Phenix gazette. [volume] (Alexandria [D.C.]) 1825-1833, 1826-07-20

ne ghgence, by which the government ios' 'h@
possession il once had Of the teas. The man
ner in which, or the means by which that pos
session has been lost, are not particularly as
| closed by the record. But enoughis SHOWN 10
| warrant the conclusion that, II must nave peeh
effected by the misconduct or nesilgehce OF
some Of the custom house officers at ohiladel-
mia and some other persons, tor neither OF
whom however can the claimants be held re-
sponsible, or be in any manner implicated by
their ac,s. IF under such circumstances, the
teas in question have become forfeited, 1t ought
% be the result Of some plain and positive pro-
vision of law. Whilst on the one hand seeuri-
~ TO the revenue Of the country, may require
rigid laws TO guard against fraud, yet on the
other, the rights Of the innocent ought to be
protected, s care should be taken not 10 shac-
kle trade and commerce, so as 10 check the indus
try and enterprise Of the merchant, and render
hazardous 10 the whole community the pur-
chase of articles which may have been SUBJECT
10 the payment Of duties. | am not aware OF a
single instance where by any positive provision
in the revenue laws, forfeiture Is incurred, that
it does not grow out Of some fraud, misconduct,
or negligence Of the party on whom this penal
ty is visited. In the case OF the United States
VS.. the cargo Of the sloop Favoriie, a Cranch
S6s) TO which shall have occasion hereafter
more particularly TO refer, the supreme court
of the United States, in speaking of the provis-
ions in the collection law Of 1899, relative to
forreiturcs, say "that the law is not understood
to forlei, the property of owners or consignees,
on account of the misconduct Of mere stran-
pers. over whom such owners or consignees
could have no control" And if not on account
of the misconduct Of strangers, much less JUS
tice would there be, in making the misconduct
OF The custom house officers, who are the agents
of the government, draw after it such penalty
upon the innocent owner.
With these preliminary observations | shall
proceed to more particular examination OF
the several grounds upon which the forfeiture Of
these teas is attempted to be sustained, and
which may be done under the following heads:
lst That certificates did not accompany
each chest Of tea, when found in New York.
I'd Whether by the general bond Of Edward
Thomson the importer, and the deposite Of the
teas in store, according to the provisions OF the
Sirfu second section of the Collection ACT Of 1899
the duties were secured within the meaning, and
true Interpretation Of the forty third section Of
the same act
By this law from the S7th to the 43d sections
inclusive, various provisions are made with re-
spect to the entry, and landing Of distilled Spi-
rits, vines and teas; and among other things it
is required, that the officers Of nspection at the
port where the same shall be landed, shall up
on the landing thereof, mark in durable charac-
tiers, the several casks, chests, vessels and cases
containing the same, shelving the quantity and
quality of each; the port Of importation, the
name Of the vessel, the slrname Of the master,
the date of the importation, and the name OF
the Surveyor or chief officer of inspection tor
the port. The special verdict finds that all this
was done, with respect to the teas in question,
and that such marks were upon each chest,
when they were seized.
The Surveyor or chief officer Of inspection,
within the port or district in which the spirits,
wines and teas shall be landed, is required 10
give to the proprietor, importer or consigEee,
or his agent, general certificate, which he is
to retain, showing the whole quantity so impor-
ted; and the name of the proprietor, importer,
consignee, or agent, and OF the vessel from on
board which the spirits, wines or teas shall have
been landed, and the marks Of each cask, chest,
vessel or case, containing the same.
In addition to this general certificate, the sur
veyor or chief officer of inspection is required
to give special certificate, which shall accompa-
ny each cask, chest, sc. wherever the same
NAV be sent within the Limits of the United
States, as evidence M0the same haUe been iq,nful-
iy imported. 1t is the latter certificate, that the
special verdict finds did not accompany each
chest Of tea, when found in New York. The
certificates, however, we're duly issued by the
Surveyor, and were in possession OF the claim
ants in Philadelphia, when the seizure was
made.
Then comes the section (43) under which
the forfeiture is claimed which declares that
the proprietor, importer or consienee, or his a.
gent; who may receive said certificates, shall
upon the sale or dslivsry of any Of the said spi-
rits, wines teas, deliver to the purchaser there
of the certificate that ought 20 accompany the
same, on pain of forieiting The sum of fifty
dollars for each cask, chest, sc. with which
such certificate shall not be delivered. And if
any cask, chest, vessel or case, which by the
foregoing provision ought to be marked, and
accompanied with certificates, shall be found in
possession Of any person, unaccompcnied rih
such marks and certificates, il shall be presump-
tive evidence that the same is liable 10 forfeit
ure, and it shall be lawful for any officer of the
customs or ofinspection to seize them as for
teiied.
The form Of this special certificate is given
in the act, and contains substantially no more
than the law requires to be expressed by the
marks on each cask, chest, vessel, or case; and
~ ic IN arrOmpany each coSk chest &c. as evil