The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1811-12-21

ton. The Sd section of TIE fifst supplement
tai act subjects the vessel and cargo TO for
flltaIc in the very case which this condition
contenp,atcs and, on failure 10 seize them.
renders the owner or owners, agent, freight
or, or factors liable for the double value.
This forfeiture is not secured by bond. If
Their Tor the fact OF going to foreign port
the obiigors are Liable 1t common law under
their bond, and are also liable under the
statute, this circum stance seems to strength
Ell very much the reasons for requiring that
bonds taken under colo1 IF Office should con-
tain no condition not warranted by law.
This condition is exceptionable in other
respects. 1t oynits the words f" dangers oS
the seas excepted"
The Attorney for the United States admits
that it these words be material, the omission
: tt-;.. should have ncen astonished, had
he not admitted it. But he contends that
they are immatcrial, because the law implies
the exception. Ii is not to be doubted that
the law does imply as al exception, any inc
vitablc event which renders the performance
OF the condition impossible. This has been
so!emnly decided in the Supreme Court in an
embargo case, But the plaintiffs in error
have shown that the term dangers of the
seas has a broader meaning, than would be
allowed toir if limited to those inevitable e.
vents which, being unmiXed with human neg
hgencc, are ascribed to providence. In con-
STRUNG this act, which is emphaticaliy pen
al law, since it Furnishes with extreme Sc
verify transactions which, independent of
the statute, would be entirely innocent, those
maXims which time has rendered venerable,
and whose utility expert, nee has confirmed,
must be totally disregarded by the court
which would narrow tbs meaning Of words
N order to create the forfeiture.
II then the case rested entirely On the ORR
NAL act, l should without hesitation have
denounced the opinion that these words
ere material and thai the omission was ia
al. But the Sd section of the additional
act, gives legislative construction to the
words 6 dangers Of the sea" inthe original
act which, with respect to bonds taken after
the 18th OF March, is to be taken into consi-
deration. This law enacts that if certif-
cate OF relanding be not produced within
four months, bonds taken under any of the
embargo acts shall be PIX IN suit, and
Judgment shall be rendered .gainst the de-
PENDANTS unless proof be produced of such
relanding, or of loss by SCI, or other una
voIdable accident"
The word ''other" certainly goes far to
iprove the sense OF the legislature to be, that
the loss by sea, to excuse the non-perform
ance of the condition of the bond, must be
an unavoidable accident. Bit is loss pro-
duced by unavoidable accident in the sense
OF this law, SYNONYMOUS with a loss prcdu-
ced by the act of God ? This is not entirely
clear. The object of the Law is not so much
to secure the relanding of the goods in the
United States, as to prevent their transpor-
tation to foreign port. The relandingis a
mean to secure this ultimate point, and with
a view to it the law is framed, The words
meI,sh' I,GSGnt may be construSfu, a'
dition inevitable by rendering the relanding
of the goods impossible. and which renders
| it also impossible to convey the goods TO
foreign ports. The word inevitable is not
attached to loss by sea-" 1t would seem
as if loss by sea would excuse the failure to
Ireland, since relanding would be impossible,
although in bringing about that loss, some
thing was to be ascribed to human negli-
gence.
If this be the correct construction of the
act, that part of the condition which is re-
quired by law and which is omitted, does not
become entirely unimportant.
Should different construction be put on
this section, it must yet be admitted to be a
question OF uncertain solution until the OPT
mon OF court in the last resort shall be ia
ken on it and can an officer be permitted tC
vary the condition of bond prescribed by
law, in point the importance of which i.
tOuljtlul
| do not rest on the circumstance that this
act declares that Judgment shall be render
ed against the defendants unless loss he pro.
we'd, and does not say that Judgment shall be
rendered for them if such lossb proved be
Cause / believe no court could hesitate il
supplying those words.
There is still another part of this bono
which i'll myjud5 ment deserves consideration
| The vessel is averrcd in the declaration t.
have been registered vessel. The court
must understand this to be the fact. She j.
stated in the bond to have been a licensed
vessel. If a licensed vessel that part OF the
condition which stipulates that the vesse
Shall not proceed 20 any foreign port OF
place, conforms to the statute. 1t is conse-
quently a material part Of the condition
which binds the Obligors unless they could be
permitted to Contradict their bond ant
could be certain to find evidence to supper,
their plea. There are difficulties to which
the Collector has no right under the statut.
| expose them. The obiigors could escape
the effect of this argument, only By maintain.
| ing that the bond is void as a bond given by
a coasting vessel, because it does not appear
to have been executed by the owner az vel
as the master. But the owner and mastei
may be the same person. One court has al
ready decided that this objection would no
be valid, and am not confident that othei
the condition which is introduced withou
the authority of tho law is a material one.
| But if these points could be decided agains