ADMINISTRATION OF THE SEQUESTRATION ACT IN
THE CONFEDERATE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS, 1862-1865
The seizure of property in time of war by belligerent powers
is a common practice. It is usually justified on the grounds of
public safety. During the late Civil War in this country both
governments passed confiscation laws. The United States jus-
tified its statute on the plea of public necessity, maintaining that
the measure was for the purpose of preserving the integrity of
the Union. In addition, the Federal leaders desired to make
"the rebels" pay the expense of the war, thus to them the measure
was also punitive in its nature. The Confederate Government
made no such claims for its Confiscation Act. The Confederate
statute was altogether different from any other act, anticipating
similar results, passed by a law-making body in this country.
It was for this reason that the act was unique, and its adminis-
tration an interesting departure in American jurisprudence.
Sequestration in its broadest sense is defined as "the sep-
aration or removal of property from a person in possession thereof
in order that property or proceeds thereof may be dealt with in
Court or as other competent authority may direct." If sequestra-
tion is used in time of war, international law recognizes it as
"the seizure of the property to the use of the government."
1 Since
the Confederate law was a war measure and did not conform to
the definition of sequestration under international law, it is, there-
fore, the more unusual. In the first place the law was a retaliatory
measure, and secondly, property seized under it was held by the
government for the benefit of certain individual Confederate
citizens and not for the general government.
2
Southern leaders in midsummer 1861 agreed that the need
for such a law had become necessary as the result of a series of
occurrences in the North which they felt were aimed at their
section, as such, and at the individual citizens of the South as
well. The first of these came with President Lincoln's order of
the blockade of the southern ports on April 19, 1861, in which
he gave notice that vessels captured in attempting to elude the
blockading fleet would be treated as prizes.
3 Following the Bal-
timore riots in April 1861, General Benjamin Butler became the
Union commander in the Annapolis District, of which the city
of Baltimore was a part. In a proclamation to the people of
the district on May 14, 1861, Butler stated that private prop-
erty which
May be used to afford aid and comfort to those in rebellion
against the Government whether here or elsewhere, all of
which property, munitions of war and that fitted to aid and
support the rebellion, will be seized and held subject to
confiscation.
4
Doubtless the proclamation was issued for the purpose of over-
awing the secession sentiment in Maryland, but its publication
in the newspapers of the South could have had no other result
than to further inflame an already indignant public opinion.
Strangely enough, Butler furnished the South with still another
reason for denunciation of himself and of the government of
which he was an officer. On the night of May 23, 1861, three
slaves belonging to Colonel Mallory, whose home was near Fortress
Monroe, Virginia, escaped from the plantation and made their
way inside the Union lines. Butler's pickets arrested the men
and held them for questioning. The next morning they admitted
their identity to Butler and gave as their reason for seeking his
protection the fear that they would be taken to Carolina for
the purpose of aiding the Confederates there. One of the Negroes
admitted his fear of being inducted into the Confederate army.
In narrating the incident to General Scott, Butler wrote:
Satisfied from these facts from a cautious examination of
each of the negroes apart from the others, I determined for
the present, and until better advised, as these men were
very serviceable, and I had great need of labor in my quar-
termaster's department, to avail myself of their services.
5
Upon receipt of the report in Washington General Scott and
Secretary of War Cameron gave Butler's act the stamp of ap-
proval by endorsing it as containing "much to praise and noth-
ing to condemn."
6
Loose and unguarded statements of individuals and newspapers
on both sides did much to heighten the bitterness between the
sections and to engender a desire for retaliation for every insult
offered. The statement of a well-known New England lawyer
that "as
a
means
of
carrying
on
the
contest,
it has become nec-
essary and lawful to lay waste, burn, sink, destroy, blockade,
wound, and kill," was published in the Southern press and held
up editorially as the sentiment of the North in general.
7
When Union soldiers committed acts of vandalism in certain
homes near Fortress Monroe, Virginia, in May, 1861, the New
York Times
published a news story of the incident and com-
mented editorially on it, criticising the troops rather severely.
The Richmond Daily
Examiner
noted the news story and the
editorial thus:
Does not the editor of the Times know that this breaking in
of homes and robbing them of their furniture, wantonly
defacing them and despoiling them this wholesale system
of plundering and pillaging are but a part of the program
of Mr. Lincoln's war of subjugation? It is, indeed, but
carrying out the part recommended by his own paper; for
in a copy of the New York Times
of the 24 of May last the
following atrocious language occurs: "A just retribution is
already upon Virginia. In a few days more a hundred thou-
sand men will be upon her soil, which will be devastated by
the terrible storm of war, her
people
driven
from
their
homes,
their
fields
blasted,
their
property
destroyed,
and their great
institution at the mercy of their foes."
8
Probably no other utterance, aside from General Butler's procla-
mation, did so much to confirm southern opinion in the notion
that the North was intent upon complete subjugation of their
and as did an editorial which appeared in the New York Tribune
under date of May 10, 1861. On that date the editor wrote:
"We intend not merely to defeat, but to conquer, to subjugate
them. And when the rebellious traitors are overwhelmed in the
field and scattered like leaves before an angry wind, it must not
be to return to peaceful
and
contented
homes.
They must find
poverty
at
the
fireside
and
see
privation
in
the
anxious
eyes
of
mothers
and in the rags of children."
The southern press copied this outburst and called upon their
fellow-editors to give it wide publicity.
9
Everywhere there was talk of northern sympathizers fomenting
rebellion among the slaves. Early in May, 1861, Martin's Parish
in Louisiana was thrown into a panic by the discovery of a plot
which had for its object the insurrection of the entire slave popu-
lation of the parish, the murder of the whites, and the exodus
to the North of the blacks. Fortunately, the conspiracy was dis-
covered before the proposed outbreak. A white man accused of
instigating the affair paid with his life at the hands of a mob.
Twenty-four Negroes were tried, found guilty, and hanged. The
newspapers of the South took up the episode as another of Presi-
dent Lincoln's efforts not only to deprive southern slaveholders
of their property, but also to bring upon them the horrors of
servile insurrection.
10
Finally, the passage by the United States Congress of a prop-
erty confiscation act on August 6, 1861, hastened the Confederate
Sequestration Law. The United States law provided for the
seizure of any and all property being used to make war upon
the United States by any insurrectionary citizens of any state.
It further provided for the freeing of the slaves of masters who
allowed them to be used for the purpose of bearing arms against
the United States or to work upon "any fort, navy yard, dock,
armory, ship, entrenchment, or in any millitary or naval service
whatsoever."
11
A noticeable feature of this law was the absence of a provi-
sion for a governmental agency for condemning confiscated prop-
erty. This fact was entirely overlooked by the southerners m
commenting on the passage of the measure. To them it was a
means of taking their property, and they cried out loudly for
retaliation.
12
A veiled suggestion for the passage of a confiscation act by
the Confederate Congress is to be found in the correspondence
between Governor Thomas O. Moore of Louisiana and Attorney
General Thomas J. Semmes of the same state, in June, 1861.
On June 10, Moore wrote to Semmes, citing the case of S. Plassan,
a citizen of New Orleans, and asking for a legal opinion on the
case. Plassan as owner of the brig, Hope,
left New Orleans in
January, 1861, for Martinique, flying the United States flag.
Returning under the same flag, his ship was seized while attempt-
ing to enter the Mississippi River below New Orleans in May,
1861, by the blockading squadron and claimed as a prize. The
United States government refused to pay Plassan for his ship
and cargo on the contention that he was a citizen of Louisiana
and was using the United States flag as a means of escaping
the blockade. After failure to secure redress from the United
States of an indemnity for the loss of the Hope,
Moore asked
Semmes if the chief executive of a state had the power to order
reprisals. Semmes replied to Moore in the negative, citing the
fact that the Confederate constitution bestowed upon the general
government the power to confiscate enemy property and ended
by saying:
Your Excellency has no lawful authority to make reprisals
on the enemy by a seizure of property within the state,
belonging to the citizens of the United States.
13
While Moore received no encouragement from the opinion of
the Attorney General, it is interesting to note that Representative
D. F. Kenner of Louisiana introduced a resolution in the Con-
federate Congress on July 25, 1861, calling upon the Judiciary
Committee "to inquire into the expediency of reporting a general
Confiscation Bill."
14 Whether or not Kenner's action was based
upon an understanding with Moore we do not know, but we do
know that he supported the bill when it came up for considera-
tion and helped to expedite its final passage through the legis-
lative channels, all of which would lead us to believe that Moore
had a hand in the matter, with Kenner acting as his spokesman,
or at least with an understanding of Moore's position and desires.
The Judiciary Committee consumed two weeks in studying the
matter before reporting the proposed legislation. On August 6,
1861, the Committee reported a bill "on forfeiture and confisca-
tion of estates, property, and effects of enemy aliens." The bill
was read twice and then placed on the calendar.
15
On August 12, by request of Representative Smith of Alabama,
the matter became the special order of business of the House for
Wednesday, August 14.
16 When the measure was called up on
that date, action was delayed until August 19, at which time con-
sideration of the proposal was begun. Immediately upon the
opening of the discussion, an, amendment was offered and adopted
to make the measure retroactive as of May 21, 1861. The bill
contained twenty-two sections and each of these received separate
consideration at the hands of the Congress. The last item received
final approval on August 30, 1861.
17
The law as finally passed contained an introductory paragraph
and twenty-two provisions. Justification for the passage of the
measure was set out in the introductory paragraph:
An act for the sequestration of estates, property, and effects
of alien enemies, and for the indemnity of citizens of the
Confederate States and persons aiding the same in the exist-
ing war with the United States.
Whereas the government and people of the United States
have departed from the uses of civilized warfare in confis-
cating and destroying the property of the people of the
Confederate States of all kinds, whether used for military
purposes or not; and
Whereas, our only protection against such wrongs is to be
indemnify our citizens for their losses and restrain the
canton excesses of our enemies: Therefore,
The Confederate States makes all lands, tenements, heredit-
taments, goods and chattels, rights and credits within these
Confederate States held, owned, possessed, or enjoyed by
an alien enemy, on May 21, or after, 1861, subject to
sequestration by the courts of the Confederate States of
America.
As mentioned above, the law contained the enactment clause
and twenty-two provisions. The first of these provided that all
money realized from the sale of sequestrated property should
be paid into the treasury of the Confederate States and there to
be held in a separate fund and be used to indemnify citizens of
the Confederate States who had lost property as the result of
the action of the United States. In this connection it may be
observed that the law provided for a commission of three persons
to be appointed by the President who were to sit at the seat of
the government and hear claims of citizens whose property had
been seized or destroyed. Upon a favorable report from the com-
mission the injured citizen then appealed to the Congress, and,
after the passage of a private bill, received his indemnity from
the accumulated fund.
The act made it mandatory upon all citizens to give informa-
tion to the enforcement officers as to the alien ownership of any
property about which they knew. At the same time it provided
that all agents, attorneys, partners, or trustees of any alien prop-
erty should come forward voluntarily and place the property
under the direction of the receiver of alien enemy property.
Failure to do so made the person liable to the payment of a
fine in any sum up to five thousand dollars.
Each district judge was empowered to appoint for each section
of the state in which he held court a court receiver who should
give bond to the presiding judge and be charged with the custody
of all property sequestrated. The receiver's compensation was on
the same basis and in the same amount as that of the district
attorney. All expenses incurred in prosecuting the cases accumu-
lated against the sale price of such property and were paid from
the proceeds of its sale.
other persons holding any interest in the property who them-
selves were not alien enemies. Finally, the Attorney General had
authority under the law to set up a procedure for carrying
out the law. 18
Upon the admission of Texas into the Union, Congress on
December 29, 1845, had enacted a law setting up the first United
States Court. The entire state was included in the jurisdiction,
and the sessions were held in Galveston.
19 With the growth of
population for the next twelve years another court became neces-
sary. On February 21, 1857, the second court bill was enacted,
and the territory of the state was divided into two districts to
be known as the Eastern and Western districts of Texas. In this
instance the names did not connote geographical location. The
Eastern district was little more than the southeastern corner of
the state with a tier of Gulf coast counties extending southward
to the corner of Webb county. The law stated that "all the
remaining part of the territory of the said state shall compose
another district to be called the Western District of Texas."
20
Court was held in the Eastern District at Galveston and Browns-
ville, while court was held in the Western District at Austin and
Tyler. Thus it is seen that the Western District was made up
very largely of East Texas counties.
21
After Texas joined the Confederacy, the boundaries of the two
courts were altered. On May 16, 1861, the Confederate Congress
passed a law which specified that "all territory within and west
of Matagorda, Wharton, Colorado, Fayette, Washington, Burleson,
Milam, Falls, McLennan, Hill, Johnson, Tarrant, Wise, and
Montague counties" should be in the Western District of Texas.
All territory east of the line indicated should he in the Eastern
District.
22
From an examination of this boundary we note that the Western
District extended from the extreme southern corner of the state
in the lower Rio Grande Valley northward to Red River in a
fairly straight north and south line. The district included some
seventy organized counties and all unorganized territory to the
westward.
The judge of the district held court both in Austin and in
Brownsville. The records of the court reveal that by far the larger
portion of the district was attached to the court which met in
Austin. Of the cases heard in the Austin court during its three
years of existence fifty-nine different counties were represented,
with Jackson and Atascosa as the counties farthest south, while
Clay county on Red River represented the northernmost limits of
the jurisdiction of the court in that direction. In an east-west
direction Falls county in the east and Runnels county in the
west represented the widest distribution of cases.
23
In line with the actions of the various state legislatures in the
Confederate States, the legislature of Texas passed a law on
January 3, 1862, which provided for the taking over by the
Confederate district courts of the records of the United States
district courts at Tyler, Galveston, Brownsville, and Austin and
also for disposing of the cases on the dockets of the United States
courts at the places named.
24
Following the passage of the court bill for Texas by the Con-
federate Congress in May 1861, President Davis appointed Judge
Thomas J. Devine to be the presiding judge in the Western
District of Texas.
25 Other officers of the court included John C.
West of McLennan county, District Attorney; John R. Jefferson
of Guadalupe county, Marshal; George W. Browne of Bexar
county, Clerk.
26
Inasmuch as the judge held court in both Austin and Browns-
ville, B. F. Neal was appointed Clerk of the court in Brownsville.
Regular terms of the court were held in Austin on the first
Monday in January and June and in Brownsville on the first
Monday in March and October. After the capture of Brownsville
by Federal troops the court met in Corpus Christi.
27
When the newly-appointed Confederate officials took charge of
the court in Austin in January, 1862, the cases then on the docket
of the former United States court were all continued. None of
them was ever tried by the Confederate court. The first case
under the Confederate court was docketed as Case Number 711,
following in numerical sequence the last case on the United States
court docket. During the period of its service the court heard
two thousand seven hundred seventy-four cases. There were only
twenty-four cases other than sequestration cases which appeared
on the docket.
28
The first session of the Confederate District Court began in
Austin on January 6, 1862. At that time Judge Thomas J. Devine
presented a commission signed by President Davis appointing him
judge of the court for the Western District of Texas. The other
officers likewise presented their commissions which the judge
ordered read in open court and recorded in the minutes.
29 Fol-
lowing the installation of the officers of the court and the recog-
nition and registration of the members of the bar entitled to
practice in the court, the judge then set for hearing certain cases
that were ready for the docket. These consisted of cases which
the alien property receivers were in position to prosecute at that
time.
30
The receivers had been appointed in September and October
1861. They had begun immediately thereafter to file claims
against alien enemy owners of property. The first notices sent
to persons holding alien enemy property in the Western District
were issued October 28, 1861, and made returnable to the court
on January 7, 1862.
31 In some instances the receivers ran adver-
tisements in the newspapers in which they notified all interested
persons to come to their offices and make returns of their answers
to the interrogatories propounded.
32
Under the sequestration law of August 30, 1861, the Attorney
General of the Confederate States was given the responsibility
of putting the law into effect. This meant that he must formulate
a plan of procedure. This he did by adopting a series of legal
forms for use by the receivers. The first of these was known as
garnishment, the language of which was as follows:
Confederate States of America
Western District of Texas.
To of the firm of
Of county, Texas, Greeting:
You are hereby commanded to appear before the Honorable Dis-
trict Court of the Confederate States of America, for the Western
District of Texas, at the city of Austin on the of
A. D. 186.., then and there to answer under oath what property
or effects of any alien enemy of said Confederate States you had
at the service of this process, or since have had under your pos-
session or control, belonging to or held for such alien enemy, or
in what sum if any, you are, or was at the time of the service of
this garnishment, or since have been indebted to such alien
enemy, in reply to the annexed interrogatories.
Witness the Honorable Thomas J. Devine, Judge of said court
and the seal thereof this day of
33
Clerk of the Court
Along with the garnishment from the clerk of the court went a
questionnaire known as a "bill of interrogatories" from the re-
ceiver. Since the questions included were so specific and of
such a searching character, a copy of the instrument is included
at this point:
Confederate States of America,
Western District of Texas.
Interrogatories Propounded to
1. Have you now, or have you had, in your possession, or under
your control, since the twenty-first day of May 1st [1861] and
if yes, at what time, any land or lands, tenement or tene-
ments, hereditament or hereditaments, chattel or chattels,
right or rights, credit or credits, within the Confederate States
of America, held, owned, possessed or enjoyed for or by an
alien enemy; or in or to which any alien enemy had, and when,
since that time, any right, title, or interest either directly
or indirectly?
2. If you answer any part of the foregoing interrogatory in the
affirmative, then set forth specifically and particularly a de-
scription of such property, right, title, credit, or interest, and
if you have disposed of it in whole or in part, or of the profit
or rent or interest accruing therefrom, then state when you
made such disposition and to whom; and where such property
now is and by whom held.
3. Were you since the twenty-first day of May, 1861, and if yes,
at what time, indebted directly or indirectly to an alien enemy
or alien enemies? If yes, state of the amount of such indebt-
edness if one and of such indebtedness if more than one; give
the name or names of the creditor or creditors and the place
or places of residence, and state whether, and to what extent,
such debt or debts have been discharged, and also the time
and manner of discharge.
4. Do you know of any land or lands, tenement or tenements,
hereditament or hereditaments, chattel or chattels, right or
rights, credit or credits, within the Confederate States of
America or any right or any interest held, owned, possessed,
or enjoyed directly or indirectly by or for one or more alien
enemies since the twenty-first day of May, 1861, or in or to
which any one or more alien enemies had since that time
any claim, title or interest direct or indirect? If yes, set
forth specifically and particularly what and where the prop-
erty is, and the name and residence of the holder, debtor,
trustee, or agent.
5. State all else you know which may aid in the carrying into lull
effect the Sequestration Act of August 30th, 1861, and state
the same as fully and particularly as if thereunto specifically
interrogated.
34
The judge of the court had authority under the law to set cases
involving sequestration of property for a hearing at any time he
saw fit. The practice of the court, however, seems to have been
to accord the hearings at regular terms rather than at irregular
intervals. After the service of the garnishment by the clerk
and the return of the interrogatories to the receiver, the case was
then numbered and placed on the docket. The receiver came
forward, and, if satisfied with the answers to the interrogatories,
asked the court for a judgment in his favor against the holder
of the property. The court then issued an execution of judgment
to the marshal directing him to seize the property in the name of
and by the authority of the Confederate States. After levying
upon the property, the marshal surrendered it into the custody
of the receiver.
35
In delivering property to the receiver it was the custom of the
court to order it advertised for a period of forty days by written
or printed handbills posted and distributed in the county in which
the property was located or by publication in a paper published
within the district.
36 A typical advertisement appeared in the
State
Gazette
for September 3, 1862, when John A. Green gave
notice of a sale of sequestrated property to be held at Bastrop,
Texas, on October 6, 1862, and listed eleven tracts of land aggre-
gating 13,560 acres; one building in the town of Bastrop; "one
Negro woman named Maria, in possession of Friberger and Bro.,
the property of Alex Ruebstein and one lot of patent medicine
invoiced at $94.15."
37
Since drug stores as separate establishments had not come into
vogue at that time, practically every grocery merchant handled
a stock of patent medicines. It seems to have been the practice
of Northern wholesale drug dealers to consign small stocks of
medicines to dealers who remitted in payments as the medicines
were sold. In an advertisement of goods to be sold at Georgetown,
Texas, in October 1862, the receiver listed:
"A lot of patent medicine in the possession of John W. Alder-
son, the property of Barnes and Park, amounting to $110.50
and Louden and Co., amounting to $100.
"A lot of patent medicine in the possession of S. Mather, the
property of Louden & Co., amounting to $87.50.
"A lot of patent medicine, the property of various alien enemies,
now in the possession of Thos. C. Oats.
"A lot of patent medicine, the property of W. B. Moffatt, now
in possession of Burdett and Walton.
Apparently, purchases of patent medicines were infrequent. The
records of the court fail to reveal the report of a single sale by
any of the various receivers. This is probably explained by the
fact that the receivers left stocks of merchandise which were
not sold with the dealers in possession of them at the time of
sequestration. As sales of any part were made the dealer remitted
to the receiver. Thus the merchants holding consignments of
drugs kept them in stock as formerly without the necessity of
an investment in them.
The newspaper advertisements are an index to the types of
property sequestrated. One newspaper carrying three separate
advertisements listed farm land, grazing land, unimproved town
lots, improved town lots, beef cattle, goats, jennets, horses, sheep,
a wagon, two grain drills, patent medicine, and a Negro slave.
39
Sales were conducted publicly, and the property went to the
highest bidder. In case of inadequacy of a proposed bid from a
pecuniary standpoint the receiver would ask the court to refuse
to confirm the sale. In such instances the receiver simply held
the property and readvertised it for sale at a later date.
40 One
interesting feature of the sale of property was that the auction
always occurred at the same place in the towns, A vacant lot
at the corner of Congress Avenue and Fifth Street in Austin
was one place of sale.
41
Following a sale, the receiver reported to the court the property
sold and the amount received, whereupon his action was con-
firmed by court order, and he then was under the necessity of
reporting to the clerk and transferring the funds to that official.
42
So much real estate came into the hands of the receivers that
the courts urged its sale by vigorous advertising. Receivers in
the Western District advertised great quantities of land in the
papers of the other parts of the state. In some instances a
receiver in the Western District would advertise lands which
had been sequestrated by the courts of the Eastern District.
43 In
one issue of the State
Gazette,
J. C. Rushing, receiver for the
Western District at Weatherford, Texas, advertised 250,000 acres
of land for sale in Stephens, Young, Jack, Throckmorton, and
Haskell counties.
44
In cases of the sequestration of perishable goods or of live-
stock which might be driven out of the country the receiver
would ask the court for an order for immediate sale. Upon
receiving consent of the court the receiver would then proceed
to advertise the property by notices posted at the nearest county
seat to the property to be sold. Advertisements of this nature
extended over a period of ten days prior to the date of sale.
45
The sequestration and sale of property in the sparsely settled
sections and especially on the northwestern frontier entailed a
great deal of hardship. In one case of service of a subpoena the
marshal traveled one hundred ninety miles each way. After the
property was sequestrated the receiver traveled one hundred sev-
enty-five miles to a county seat town for the purpose of selling
it. When he arrived, he found that the property was still sixty
miles away in an unorganized county.
46
There were many instances in the administration of the seques-
tration law wherein the answers to the bill of interrogatories
were evasive, unsatisfactory, or, in some instances, absolutely
refused. In such case the receiver asked the court to order a
"more satisfactory answer to interrogatories," and a form carry-
ing specific instructions was sent to the agent or custodian of
the property in question. Upon receipt of the amended answers
to the specific questions, the same procedure was had as set
forth above for those cases which were considered satisfactory.
It was from cases of this type that the few criminal prosecutions
in the court occurred.
47
So great was the confusion of the times, and so intent were
the receivers upon sequestrating all available property that many
proceedings were begun which involved citizens of the Confed-
erate States, other than Texas and the border states, all of whom
were exempt under the law. When the question of ownership
by a Confederate citizen was in question, it became the respon-
sibility of the receiver to ascertain the address of such Confederate
citizen. When he was unable to locate the interested persons he
cited them to appear by publication in a newspaper. The news-
papers of the period contain many such advertisements.
48 An
examination of the court records failed to reveal any instances of
the sequestration of property under such circumstances. The
practice seems to have been to leave the case on the docket and
to order a continuance from time to time.
The Confederate sequestration law classified indebtedness to
aliens as property or credits and, therefore, legalized the seizure
of all notes and accounts owed to citizens of the United States.
Since practically all dry goods and clothing merchants in Texas,
as well as hardware and furniture dealers, bought their stocks from
Northern wholesale people such assets became available for seques-
tration. The court officials were aware of this possibility and set
to work in October and November 1861 to bring all notes and
accounts to light. The court records reveal that a great majority
of the cases heard during the January term of the court, in 1862,
were cases involving merchants indebted to Northern wholesale
dealers.
A typical case of this nature was Case Number 711 which,
incidentally, was the first case heard by the court. Thiesen and
Dentz were dry goods merchants in San Antonio. On October
28, 1861, receiver, N. 0. Green, called upon them to file an
answer to a bill of interrogatories. The firm filed their answer
on December 31, 1861, and listed their indebtedness to some
thirty firms in Boston, New York, and Philadelphia aggregating
$27,366.34. The case came up for hearing January 7, 1862. The
receiver moved that the entire amount be sequestrated. The judge
entered such an order, and the firm was directed to pay the bills
and notes to the receiver under the same terms as they had paid
their creditors, the unpaid balance to draw four per cent interest
until paid.
49
A second type of case was one involving agency. Texas was
a comparatively new country, and many citizens of the United
States had made investments in the state, appointing citizens of
Texas as agents to represent them in their investments. One
such agent was John B. Henderson of Eastland county. That
section of the state was at the time considered the Indian country.
Relatively few settlers lived in the region, and the county was
still unorganized. Henderson was engaged in ranching and had
under his control a small herd of stock-cattle and a few hogs.
The receiver called upon Henderson for a statement as to the
ownership of the property. It is of interest to note that the
deputy-marshal traveled three hundred eighty miles in serving
the writ of garnishment. On December 13, 1861, Henderson,
without the services of a lawyer, filed the following statement:
A list of Wm. C. Lowden's Property of Jerseyville, Illinois,
that I have in my possession and control as follows viz., about
one hundred and forty head of stock cattle, which I was to
keep for the said Lowden on a contract with him to me for one
fourth of the increase of the said stock also an improvement
of about ten acres of land with Dwelling-houses Lots & c
Together with about ten head of stock hogs: Dec. the 13th.
A. D. 1861.
Eastland Co. Tex.
John B. Henderson.
This statement was acknowledged before the county clerk of
Erath county, since Eastland county was attached to Erath county
for court purposes at that time.
The case came up for hearing on January 24, 1862. The state-
ment concerning the cattle and hogs was acceptable to the court,
but the receiver called for a more specific description of the ten-
acre tract of land and the improvements. On May 3, 1862, Hen-
derson filed an amended statement in which he swore that the
ten-acre tract in question was unsurveyed land; that Lowden
simply held it as a squatter's claim; and that he did not know
whether Lowden actually owned the improvements or not. This
amended statement was satisfactory to the court, and sequestra-
tion proceedings involving the land were dropped.
In the meantime the receiver had asked the court for authority
to sell the livestock since it was of a. perishable nature. The court
gave assent to the request, and the receiver proceeded to advertise
the property by a written handbill which he posted in the town
of Stephenville, Texas. The sale was held early in February 1862.
The report of the sale listed
The year preceding the war aroused the animosities of the North
and the South as sections, but it did more. It fanned into flame
the hatred of partisan citizens within the sections. Separated
from the events by the passage of the years, it is not easy for
us to realize how intense was the political struggle in the presi-
dential election of 1860, or how ardently men of both parties
hated their neighbors who supported the opposition. Though the
South in general, and Texas in particular, was strongly Demo-
cratic, there were a few Democrats who opposed secession, and
there were a few Republicans who boasted of their party affilia-
tions. When the tide of war deluged the state the next year,
these men found themselves caught between two fires. Naturally,
they refused to join the Confederate army. Thus they had to
choose between remaining at home with a risk of bodily injury
or of leaving the country. Most of them chose to leave. In doing
so they left their property open to the operation of the sequestra-
tion law. One such citizen of Texas was I. L. Lyons of San
Antonio, and Case Number 964 in the Confederate District Court
involved the sequestration of his property. Originally, there were
two cases each representing different defendants. After the first
hearing of the cases the judge ordered the combination of the
two under the caption: "The Confederate States of America
versus
W. A. Bennett."
Bennett was a business partner of Lyons and operated the firm
of W. A. Bennett and Company. This firm engaged in the hard-
ware and furniture business in the city of San Antonio. Bennett
filed a statement of the indebtedness of the firm to northern
wholesale dealers in January, 1862. This report was acceptable
to the court in the matter of the indebtedness of the firm.
French filed his statement for the gas company, it showed Lyons
owned stock in the company, and that he had fled from Texas to
the United States. Thus the court became interested in his share
of the property of W. A. Bennett and Company, and so the
two cases were merged.
The return of the interrogatories made by French showed that
Lyons was the owner of six hundred shares of the stock of the
San Antonio Gas Company, valued at $60,000; that he agreed
at the time of the purchase of the stock to furnish the company
with pipe and pipe-fittings for gas line extensions to the amount
of $2,338; and that he had failed to do so; that by this failure
he had left his stock open to foreclosure by the company under
the terms of a contract entered into when he purchased the
stock. He further stated that Lyons came to San Antonio in
1858; that he moved his family to the city; that he lived there
until the 25th of May, 1861, at which time he returned to the
United States.
After the court had ordered a merging of the cases, the receiver
called upon W. A. Bennett for an amended statement and for a
list of the property in his possession belonging to Lyons. Bennett
did not propose to accede to the request and in June, 1862, moved
that the case be thrown out of court on the plea that the law
was unconstitutional. Failing in this he then asked that the case
be continued and that certain witnesses in San Antonio be sum-
moned and that depositions be taken from certain other persons
who were not available for court attendance. This action indicated
that Bennett proposed to show that Lyons was a citizen of Texas
and not an alien enemy. The request for the continuance was
granted.
Several witnesses for whom subpoenas had been issued had not
been summoned by January, 1863, and the case was again con-
tinued. In the interval the district attorney had been busy build-
ing up a case against Lyons. A jury trial was waived. The first
witness for the government was John C. French. His testimony
showed that Lyons was violently opposed to secession, and that
he had left the country, taking his family with him, and that
he had been away more than two years.
tice of the peace in San Antonio prior to his appointment as
clerk. He testified that on numerous occasions he had conversed
with Lyons and that Lyons had expressed himself as dissatisfied
with the course of things in the South and "judging more from
his manner than from his words" the witness thought him un-
friendly to the Southern Confederacy. Browne further swore that
in speaking of the Confederate government Lyons had spoken of
"Your government with a sneer knowing that the witness was
partial to the Southern government and a strong secessionist."
Browne also swore that he was a member of the Knights of the
Golden Circle, and that he knew nothing of any threats that
had been made against the life of Lyons by members of that
organization; that he had attended all the meetings of the order
and knew for a fact that no official action had ever been taken
by the order touching the political activities of Lyons. He swore
that he had heard that Lyons was in danger of his life, but that
he did not know from what source the danger emanated. But
"the K. G. C. were in the habit of discussing the soundness of
men politically and in reference to their attachment to the South-
ern Confederacy." The witness went on to state that "if Lyons
had been threatened, he had brought it upon himself by his
hostility to secession, and because he was an ardent supporter of
Abraham Lincoln for President."
Next the district attorney introduced as evidence a deposition
of W. P. Ewing of Bexar county. Ewing recounted a conversa-
tion he and Lyons had in Bennett's store in June 1860, in which
he attributed remarks to Lyons which "in California where I
came from would brand a man as a black republican. I then asked
him the question, 'Are you a black republican?' He said he was.
We both became excited, and the conversation soon ceased." But
this was not all. Ewing knew more. "I remember a few days
after this conversation that Lyons came to me with a pamphlet
and told me that [it] contained his sentiments. The pamphlet
purported to be the views of Rev. N. L. Rice on the subject of
slavery."
In presenting the case for the defense Bennett, under the ques-
tioning of his attorney, swore that he and Lyons were partners:
that Lyons was absent from Texas because he feared for his life;
that the Knights of the Golden Circle had proscribed him and
had officially ordered his assassination. On cross-examination the
witness admitted that Lyons had given him power of attorney
over his property before his departure from San Antonio in 1861.
Bennett admitted that besides his interest in the firm of W. A.
Bennett and Company and the San Antonio Gas Company, Lyons
owned a great deal of San Antonio real estate and several large
tracts of land in Medina county.
To substantiate the testimony of Bennett, that Lyon was only
temporarily absent from Texas, the defense called W. A. Groes-
beck as a witness. The testimony of this witness all hinged on
the proposed murder of Lyons. He swore that certain conspirators
had planned to seize Lyons on the night of May 21, 1861, and
hang him, because he had made himself obnoxious "on account
of his supposed Republican sentiments and hostility to the gov-
ernment." Groesbeck stated that
The source from which I received my information was of
such a character that I could not doubt that the attempt
would be made. I informed him that night of what had
been told me and aided him, going to a place of concealment
where he remained until 2 P. M. at which time, to the best
of my knowledge, he left the city.
On cross-examination Groesbeck swore that he went to the home
of W. A. Bennett, where Lyons was staying at the time, to
inform him of his danger. He stated that Lyons was incredulous
and refused to believe him; that after much insistence from Lyons
the names of the persons in the conspiracy were made known to
him, and that he then realized his danger. Groesbeck went on
to state that
It being impossible to make arrangements for him to leave
the city that night, and apprehending that an attempt would
be made about 12 o'clock to obtain possession of his person,
he concurred in my suggestion to allow Mr. Bennett and
myself to disguise him in female attire. I then left Mr.
Bennett's place with him for the place of concealment.
From the testimony of other witnesses it appears that Lyons
left San Antonio on the stage in the afternoon of May 22, 1861,
and went to Galveston, from which place he made his way to
some northern point, but no witness was able to present any
definite testimony as to his whereabouts at the time of the hearing.
On June 13, 1863, the court adjudged Lyons an alien enemy
md ordered Bennett, who held a power of attorney from Lyons,
to make a return for all of his property. Again Bennett tried to
save the holdings. This time he asked for a new trial. The court
refused the motion. Bennett then filed a statement of the items
in his possession, and they passed into the hands of the receiver
is sequestrated property.
51
Abandoned property represented a particular type under the
sequestration law. In cases of this nature the receiver was respon-
sible for proof of abandonment and alien citizenship. Unlike
cases where some citizen of the Confederate States had possession
of the property in question, and became a party to the proceed-
ings, abandoned property itself became the defendant. The re-
ceiver instituted suit directly against the owner and cited him
by publication to come forward and show cause why his property
should not be confiscated. Of course the owner always failed to
make the necessary representations, and the suit went forward.
Such a case came up for hearing in June, 1862, against G. W.
Richards of Karnes county. The receiver in his petition for
sequestration set out that Richards had ranching interests in
Karnes county and was the owner of more than one hundred
head of horses, about two hundred jacks and jennets, and between
fifty and sixty head of goats. He stated that Richards left the
state without designating an agent to administer his property
and that he left "under strong suspicion of disloyalty."
To support the contention of disloyalty the receiver introduced
a deposition made by W. H. Mayfield in which he stated that
he had been in Matamoros, Mexico, in April, 1862, and had seen
the name of G. W. Richards on the register of the United States
consul there; that the consul had told him that Richards had
taken an oath of allegiance to the United States; and that he was
at that time on board a man-of-war waiting for a conveyance to
New York.
Gideon R. Pace of Karnes county appeared at the hearing and
swore that Richards had come to his place in April, 1862, and
had asked to be allowed to leave a trunk and a box of books
with him.
On the testimony of these three witnesses the judge pronounced
Richards an alien enemy and ordered the sequestration of the
livestock and the personal effects left with Pace. The receiver
conducted an auction sale on September 4, 1862, and realized
$3,294.87 from the sale of the livestock.
During the hearing in June it developed that certain Karnes
county citizens held claims against Richards for indebtedness to
them. When it became, apparent that he would be adjudged an
alien enemy, these creditors came forward and asked leave to
intervene in the case in order to protect their claims against his
estate. There were twenty-three such creditors. They were all
neighbors to Richards and their claims against him represented
purchases of supplies of various sorts, purchases of livestock, and
labor. The court required each creditor to present either the
written contract or a description of such contract, where one had
been made. In instances where no written agreement was forth-
coming the creditor was asked to present an affidavit that the
amount was legal, supported by a sworn statement of one cred-
itable witness. The judge then instructed the clerk to enter the
claim of each creditor in the records of the case. The receiver
was then directed to pay the claims from the proceeds of the sale.
52
In many cases which appeared on the docket of the court the
agent's only interest in the property was in the collection of a
fee for his services. Most of the agents were lawyers who col-
lected rents from real estate, and who also handled notes and
accounts as collections. Such an agent was S. N. Elliott of
Seguin, Texas.
The receiver called upon Elliott to file an answer to a ques-
tionnaire on November 1, 1861. He did so on January 4, 1862.
His answer showed that he was agent for Jas. J. Thornton, who
was the owner of one hundred acres of land in Guadalupe county
and a lot in the town of Seguin, as well as notes and accounts
amounting to $2,202.09. In addition Elliott was the representative
of A. C. Lowery of New York, who owned nine hundred seventy-
seven acres of land in Guadalupe county and a town lot in Seguin.
Another client was William Allen of New York, who owned two
thousand one hundred fifty acres of land in Hays county. Elliott
also had in his possession one Negro slave, about fifty-five years
old, named Harry, the property of Robertson, Hudson, and Pul-
liam of Albany, N. Y.
In filing his answer, Elliott, in noting the Thornton land,
listed it as "100 acres of land a part of the Dewitt league just
above the town of Seguin; the deed is not of record, and the
original will be filed as soon as it can be found." He mentioned
in his answer to the interrogatories that A. B. Elliott had re-
cently sold to William G. Elliott of Rutherford county, Tennessee,
one hundred fifty acres of land in Hays county and had removed
to California. Elliott merely reported this transaction as infor-
mation to be passed on to the receiver under instructions con-
tained in the bill of interrogatories. He expected the receiver to
take the initiative in securing a description of the land.
All of the property covered fully in his first answer was seques-
trated June 5, 1862. The receiver sold the lots in Seguin for
ten dollars each. Most of the land brought around one dollar
per acre. On December 1, 1862, he sold the slave, Harry, to
George Holliman for $816. In his report of the sale he stated that
"said slave brought his full value: indeed in my judgment over
his value."
The court on June 5, 1862, directed Elliott to describe fully
the one hundred acres belonging to Thornton and also ordered
"that he describe the 150 acres of A. B. Elliott, alien enemy,
with the same certainty." He received the order to file the
amended answer but neglected to do so, having joined the Con-
federate army in March, 1862. Again he was cited to file the
information in January, 1863. The case was called for hearing in
June, 1863, and when he failed to appear, the court issued an
order for his attachment. Finally, on May 12, 1864, he was
adjudged in contempt of court, and the judge ordered his arrest.
The marshal arrested him and brought him to Seguin where he
made bond. Following his arrest, he filed the supplementary
report. On June 6, 1864, he requested the court to exculpate
him from the charge of contempt. He based his claim on the
fact that his service in the army had kept him from making
the representations called for by the receiver. He stated that on
three separate occasions during the intervening time certain army
officers had refused his request for a furlough in order that he
might go home and attend to the matter. The records of the
court do not show the final disposition of the case as to the
contempt charges or as to the sequestration of A. B. Elliott's
property.
53
From a survey of the sources it appears that the various receivers
followed a general plan of not recording real estate on the deed
records of the counties until it was sold. Even then they did not
record it as the property of the Confederate States. Upon the sale
of a particular tract the receiver issued a deed to the purchaser
which was then recorded with the county clerk in the county in
which the property was located. The instrument of conveyance
was nothing more or less than the transfer of the rights of the
alien enemy owner in the property to the purchaser by the
receiver as agent for the government. A copy of such a deed
follows:
John A. Green, Receiver, to Abner H. Cook--(Deed)
The State of Texas:
County of Travis: Whereas, at the January term, 1863, of the
Confederate States District Court for the Western District of
Texas, at Austin, in the case of the Confederate States Versus F. W.
Chandler, No. 1470, on the docket of the said Court there was
rendered a decree and judgment Sequestrating and condemning
to the use of the said Confederate States and ordering to he sold
by the Receiver the following among other property as the prop-
erty of Nathaniel Townsend as an alien enemy to the said states,
viz., Lots Seven (7) and Eight (8) in Block No. One Hundred
Twenty Seven (127) as shown by the plan of the said city on
file in the General Land Office of said state at Austin. And in
obedience to said decree I, John A. Green, Receiver, did cause
the said Lots 7 & 8, together, and premises to be duly advertised
for sale at the southwest corner of Block No. 70 in the city of
Austin, on the 25th day of May, 1863, the same being the place
for making public sales in Travis county, said sale being for
Confederate States Treasury Notes or Bonds, to the highest bid-
der and in conformity to the said advertisement, did expose, the
same to sale at the time and place and in the manner specified,
when Abner H. Cook became the purchaser thereof at the sum
of Thirty Dollars, he being the highest bidder for the same; And
thereupon I, the said receiver, did duly report the said sale to
the said Court at the June Term, 1863, thereof: which said report
and sale were in all things approved and confirmed, and title was
ordered to be made to the purchaser upon his complying with the
terms of the Law. Now therefore, in consideration of the premises
and the payment of the purchase money aforesaid, I, John A.
Green, Receiver, as aforesaid, have bargained, and sold, and do
hereby bargain and sell, alien and convey unto the said Abner H.
Cook, and his heirs, the above described property as purchased,
together with all the rights, privileges, and immunities there-
unto belonging.
"To have and to hold unto the said Abner H. Cook, his heirs,
and assigns forever Hereby conveying all the right, title, and
interest the said Nathaniel Townsend, as an alien enemy, afore-
said, had in and to the same as I, the said Green, as Receiver,
as aforesaid, may or can of right do. In witness whereof I here-
unto set my hand and seal this the 28th day of August, A. D. 1863.
John A. Green, Receiver.
Witnesses:
A. G. Campbell
Alexr. Eanes.
L. S.
Naturally, with the collapse of the Confederacy the citizens of
the United States whose property had been seized by the Con-
federate States sought to recover it. Since all personal property
had been dissipated, its recovery was problematic from the begin-
ning. Real estate, however, was tangible and permanent, and the
original owners recovered it. The recovery was made possible
under a law passed by the United States Congress July 17, 1862.
This act outlawed the Confederate States, their official actions,
and rendered all conveyances of property within them under Con-
federate Congressional action null and void.
54
It seems that purchasers of real estate from the receivers were
ignored in all transfers of property covering the period immedi-
ately following the war and even up to the present time. The
deed records of the various counties do not even show a transfer
from the purchaser of sequestrated real estate to the original
owner as would be expected in clearing the title of a cloud which
might have been cast upon it by the confiscation. The Federal
law of 1862 made such a transfer unnecessary.
55
The United States District Court convened in Austin in June,
1865, and took up the docket where it had left off in 1861. The
clerk began numbering the cases in numerical order. The Con-
federate court had used the same sequence of numbers as the
former United States court. In taking up the docket in 1865
the United States court simply ignored the existence of the Con-
federate court.
When the legislature of Texas convened in November, 1866, it
passed a law empowering the United States District Court to
take over the records of the Confederate court. It went further
and legalized the records and documents as evidence in all the
state courts of Texas.
56
Howard Payne College, Brownwood.
Lynn Eliot
Sleep ye, with liberty your winding-sheet,
The blood-washed soil of Texas for your bier;
While history echoes deathlessly the beat
Of hearts that bought undying glory here.
When, grasping freedom, you went down in death,
What pity your great spirits could not gauge
How gloriously you fused the living breath
Of honor into Texas' heritage.
Wherever fame shall sing of gallant men,
Wherever tales of noble deeds are told,
There sound the roll of Texas' valiant men,
Who stand in simple grandeur with the bold.
With all of time's immortal great you stand,
Who wrote your faith with blood, in Texas land.
FOOTNOTES:
Union and Confederate Armies, Fourth Series, I, 586, Washington, 1895.
Hereafter cited as Official Records.
Washington, 1908.
80-91.
Unfortunately no records of the debates in Congress were kept, hence we
have no exact record of what transpired. Lincoln's proclamation of the
blockade came on April 19, and thus it has no connection. General Butler's
proclamation and his letter to General Scott, which stirred up so much
animosity in the South, came on May 14 and May 25, respectively. There-
fore, they may not be used in this connection as identical with the date
of the measure.
sional Congress, Confederate States, 201-207.
ton, Jasper, Jefferson, Orange, Tyler, Polk, Liberty, Galveston, Harris,
Montgomery, Austin, Fort Bend, Brazoria, Colorado, Wharton, Mata-
gorda, Lavaca, Jackson, Calhoun, De Witt, Victoria, Goliad, Refugio, San
Patricio, Nueces, Cameron, Starr, Webb, and Hidalgo.
28, 1820. The family moved to Florida in 1835 and later to Mississippi.
He studied law in Transylvania University in Kentucky. Moving to Texas
in 1843 he made his home first at La Grange, where he was admitted to the
bar a few days after his arrival. He remained in La Grange for some
three years and then moved to San Antonio. He became district judge in
San Antonio in 1851 and was re-elected in 1856. An ardent secessionist,
he was one of the leading members of the Secession Convention of Texas
and was a member of the Committee of Public Safety appointed to confer
with General Twiggs regarding the surrender of United States property in
Texas. Following the war he lived in Mexico for a time. Upon his return
to San Antonio he was arrested by Federal troops and imprisoned at Fort
Jackson at the mouth of the Mississippi River for a period of four months.
He was then released without trial, whereupon he returned to his home
and the practice of law. He was appointed to membership on the Supreme
Court of Texas in 1875 and served on that tribunal for two years. He
then resigned from the court and again returned to San Antonio, where
he maintained his law practice until his death in 1890.--John Henry
Brown, Indian Wars and Pioneers of Texas, 220-221.
William F. Walton, Austin; E. G. Huston, San Antonio; S. H. Renick,
Waco; John Tabor, Brownsville; John Howell, Corpus Christi; and
William N. Fant, Goliad. Under the Sequestration Law the judge was
empowered to appoint receivers for alien enemy property. In the Browns-
ville area these included N. Maxen, Brownsville; J. B. Murphy, San
Patricio; and James A. Ware, Corpus Christi. Receivers attached, to the
Austin court included W. S. Glass, Victoria; F. Fauntleroy, Goliad;
William Milburn, Wharton; John Ireland, Seguin; N. O. Green, San
Antonio; John A. Green, Austin; J. L. L. McCall, Waco; J. M. Smith,
Fort Worth; J. C. Rushing, Weatherford; and Thomas Moore, Burnet.--
Texas Almanac, 1862, 3-4.
In Confederate States District for Said District
Confederate States of America
Western District of Texas
No. 1896, Confederate States vs. Robert Carson.
To the Marshal of Said District:--Greetings:
Whereas, Robert Carson has filed his answer to the above entitled cause,
showing that he is indebted to Bryan, Hind, and Bliss in the sum of
$861.06 and $892.42 and having been notified that the said notes are the
property of Benjamin L. Britton and suggesting that the said Benjamin
L. Britton is a citizen of the Confederate State, and a resident of the
State of Arkansas:
You are, therefore, hereby commanded that you cite the said Benjamin
L. Britton (by making publication of this writ, for one month before the
return date thereof, in the State Gazette, a newspaper published in
Austin, Texas) to appear before our honorable District of Texas, at
the city of Austin, on the first Monday in January, 1863, and propound
his claim to the said debt. And then there have this writ, certifying
that you have executed the same.
Witness, the Honorable Thomas J; Devine, Judge of the said court, and
the seal thereof, at the city of Austin, this the 22nd day of November,
A. D. 1862 and of our independence the second.
George W. G. Browne, Clerk District Court, C. S. W. D. of Texas, at
Austin.
I hereby order the publication of this citation as therm directed.
Nov. 22, 1862. J. R. Jefferson, Marshall, W. D. of Texas.
C. 519.
Records, Brown County, Book A, 27.
50
How to cite:
T. R. Havins, "Administration of the Sequestration Act in the Confederate District Court For the Western District of Texas, 1862-1865", Volume 43, Number 3, Southwestern Historical Quarterly Online, http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/publications/journals/shq/online/v043/n3/contrib_DIVL5015.html
[Accessed Mon Mar 22 4:32:51 CDT 2010]
