During all this time S. H. Kennedy & Co. have not accepted the amnesty proffered by the proclamation of the commanding general, but preferred to remain, within its terms, rebels and enemies.

Upon this state of facts the commanding general called upon Kennedy & Co. to pay the amount of net proceeds of the cotton (the third exchange of the draft) which, with the documents relating to this unlawful transaction, he had captured, as a proper forfeiture to the Government under the facts above stated, which was done. Upon the submission to you whether the forfeiture was a proper one you have decided that the money should be repaid because the forfeiture was no proper.

Pardon me if I respectfully examine the grounds of that decision.

They are: First, that there was no capture of the property or its representative actually running the blockade; second, that there is no personal depiction in Kennedy & Colonel in the acts done by them which can render them subject to forfeiture; and third, that the blockade being raised by the proclamation of the President, and before the capture of the draft and paper, all depiction on account of the transaction is purged.

Was not this third of exchange the very representative of the transaction, in connection with the account sales? If the first or second has been paid, then, of course, it becomes valueless; but there was no evidence that either the first or the second had been paid, nor could that have been done in ten days From Havana to London, in which case the third is the sole "proceeds" of the illegal transaction. Is not the third of exchange usually sent by consicipal, where the order is to transfer the fund to a distant house, precisely for the purpose of representing the transaction? In the hands of the owners, S. H. Kennedy & Co., were not these several of exchange of equal value? If one holds the first, second, and third of the exchange, can it be said that one is more valuable than the other to the holder? Kennedy & Co. did hold all three by themselves or their agents; all of equal value up to the capture.

The hazards of the return voyage were guarded against by a shipment to England of one of the representatives of the cotton, but the commercial transaction was still in fieri in the transmission of its account sales, and vouchers and representative of value to the company here. Even if I am right, however, it is unnecessary to elaborate the point further, because it seems to me that the decision turns upon a non- appreciation of the law as to what is the effect of the blockade.

As applied to this transaction the citations and arguments derived from elementary writers upon the law of nations are of no value. This is not the case of a resident subject of a foreign state, attempting to elude the vigilance of a blockade by a foreign power of a port of a third nation. The rule that a successful running of the blockade, or a subsequent raising of the blockade, purges the transaction, so far as punishment for personal depiction is concerns, is too familiar to need citation, at least by a lawyer to a lawyer. It would be desirable to see some citations to show there was no personal depiction in the transaction under consideration.

A traitorous commercial house directly engages in the treasonable work of aiding a rebellion against the Government by entering into a trade, the direct effect of which is to furnish the rebels with arms and ammunition. To do this they intentionally violate the revenue laws, postal laws of their country, as well as the laws prohibiting