Berkeley and Jefferson intelligencer. [volume] (Martinsburg, Va.) 1802-1810, 1808-06-17

ton is founded, states, that the ship he.
source, is ballasted with 40 barrels of
rice, under a load of cotton, and is des-
tined for the port of Baltimore. The
collector, in his return 70 the rule &C.
knowledges, that he believes the port OF
Baltimore to be her real destination, and
that, if he had no other rule Of conduct.
but the 18th section Of the act supple
mentary to the embargo act, he would
not detain her; but urges in excuse, for
refusing clearance, letter from the
Secretary of the Treasury. 1t is not
denied that if the petitioners be legally
entitled TO- a clearance, this court may
insernose its authority, by the writ Of
mandamus, to compel the collector to
grant it. The only questions, therefore,
will be, whether the section of the act
alluded to-, authorises the detention of
the vessel, and, if it does not, whether
the instructions of the president, through
the secretary of the treasury, unsuppor-
ted by an-acr Of the Congress, will JUS
tify the collector in that detention. On
the latter question there can be no doubt.
The officers Of our government from the
highest to the lowest, are equally sub
jected to legal restraint, and 1t is conf
IDENTITY believed that all of them feel
themselves equally incapable, as well
from law as inclination, to attempt an
unsanctioned encroachment upon indivi-
dual liberty. In the letter alluded to,
Mr.. Gallatin speaks only in the language
accommodating not of command
at the utmost the collector could only
plead the influence of advice, and no:
the authority of the treasury department
in his justification.
In the act of Congress there is NJ
ambiguity. The object is to prevent
evasions of the embargo act, by vessels
which sail ostensibly tor some port in
the United States, when theirreal desti-
nation is for some other port or place.
The granting of c.earances is left abso-
lute!y at the discretion of the collector;
the right of OBTAINING in cases which ex-
cite suspicion is given him, with refe-
renee to the will of the Executive. Con-
gress might have vested this discretion
in the President, the Secretary Of the
Treasury, or any other officer, in whom
they thought proper to vest it; but,
having vested the right of granting or
refusing in the collector, with an appeal
to the President, only in case ofrefnsal;
the right of granting clearauces remains
in him unimPaired and unrestricted.
/" 1t does not appear to US that the in
structions from the treasury department,
are intended to reach this case. The
Recommendation not to grant clearances
on shi pments of provisions appears by
the context to be restricted by two pro-
visos, evidently pointed at by the rea-
sons assigned for that recommendation.
First, if ended for place where they
are not wanted for Consumption, or we
suppose, where supplies Of the same
article can be had from the state or
neishborhood in which such place is
situated. Secondly, for aRprt which u-
sually exports that article 2Now with
regard to the article of rice, it is impos-
sibIe to say how much the City Of Bal
timore will want for its consumption as
they have no internal supplies, and as
the three southern states alone are ex-
porters OF that article; shipments Of tice
from Baltimore 10 Charleston, might
create suspicion, but not such shipments
from Charleston to Baltimore. We ARE
of opinion that the act Of congress does
not authorize the detention Of this YES
sci. That without the sanction Of law /;
the Collector is not justified. by the in
structions ofthe executive, in increa,ing
restraints upon commerce, even if this
case had been contemplated by the let
ter alluded to, but that from tempsnsts
consideration of that letter, this case
does not appear to come within the spirit
and meaning of the instructions which 1t
contains" >".-..-.
A Mandamus was ordered according
ly, commanding the Collector Is grant
clearance to the Resource.