, 1862-10-17
LAW INTELLIGENCE.
A New Question In Canal TfansPer.
fz1toR-IMpoftAnt TO Merchants.

UNITED STATES Court fore Hon. 1honsds
Drannmoud.-No. 517-ChanceEy. On motion
Of complain ants solicitor, set down for hear
ing, If defendant does not object, during the
day. No. 669-Default and writ Of enquiry,
Arguments resumed and closed on the motion
for an Injunction. Cause taken under advise
1nent No. 390-Continued to December
term. No. .5S9-Dismissed at plaintiffs 8 costs.
No. 6322- Judgment for plaintiff for stipala-
ton filed. No. 253-Admiralty motion to dis
miss the libel argued, and decision reserved.
On motion Of MI. E. ". Evans, ]. 4. Sleep
Il Was admitted and qualified to practice In
the United States courss-
1na motion made by Mr.. Robert Rae, to dis
miss the libel in case No. 253 2253, Admiralty, L..
due ct al vs.. Steamer "Blue Wing" some
questions arose Of vital importance to all
parties engaged in the transportation Of pro-
duce, Sc, by mean. of canal boats on the
Illinois and MichIgaud Canal and the Illinois
river.
The facts upon which the suit was originally
brought, are as follows: Some time in No.
yember last, while the canal boat F. A. L>o-
nasd, with {, coo bushels Of oats on board, was
in tow Of the Blue Wing" On a voyage
from Lasalle, in this State, to St. Louis, she
WAS run upon an old wreck, lying in the llli-
nois river, near Chillicothe-the cargo was
total loss and the canal boat was badly dam-
aged. Mcsers. Leduc & Gibbs, Of this city
were the owners Of the canal boat and cargo,
and Immediately brought suit against the
*'Blue Wing'' for the damages, alleging neg
ugeIce on the part of those In command Of
her.
The argument cf Mr.. Rae, upon his motion
to dismiss the libel, is based upon the fact,
that By the United States laws, canal boats are
required to be enrolled and licensed for the
coasting trade. and that the Leonard, not
having compiled with this requirement, the
voyage was an Illegal one, and the owner
could not recover. He quoted number Of
authorities to sustain his position He also
showed that Mr.. Ledue, one Of the libellants,
Was an alien, and urged that as such, he could
not engage IN the coastiDg trade without sub
jccting himself to forfeiture Of his vessel
and cargo.
Mr.. L. Proudfoot, who appeared for the
voyage was not Illegal, tha. the Leonard had
not infringed upon any Of the lava, and par-
ticuiarly the revenue laEs, to protect which
the statute was passed. He then read the
etatute, which requires all vessels to be en-.
| rolled and licensed before they can be con-
eidcred las vessels Of the United States aud
entitled to the privilege Of her protection. It
also attaches penalty in the shape
OF duties, dockage fees, &C., in case they do
not conform to the requirement, which pen
atty can be collected by the proper United
Stutes officers, but the statute does not say
that vessels, &c, not enrolled aud licensed
shall not be allowed to prosecute the coasting
trade, but, on the contrary, attaches the pen.
atty as above mentioned in case they do en-
gage In such trade without license.
The counsel further argued that the case;
quoted by Mr. Rae were in direct opposition
to certain statutes, consequently voyage;
made under such circumstances were, as
matter ol course, Illegal.
In regard to the alienship Of Mr. Leduc
Mr. P4oudfoot argued that, although he hal
not become naturalized, he WAS domiciled il
this country, transacted his business here, ant
by the laws Of the country Was as much en-
titled to protection in his rights as uatiye
born American citizen.
During the argument OF Mr. Proudfoot, he
stated that the Custom House books Of thi:
port show only four or five cnrol;ments ant
licenses OF canal boats for several years past
and that nineteen out of every twenty Of tn,
boats engaged on our canal have not compiled
| vc1f|, hn f<Ff