L. B. Northrop to R. J. Mosss, November 17, 1864

Chief Commissary of Subsistence :

MaJor: Your letter of 4th instant has been received. The act of Congress of March 26, 1863, to regulate impressments (see General Orders, No. 37, 1863) made a discrimination between the owners who produced or raised the article which was the subject of impressment, or who held it for consumption, and those who held it for sale, in respect of the mode of ascertaining the price or just compensation to be paid by the impressing officer. The first section of the act prescribes the manner in which the price to be paid to the owner of the first class shall be ascertained, viz, by appraisement made by persons appointed from the vicinage.. The sixth section establishes a permanent board to fix rates at which the property held by the other class should be valued.

The act of April 27, 1863 (see General Orders, No. 53, 1863), authorized an appeal by the impressing officer from the decision of the appraisers to this permanent board. This act was adopted in consequence of the extravagant appraisement made by vicinage appraisers.

The supreme court of Georgia in the year 1863 declared that the schedule rates established by the permanent board did not furnish prima facie evidence of value, and set aside the impressments made under the sixth section of the act. Their opinion seemed to be that the value should be ascertained at the time of the appraisement of the particular article impressed.

The General Orders of the War Department (No. 161, 1863) will show that the Department yielded to the opinion of the supreme court, and allowed a vicinage appraisement in all cases. The principle of that order was incorporated into the act of Congress of 16th February last, published in General Orders, No. 30, of this year. That act allows the vicinage appraisement in all cases, and allows an appeal to the permanent board to be made by either party, and empowers the board to hear testimony as to value. The appointment of a board of appraisers for such a purpose is believed to be constitutional. That board is not confined to schedule rates in any case, but is to decide upon the question of value as an original question, and if requisite they can take testimony for the purpose of informing their judgment upon the matter.

I would call your attention particularly to the certificate to be used in the case of the approval or disapproval of the appraisement on the award of the appraisers. In case of disapproval the certificate should be, ” This appraisement is not accepted as fair and just, but the same is objected to because the value assessed is excessive and affords more than a just compensation for the property, and therefore an appeal is made to the appraisers under the act of Congress of February 16, 1864.” (See General Orders, No. 30, current series. )

This opinion of the state of the case is derived from the highest judicial authority in the Confederacy, and will, I think, warrant your making impressments in accordance with circular referred to below.

The question of appeal from the award of the vicinage appraisers is fully discussed in the circular,* of which a copy was forwarded to you with my last letter.

Very respectfully, your obedient servant,