ARMSTRONG
v.
UNITED STATES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In this post-Civil War case, a woman sought restoration of proceeds from her captured and abandoned property under the Abandoned and Captured Property Act, which required proof that the claimant had not given aid or comfort to the rebellion. The Supreme Court held that President Johnson's unconditional amnesty proclamation of December 25, 1868, which pardoned all participants in the rebellion and restored their rights, entitled the petitioner to recovery of her property proceeds, and therefore reversed the Court of Claims' denial of her claim.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
The CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the opinion of the court. The “Abandoned aud 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 prosperity throughout the land,, and to renew and fully restore confidence and fraternal feeling among the whole people, and their respect for, and attachment to, the National government, designed by its patriotic founders for the general good;” and granting, “unconditionally, and without reservation, to all and every person who directly or indirectly participated in the late insurrection or rebellion, a full pardon and amnesty'for the offence of treason against the United States, or of adhering to. their enemies during the late civil war, with restoration of all rights, privileges, and immunities under the Constitution, and the laws which have been made in pursuance thereof.”* We have recently held, in the case of the United States v. Klein, † that pardon granted upon conditions, blots out the offence, if proof is made of compliance with the conditions; and that the person so pardoned is entitled to the restoration of the proceeds of captured and abandoned property, if suit be brought within “ two years after the suppression of the rebellion.” The proclamation of the 25th of December granted pardon unconditionally and without reservation. This was a public act of which all courts of the United States are bound to take notice, and to which all courts are bound to give effect. The claim of the petitioner was preferred within two years.. The Court of Claims, therefore, erred in not giving the petitioner the benefit of the proclamation. Its judgment must be reversed, with directions to proceed In conformity with this opinion. * 15 Stat. at Large, 711. † Supra, p. 142.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Caha v. United States, 152 U.S. 211 (U.S. 1894)…notice. Without attempting to notice all the cases bearing upon the general question of judicial notice, we may refer to the following: United States v. Teschmaker, 22 How. 392, 405; Romero v. United States, 1 Wall. 721; Armstrong v. United States, 13 Wall. 154; Jones v. United States, 137 U. S. 202; Knight v. United States Land Association, 142 U. S. 161, 169; Jenkins v. Collard, 145 U. S. 546. These are all the matters which we deem of importance, and in them appearing no error, the judgment is Affirme…
-
Carlesi v. People of the State of N.Y., 233 U.S. 51 (U.S. 1914)
-
Young v. United States, 97 U.S. 39 (U.S. 1877)
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence