The court then proceeded to give an opinion in the case, which occupied nearly an hour, and was listened to with almost breathless silence by the large audience present. In amount claimed, and in point of high standing, both as to the plaintiffs and defendants, it was the most important case of the kind yet brought before the court, and for the information of the general public, no less than for the parties immediately interested, the Judge thought it well to state the principles upon which the court acted, and their applicability to the case in hand. A reporter present wrote out the opinion, which, by request of the New York merchant, was published soon after in the New York Times, occupying over two columns of closely printed matter. As most of the principles enunciated in this opinion were the same as stated in the first case heretofore given, it is not necessary to repeat them here. In reply to the clerk's request "to reserve to and for themselves whatever rights they might have under the laws of Virginia," and to the opinion expressed by him that "the New York firm would have acted wiser and more honorable to have waited for their claim until the war was over," the court said:
"Of course, in this, as in every other case, the parties can and do reserve for themselves whatever rights they possess under the laws of Virginia, of which this city forms a part, and, if the rebellion succeeds, the parties reserving these rights will undoubtedly make the best use of them possible; but meanwhile the claimants, so far as this court can effect it, shall have a return of their own goods, or of others equal in value to their claim, and after that, if the debtors, through sequestration laws made by the Confederate Congress, or any laws now made or hereafter to be made by Virginia, can get the goods back or damages by way of reclamation, this court at least will have done its duty. With regard to the opinion expressed by the young gentleman, the court begs to differ with him. By his own confession portions of the goods have already been sent across the lines, and to that extent have contributed to the 'aid and comfort' of the enemies of this government, and had there been no claimants, no interference, there is no manner of doubt that every article in the store would, sooner or later, have gone the same way; and as to the debtors paying the claim after the war is over, if we may judge by what they and their chosen government have already done, there is no more probability of it than for the waters of Niagara Falls to run backwards. As the leap of the waters in that case is irrevocable, so is the leap from the fair haven of loyalty to the deep, dark chasm of disloyalty--once taken, there can be no hope of return." One other matter the court explained in this case, which was not explained in the first, namely, why the goods were not sold at public sale, and the money, instead of the goods, turned over to claimants. He said: "It will be observed that by the rules of procedure adopted in these cases, the court is quite as careful to protect the interests of debtors as of claimants. In ordinary actions for debt, in courts of common pleas, the goods, after being attached or levied upon, are put up at public sale and sold to the highest bidder, and the money received at such sales paid to claimants. In such cases it often happens that, even in a market, goods do not bring one-half and sometimes not one-fourth their real value, and the defendant of course has to suffer the loss. If the goods seized here were thus exposed to public sale, at this time, when two-thirds of its ordinary inhabitants have fled from the city, and when there is little or no market for anything outside of army stores, they would not bring one-fourth their cost; whereas the same goods taken to a market, will sell for about their original cost. Hence the rule in the proceedings whereby goods are assessed by three disinterested persons, and turned over to the claimants at the prices fixed by the commissioners. And the court begs to add--though not boastfully, since it only performs a duty in so doing--that, because of the absence of the defendants, doubly the care is taken that the full market value is fixed to each article turned over to the creditor; and that in every case the court carefully supervises the schedules, to see that no mistakes have been made.
