The national Republican., 1867-04-18
THE COURTS.

SUPREME COuRr OF rHB UNITED STATES
WEDNESDAY, April u, 1857.
On motion Of Mr.. Evarts, Henry A. crsw,
ESQ.,. Of New York city, was admitted an attor.
nsy and counsellor Of this court.
On molten Of Clinton Rice, esq James o.
Potter, esq, Of South Carolina, was admitted an
attorney and counsellor Of this court.
No. 1853, The schooner Sea Lion, &e., appel
lants, ". The United States. The argument Of
thi, cause was concluded by Mr. Evarts Of cOun.
No. sTT. #iilism o. P..rv..r, plaintiff in
error, ys. The Commonwealth Of Massachusetts
No. sIs, Learned Lyndo, plaintiff In error, vs.
same.
No. 422. Thoma, Salmon, plaintiff in error,
ys. same. T.h'. ..,
No. 42a. Rufus oas,, plaintiff in error, vs..
same. 'T7' ."s'f
No. 4A. Christopher Armstrong, plaintiff in
error, vs. same.
The argument Of these cases was commenced
BY Mr.. Sennott, Of counsel for the plaintiffs In
error; continued BY Mr.. Reed, Attorney General
Of Massachusetts, Of counsel for the defendant
In error, and concluded by Mr.. sennott.
No. g. The steamer Groy jacket, &o., appel
lants, vs. Tho United States. Tho argument Of
this cause was resumed by Mr.. Ashton, assist
ant attorney general, Of counsel for the ap.
pelleea Tr.
Adjourned until tomorrow at II o'clock.
Col hHnsy's Nicaragua Erpsdifion-hs
Defenfiosi in Nsg Rork-Pocsr ofthe Presidcnt
in such cases, aud tie Rssponsibiiity Of the
Govsrnmsnt for his Aets-John Grdham ~.
Tho Unitsd Stats,.--This suit Is brought TO re-
cover the sum Of $l77, $50 damages for the de-
tention BY the Government In the port Of New
YORK OF the steamships Ocean Bird, United
Statec and b. Lawrence, for hxty-six days, In
1855. They were not only refused clearanoes,
but were blookadsd by armed vessels Of the Gov.
eminent BY order Of the President, II being sup.
posed from certain representations made to the
Secretary Of State that they were about To be
employed in hostile expedition against Mica.
rsgua BY Fletcher Webster, II. s. Kinney and
]. w. Fabens, whose arrest In New York 10 that
connection will DO remembered.
Tho question is a. to compensation for the
public seizure and detention Of the vessels.
The claimant contends that the act Of deten-
tion was the act Of the Government, and not Of
tho President or the officers who performed his
orders; and that the circumstances Of the case
raise an obligation on the part Of the United
States to compensate Graham for the losses sus-
tained by him In consequence OF tho seizure.
The general rule In respect 10 public seizures for
forfeitures, &c., II is argued, h that In case the
party whose property is seized shall prove limo.
cent, then the officer making the seizure is per.
sonally liable therefor, unless he can establish
probable cause. IT. In other words, the property
turns out not to be liable to seizure, then the
seizure is deemed to be the act Of the officer
making It In his individual capacity. But It Ia
asserted that In cases whore the act is done by
direction Of the President, under the sth section
Of the act Of 1918, all persons who act In
obedience to the Executive instructions, are
completely justified In taking possession Of and
detaining the offending vessel, and are not re-
sponsible in damage for any injury which the
party may suffer by reason Of such proceeding
It was so held in Gslson vs.. Hoyt g Wheat, 246 J
It Is claimed that the detention was the exer.
else by the Government Of the right Of eminent do.
main. The property taken was private property,
and Its owner had done act which bected II TO
any seizure detention whatever. II was takenfor
public purpose. The preservation Of amicable
relations with the Central American States was
q high public interest. with the care Of which
the President was and 10 charged, and for the
sake Of which he deprived Captain Graham Of
the use Of his ships. The temporary detention
Of the ships was taking In tho sense Of the
Constitution, and comes under that provision
declaring that compensation shall be made for
such taking or appropriation.
There is no such thing as toll by govern
mont against On individual.
As between a citizen and his own government,
acts which between private citizens would be
torts, are to DO deemed implied contracts, found.
cd on the right Of eminent domain, or else acts
unavoidable and necessary for the public well
fare, but never acts founded upon q wrongful or
malicious intent.-(Stranghan' Administrative
vs.. The United States Mott and Huntington,
324)
The theory Of the Government is that Graham
Is without excuse for ignorance Of the designs Of
the charterers Of his yessels-King and Fabinj
that the President acted In good faith, In pursu-
nnco Of law, aud that the execution Of the laws
10 not a proper oauIe Of action for damages
against the Government.
Samuel J. Classy, Charles +. Blake, and J..
NJ. Carlisle for claimants. 3. P. Norton, 3d.
licitOr, and J. J. Weed, Assistant Solicitor, for
United States.