Armstrong v. United States
| Decision Date | 01 December 1871 |
| Citation | 80 U.S. 154,13 Wall. 154,20 L.Ed. 614 |
| Parties | ARMSTRONG v. UNITED STATES |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
APPEAL from the Court of Claims.
Mrs. Armstrong filed a claim in the court below for the proceeds of certain cotton under the 'Abandoned and Captured Property Act,' the provisions of which are quoted in the preceding case, page 151. The Court of Claims found that the cotton was raised by the claimant; that in the latter part of 1863, or early in 1864, there were on her plantation one hundred and twenty bales of cotton, which were taken possession of by the United States military forces and removed to Little Rock, Arkansas; that, prior to July, 1864, one hundred and two bales of this cotton were in the hands of the treasury agents, and were taken and used by the military forces in the works of defence around the city of Little Rock; that sixty bales, when taken out of the defences, were identified as belonging to the claimant; and with other cotton identified as belonging to other parties, and one hundred and seventeen sacks of loose cotton which came out of the fortifications and not identified, were shipped to the treasury agent at Cincinnati, sold, and the proceeds paid into the treasury. The claimant was proved to have given no active aid to the rebellion, except that on the approach of the Union army she fled south with thirty or forty of her slaves to avoid emancipation. This was in September 1863. Judgment was rendered against her on the 4th of April, 1870, and an appeal taken to this court.
Mr. R. M. Corwine, for the appellant; Mr. B. H. Bristow, contra; the argument being directed chiefly to the point of Mrs. Armstrong's loyalty, and as to how far her going south with her slaves to avoid the emancipation of them, was proof of want of it.
The CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the opinion of the court.
The 'Abandoned and Captured Property Act' provides for the restoration of the proceeds of property on proof that the claimant has never given any aid or comfort to the present rebellion. The Court of Claims seem to have thought that going south with her slaves was evidence that she did give aid or comfort to the rebellion. On this point it is not now necessary that we express an opinion; for the President of the United States, on the 25th of December, 1868, issued a proclamation, reciting that 'a universal amnesty and pardon for participation in said rebellion, extended to all who have borne any part therein, will tend to secure permanent peace, order, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
IN RE ABRAMS
...(the recipient of a pardon "stands with respect to such offence as if it had never been committed"); Armstrong v. United States, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 154, 155-156, 20 L.Ed. 614 (1871) (a pardon, "granted upon conditions, blots out the offence if proof is made of compliance with the conditions......
-
Howell v. McAuliffe
...did not need statutory authority to grant general pardons or amnesty in the wake of the Civil War); see also Armstrong v. United States, 80 U.S. 154, 155–56, 13 Wall. 154, 20 L.Ed. 614 (1972) (implicitly recognizing validity of President Andrew Johnson's December 25, 1868 general pardon). N......
-
Preston v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.
...v. Hines, 258 F. 945; Foster v. Tel. Co., 219 S.W. 107; Cravens v. Hines, 218 S.W. 912; Rutherford v. Railroad, 254 F. 880; Armstrong v. United States, 13 Wall. 154. Because there was no evidence: (a) That defendant saw plaintiff in a position of peril in time thereafter, by the exercise of......
-
Hempel v. Weedin
...Ed. 882; United States v. Padelford, 9 Wall. 531 19 L. Ed. 788; United States v. Klein, 13 Wall. 128 20 L. Ed. 519; Armstrong v. United States, 13 Wall. 155 20 L. Ed. 614; Pargoud v. United States, 13 Wall. 156 20 L. Ed. 646; Carlisle v. United States, 16 Wall. 147 21 L. Ed. 426; Osborn v. ......
-
President Obamas New Memorandum On Federal Agency Use Of Renewable Energy And Energy Management
...may arise from the Memorandum, please contact the authors of this client alert. Footnotes 44 U.S.C. § 1505(a). Armstrong v. United States, 80 U.S. 154 (1871); see also Farkas v. Texas Instrument Inc., 375 F.2d 629 (5th Cir. 1967); Farmer v. Philadelphia Electric Co., 329 F.2d 3 (3d Cir. 196......