The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1809-01-12
forteitcdin consequence Ola contraven-

out violating general principles, be seizeGb By
the officers acting for the public. The act OF
seizure brings it before tie court, and if as
certained to be forfeited, it is Immediately
case in the present bill for the person whose
property was seized, was permitted to have
it again on giving security for its value. Thu
very idea OF a mans 'regaining his property
OH giving security, was incompatible with
the seizure OF goods as forfeited. The sus-
picion OF an intent to erade the law, could be
no ground for seizure. In the case of the
revenue laws, the very fact of goods being
found within the lines, not having paid duty,
was fhso .facto evidence of their being for
feited. transferred the property to the use of
the United States, and made it liable to Sci
zure. On this ground therefore he thought
wholly unwarranted.
Mr.. ID. X. WHtams suggested a modi-
fcation of the amendment which he believ-
eli would satisfy the asiidioasi,ess 10. soaae
was compelled to call it) of the gentleman
from Connecticut. He observed that il used
to- be penal iora man even to move any part
O. his property alter sun down, and vet he
believed that none of the distress had been
felt from that law which gentlemen seemed
to apprehcnd from this law.
Mr.. Lfveymore thuugllc this section and
indeed the whole bill could not he understood
by gentlemen, or there could be no difference
of opinion on the subject. The bill indeed
had been very essentially altered since it
came from the Seaate /; for before 1T was a.
mendcd, it ccntaitcd Il provision by which :
collector who haa any particular hatred to a
ny man, might So with a band Of soldiers and
SEIZE his properly. INir. Eppes denied that
the bill had contained any such provision
Nr. Livermore said that the collector was
authorized to seize property whenhc beiiev-
cd 1t intended for expectation, not colfining
the right of seizure to any particular limits,
were 1t not fOr the amendment made by the
House. If money had been accumulated in
a bank, MIR. L.. said that it might have been
seized under a pretence of a suspicion that
was intended for expectation. And as the
Diii now stood, suppose a man travelling from
TINS place to Baltimore, which is an export
ing place, having with him in his caraiage
or vehicle a sum of money, it would be i'll
the power OF any person to seize it., saying
that 1t was Intended for expectation, and
Keep II till he had been able to procure Sc
CURLY tor its retention in the United States.
NFhat wouid DC the consequence ittais pow
CT should he tvrannicaily exercised? WIN,
the revenue officer might be sued for Dana
Ses, exc. Mr.. l.. made some observations on
inc subject OF the process in TINS case, &c.
lie considered this Dill as veating arbitrary
powers III tie Executive, and oppressive 10
the citizen This he said, was the way in
which all countries had lost their liberties,
by gradual assumptions and dciegationso Of
powers. RuinS iiau io. established It dictator
mp IN a day /; gradual approaches were
always made TO dtspotIsm. He said he Should
vore against the amendment and against the
Dill, Dec;.use he did bei,evc, if passed, that
:, would be subversive of the liberties o. the
pcop.e Of the u. s.
Mr.. Elites said, that the gentleman from
Massachusetts must have lately taken Il uiD
to the island OF Iribnia, described Gy Dean
o"nt, aud received some Instructions from
the artists who were 50 deXterousi III finding
OUT hidden meanings III words, for instance,
that "a iiock OF geese si6nihed a Senate, d
ouZZara a prime minister, &c. because he
had given meanings to the bill, which could
DC JustihedDy the language of The pili, OF
iaIily inferred from il. The bill as sent from
the Senate, Mr.. Eppes said, did not author
ne any SUCH seizure ; and he asked the gen
from Massachusetts, as q LAWYER, wle.
theT any collector would dare 10 violate the
constitution oy attempting TO search d house
without a warrant! The gentleman knew
chat lie could not that law could not give
Il power. The gentleman had told item
that Roman liberty had Hot been DESTROYED
once. IL they looked into Aomin nlslO-
ny they would lind that Rome was once sa-
yea by the braylnS of all ass that the cack-
ing OF geese once saved the capitol tina
the conspiracy of Cataiine had been betray-
by a zvoman. These were remarkable
circumstances, but had no more connection
with the question than the gentleman's case
OF the dictatorship. Me-. EJpes SAID, w.ien
saw gentlemen supporting objections ike
The gentleman from Connecticut, MIR. Pit
kin) he Could meet and respect them but
when he heard a gentleman say, that by the
bill an officer could violate d private sanCtu- |
airy, when lie looked into the law, and found
no such provision, he could not treat his OBJ
with attention.
Mr.. LfUermore said, that the gentleman |
could not have understood him as aliudine |
to the bin as it now stood, but as il had come |
from the Senate. The gentleman had asked |
him as a lawyer, whether a man Could ell
ter a house without q warrant and seize pro- |
He could not b., virtue of a law, &
why! Bee. use the constitution would pre-
vent him. .but this did rot take away the
improperly or passing such d law. He did
believe thai the Courts o fjustice had be- !
so Corrupt, OF would display such Il
vile submission 10 amy authority as to submit |
to carry into effect "a law which was uncon !
He said, that he attributed no
wrong intention TO gentlemen but he con
ceived it possible that their feelings misat
niGC from them the true Construction nj ia.