| In re: Ala & Miss Rl Rd Co.
{Alabama & Mississippi Rivers RR} |
| |
| About Oct 26 '63 26 Hhds of
Sugar were impressed by Maj Dameron at Meridian Miss. The A. & M. Rl Rd
Co ask to release, alleging how it was purchased by means of one Grinder
to barter for meat for their employees & was enroute to Demopolis when
taken. |
| It does not appear when
Grinder held it, when he contracted to sell: but it is very clear that
the sugar was still his property when seized. The contract of sale
obviously anticipated the danger of impressment, for the Co were not to
be responsible until delivery at Demopolis & then to have the liberty of
taking only so much of what was shipped reach that point as they might
then thin necessary. (See letter of Pres Bocock to Major Dameron of Nov:
6 '63) |
| The release is claimed on one
assumption near the impressment was in violation of Gen Order No 31
repeated in Gen Order No 144 to the effect that "supplies held by a
party for his own consumption or that of his family, employees or
slaves" should not be impressed. |
| The sugar very clearly does
not come under the letter of this provision, as it is not ??d that it
was designed for the consumption of the employees of the Rl Road. Nor
does it come under the equity. The sugar was ??dly bought to barter
for supplies. If bought to barter for supplies, if this purpose
could protect, it could be universally pleaded & might perhaps as a vast
majority of cases be pleaded with equal justice. Every speculator, whose
gains are swallowed up in the support of his family might truthfully
protest that he purchased to sell again for family necessaries. The
purchase of sugar was certainly, though not in an official use, a
speculation. If sugar would buy meat money, if enough was offered, would
do so. The facilities of transportation however evoked the Co. to pay in
sugar less money would have had to pay in money, & they speculated upon
the purchase to ??? them to make available the facilities they engaged
to transport. The Co seems to have been fully aware that the property
would be liable to impressment, as they expressly stipulated not to
assume the right of property & obligation to pay until the transitus
was complete. Grinder certainly estimated the danger fully, for he made
the Contract sufficiently indefinite to ??ch its protection for at least
a portion of the sugar which he did not expect the Co. to buy when it
arrived at Demopolis. |
| The right to a release
therefore as dependant upon one Gen Cider referred to is not recognized |
| As a matter of discretion, I
do not see any thing to demand and exception on behalf of the Co. The
reason assigned by Maj Dameron for consenting to the sale of another lot
of sugar, held by Mr Latimer (see his letter to Pres Bocock Nov 9 '63)
are very sufficient to justify a different policy towards Latimer from
that presumed to Grider & the additional expense 5c pet lb & carriage
for 100 miles should not have sufficed to make the Co. reject the
opportunity of supplying their employees with meat if the necessity had
been extremely urgent. It may be presumed that they calculated upon
their ability to supply their necessities in some other way at a less
cost than the purchase of Latimer's sugar would have occasioned, &
therefore their claim upon the Govt for the balance of this sugar is
simply asking to be protected from the comparatively slight additional
expense in providing for their employees. To afford this protection
Grinder, who is the substantial applicant, must be relieved from an
unfortunate consequence of his speculation, which he was fully appraized
of, while for the sake of gain he "engrossed an important article of
subsistence." |
| B. R. Melford Jr |
| Dec. 13 '63 |
|