Mr. Adams to Mr.
Seward.
No. 1330.]
Legation of the United States,
London,
March 2, 1867.
Sir: I have the honor to transmit herewith a
copy of the Times of yesterday containing a legal opinion given by Sir
Robert P. Collier, the late solicitor general, and the same person who
was employed in behalf of the United States in the case of the Alabama
on the claims of the holders of the rebel loan in this country.
If the advancement of any such claim as that indicated could be made a
means of opening up the secret history of that extraordinary
transaction, it would not be without its uses in estimating the value of
the neutrality of Great Britain in the struggle for our national
existence.
I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant,
Hon. William H. Seward, Secretary of State, Washington, D. C.
[Untitled]
[From the
London Times, March 1,
1867.]
Subjoined is a question of considerable importance in its bearing on
the confederate cotton loan, with the opinion thereof of Sir R. P.
Collier, the late solicitor general:
“QUESTION.
“Whether or not merchants and others, on being sued in England by the
government of the United States for property or money held by them
at the termination of the war belonging to the southern States, may
not successfully plead the confederate 7 per cent, cotton bonds as a
set-off, to the extent of the amount that each defendant may hold of
them.
“OPINION.
“In the event of the United States government suing in the courts of
the country for debts due on property belonging the late confederate
government, I am of opinion that defendants, who may be holders of
confederate cotton bonds, are entitled to set up a counter claim
against the United States government in respect of these bonds.
“This counter claim will be founded on the principle, that if the
United States government assert in our courts claims accruing to
them through their succession to the property and rights of the late
confederate government, they are bound by the liabilities of that
government.
“Should the United States government bring action of debt, I think
that the holders of cotton bonds may plead them as a set-off. Should
they proceed for a tortious conversion of property, a technical
difficulty will stand in the way of this defence, and it may be
necessary to resort to an acquitable plea, or possibly to the
protection of a court of equity.
“The equitable case of the bondholders will be strengthened by the
facts that the United States government have possessed themselves of
the cotton set apart as the security for the payment of the
bonds.
“The form, however, in which the defence I have indicated may be
raised will be matter of subsequent consideration when the mode of
proceeding adopted by the United States government is known.
