UNITED STATES V. KLEIN 80 U.S. 128 (1871) CASE BRIEF

UNITED STATES V. KLEIN

80 U.S. 128 (1871)

NATURE OF THE CASE: This was a dispute over the effect of a pardon and the return of seized property during the Civil War.

FACTS: On 12 March 1863, Congress passed another acts that provided for the collection of abandoned property, &c., in insurrectionary districts within the United States. The statute authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to appoint special agents to receive and collect all abandoned or captured property in any State or Territory in insurrection. By the confiscation act of July 17, 1862, the President was authorized by proclamation to extend to persons who had participated in rebellion pardon and amnesty, with such exceptions, and at such times, and on such conditions, as he should deem expedient for the public welfare. On 8 December 1863, he did issue his proclamation, reciting the act, and naming certain persons to full pardons. Under this proclamation, V. F. Wilson took his oath of allegiance on February 15, 1864. Wilson died in 1865, one Klein, his administrator, filed a petition in the Court of Claims, setting forth Wilson's ownership of certain cotton which he had abandoned to the treasury agents which they had sold, putting the proceeds into the Treasury. This petition was filed December 26, 1865. The originating act was repealed on 21 January 1867. The Court of Claims, on 26 May 1869, decided that Wilson had been entitled to receive the proceeds of his cotton, and decreed $125,300 to Klein, the administrator of his estate. The United States appealed. The prior case before the Court of Claims was Padelford. The United States appealed Padelford to the Supreme Court and the decree of the Court of Claims was affirmed. That was publicly announced on 30 April 1870. Congress then passed a bill on July 12th, 1870 that no pardon or amnesty granted by the President was to be admissible in evidence on the part of any claimant in the Court of Claims as evidence in support of any claim against the United States or in any other circumstances. The Act stated that the Supreme Court shall, on appeal, have no further jurisdiction of the cause related to such pardons, and shall dismiss the same for want of jurisdiction. The act also provided the negative in that the pardon was in fact evidence that a party took part in the rebellion. The Attorney General, wanted the case to be remanded to the Court of Claims with a mandate that the same be dismissed for want of jurisdiction, as now required by law, was, of course, founded on this enactment in the appropriation bill of July 12th, 1870.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner