Viewing page 202 of 255
This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.
372 Head Quarters Sub Dist of Alabama Montgomery Ala Febry 2nd 1867 369/374 Howard Maj Genl O.O. Commissioner &c Washington DC I have the honor to submit the following statement and exhibits in relation to the 12th Section of the Act extending the duration of the Bureau. Prior to the passage of that Act a considerable amount of real estate and a number of frame buildings in different localities in this District had come into possession of the Bureau under the Executive order of Nov 11th 1865. The title to most of this was in no sense in dispute the persons on whose land the buildings stood freely assenting to the removal in most instances, and the legal and equitable title to the land where that was claimed being in the United States by sale and conveyance to the Confederate States, the latter in due form and recorded. Notwithstanding these facts, the District Attorney and Marshal for this District proceeded to levy upon the same and institute actions upon information for the confiscation and sale (in some instances the re-sale)of the property in question. When these proceedings were first brought to my notice, surprised that these officers should suppress all mention of their proceedings in their intercourse with me, yet regarding their course as simply a device to obtain fees, I contented myself with applying to the District Attorney, as the law officer of the Government, to protect the interests of the Bureau. To my astonishment he gave me to understand decidedly, that the informer was entitled in such cases to one half the value of the property condemned, and that this was a right of which he could not be divested. Regarding it as extraordinary that the person who informed the Government of its interest in property which it held already in possession by an undisputed and recorded title, should receive great sums of money for so doing, I made further inquiry to ascertain who was the favored individual, but found that the Attorney had exclusive information on this point. I likewise found myself unable to secure the slightest interest or attention to the rights of the Bureau on his part or anything indeed except hostility. Thereupon, as the most efficacious remedy, and because some of the land ought not to be sold at all, but used. I applied to you for Congressional intervention such as was secured in the 12th Section above cited. 373 Upon bringing this Section to the notice of the District Attorney, he treated it with ridicule as wholly in applicable in cases where there was a prior vested interest, i.e. that of the informer. I then employed an Attorney of high character to represent the interests of the Bureau in the District Court. We were unable in the press of business during its short session to secure attention to our cases but one of them being called up at any time so far as we can ascertain and the Court adjourning at an earlier day than was expected or announced. The cases referred to, it was agreed should be submitted upon arguments in writing. And yet a few days after the adjournment there was advertised a sale of property at Selma, to which the Bureau has it seems to me undoubted title, worth some $30,000. and good part of which had been cut up and parcelled out to freedmen who have built their homes upon it, in reliance upon a promise that they should have it at fair value when the title was cleared up. The balance also was contracted to be sold with your approval, at a time when such a disposition (that an iron works might be erected on it) was the only way to save it from being made practically worthless by the continuation through it of a street in Selma in accordance with an ordinance. Prior however to any decree or advertisement I had addressed the Judge a letter in your name, asking to have the property transferred in kind whenever the title should be adjusted against the parties who conveyed to the Confederate States. The advertisement being brought to my attention, my counsel sent an application to the Judge then at Mobile, accompanied by a brief, soliciting a stay of the proceedings and a transfer to the Bureau. No answer coming, and the Judge returning to Montgomery, a second application was addressed to him. A copy of this, with his negative answer, is enclosed. The [[strikethrough]] really [[/strikethrough]] reasons orally assigned were two-fold; that Congress could not divest a vested right, and that he would not presume that the law officer of the Government (District Attorney) was not both competent and willing to take charge of all its interests. Inquiry was then made by myself as to opportunity to get a ruling of the Supreme Court upon the point decided against the Bureau. In reply to which I was informed that "the defendant might appeal," that is the party claiming against the United States, and that the case having been decided "in favor of the United States no other appeal was practicable. This of course concludes all points against the Bureau, except that some distributive show of the proceed, may be awarded to it after the Marshall's fees and the informer
