and Burbridge & Co., in 1862, and prior and subsequent thereto, resided in New Orleans, La., and were loyal citizens, and that Leo L. Johnson was in 1862 inside the rebel lines. It is claimed that said Johnson was largely indebted to said Burbridge & Co. J. W. Burbridge swears that in September, 1862, he alone constituted the firm of J. W. Burbridge & Co., and always was the capitalist, and that J. W. Burbridge & Co. were the factors of Leo L. Johnson, who was indebted to said firm in the sum $131,366.67, and that he, J. W. Burbridge, had authority to sell the crops of said Johnson and to apply the proceeds to liquidate said advances, and that he did, through his agent, Thomas D. Harris, sell the crop of the said Webster plantation to said Montgomery September 9, 1862. The contract was in writing, and is as follows, to wit:

Know all men by these presents that it has been agreed, and it is hereby agreed, between the undersigned, as follows, to wit: Thomas D. Harris, acting as the attorney in fact of J. W. Burbridge & Co., of this city, the agents of Leo L. Johnson, of the parish of La Fourche, in this State, has sold, and hereby does sell, unto Robert H. Montgomery, of this city, the following crop, belonging to said Leo L. Johnson, contained in his sugar-house and purgery on his plantation, in the parish of La Fourche, near La Fourche Crossings, to wit, six hundred and five hogsheads of sugar, seven hundred barrels molasses, and three hundred barrels rum, at the following prices, to wit: For the sugar, at 4 cents per pound; for the molasses, at 20 cents per gallon; and for the rum, at 50 cents per gallon; the weight and quantity to be determined at the time and upon the delivery thereof in New Orleans.

The said Montgomery, in consideration of said sales so to him made, has paid in ready money the sum of $5,000 to said Harris, attorney in fact aforesaid, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, and accepted as so much on account of the first sugar, molasses, or rum delivered to him, said Montgomery, as aforestated; the balance to be paid by said Montgomery at each future delivery of said sugar, molasses, and rum.

Thus agreed and done, in duplicate, at New Orleans, this 9th of September, 1862.
J. W. BURBRIDGE & CO.,
Per THOMAS D. HARRIS,

Witnesses:

JNO. L. CAVANNA.
J. C. MCALLISTER.

B.

Attorney.

R. H. MONTGOMERY.

NEW ORLEANS, September 9, 1862. The overseer on the plantation of Leo. L. Johnson will please deliver to the order of Robert H. Montgomery the entire crop of sugar, molasses, and rum contained in the sugar-house and purgeries, &c., on said plantation, the same having been sold to him this day.

J. W. BURBRIDGE & CO., Per T. D. HARRIS.

Deliver the above sugar, molasses, and rum to William P. Maloney or order.
R. H. MONTGOMERY.

This contract speaks for itself. It was a sale by Thomas D. Harris, acting as the attorney in fact of J. W. Burbridge & Co., the agents of Leo L. Johnson, to R. H. Montgomery of 605 hogsheads of sugar, 700 barrels molasses, and 300 barrels rum, at fixed prices. On the day of this sale Burbridge & Co. gave to Montgomery an order on the overseer of Johnson, a written order, to deliver the entire crop of sugar, molasses, and rum on the plantation. On the 9th of November, 1862, two months after this sale, General Butler issued General Orders No. 91, declaring the territory west of the Mississippi River, excepting the parishes of Plaquemines and Jefferson, to constitute the district of La Fourche, and declaring that "all property in said district be, and is hereby, sequestered," and all sales or transfers thereof were forbidden and held invalid,

and appointed a commission, consisting of Maj. Jos. M. Bell, provostjudge, president; Lieut. Col. J. B. Kinsman, aid-de-camp; and Captain Fuller, Seventy-fifth New York Volunteers, provost-marshal of the district, to take possession of the property of the district, make inventory of the same, to collect all the personal property, and turn over to the proper officers such as may be required for the use of the United States Army, and to collect together all the other personal property and bring it to New Orleans and sell it at auction to the highest bidder, and, after deducting expenses, to hold the proceeds thereof subject to the just claims of loyal citizens and those neutral foreigners who, in good faith, shall appear to be owners of the same.

Under said order said commission took possession of the sugars on said Webster plantation and disposed of the same. Mr Montgomery presented to said commission a petition in which he stated "that on the 9th day of September, 1862, the said J. W. Burbridge & Co., having a lien and privilege on sugar, molasses, and rum on the plantation of Leo L. Johnson, at La Fourche Crossing, through their attorney, Thomas D. Harris, sold the same to the said Montgomery upon the terms and conditions set forth in Exhibit A," which was the written contract hereinbefore quoted, and that on the same day an order was given by said Burbridge & Co. on the overseer of said plantation for the delivery of said sugar, &c., to said Montgomery, and that on November 20, 1862, the president of said sequestration commission gave a written permission to W. P. Maloney (who was authorized by said Montgomery in writing to receive said sugar) to get said sugars, &c., and that before he could do so the same was seized by the United States military authorities, and 278 hogsheads of said sugar were shipped to New Orleans and sold, the proceeds thereof amounting to $22,018.97, and the same was thereupon paid to said Montgomery.

Said Montgomery afterwards, in December, 1867, made application to the Secretary of War by an affidavit in writing, in which he states that on September 9, 1862, he purchased from J. W. Burbridge & Co., factors for Leo L. Johnson, a large amount of sugar, molasses, and rum, then on the plantation of said Johnson, and that in the month of October, 1862, under General Butler's order, said property, together with that of many others, was sequestered, brought to New Orleans, sold, and the proceeds passed into the hands of United States officers, and that he had been able to identify as his property certain sugars so sold by said commission on November 17, 18, and 19, 1862, amounting to 461 hogsheads, sold for the gross sum of $43,808.80, the expenses being $1,053.20, leaving as net proceeds $41,755.61, and prayed for the allowance and payment of said sum.

An examination was had by the War Department and a report made in the case by James A. Hardie, Inspector-General, dated May 26, 1868, in which he says "the receipt in Montgomery's handwriting, however, reads that the amount awarded by the commission, $22,018.97, from the sale of the parcel of 278 hogsheads, is in full settlement of claim for the sugar on Webster plantation. The receipt is dated April 10, 1863; the sales, the proceeds of which were thus receipted for, took place on December 5, 8, 10, and 12, 1862; the other sugars for which claim is now made were sold on November 17, 18, and 19, 1862." The War Department refused relief. Thereupon the said R. H. Montgomery instituted his action in the Court of Claims against the United States, No. 2921, and a great deal of testimony was taken and the case was submitted to said court at its December term, 1869. In that case Montgomery claimed $37,351.49. The Court of Claims seems to have given

the case a thorough examination and decided it upon its merits against the claimant. Among other things the court says:

Thus it will be seen that there is not the slightest foundation in the proofs in this case upon which to build a lien or privilege upon these crops, for, giving he evidence, the widest scope that could possibly be claimed for it in any aspect, it only shows the general indebtedness of the owner on a general account. And this part of the case has not the least possible basis on which to rest.

And further

It has been pressed upon our consideration with great earnestness and ability by the learned counsel of the claimant that, as agents and factors who had advanced money to make this crop, Burbridge & Co., in addition to being factors and agents, had a lien or privilege on this property by the law of Louisiana to be paid their advancements, and that in consequence they had such special property in these sugars as authorized them to sell. But this is a total misapprehension of the law of line or privilege as it is there called and as it exists in that State.

The decision of the Court of Claims being adverse, Montgomery appealed the case to the Supreme Court of the United States. It was by that court decided at its December term, 1872. In rendering their decision this court says:

#

* *

*

For we are of the opinion that whether executed or executory it was illegal and void. It is vain to contend that any right can be acquired under such a contract. It has been argued that because Burbridge & Co., the agents, had a lien upon the property for advances made by them, and had also a power to sell for the repayment of their advances, the sale which was made ought not to be regarded as a sale by Johnson; yet the only authority they had to sell at all resulted either from express power given to them by the owner or from the relation to him in which they then stood. They might have sold their lien or the debt secured by it, and, had they done so, the sale would have involved no trading with the enemy. But they undertook to sell Johnson's property, describing it as such in the instrument of sale, and describing themselves as Johnson's agents. Very clearly, in effect, the parties to the transaction were the appellant and a public enemy.

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Claims. While these proceedings were pending what is known as "the Treaty of Washington" was entered into between the United States and Great Britain for the settlement of the then pending questions between the two countries. This treaty was concluded at Washington May 8, 1871, ratification advised by the Senate May 24, ratified by the President May 25, ratifications exchanged at London June 17, and proclaimed July 4, 1871. Article 12 and following articles made provision for the final and conclusive settlement of all claims on the part of corporations, companies, or private individuals, subjects of Her Britannic Majesty, upon the Government of the United States arising out of acts committed against the persons or property of subjects of Her Britannic Majesty during the period between April 13, 1861, and April 9, 1865, both inclusive. The claimant, R. H. Montgomery, presented his claim to this commission, known as "the American and British Joint Claims Commission," No. 20, for sugar, molasses, and rum taken and sold by the United States in November and December, 1862, in Louisiana, amount claimed being $67,465. It was disallowed March 26, 1873. Said commission unanimously sustained the demurrers on the part of the United States in all cases in which suit had been brought in the Court of Claims, whether still pending in that court or on appeal or previously decided, and dismissed those cases, including that of claimant Montgomery.

Not satisfied with these sundry decisions against the claim of said Montgomery, the said Montgomery and the said J. W. Burbridge & Co. seem to have "pooled their issues" and applied to Congress. Their joint claim was presented to the Forty-third Congress, and in the House of Representatives was favorably reported (see H. R. Rep. 514 and H. R. 3184). No further action was had. In the Forty-fourth Congress

they again appeared, and in the House of Representatives the report and bill of the Forty-third Congress were adopted and reported to the House, and no further action taken. In the Forty-fifth Congress they again appear and secure a favorable report in the House (see H. R. Rep. No. 246 and bill 3549). No further action was taken in that Congress. In the Forty-sixth Congress they again appear and present their bills in both the Senate and House, and on February 13, 1880, the Committee on War Claims of the House made an adverse report (see Report No. 208, Forty-sixth Congress, second session). Since the making of said report in the House the claimant, R. H. Montgomery, has filed with your committee a written brief, in which, after reviewing the case and the said adverse report, he says:

I ask for nothing but simple justice at the hands of your committee, to be allowed to go again before the Court of Claims for a rehearing upon points of law, wherein I am informed the court erred in their previous rulings.

There was also filed with your committee a written synopsis of all the facts in the case of Burbridge and Montgomery, by J. D. Perryman, their attorney, in which the facts and the law and the said House adverse report are reviewed. This brief closes as follows:

The question is purely a legal one. Had Burbridge under the laws of Louisiana a lien upon Johnson's crops for the money advanced to raise the same, and if he had, could he, as a loyal citizen, sell the same to claimant, a loyal, neutral foreigner? It is to determine these points that the claimant asks to go before the Court of Claims, which can only be done through the intervention of Congress.

Your committee have given this case a careful and patient examination, going over the proceedings from beginning to end. Your committee find that the claimant Montgomery had a full and adequate remedy before the sequestration commission, sitting in New Orleans, the place of his residence, and within thirty-five miles by railroad of the Webster plantation where the sugars are claimed to have been raised and seized. His application was heard by the commission and the relief he then claimed was granted, and the sugars for which he was paid were sold December 5, 8, 10, and 12, 1862, while the sugars for which claim is now made were sold November 17, 18, and 19, 1862. It was not the fault of the United States or its officials that he did not present his claim for all he thought he was entitled to. He then, after having been refused relief in the War Department, appealed to the Court of Claims, which had and assumed full and complete jurisdiction over the whole case. He was then certainly in possession of all the facts now alleged. This court, after a patient hearing and thorough investigation, not only decided adversely to him, but also expressly decided against the validity of the lien or privilege of the said Burbridge & Co., upon which reliance is now placed. He then appealed his case to the Supreme Court of the United States, the final arbiter under the Constitution and laws. This highest tribunal affirmed the decision of the Court of Claims. In this decision the judge delivering the opinion says:

They might have sold their lien or the debt secured by it, and, had they done so, the sale would have involved no trading with the enemy. But they undertook to sell Johnson's property, describing it as such in the instrument of sale, and describing themselves as Johnson's agents.

It is upon the first sentence above quoted that the claimants are attempting to base their rights to the relief sought in the bill, and in doing so they wholly ignore the last sentence above quoted and the express language of the written contract. They seek in effect to have the writS. Rep. 531-2

ten contract of sale construed into a mere assignment of an alleged lien, which the Court of Claims expressly decided did not exist under the laws of Louisiana, where the contest was made, and which the Supreme Court expressly decided they did not undertake to sell by their written contract. Not only this, but they seek by special legislation to give to J. W. Burbridge & Co. rights and remedies which they never claimed or attempted to assert in any of the proceedings, until the claimant, Montgomery, was defeated at every point, and then they combine and come jointly to Congress.

Your committee find no reason in the law or the facts of this case to justify the passage of said bill, and, therefore, recommend that the said bill be indefinitely postponed, and the claim of the said Montgomery and Burbridge & Co., therein presented, be not allowed, and that this report be adopted.