Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1809-01-13
F RID 7, T NUART IS, 1909.

Iobviate his objections. Gentlemen talked
OF arbitrary measures. Did gentlemen sup
lpose that the powers here given to coffee.
tors was any way as arbitrary as must ex.
list in military officers in case of war The
advocates OF the embargo had adopted that
measure as lesser evil to avoid war.
Was it arbitrary to keep produce at home
land to compel those who had not the fear
lof God before their eyes and love of coun-
TRY in their hearts, to respect the laws of
their country Surely not; it was but JUS
ltice. Was not the design to make laws
Operate equally, both honorable and lauda-
bic {: Surely it was. What was arbitra-
ry in the bill The objections seemed so
chanseable, so Proteus-iike, that they could
not be ascertained. 1t was altogether des-
sructye of republicanisn to say that we
could not enforce or support our laws.
Laws might be partially evaded but they
must be rendered generally efectual, and
that was the object of this bill.
Mr. Eppes said that if he conceded in
opinion with the gentleman from Cou-
necticut on the subject of the bill, he
should questionably vote against it !;
bat he could not believe that it either
violated the constitution or established
4 new jurisdiction. He was we'll con-
WINGED that if the gentleman from Con
necticut would attend TO our revenue
llws, he would find infinitely greater
powers had been given by them. In
almost the first revenue law which had
been passed under this constitution i'm
portatIon by land had been wholly pro-
hibited and h asked the attention o.
the House to- the terms Of tho law, be-
cause it proved that our revenue Off
GERS had exercised jurisdiction on land
as wellas on water. He read the 10th
section OF the /" act to provide more
IeileCtually for the collection of duties
Imposed by law on goods, wares and
merchant z imported into the United
states and on the tonnage of ships and
vessels as follows:
That no goods, wares or merchan-
die Of foreign growth or manufacture,
subject to the payment of duties, shall
be brought into the United States from
any foreign port or place in any other
manner than by sea, nor in any ship or
vessel of less than thirty tons burthen,
except within the district of Louisville,
oor shall be landed or unladen at any
other place than is by this act directed
under the penalty of seizure and for
| telture of all such vessels, and of the
goods, wares or merchandise brought
in, landed or unladen, in any other
manner. And all goods, wares and
merchandise brought into the United
States by land, contrary to this &C; =.
shall be forfeited, together with the
carriages, horses and oxen that shall
De employed IN conveying the same !;
provided nothing herein shall be con
strued to extend TO household furniture
and cl1athing, belonging to any person
or persons actually removing into any
lars OF the United States, far the pur-
pose OF Becoming Al inhabitant or in
labitants thereof"
his principle Mr. Eppes said was
precisely the same with that now pro
2oscd. The section was not now in
force, but other provisions were sub
stituted in its place. Mr. Eppes quo
ted several other parts OF laws, in
which was given to the collectors a
power to search all RATS, boats, carria-
ges, and to stop them when suspected,
&c. and in which vessels going from one
port to another of the Same state, were
co npelled to take clearances or give
bond and security, &c. and persons
carrying property even over land, were
required 20 give security. And vet
said Mr. Z. when wei now propose to give
the same power in the very same words,
we are told that we are violating the
constitution and destroying the rights
of the citizen! The constitution, he
said, had wisely provided that the cit.
Ilzen should be secure in his person
and property. But if a mans proper
ty were found under such circumstan-
ces as to authorize belief that he in
tended TO violate law of the u. S.
was it an infraction of the right of the
cltizen to compel him to give bond that
he will not? The very gentlemen
themselves who raised this outcry, had
passed laws stronger than this. He
was against the amendment proposed,
because it authorized no seizure i'm A.
low situation in which nrone,t,; ,,,o,,IJ