chief No. 1, of about 175 tons burden, taken by Gen. Banks’s army July 8, 1863, and turned over to S. B. Holabird’s charge, quartermaster department of the Gulf, valued at. $35, 000.00 For use of the steamer Red Chief No. 1, for tackle, apparel, furniture, for 834 days, at $150 per day, making... 125,100.00
    Credited by amount for which said steamer Red Chief No. 1 was sold by the United States, at Mobile, Ala., October 20, 1866, said amount being paid to the claimant on the day of March, 1866, by Quartermaster-General M. C. Meigs, on the order of the Hon. Edwin M. Stanton, Secretary of War. 7,000.00
    Leaving for the value of the steamer and its use as charged. 153,100.00 50 hogsheads of sugar, weighing 1,200 pounds per hogshead, 60,000 pounds, at 25 cents per pound. 15, 000.00 60 barrels of molasses, 40 gallons per barrel, 2,400 gallons, at 50 cents._•. 1,200.00
    Aggregating in value. 169,300.00”
    The1 court, ou a preliminary hearing on the lith day of April, 1892, found that Samuel N. White, from whom it is alleged in the petition that said vessel and stores were taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the war for the suppression of the rebellion.
    Thereafter the case was tried before the court on its merits, and ou January 16,1893, the case was decided adversely to the claimant for the reasons stated in the opinion of the court (28 C. Gis. R., p. 57).
    Thereafter the claimant filed a motion for a new trial, aud after argument thereon the motion was overruled for the reasons stated in the opinion of the court, May 7, 1894 (29 O. Ols. R., p. 264).
    The case under the reference thus finally disposed of was, on December 3,1894, reported to the Fifty-third Congress, third session, and published as Miscellaneous Document No. 22, in the court’s report of Congressional cases at that time.
    Thereafter, to wit, June 24,1897, there was introduced in the Senate and referred to the Committee on Claims a bill (No. 2270), as follows:
    “ [Fifty-fifth Congress, first session. S. 2270.]
    “In the Senate oe the United States.
    “ June 24, 1897.
    “Mr. Oaffery (by request) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Claims:
    “A BILL for the relief of tlie estate of Samuel N. White, deceased, late of West Feliciana Parish, Louisiana.
    
      uBe it enacted by the Senate ana Bouse of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That-the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated, to estate of Samuel N. White, deceased, late of West Feliciana Parish, Louisiana, the sum of one hundred and sixty-nine thousand three hundred dollars, for the value and use of the steamboat Eed Chief and .supplies appropriated to the use of the United States Army.”
    ' While said bill was pending before said Committee on Claims, to wit, July 17, 1897, the Senate passed the following resolution, viz:
    “In the Senate oe the United States.
    “July 17,1897.
    “Resolved, That the bills (S. 1502, 1505, 1635, 1642, 1643, 1644,1646,1647, 1955, 2078, 2081, 2270) for the relief of O. S, Lobdell, Sarah E. Norton, M. T. Pollan, J. J. Ualtney, Margaret B. JBaiford, William Whitaker, C. O. Spencer, A. O. Caiman, N. E. Perkins, administrator; John Morrison, S. N. White, and J. J. Bailey, be, and they are hereby, transmitted to the Court of Claims to find and report the facts in each case, as provided by section 14 of an act ‘to provide for bringing suits,’ approved March 3,1887.
    “Attest:
    (Signed) “Wm. B. Cox, Secretary.”
    Under the resolution of reference set forth the claimant, as administratrix of said Samuel N. White, deceased, filed a new petition, substantially the same as the petition filed in the case by virtue of tlie reference under the act of March 3, 1883, and identical with that portion of the petition hereinbefore set . forth in respect of the items and amounts of the claim.
    The claimant having- heretofore been found loyal on the preliminary inquiry in the petition under the act of March 3, 1883, as hereinbefore stated, no further action was asked for or had with reference thereto.
    The following are the facts of the case, as found by the court:
    I. Late in the summer or early in autumn of 1862 the military or naval forces of the United States seized and took a flatboat at Bayou Sara, La., upon which was loaded 50 hogsheads containing 50,000 pounds of sugar and 60 barrels containing 2,400 gallons of molasses belonging to said Samuel N White (now deceased). Said sugar and molasses were loaded on a navy or army transport on the Mississippi River, known as the Essex, and it does not further appeal what became of it, nor whether said sugar and molasses were issued-to or used by the Army or Navy as stores or supplies or whether destroyed as an act of war, nor whether the same came to the official custody of the chief quartermaster of the Department of New Orleans or the chief commissary of the same.
    II. The reasonable value of the sugar and molasses at the time and place of capture was—
    The sugar 7 cents per pound, or for the 50,000 pounds. $3,500
    The molasses 50 cents per gallon, or for the 2,400 gallons. 1,200
    And in the aggregate for both sugar and molasses. 4,700
    III.As to the claim for the steamboat, we find that early in March, 1863, the said Samuel N. White (now deceased) purchased at Shreveport, La., a steamboat named Red Chief No. 1, and that within a day or two after said purchase a squad of Confederate soldiers under the command of a Confederate quartermaster impressed said boat into the Confederate service to transport stores and supplies to and for the use of the Confederate army; that to preserve said boat said White remained on board said vessel and commanded her under the orders of said quartermaster in tlie transportation of stores and supplies as aforesaid. On or about the first day of July, 1863, said vessel was, in some informal way, turned over to said White, who ran her up Thompson Creek, leaving her in charge of a sufficient crew to protect her.
    
      Prior to the purchase of said vessel by White she was in the service of the Confederate army under the command of her then owner, Capt. M. N. Wood, in the transportation of Confederate soldiers and supplies to and for the use of the Confederate army.
    On the 8th day of July, 1803, at the time of the fall of Port Hudson, said vessel was found tied up in Thompson Creek, a few miles from Port Hudson, where she was seized by the United States forces and turned over to the chief quartermaster of the Department of the Gulf, of the United States A'rmy, as property captured from the enemy in war; and said vessel was thereafter used by the United States Army as property so captured.
    IY. On the 3d day of June, 1864, the said White filed in the district court of the United States for the eastern district of Louisiana a certain libel against the said steamboat Bed Chief No. 1, and S. B. Holabird, then chief quartermaster, Department of the Gulf, as aforesaid, alleging his loyalty to the United States and claiming to be the owner of said vessel and demanding demurrage for the use thereof, and after the service of a proper warrant and monition, the United States, acting through the district attorney in said district, filed its certain bill of intervention, in which it was averred in substance, among other things, that said steamboat had been captured by the naval and military forces of the United States at Port Hudson on the 8th day of July, 1863, from the rebels in arms, and that said boat was so held and belonged to the United States under the provisions of the act of July 13,1861, entitled “An act further to provide for the collection of duties on imports and for other purposes” (12 Stat. L., 255), and particularly by reason of the provisions of sections 5 and 6 oí said act, and the proclamations of the President issued on the 15th day of April and the 16th day of August, 1861 (12 Stat. L., appendix, 1256 and 1262, respectively), and that the citizens of Louisiana were at the time of such capture in a state of insurrection.
    Said case came on for trial, judgment, and decree, and the court found for the libellant, and gave judgment and decree of restitution, “leaving the question of demurrage untouched.” From which judgment and decree the United States, through the district attorney, filed their petition for a suspension appeal to the circuit court for said district, which appeal was granted to operate as a supersedeas as prayed, but there being no circuit judge there at that time, as appears, said cause was not tried or otherwise disposed of, but appears still to be pending in said court.
    Y. Thereafter, and from the time of the capture of said vessel as aforesaid, she was held and used in the service of the United States as captured property theretofore in the service of the Confederate army, until on or about October 12, 1865, when said vessel was sold to the highest bidder, as the property of the United States, by the Quartermaster Department of said Army, at Mobile, Ala., at public auction, having first caused said property to be appraised and given notice of such sale, for $7,00<), which sum was $2,000 in excess of such appraisement.
    YI. Soon thereafter, and before said money was paid into the Treasury of the United States, said White made application to the Secretary of War, in which he asked the Secretary to “ direct the return to him of the proceeds of his vessel, and that such allowance be made to him for her use that, added to the amount for wliich the vessel was sold, will reimburse him for her value at the time of seizure;” but the Secretary at first refused to do so, claiming that said vessel was the property of the United States by reason of capture in war, and that said White was not entitled to the proceeds of such vessel, but on the 14th day of March, 1866, after the Secretary of War had examined a certified copy of the proceedings and judgment in the said district court of Louisiana, he ordered said sum of money to be paid over to said White, in these words:
    “Was Depaetmekt, March 14, 1866.
    
    “It appearing from the papers in the case that the claimant, S. N. White, is a loyal citizen of the United States, and owner-of the steamboat Bed Chief No. 1, and that she came by capture into the possession of the Quartermaster’s Department, in the Department of Louisiana, and that on a suit brought by White in the United States District Court against Quartermaster Hollabird, the court decided in favor of the claimant, and ordered the boat to be delivered to him, and that pending that proceeding the boat was sold at Mobile by the Quartermaster Department by mistake, it is ordered the proceeds- of the sale be turned over by the Quartermaster-G-eneral' to the claimant in lieu of the boat, taking from Mr. White a release of all further claims against the United States for said boat and its value and an acknowledgment that the said sum is received iu full accord and satisfaction for all claims against the United States or its officers for said boat and its value March 14, 1866. '
    “Edwest M. Stanton,
    “ Secretary of War.”
    
    YII. Thereafter on the 16th day of March, 1866, in compliance with said order, said sum of money was paid over to said White upon a proper voucher made therefor, duly certified as required by said order and receipted for by said White, which voucher, certificate, and receipt are in these words:
    No. 22.
    
    
      The United States, to S. M. White, Dr.
    
    March 16, 1866. To reimbursement of the proceeds of the sale of the steamer Bed Chief No. 1, by the U. S. Qr. Mr. Dept., at Mobile, Alabama, on the 12th of Octr., 1865, it being at the time the property of this said Samuel N. White, which reimbursement is in lieu of the boat and in full payment and release for all claims by said Samuel N. White on the U. S. Government, or its officers, on account of said boat, and the said reimbursement “being in full accord and satisfaction for all claims against the U. S. and its officers for said boat or its value". $7,000
    See subvouebers attached — two in number, as furnished from Qr, Mr. GenTs Office, March 16th, 1866.
    “I certify that the above account is correct, and that it has been made in triplicate, and read over carefully to the claimant, Samuel N. White, in the presence of the attesting witnesses, aud that he, in their presence, accepted the sum of seven thousand dollars, in full of all claims by him against the U. S. or its officers on account of the steamer Bed Chief No. 1.
    “J. O. M. Ferran,
    “ Major, Qr. Mr., Bvt. Gol., U. S. A.
    
    “Received at Washington, D. 0., the 16th of March, 1866, of Bvt. Col. J. O. M. Ferran, quartermaster, United States Army, the sum of seven thousand dollars and-cents, in full of the above account'in check No. 26, on the 1st National Bank of Washington, D. 0., payable to S. N. White or bearer, for $7,000.00.
    “S. N. White.
    “ Witnesses:
    “W. M. Macrae.
    “O. A. Thorn.
    “(Triplicate.)”
    YIII. The vessel was of 1,150 tons burden and worth when captured about $12,000.
    She was used by the defendants, under the direction of the Quartermaster’s Department, on the Mississippi River and its tributaries, they furnishing their own crew, fuel, and provisions, etc., .from about July 8, 1863, to the time of her sale, October 12,1865, or,-in all, 825 days. During the time of her use as aforesaid she was worth, based on the rates then paid by the Quartermaster’s Department in that locality, about $28 per diem, or for the 825 days so used, $23,100.
    IX. No payment, appears to have been made to the claimant or her decedent except the sum of $7,000, as set forth in Findings VI and VII.
    X. As to whether there was delay or laches in presenting said claim, it does not appear that the claimant or her decedent was negligent therein, as the claim was originally presented to the Southern Claims Commission, and thereafter presented to Congress and referred to this court, as herein-before set forth.
    
      Mr. Gilbert Moyers for the claimant.
    
      Mr. Felix Brannigcm (with whom was Mr. Assistant Attorney- General Pradt) for the defendants.
   Peelle, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court:

This case, as the findings disclose, was first.referred to the court under the act of March 3, 1883, known as the Bowman Act, and the claimant having on a preliminary hearing been found loyal throughout the war of the rebellion, the case was tried on its merits and decided adversely to the claimant. (28 O. Ols. R, p. 57")

In respect of the claim for sugar and molasses the court, in its opinion (p. 60), said “ that where property was seized, as in this case, in hostile territory, as that portion of Louisiana ivas at the time of such seizure, and there is no evidence showing or tending to show, as there is not in this case, that such propel I y was used by the Army or Navy of the United States as stores and supplies, or other benefit derived therefrom to the United States, the presumption is that such seizure was not an appropriation for the use of the Army or Navy of the United States within the meaning of the fourth section of said act of March 3,1883 {supra), but was a destruction of property as an act of war, and the court, under the first clause of section 3 of said act, is without jurisdiction to ascertain and report the facts to Congress.”

The .language there used was a little strong in view of the fact that tbe finding disclosed that the sugar and molasses bad been loaded on an army and navy transport on the Mississippi Biver, and hence the claimant could not thereafter be held responsible for any disposition made thereof.

As to the claim for the steamboat captured, which was subsequently sold at public auction, and on application therefor by the claimant to the Secretary of War the proceeds thereof were paid over to him, the court in its opinion said:

“ The claim before the Secretary, as disclosed by the claimant’s application, was not only for the proceeds of the vessel, but for its use; and we think the payment made was intended by the Secretary, and so understood and accepted by the claimant, in full of his claim, and that, being so, the claim was barred at the passage of the act of March 3,1883. Besides, we remark that the claimant’s measure of damages, if entitled to recover, would be only the value of the vessel at the time of capture, and such seems to have,been the view taken by the claimant when he applied to the Secretary to have said sum, etc., paid to him. But if the proceeds of the sale had been paid into the Treasury and the claimant had commenced proceedings to recover the same under the abandoned and captured property act, his recovery, if at all, would have been limited to the fund in the Treasury, and he, by his application to the Secretary of War, having prevented payment of the funds into the Treasury, could not now enlarge his measure of damages.”

When the case was heard on the claimant’s motion for a new trial, the court, in its opinion (29 C. Gis. B., 264-266), in speaking of the seizure of the sugar and molasses, said:

. “Ordinarily a claimant coining into this court under the Bowman Act is entitled to have the facts of his case found; but there are cases as to which the court is prohibited from exercising jurisdiction. Among these are cases which were barred when- the act passed and cases growing out of the civil war. An exception is made in the latter class in favor of ‘supplies or stores taken by or furnished to any part of the military or naval forces of the United State for their use.’ (Section 4.) If the property taken was sold and the proceeds directly or constructively went into the capture fund; or if the property taken was not taken for use, but to despoil the enemy, and no benefit, to the Government is affirmatively shown; or if the- property rvas damaged or destroyed, the court is without jurisdiction.” (Concord’s Case, 25 0. Cls. B., 433.)

In respect of the claim for the vessel and the claimant’s application for the proceeds of the sale thereof, the court said:

“Upon this application the Secretary, in effect, offered a compromise, that the proceeds be surrendered to the applicant without further litigation upon the condition that he should surrender ‘all further claims against the United States for said boat.’ The terms proffered were accepted, the money was paid, and the compromise effected. That compromise barred the owner from again asserting a demand against the United States for the use of the boat, and the court is without jurisdiction to reopen the claim.”
Under section 14, act of March 3, 1887 (1 Supp. E. S., p. 559), the court is required to report to the House of Congress from which the resolution of reference comes “the facts in the case and the amount, where the same can be liquidated, including any facts bearing upon the question whether there has been delay or laches in presenting such claim.”

In compliance with the resolution of reference, we have found the facts and preceded the same with a full statement of the case for the information of Congress, and direct that the same, together with this opinion, be certified to the United States Senate in compliance with the act of 1887 (supra).  