The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1809-01-12
d.spo,ic. Not a cart he said, could trave

fitor1eS OF 0tOvclgn nation, ont would De SUD
ject 20 this despotic power, &c Nosimilar
power had ever been given by day law pass
ed in this country or aay othc:. A man could
nct carry his wheat to market if the mill lay
in a direction towards a foreign country,
without being liable to seizure. Tie fourth
article of the amendments TO the constitution
says, "Ihe right OF the people to be secure
IN their persons, houses, papers aud effects
against unreasonable searches and seizures,
shall nrt be violated, and no warrants shall
issue, hut upon probable cause, supported by
oath or affirmation, and Particularly desert
bling tue place to be searched, and the per-
sons or thing to be seized" What was "un-
reasonable seizures" lfthis power to seize
authorised by the bill was not unreasonable,
he could net see what was. Was not this a vi
citation of this article of the constitution! g.
In article 5th no man "shall be compelled
i'll any criminal case to te witness against
himself, nor be deprived of his life, liberty.
or property, without aue process 81 *;" e
deprived of his property in this way, was it
not, he asked, taking his property, without
due process Of law? If the article of the con-
stitution meant anything, the bill proposed a
violation of it. Mr.. Pitkin also adverted to
the novelty, fnot unconstitutionality Of Civ
ing to maritime courts Jurisdiction over oc-
currences taking place On the land. He
feared for the consequences of the thing, if
the law was enforced. While 'gentlen,en
toak measures professedly for defending our
rights on the ocean,, he begged them to take
care not to destroy them on the land. The
bill was to maintain our right to sail without
impeachment from either of the belligeieEts /;
and for this purpose they were about to des-
troy the rights for which we had even foagh,
and bled. Thinking thus, he felt himself
bound to move the amendment though he fear
ed 1T would not be agreed to, for he perceived
that this bill was promptly to pass by an over
whclming majority. He did not believe that
this bill was necessary to enforce the embar-
go; and it it was, it was one of the strongest
arguments against the embargo itself.
Mr.. BaSSet observed that all the argu-
ments OF the gentleman.had been directed a
Sainst the word " towards" The strik-
ing out towards" & inserting'' to" would
obviate his objections. Gentlemen talked
OF arbitrary measures. Did gentlemen
suppose that the powers here given to
collectors was any way as arbitrary as must
exist III military officers in case of war! The
advocates of the embargo had adopted that
measure as 4 lesser evil 10 avoid war. Was
1t arbitrary to keep produce at home and 10
compel those who had not the fear or God
before their eyes and love of country in their
heaits, torespect the laws of their country ?
Surely not, 1T wa*but justice. Was not the
design to make laws opcra.e equally, both
honorable and laudable? Surely il was
was SO arbitrary in the bill? The OBJ
%Jections seemed so Changeab!c, SD Psoteus-
iihS, ttat they Could not DC IaccTtdiTiyd. Ii
Was altogether destructive of repub;icanism
to say, that we could not enforce or support
our laws. Laws might be partially evaded
bat they must be rendered generally ~effectu-
I'll and that WAS thp object NJ tnfc hill
Mr.. EEfeS said that # he conceded in o.
pinion with the gentleman from Connecticut
on the subject OF the bill, he snouid unques-
tionaoiy vote against it; but lie could not
oclieve thar it either violated the cohstItu-
ton or established a new jurisdiction. He
was weilconviDced that if the gentleman from
Comet. would attend TO OUR revenue laws, he
would find infinitely greater powers had been
gwen by them. In almost the first revenue
aw "nicii had been passed under this con-
stitution, Importation by land had been who.-
ly pr0h;Cited and he asked the attention or
the House to the terms OF the law, bccauseit
proved that our revenue officers had exercis-
ed Jurisaiction OH land us well as on water. He
read the 10Th section OF the "act 20 provide
more efeCtualiy for the collection of duties
imposed by law on goods, wares and mer-
~chandize imported into the u. States and On
the tonnage OF ships and vessels" as follows
1 nat 10 goods, wares or merchandise
OF foreign growth OF manufacture, subject to
the payment of duties, shall be brought into
the Unitcd 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
buithcn, except within the district of Lou
iSville, nor shall be landed or unladrned at
any other place than is by this act directed,
Under the penalty OF seizure and forfeiture
OF all such vessels, and of The goods, wares
or merchandise brought in, landed or unia-
dened, in any other manner .Hnd all goods,
7oares and merchandise brought inkO she u.
States by tand, contrary 10 this act, shall
DC JorJetsed, t0gether svith the carriages,
horses md oCen nat shall be emhioyed in
conveying the same Provided nothing here
In shall be construed to extend to house
hold furniture and cloathing belonging to a
ny person or persons actually removing into
any part OF TING United States, for the pur-
pose OF becoming an inhabirant OF inhabi-
tantS thereof"
This principle Mr.. Eppes said was pre-
cisely the same with that now proposed
lhe section was not now in force, but other
provisions were substituted in its place. Mr..
cppes quoted several other parts of laws, in
which was given to the collectors a power
to search all RATS, boats, carriages, and to
stop them when suspected, &c. and in which
vessels going from one port to another OF the
state, were compelled to take ciearan-
ces or give bond and security, &c. and per