Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1825-12-13
GaslstitutlauaI aa4jlfg,
From the Norfolk Herald,
United States os. The scar. Gcorre ami Nor

CHied States as he Schr. George and Mar,
Wdsitagtotl.
"ti'loH OF Judge Hay, the question whether
'he Collector, who seized, can be admitted as n
witness.
IN inns case, the Collector of Yorktown Dis.
srict IS introduced as u witncs, in.befalf of the
hbcants. - VIZ
Is objected. on behalf of the claimants, that
,ne oolicctor IS not an admissible witness: not
because he IS Collector, but because he made th,
seizure IN question. Having made this seizure.
ne Is liable, it is commended as tresnasscr in
case the libel is dismissed; unless there be GER
thca'e OF probable cause. lie is therefore in
tefes'ed, IL Is urged, in procuring 4 conlenna-
ZION, as sentence OF condemnation would be an
exungnishment of that responsibility from which
olherwise, that is, in OF an acquittal, he
could be relieved only by certificate IL was
tur'her intinated, that the testimony of this of
hce'' mus making The seizure, Is cXcepiionable
not only because it might relieve him from res
possibility, by procuring condemnation. but
because 1T might relieve him, by means of the
certificate, even in case of the disrnission of the
libel.
ii was further urged on this Point, that the
provision Ia tue 9lst section of the C,ollrct;on
Law, which declares '.that if any oflicer.p Sc
does not touch the present objection; the only
eject oil that provision being to remove the oh
Jecton to the testimony of revenue officer or
other person entitled to part of the penaltv mr.
forfeiture, by distinguishing his claim or share
in case he shall be necessary as witness. To
every other objection, it is said, the person of
Tered as witness, whether an officer or moi. is
rs completely exposed as if the provision now nm
der review had never been made.
before the principles here stated are exainin
Ell, At Is proper TO notice an intirnation. and if
was nothing more than an intimation on the part
ot the Counsel for the claimant, that IT was not
|iear that seizure for violation OF the Reyen.
ne Laws might not be made by any citizen, al
though not an officer of the customs. Ii is moi
necessary TO decide this point; and therefore
u IS moi decided But II is proper 10 advert 10 it
not only because it assumes, in relation 10 the
ComcGon Law, doctrine which the Supreme
Court has rejected, but because il is urged in
answer TO position taken on the part of The H.
oellants, TO show that no seizure could be rraie
except by an officer OF the customs whose d,ty
by the 10th section Of the act. IT is declred 10
be. In support OF this iIaa :" a.,
rISA' ana du'v of the oliice,s &c tho o,,.,,,..
may De proper to remark, that The art of C,o,
S'eSS speaks OF Information given. but nnvor IS
seizures made By other persons and aG;,rde tho
pfo'ec!ioh 0i probable cause to officers unIr Tic
case of the Caleionian g Wheaton. 100 seems
10 'ncu'c"te a e'HeFe"i doctrine, and perhaps the
Ii Is 10 be regretted, that the unexpehte; or
currcuce of this question in the prorr,,ss If tho
trial deprived the Counsel and the Court Of an
opportunity 10 refer 10, and TO examine the adj
lna'cat'ohs on tins subject, if any adjudicat;ons
there be- TWAS admitted Oh one hand. that the
objection now made, has never beeu made in This
,,r, vh,ro nm Ter, it is not averred that
case presenting il has ever existed. except =;
far as the fact may be inferred from the uniform
practice of examining witnesses the revenue
officers by whom alone il was urged seizure could
be made.
Ii was then urged on the part of the libellants
that the objection was, reference to the Courts
of the United States, generally, novelty, and
therefore should not without great deliberations
be admitted that it was dangerous, as well as
novel, because the effect of ITS admission would
he the nVarable exclusion of the seizing officer,
the person, in most cases, best qualified, and, in
some cases, the only person qualified to give the
testimony, without which the prosecution would
DC totally unayailing; without WATCH the laws
would be evadsd, the revenue dclrauded. the of
fender eXL0nerated, and the buIthen thrown on
an officer doing his duty, and no more than his
duty, under the sanction of the highest ob!iga
lion. Such ConsummatiOn is not "deVoutly to
ne wished.n
On this point, it was urged as before suggest
authorized TO make seizure, is bound by the
express words of tie law, and b. lis oath, TO
\ make seizure in all cases of vessels sc. Liable Ia
seizure. Suppose clear case of forfeiture un-
y der the eye Of officer. W hot is he 10 do If the
objection made prevail? Is he to make a
seizure, tie cause Of which can be established
by no evidence but his own; and thus subject
himself to an action of tre8pass? Is it his duty
TO encounter the hazard of great loss. and per-
hap1 Of ruin, without any possible benefit TO the
public? Could tue law, in defiance of one Of lis
own naXlns, require not only vain. but per.
niciuus thing?--Coud the law intend to place an
officer engaged in the honest performance of his
duty, IN the awful prcdicamcnt in which an of
Ger in the case supposed wonid stand: on one
side. a violation Of lis duty ard his oath: ON Che
other the ruin Of his fortune.
IT was further urged that the act of Courres,
speaks cfthe officers Of thc customs as witnesses
and n order to guard against any influence from
u direct interest in the distributions exlinrnishe,
that interest: plainly considering M1tiatcrest a.
the only objection that could be made 10 an Off
Ger, rs snc!, who, IN rcl9toa to the subject, is
afterwards introduced as u wtncss.-Scc 81
sect.
1t was urged by the counsel for the claimants
as principle Of universal law, that response
hity on tic part Of person offered rs n vitncs:
FOR damages depending on the event Of tie cause
~ which he is offered, excludes such person from
giving testimony. The principle, however, Il
vas understood, was liable TO a modification ari
sj1g from necessity. This modification depfjvet
tie rule o! an, application 10 ths case The nc
expressly says, that If any officer entitled, &c
shall he necessary Is Il witness, such officer NAV
5e witness. Is an officer, no matter what rar
D, has acted, no objection shall be- made TO him
i seemed to DC conceded, that Of lhis necessity