Year: 1863

The Regulations OF the Secretary OF


tho Treasury with regard 10 the


Internal Commerce OF Maryland,


declared to be s'IlIegaI and VOid.n


Chief Justice Tsney, on the 18Th, rendered
10 the U. s. Circuit Court, at Baltimore, al i'm
portant decision, involving the legality of
permit of the Secretary of the Treasury and
other points of commercial interest. The case
as stated by the Chief Justice, was


Carpenter claimant Of one box Of dry goods vs. The
q. S.-Appesl from the District Oourt.-It appears,
from the libel and testimony in this case that The box
OF dry goods IN question shipped under a permit
from the collector, on board the Henry and Susan, in
the port Of Baltimore Charles county Maryland The
permit was obtained by VIM. A. Dean, who compl lied
with the regulations Of the secretary Of the Treasury u
August 49, lc62 but the goods were In fact owned by
G. W. Carpenter, who resided near Radcliffe In Charles
county, and were purchased by him In Baltimore from
Dean In the invoice exhibited to the collector upon
which the permit obtained, they were Itaed to be
puIchased by Radcliffe, and Dean sWears that he had
authority from Radcliffe to his nsme in order to
obtain the permit which could not he obtained By Car
peuter Radcliffe denies that he gave apy such author
ity and aI soon he tne box the vessel he in.
formed the custom house officer that II was not HIS and
that he had not authorized any other person to use his
name. The collector theTeupon revoked tha hermit


The question arises, the Secretary Of the Treasury
prohibit citizen OF Charles county in Maryland, from
transporting to his home without such permit mer-
chandse purchased in Baltmore7 The regulations 10
question purport TO be pursuant to the authority given
by the acts Of Congress Of July 49, 1862 and May 90
1862.


After quoting this act at length. Judge Taney
proceeds 20 consider whether the regulations of
the Treasury Department are valid, and author
lied by the Constitution aud lava OF the United
States, aud alter stating the Law and iaeta, sums
up Gs follOHe:


1t does not require any invoice in the custom house.
nor inspection, any oath by the party nor any fees
to the collector and augh that appears the record
Carpenter would have given his bond if the collector
upon any evidence before him. had deemed t expeden
The custom house officer had right to stop his goods
Geze them unless he refused to giYeh security and
10 that respect he and Radcliffe stand equal ground.
All that the officer had right to require Of either was the


reasonable security" mentioned in the law il he had
sufficient reason to doubt the fidelity and good faith Of
the owner.


Moreover, these regulations have no analogy to ths
rules and regulations which the executive department
may prescribe for the government Of its officers in
ryng into execution law of Congress. They are in
their nature and soope Legislative acts changing the law
1t stood before not according to the judgment and dis
creton Of the legislature, but according the discretion
and judgment Of the Secretary. They compel the in.
hRbiauts Of particular portion Of the State where the
trade formerly free to exhibit to the Ulcers Of the
United states an invoice Of their purchases made for
domestic use compel them to take oshs not required by
any previous law to ask and obtain permission carry
home what they purGhased to pay the collector for hS
permission, and inct as penalty the forfeiture Of tho





tom house officer Is deceived In particular
Thess are serious aPuLunt alterations In the lsw
and Iey constitutionaly be made 1t must be done
by legislative power, and not by officer Of the
tive branch or the government, whose duty to exc
cute the law-not make it. And think that Congress.
did not intend nor attempt to authorize the regulations
which the Secretary has prescribed and that the
struction he has given to these laws is erroneous
one.


But If these regulations had been made directly by
Congress, they could not be sustained by court Of
Justice, whose duty Ii s TO administer the law accord
ing to the Constitution Of the United States For from
the commencement Of the Government to this day II
has been admitted all hands and repeatedly decided
right to interfere with the internal and domestic trade


State. They have no right to compel It to pass through
their custom house nor tax II. This is plainly set
forth n the Constitution that has been supposed
to be open to controversy question. Undoubtedly
the United States authorities may take proper measures
to prevent trade intercourse with the enemy. But 1t
does not by any follow that they may disregard
the limits Of all their powers prescribed by the
Constitution, the rights and powers reserved to the
States and the people.


civil war, or any other war does not enlarge the
powers OF the Federal Government the State or
the people, beyond what the compact has given to 1t In
time Of war. state Of war does not annul the tenth
article of the amendment to the Constitution which
declares that the powers not delegated to the United
States by the Constitution prohibited by 1t to the
States reserved to the States respecivey or TO the
people" Nor does civil war, any other var, alb
solve the judicial department from the duty OF ma ntan
ing, with even and firm hand the rights and powers
Of the Federal Government and Of the States and Of the
citizen as they written In the Constitution, which
every Judge Is sworn to support Upon the whole, the
Court Is Of opinion that the regulations in question
illegal and void, and that the seizure OF the goods Of
Carpenter, because he refused to comply with them
cannot be sustained. The judgment Of the District
COURT must therefore, be reversed and the goods deliver
ed to the claimant, his agent or proctor,