
    ARMSTRONG’S CASE. Hibernia Armstrong v. The United States.
    
      On the Proofs.
    
    
      The claimant brings an action to recover the proceeds of one hundred and two hales of cotton, alleged to have heen seized hythe defendants in Arkansas in the latter part of 1863 or early in 1864. She proves that she gave no active aid to the rebellion up to the last of September, 1863, hut on the approach of the Union forces it appears that she went South, taking thirty or forty of her slaves, to avoid their emancipation by the Federal army. From that time she ojfers no proof of her loyal adherence to the United States while within the Confederate lines.
    
    For one residing within tlie insurrectionary districts to go farther south on the approach of the Union forces, carrying- with her her slaves, to prevent their emancipation hy the Federal army, is to render aid or comfort to the rebellion within the meaning of the “Abandoned or captured property act," (IS Stat. L., p. 8S0.)
    
      Mr. R. M. Oorwine for the claimant:
    The claimant was the owner, in the winter and spring of 1863 and 1864, of one hundred and two bales of cotton, which she' raised on her plantation, in Arkansas, near Little Eock. This cotton ivas taken possession of by the agents of the United States Treasury Department, sold, and the proceeds paid into the Treasury, amounting to $26,500 92; for which she prays judgment.
    Her ownership, her citizenship, and her loyalty are abundantly established by every witness who testified in the case, except Mr. Barber. These witnesses show affirmatively that she was an unfaltering Union woman throughout the struggle, and that she never gave aid or comfort to the rebel cause in any shape.
    The. Treasury authorities took the one hundred and two bales, and although they were used for fortification purposes, and the marks of some of them were obliterated while in the military works, all the cotton- thus put into those works was restored to the Treasury agents, and shipped and ultimately sold, and the proceeds paid into the Treasury, including all taken from claimant.
    
      
      Mr. B. 8. Sale, special counsel of the Treasury, for tbe defendants :
    The claim is for the proceeds of one hundred and two bales of cotton, alleged by claimant to have been taken by a Treasury agent, in Conway County, Arkansas, in the winter of 1863-’64.
    The evidence shows that one hundred and two bales were taken'prior to July, 1864, by the Treasury agent, from the plantation occupied by the claimant, and were subsequently taken by the military authorities, with a large quantity of other cotton, and put into the fortifications at and about Little B.ock; and that when the cotton was taken out of the fortifications and returned to the Treasury Department, only sixty bales were identified as of the cotton in question. Some other cotton was removed from the fortifications which could not be identified, of which no ownership by the claimant is shown.
    The claimant’s proof of loyalty utterly fails.
    Three witnesses testified on her behalf in this respect.
    They all testify to the same general effect, that the claimant u took no part in the late rebellion, nor contributed any means or property, that I know of.” “ So far as I know, she was a loyal woman to the United States Government;” &c.
    Claimant had two sons in the rebel army.
    But the more important point in connection with the question of claimant’s loyalty is that of the three witnesses called by her, not one of whom professes the slightest knowledge of her conduct or sentiments after the summer of 1863.
    This court has repeatedly decided that the proof of loyalty to be made by claimants must cover the entire period of the rebellion, and this rule is especially worthy of close observance in a case where the antecedent proof of loyalty is so very slight and suspicious as in this case.
   Milligan, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court:

This action was brought to recover the net proceeds of one hundred and two bales of upland cotton, alleged to have been seized by the United States military forces in the State of Arkansas.

The facts are found to be as follows: The claimant, Mrs. Armstrong, is the widow of Bobert Armstrong, deceased. He has been dead about ten years, and the cotton alleged to bare been seized was raised by tlie bands of the claimant on what is known in the record as the “Armstrong’ plantation.”

In the latter part of 3863, or early in 1861, there was on this plantation about one hundred and twenty bales of cotton, which were taken possession of by the United States military forces, and removed to Lewisburg, in Arkansas, and thence to Little Eock.

Prior to the 9th of July, 1864, one hundred and two bales of this cotton are shown to have been in the hands of the Treasury agents at Little Eock, which, with other cotton, were taken and used by the military forces of the United States at that place, in works of defence around the city. And when the cotton was removed from the fortifications, the marks upon the bales were so obliterated by time and exposure, that a portion of the bales could not be identified. Sixty bales were identified as belonging to “ Eobert Armstrong,” but which, in point of fact, are proven to have belonged to the claimant. These sixty bales, with other cotton identified as belonging to different parties, and one hundred and seventeen sacks of loose cotton, which came out of the fortifications, could not be identified as the property of any one, were shipped together to Memphis, Tennessee, and thence to the Treasury agent at Cincinnati, and there sold, and the proceeds paid into the Treasury of the United States.

The claimant is proved to have given no active aid to the rebellion up to the last of September, 1863, when, on. the approach of the Union Army, she fled farther south, taking with her thirty or forty of her slaves to avoid their emancipation by the Federal forces. Since that time, the last of September, 1863, there is no proof whatever even tending to show her political status.

In the case of Margaret Bond (2 C. Cls. R., 529) this court, in construing the captured and abandoned property acts, after much deliberation, held, that _“ any acts, voluntarily committed, which would tend to assist, countenance, abet, or encourage the rebellion, are a flat bar to a complainant’s recovery under this law. And to entitle the claimant to recover, the act requires that he should prove, by those who had the opportunity of observing his conduct, that he did not give such assistance and encouragement-to the insurrection. He must go further; his evidence to that effect must cover tlie entire period of the war, so that it shall appear that he never gave any aid or comfort to the rebellion.”

It cannot be pretended that the facts of this case bring the claimant within the rule here laid down. For nearly two years before active hostilities closed, there is not a particle of proof tending to show, affirmatively or otherwise, her adhesion to the Union. On the contrary, when the Federal forces approached her locality, she fled before them, carrying with her some thirty or forty of her slaves, and sought relief and protection under, the rebel authorities to prevent the emancipation of her slaves. This of itself was an act of aid and comfort to the enemy, and were there nothing else in the case, would be sufficient to bar the claimant’s right to recover in this court.

The petition must be dismissed.  