Carlisle v. United States
Opinion of the Court
delivered the ojúnion of the court:
The claimants sue for the proceeds of sixty-five bales of cotton, captured by Union forces in Marshall CouDty, Alabama,
The claimants are subjects of the Queen of Great Britain, and, at the breaking out of the rebellion, were residents of the State of Georgia, and they continued to reside within the bounds of the rebel confederacy during the whole period of the war.
From having, in 1860 anil 1861, been in business as railroad contractors, they, in December, 1861, began the manufacture of saltpetre at Santa Cave, in Jackson County, Alabama, and continued engaged therein until the following April, when, owing to the presence of the United States troops in the vicinity, they left the cave, and remained absent therefrom until the following October; -when, immediately after the evacuation of Huntsville, Alabama, by the United States forces, they resumed work in making saltpetre at said cave, and continued it about two months. Their right to make saltpetre there was under a contract of lease between the owners of the cave and other parties, which had been transferred to the claimants, by whom it was, in May, 1863, sold and transferred to the so-called “ Confederate States of America” for $34,600. On the 28th of March, 1862, the claimants sold to the said “Confederate States” 2,480 pounds of saltpetre, and received payment therefor'from a rebel officer, at Richmond, Virginia, on the 27th of June, 1862; and on the 30th of November, 1862, they sold to the said “ Confederate States” 4,209 pounds of nitre, and in the bill of the same, which they receipted, it was expressed that the said nitre was “for manufacture of gunpowder.” The amount of said bill was paid at Larkinsville, Jackson County, Alabama, on the 24th of December, 1862, by the rebel “ super- . intendent of nitre and mining district, No. 9. f and the claimants hired to said “Confederate States” wagons to transport the nitre from Santa Cave to Rome, Georgia.
Aside from these facts, we should be inclined to consider that the claimants had, during the rebellion, observed the obligation of neutrality which their alien character imposed on them, and abstained from giving aid or comfort to the rebellion; but in view of those facts we cannot so hold.
They engaged their capital, skill, and labor in manufacturing and selling to the rebel confederacy saltpetre — an article of X>rime necessity to that' usurping authority, and of which it
. In The Beterhoff,, (5 Wallace, 28,) the Supreme Court gives a classification of goods contraband and not contraband, which is best supported by American and English decisions, as follows:
“ Of these classes the first consists of articles manufactured, and primarily and ordinarily used for military purposes in time of war ; the second, of articles which may be and are used for purposes of war or peace, according to circumstances ; and the third, of articles exclusively used for peaceful purposes. Merchandise of the. first class, destined to a belligerent country or places occupied by the army or navy of a belligerent, is always contraband ; merchandise of the second class is contraband only when actually destined to the military or naval use of a belligerent; while merchandise of the third class is not contraband at all, though liable to seizure and condemnation or violation of blockade or siege.”
That saltpetre is, under the second, if not the first, of those classifications, contraband of war, cannot be questioned. That the claimants not only sold, but voluntarily manufactured and sold this article to the rebel authorities, expressly to be used “ for manufacture of gunpowder,” and that they knew that the gunpowder, Avhen made, was to be used in slaying men in the armies of the Union, cannot for a moment be doubted.
If we hold, as we did in Bates’s Case, (4 C. Ols. K., p. 569,) that voluntary connection, during the rebellion, with the violation of the blockade laws of the United States, debarred a claimant from recovering in this court the proceeds of captured cotton, much more should we apply that rule to him who voluntarily engaged in producing and selling to the rebels an article con
The petition of the claimants if dismissed.
Dissenting Opinion
dissenting:
Because I think the claimants had a right to sell the products of their business to the Confederate Government as well as to individuals in the Confederate States, and I do not think the evidence shows that they entered into the business of manufacturing saltpetre to furnish it specially to the Confederate Government.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.